Support NeoGAF

[maharg]

I don't think the US has any legal restrictions on foreign involvement in campaigns.

(note: this post is specifically in response to Stumpokapow, not to Berniegate)

Ashton should probably pack up for next week, given that Obama is starting to campaign for Clinton soon and Sanders' campaign is pretty much finished.

It doesn't really work like that in this case. Sanders literally can't win the nomination, but he will through his near-ish success be able to sway party policy for the upcoming election in the name of bringing the party together towards winning. That's what it's about now. Don't expect Sanders to drop out until the convention, from my understanding.

 

[Apathy]

It's actually been a little weird for me down here because I'd like to go work with some of the campaigns (probably not for president, probably house or ballot initiative) but I don't exactly know what the legal lines are I can't cross, let alone the ethical lines, as someone who is physically resident but a non-resident alien and can't vote here. It's strange.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

I think as long as you don't donate you're fine. Volunteering is fine for anyone.

The thing with Niki Ashton is shes a sitting member of the House of Commons, the government body of a wholly different and autonomous nation. Like yeah she was volunteering (is my assumption she didn't give money to the campaign) but she needs to have better judgement over matters like these. An individual citizen could do it without issue but when you're in politics you need to be careful with what you do and how you do it even in your off time.

 

[maharg]

If a US Member of Congress had come up here during the last election to campaign on behalf of any party, there would've been outrage from all sides about Americans trying to influence our elections. This is no different.

The thing with Niki Ashton is shes a sitting member of the House of Commons, the government body of a wholly different and autonomous nation.

So, it's probably not a great idea for her to have done this, but I'm gonna nitpick this a little.

These scenarios being drawn are not really wholly analogous. A member of congress in the US can be said to be part of 'the government' in a meaningful way, because they are arguably able to have input on any and all legislative actions of their government. Bills regularly are supported across and against party lines, and passing a bill is often a matter of garnering individual votes from congressmen *even when the party trying to pass it has a majority or supermajority in the house and/or senate*.

Members of the opposition (let alone a third party) in Canada have no such privilege. They can't really be said to be part of the process of governing in any meaningful sense -- they have minimal legislative power and absolutely zero influence on the executive, both very different from the power and influence of any congressman, including those opposed to the holder of executive power.

The governing body of Canada is the cabinet. It governs with the consent of the legislature, but is strictly more powerful than it so long as the party system is intact and functioning. This isn't just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, this is the actual definition of the Government of Canada (temporarily renamed The Harper Government as you may recall).

Anyways, in terms of the effect this might have on the NDP base (what's left of it right now) I'd be surprised if it came off as negative. It's not unusual for socialist-leaning organizations to see themselves as necessarily involved in international affairs in this solidarity kind of way. In fact, the NDP are a member organization of Socialist International. So I can't imagine this is much dirt on her right now.

 

[diaspora]

Bernier has restated his desire to get Canada on the gold standard with a 0% inflation target lmao

 

[Pedrito]

At least he's going full-on libertarian gold bug instead of pussyfooting around. I appreciate the honesty,

Next up, he should suggest switching from CAD to Bitcoin, gold-backed bitcoin of course.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Bernier has restated his desire to get Canada on the gold standard with a 0% inflation target lmao

Ughhhhhhhhhhhh can we just mandate nationwide macroeconomic classes in high school instead?

 

[firehawk12]

People fill out more complicated forms than either of those every day. Neither seem particularly byzantine to me, and it's always worth remembering that most countries that use these systems have *higher* participation than we do, not lower (Australia exempt from comparison here due to mandatory voting).

The power of letting people express their *actual* choices far outweighs forcing them into weeks-long deliberations on the correct strategic choices to make for their desired outcome. What we do now is try (badly) to hide the complexity of voting behind a simple ballot, and it doesn't work. If people's votes get representation they will come.

I bet if we move to a new system, there will be tons of stories about how "average Canadians" don't understand the new ballot and find it too confusing. I mean if Australian comedians are making fun of the balloting process and they've already simplified it for this election, then it's definitely a problem in at least the public consciousness.

But yeah, it's not that hard. I expect most spoiled ballots will come from people miscounting and accidentally ranking two parties/people the same rank or skipping a number.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Bernier has restated his desire to get Canada on the gold standard with a 0% inflation target lmao

Wow, and he goes all in on it too. When I saw the headline I assumed he may have vaguely endorsed it, but...nope, that's about as full-throated as he could possibly get.

And speaking of federal leadership candidates, apparently Cheri DiNovo is going to announce she's running for the NDP job tomorrow. Apparently it leaked because she told the CBC, but asked if they would keep it under wraps until tomorrow. That's either hugely naive or brilliantly mischievous.

So, it's probably not a great idea for her to have done this, but I'm gonna nitpick this a little.

These scenarios being drawn are not really wholly analogous. A member of congress in the US can be said to be part of 'the government' in a meaningful way, because they are arguably able to have input on any and all legislative actions of their government. Bills regularly are supported across and against party lines, and passing a bill is often a matter of garnering individual votes from congressmen *even when the party trying to pass it has a majority or supermajority in the house and/or senate*.

Members of the opposition (let alone a third party) in Canada have no such privilege. They can't really be said to be part of the process of governing in any meaningful sense -- they have minimal legislative power and absolutely zero influence on the executive, both very different from the power and influence of any congressman, including those opposed to the holder of executive power.

The governing body of Canada is the cabinet. It governs with the consent of the legislature, but is strictly more powerful than it so long as the party system is intact and functioning. This isn't just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, this is the actual definition of the Government of Canada (temporarily renamed The Harper Government as you may recall).

Anyways, in terms of the effect this might have on the NDP base (what's left of it right now) I'd be surprised if it came off as negative. It's not unusual for socialist-leaning organizations to see themselves as necessarily involved in international affairs in this solidarity kind of way. In fact, the NDP are a member organization of Socialist International. So I can't imagine this is much dirt on her right now.

I'll buy into your last paragraph, as I said before: she's trying to establish her bonafides, and for a lot of the NDP base, that means aligning as closely possible with Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. I think it's kind of stupid, but I get it.

But I still disagree with your distinction. What if we were in a minority parliament? Going by your logic, that would make it unacceptable, since in that situation opposition MPs -- especially MPs from third-place parties -- are required to pass legislation. It's a little different now, but I still don't buy that just because the NDP doesn't have any power, that makes it okay for them to get involved in foreign elections.

This is because I think that, in general, getting involved in another country's elections is a bad idea. We as a country obviously believe that: Foreign Affairs sent out a message to diplomats just before the last election was called, reminding them that they weren't allowed to weigh in on our election. The Elections Act prohibits non-Canadians from "in any way induc(ing) electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate", and pretty explicitly states that only Canadian citizens can contribute to campaigns. If the NDP in general or Ashton specifically think we should scrap those particular parts of the law, they can make that argument, but I imagine they'd be pretty pissed off if any Republicans, whether office holders or otherwise, came up here and started campaigning for the Conservatives.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Bernier has restated his desire to get Canada on the gold standard with a 0% inflation target lmao

Source? Not that I don't believe you but I want to share this in a group chat and google is being uncooperative.

edit: just saw matthewwhatever had posted it,

Honestly I'm glad Bernier omitted to the whole leadership thing early. I was worried that CPC craziness would go underground for a bit after the convention,

 

[maharg]

I'll buy into your last paragraph, as I said before: she's trying to establish her bonafides, and for a lot of the NDP base, that means aligning as closely possible with Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. I think it's kind of stupid, but I get it.

But I still disagree with your distinction. What if we were in a minority parliament? Going by your logic, that would make it unacceptable, since in that situation opposition MPs -- especially MPs from third-place parties -- are required to pass legislation. It's a little different now, but I still don't buy that just because the NDP doesn't have any power, that makes it okay for them to get involved in foreign elections.

This is because I think that, in general, getting involved in another country's elections is a bad idea. We as a country obviously believe that: Foreign Affairs sent out a message to diplomats just before the last election was called, reminding them that they weren't allowed to weigh in on our election. The Elections Act prohibits non-Canadians from "in any way induc(ing) electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate", and pretty explicitly states that only Canadian citizens can contribute to campaigns. If the NDP in general or Ashton specifically think we should scrap those particular parts of the law, they can make that argument, but I imagine they'd be pretty pissed off if any Republicans, whether office holders or otherwise, came up here and started campaigning for the Conservatives.

Before starting this post, I just want to reiterate (or iterate if it wasn't clear before) that what I'm saying is not intended as a specific defense of Ashton, just my general thoughts on an interesting subject.

For what it's worth I do think that in a minority government the situation would be different, but realistically we're talking about very unusual circumstances where a lot of built in assumptions about how our government works break down. It's hard to think of it this way after so long of Harper holding minority power, but it's an outlier and when it happens it's largely very temporary, for structural reasons. I hope those structural reasons change, but as it stands that's the system we have.

Likewise, I think ambassadors are literally the mouthpieces of a government, so I see that as more like a government MP than an oppo MP. Someone in the civil service would be more apt, and I don't think it'd be national news if one went and campaigned for Sanders. If it was it'd probably be more about the fact that they outed themselves as having political leanings at all. And I doubt it would be news in the US at all (as this does not appear to be either), in spite of them allegedly being the aggrieved party in the whole thing.

On a purely philosophical level, I think the situations are also not analogous because of the respective influence levels of the governments in question. The US can reasonably allow foreign campaign volunteers because the world influencing their election through this would be quite difficult without significant coordination -- no country (and definitely not Canada) is really equipped to put that kind of effort into covertly influencing an election through volunteers. The only country in the world that arguably has the ability and projection to do something like that is the US.

And I think that's somewhat significant. Would the public perception be the same for an Australian MP getting involved in a Canadian election as for an American Congressman? I rather doubt it. Both might be negative, but the influence of an American is greater anywhere in the world than an Australian's, and perhaps particularly in Canada's.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Principle of non-interference aside it bothers me more that she's only doing it now. Given the state of the race it looks like she's treating progressive activism as an affect instead of intervening when a difference can still be made. I think it also implicitly endorses Bernie's by now decently toxic brand of progressive purity tests. Neither particularity make me think Niki Ashton would be an NDP leader I could get on board with.

Things can obviously change of course, just seems to be signalling towards the kind of progressivism I find off-putting.

 

[Pedrito]

Michelle is outraged, again:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-mccallum-rempel-joke-1.3620841

That was a pretty funny comeback.

 

[Vibranium]

It doesn't really work like that in this case. Sanders literally can't win the nomination, but he will through his near-ish success be able to sway party policy for the upcoming election in the name of bringing the party together towards winning. That's what it's about now. Don't expect Sanders to drop out until the convention, from my understanding.

Makes sense, though I think Ashton should focus on stuff at home first. Americans can sway Democratic policy themselves.

 

[TheRealTalker]

Now everything is about the jets (F-35)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stealth-fighter-payment-1.3619469
We were suppose to ditch the program but then backtracked but now missed the membership payment deadline

quite honestly these jets have had more people complain about their inferiority then anything else


money is better spent on current European planes like the Dassault Rafale or Typhoon which booth beat that plane in tests

 

[Log4Girlz]

Canada is never going to do first strike missions. Buy some cheaper, far more capable Rafales for Christ's sake.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

So anyone think the opposition parties will give up the clapping thing during QP?

 

[gabbo]

Now everything is about the jets (F-35)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stealth-fighter-payment-1.3619469
We were suppose to ditch the program but then backtracked but now missed the membership payment deadline

quite honestly these jets have had more people complain about their inferiority then anything else


money is better spent on current European planes like the Dassault Rafale or Typhoon which booth beat that plane in tests

They'll keep paying to keep contracts in Canada (if possible), up until that's no longer viable.

 

[matthewwhatever]

So it turns out that Cheri DiNovo has declared herself an "unofficial candidate" for the NDP leadership, since she doesn't believe that fundraising should play any part of it:

"I just feel, in principle, that's wrong — that for the leadership of a democratic, socialist party, it shouldn't be about the money," DiNovo said Tuesday morning in Toronto. "It shouldn't be about how much money you can raise to buy buttons and bobbles to promote yourself. It should be about principles."

Counterpoint: if you can't raise $30k, you have no business running for any party's leadership. It's not as if Canadian politics is awash with money. And besides, I don't think anyone from the Ontario NDP has any right to talk about the evils of money when stories like this exist.

Likewise, I think ambassadors are literally the mouthpieces of a government, so I see that as more like a government MP than an oppo MP. Someone in the civil service would be more apt, and I don't think it'd be national news if one went and campaigned for Sanders. If it was it'd probably be more about the fact that they outed themselves as having political leanings at all. And I doubt it would be news in the US at all (as this does not appear to be either), in spite of them allegedly being the aggrieved party in the whole thing.

...

And I think that's somewhat significant. Would the public perception be the same for an Australian MP getting involved in a Canadian election as for an American Congressman? I rather doubt it. Both might be negative, but the influence of an American is greater anywhere in the world than an Australian's, and perhaps particularly in Canada's.

1) I know you're speaking broadly rather than specifically about Ashton, but if a civil servant just randomly decided they were decamping to the US for a week to campaign for anyone while they were supposed to be working, it wouldn't be national news, of course, but it'd be pretty sketchy, and there would certainly be repercussions for that person. I think in Ashton's case, at least some of the...outrage (for lack of a better term -- puzzlement, maybe?) stems from the fact Parliament is sitting this week, and she's skipping out on that in order to build her street cred for the NDP leadership. Considering she could've spent all last week, when Parliament was in recess, doing exactly the same thing, I think the timing of it was deliberately designed to generate coverage.

2) I remember there being a fair amount of outrage when Lynton Crosby came up here last election. Some of it was hypocritical, since I'm sure the Liberals and NDP had campaign team members who'd worked for the Obama & Clinton campaigns, but judging by the widespread reaction, people didn't seem to like it too much when that particular Australian got involved here. And if you want an example of the outrage coming from the other side, just think back to 2008, when a US organization (can't remember the name - it started with an A, and had the letter Z in it) registered as a third party and promoted vote-swapping to take out Conservative candidates. That didn't go over so well either.

 

[maharg]

I remember the Lynton Crosby thing, and I remember the outrage coming from the nature of his views and campaigning methods (ie. he represented something even *worse* than our home grown conservatives, more aggressive and more reactionary than even Harper had tended to be) and not really about his being a foreign national. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

 

[gutter_trash]

This is just pathetic.

the NDP sure has the knack of picking winners

Spoiler

/s

like a poster said on the previous page, if it were Harper doing the shilling for a Republican candidate; he would have been eviscerated

We rightfully criticized Stephen Harper when he visited Sheldon Adelson and spoke with the Koch Bros. He deserved all criticisms for that.

Same goes for the Niki Ashton and the NDP meddling in a foreign country's democratic process. It is not cool for a foreign political party meddle in other country's election.

I for one am also critical of Justin Trudeau weighing in on the UK's Brexit.
IMO, let the Brits decide their comical fate.

 

[SRG01]

Hey, remember Arthur Kent and Don Martin? Martin wrote a defamatory column about Kent back in 2008 during the Alberta elections. Kent sued for damages and the court ruled in favor of Kent today, to the tune of $200k.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/arthur-kent-defamation-trial-decision-1.3622366

 

[mdubs]

The Senate finally did something useful today by knocking down the government's unconstitutional assisted dying provision (the "reasonable foreseeability of death" requirement which would exclude people with Alzheimer's from assisted death). https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ck-over-amendment-to-assisted-dying-bill.html

Shameful that it had to the Senate being the sensible ones here, I can't believe the HoC is acting this irresponsibly with such a big piece of legislation

 

[gabbo]

The Senate finally did something useful today by knocking down the government's unconstitutional assisted dying provision (the "reasonable foreseeability of death" requirement which would exclude people with Alzheimer's from assisted death). https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ck-over-amendment-to-assisted-dying-bill.html

Shameful that it had to the Senate being the sensible ones here, I can't believe the HoC is acting this irresponsibly with such a big piece of legislation

Well they are the Chamber of Sober Second Thought after all. We should be happy they're doing their job.
edit: I wish I hadn't read facebook posts about Trudeau breaking Ramadan fast with the Muslim members of his caucus, so much unintelligent anger and hatred spewed forth.

 

[Mr.Mike]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...nked-ballot-municipal-election-2018-1.3620393

Legislation that gives Ontario municipalities the option of using ranked ballots in the next municipal elections in 2018 while also banning corporate and union donations passed the legislature today.

I wonder how many cities how many cities will actually use ranked ballots. I'd imagine most smaller municipalities would just stick with the old system.

 

[SRG01]

Good job Wildrose, devouring yourselves from the inside out. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/brian-jean-wildrose-leadership-review-1.3624684

 

[maharg]

Good job Wildrose, devouring yourselves from the inside out. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/brian-jean-wildrose-leadership-review-1.3624684

I hope not too quickly. I worry about a resurgent PC party, having not learned anything.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Good job Wildrose, devouring yourselves from the inside out. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/brian-jean-wildrose-leadership-review-1.3624684

He should leave the party and join the PCs. That would work out great!

 

[gabbo]

He should leave the party and join the PCs. That would work out great!

Take his supporters and start an even righter right-wing party. That'll show those Wildrose commies

 

[gutter_trash]

Maxime Bernier: the gold standard

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TWb7BkA6Edg

 

[gabbo]

Maxime Bernier: the gold standard

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TWb7BkA6Edg

Well that's one way to go about things

 

[Simon Belmont]

Maxime Bernier: the gold standard

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TWb7BkA6Edg

I knew he wasn't a serious candidate.

 

[mo60]

It looks like Mr. George Clark's takeover of the NDP from the inside plan failed.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/ndp-beats-back-attempts-at-infiltration

 

[killer rin]

It looks like Mr. George Clark's takeover of the NDP from the inside plan failed.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/ndp-beats-back-attempts-at-infiltration

Was that seriously an actual plan of theirs... man some people are crazy

 

[mdubs]

Absolutely disgusted with the house of commons over this. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...roaden-assisted-dying-access/article30486781/

Extremely saddening that it's going to have to be challenged in court at this point, what a waste of everyone's time. This is the type of nonsense that I would expect out of the previous government

 

[SRG01]

As a person who has been observing a lot of this debate from the sidelines, I'm still confused as to why the 'foreseeable death' clause is such an issue. Is it because it eliminates a large percentage of people who may opt for PAD because their cases are not immediately terminal, like ALS or Parkinson's? Or is it because it doesn't meet the Supreme Court guidelines?

Or perhaps both?

 

[diaspora]

Absolutely disgusted with the house of commons over this. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...roaden-assisted-dying-access/article30486781/

Extremely saddening that it's going to have to be challenged in court at this point, what a waste of everyone's time. This is the type of nonsense that I would expect out of the previous government

IIRC, the Senate amendment only applies to people who are literally in irreparable(?) condition. Not sure why the LPC requires that they be facing imminent death, if they're fucked for life that somehow sounds worse.

As a person who has been observing a lot of this debate from the sidelines, I'm still confused as to why the 'foreseeable death' clause is such an issue. Is it because it eliminates a large percentage of people who may opt for PAD because their cases are not immediately terminal, like ALS or Parkinson's? Or is it because it doesn't meet the Supreme Court guidelines?

Or perhaps both?

Both afaik.

 

[maharg]

I think the concern on the other side, which I've seen largely from people who are actually disabled but living with their disability, is that it may create situations where there is pressure placed on someone (from family or health care providers or both) with a non-terminal disability to consider assisted dying as an alternative to living with it. It's definitely important to recognize that this is something that can happen even from well-meaning people, and that there are particular sorts of vulnerability to people in that particular situation.

It seems like a pretty complex issue and it's really unfortunate that it's come to require such a narrow timeline to work it out.

 

[SRG01]

It almost seems better if there was no legislation around PAD and better off left to medical professionals to assess individual cases.

IIRC, a similar legislative framework exists for abortion in Canada as no federal legislation currently exists.

 

[maharg]

I don't know that people are all that satisfied with the state of abortion legislation in Canada, on either side. The lack of it doesn't just mean that it can't be denied, but also that its positive availability isn't legislated either, leading to that situation where there's (I believe) an entire maritime province where it's unavailable.

 

[mdubs]

As a person who has been observing a lot of this debate from the sidelines, I'm still confused as to why the 'foreseeable death' clause is such an issue. Is it because it eliminates a large percentage of people who may opt for PAD because their cases are not immediately terminal, like ALS or Parkinson's? Or is it because it doesn't meet the Supreme Court guidelines?

Or perhaps both?

Both. Kay Carter (who was the applicant in Carter) would not even be eligible for assisted death under the government's legislation. That's shameful.

It almost seems better if there was no legislation around PAD and better off left to medical professionals to assess individual cases.

IIRC, a similar legislative framework exists for abortion in Canada as no federal legislation currently exists.

Yes, this is an option too. The SCC was already being deferential to the government by giving them the temporary suspension of invalidity. The government needs to step up and do the right thing here by passing legislation that is constitutional, or decline to pass at all. They've wasted enough time and have no right to complain about tight deadlines when people's section 7 rights were violated for over 16 months because of the suspension.

 

[gutter_trash]

Stéphane Dion declares ISIS killings of Yazidi people a genocide

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dion-yazidis-genocide-isis-1.3638928

finally, the Liberals wake up 24hours later after voting against the CPC motion.

I get it, the CPC are partisan and blablabla but on this issue about the Yazidis being exterminated... the Conservatives were right and Trudeau was wrong yesterday.

I am glad that 24 hours later, they manned up and call it as it is. Genocide.

 

[Stumpokapow]

RE: Right to die;
It would be very interesting if this paralleled abortion in Canada (i.e. Parliament didn't end up being able to do anything, court ruling vacated existing laws, no laws on book, patchwork of implementations across the country, political gentleman's agreement not bring up subject because no one wants to take the hit to talk about it, ultimately access is not great despite lack of formal legal barriers)

 

[Pedrito]

Stéphane Dion declares ISIS killings of Yazidi people a genocide

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dion-yazidis-genocide-isis-1.3638928

finally, the Liberals wake up 24hours later after voting against the CPC motion.

I get it, the CPC are partisan and blablabla but on this issue about the Yazidis being exterminated... the Conservatives were right and Trudeau was wrong yesterday.

I am glad that 24 hours later, they manned up and call it as it is. Genocide.

And now that it's settled, they can write a strongly worded letter to ISIS to say they disapprove of their genocidal actions.

 

[SRG01]

RE: Right to die;
It would be very interesting if this paralleled abortion in Canada (i.e. Parliament didn't end up being able to do anything, court ruling vacated existing laws, no laws on book, patchwork of implementations across the country, political gentleman's agreement not bring up subject because no one wants to take the hit to talk about it, ultimately access is not great despite lack of formal legal barriers)

It's a very real possibility at this point, if the bill gets bounced between HoC and the Senate repeatedly. IIRC, the bill has to be re-read by the Senate if the HoC rejects an amendment, right?

 

[PumpkinSpice]

The House should just accept the Senate's changes.

 

[SRG01]

The House should just accept the Senate's changes.

They should, but have already signaled that they'll vote down the "foreseeable death" exclusion amendment.

 

[Silexx]

The House should just accept the Senate's changes.

That's problematic in of itself, because then you have a non-elected body effectively dictating an extremely sensitive legislative bill to the elected Commons.

 

[maharg]

That's problematic in of itself, because then you have a non-elected body effectively dictating an extremely sensitive legislative bill to the elected Commons.

Yeah. In the end if this bounces back and forth more than once it's absolutely the senate that should back down, even if the law will end up in the courts again (it's not like not passing one won't cause court cases down the line to further narrow legal boundaries that would have otherwise been set by a law). This sort of thing is actually why a *more independent* but *still unelected* senate should actually terrify people in the long run.

Always remember that whatever power you see now as being used for good can also be used for ill.

 

[SRG01]

Well, it got passed. http://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/17/senators-vote-down-last-ditch-effort-to-amend-assisted-dying-bill/

Sen Sinclair had this to say:

Independent Senator Murray Sinclair, meanwhile, took issue with the idea that the phrase “reasonably foreseeable” had anything to do with whether an illness is terminal.

“That is not what it means at all,” he said. “From a legal perspective, reasonable foreseeability is a very definable provision and it does not mean imminent. It does not mean soon.”

 

[Sibylus]

Well, it got passed. http://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/17/senators-vote-down-last-ditch-effort-to-amend-assisted-dying-bill/

Sen Sinclair had this to say:

So this could reasonably be interpreted to include death by suicide, or death of one's personality?