• Peter Haley posted an update 1 year, 11 months ago

    Vote
      1  
    • I think this should be raised as a topic for consideration. Ever since the injustice handed out to David Latimer, and more recent attempts, one of which was upheld by the courts, to legalize this end of life procedure for the willing dying, the right to die to end brutal suffering has become yet another issue that politicians try to avoid. I’m definitely in favour, and I think many of us may be, but I’d like to hear other opinions. Please spare the religious arguments…we have legalized abortion, send soldiers out to die for our democracy, and can sympathize through spiritual humanity with those who require the help of another in fulfilling the wish to end fruitless attempts to extend a life of pain and suffering.

      Vote
        5  
      • I agree and I think it comes down to the framing of the language of the argument.
        “Assisted suicide” is one framing, and may not get the result we are hoping for.
        Promoting the “right to die with dignity” may be easier to “sell”.

        Vote
          5  
        • I agree, the term “assisted suicide” is part of the problem. Suicide has to many negative connotations in our society. It is against many religious tenets and can also be viewed as “giving up” or “abandoning” ones family, responsibility etc.

          I prefer the term “Physician-managed death” and certainly “dignity” is a key word.

          http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/

          Vote
            0  
          • there already is physician-managed death when the dying are taken off life support.

            Vote
              2  
            • I suppose that is true. So maybe what we need to do is expand on the when, where, why and how those physician-managed deaths can take place.

              I strongly feel that “physician” should be in there somewhere … I don’t think just anyone should be able to “assist” in a death.

              Vote
                1  
        • no problem with changing the name of the topic , except that it may be too broadly stated as “the right to die with dignity”. for example, there’s no dignity in dying alone in an institution, but i don’t think loneliness and being hospitalized are reasons in themselves for assisted suicide. i think it should be more sharply focused, but you’re on the right track..

          Vote
            2  
      • for anyone who happens upon this topic, can i get an indication by a showing of thumbs up (thumbs down is a bummer) as to whether or not you think it has legs for policy consideration? i know it hasn’t been fully developed, but i think the concept behind the policy is intrinsically understood. thanks for any comments, thumbs, or whatever you want to do. remember, your thumbs are anonymous and it doesn’t mean you do or do not endorse it…but you do think, as justin trudeau has said on many matters, that it has merit for consideration.

        Vote
          1  
        • one thumbs up, and it was mine. okay

          Vote
            1  
          • this topic, assisted death/suicide got waylayed. i’m wondering if anyone would like to comment further or if there’s any interest at all anymore. it has become more significant with associated court cases such as the current supreme court floundering over who decides over someone in a vegetative state which doctors feel has had his life artificially prolonged too long versus the family who want to keep him alive in the hopes that he will recover. surely dying with dignity is on the same scale.

            Vote
              2  
    • i think we agree on more things than you realize.

      i apologize for not saying ROBERT Latimer, who served ten years in jail and more on parole for assisting in the suicide of his severly disabled daughter. i thought it was an act of compassion, not a crime. I guess David was on my mind (mcguinty).

      At any rate, I think “dying with dignity” has legs as a policy for the LPC, as not only has an organisation and movement been formed under that name, but also as the organistion states, “a solid majority of Canadians support humane medically-assisted dying where pain is insurmountable and all hope is lost.” There has been a case supported with reservations by the courts, so that is a start. But it has to be clarified, and made legal, and that could be an ambition this Party is willing to undertake. It should be considered a human right, in my opinion. After all, we’re forcing people to keep living when there is no hope nor will to do so. Everyone dies, but not everyone dies with dignity.

      Vote
        6  
      • we’re talking about arranging for either your or another’s death, when you or they are needlessly suffering and there is no hope for recovery. i’ve had to extend it beyond “you” because of the case of Robert Latimer who a)knew there was no hope for his child to recover and b) saw her in excruciating pain daily. he was convicted of murder! you may have an elderly parent who has expressed to you a need to die because they are in constant pain and/or are deathly ill. if you look at the website that martin showell has posted, “dying with dignity”, it, understandably, does not go through the process of the suicide, but makes a clear case, in my estimation, for it to become a legal process. dr. henry morgentaler had to go through the same agonizing process to make legal and safer the suicide of a fetus as desired by the woman carrier. there’s no elegant way of describing what this is, except that many of us feel it should be a human right to have a planned death at the right time under the right circumstances and for the right reasons. “right to planned death”? to me that sounds scarier than “assisted suicide” which is more accurate but perhaps a little blunt.

        Vote
          2  
        • and the courts are with us. unfortunately, or fortunately, who knows, gooria taylor died before she needed the physician-assisted suicide:

          http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=assisted%20suicide%20bc%20courts&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

          Vote
            2  
          • The British Columbia Supreme Court ruling in the Gloria Taylor case was very interesting. They did not rule that assisted suicide is legal or should be legal, rather they ruled that the existing law against it violates the Charter.


            “In her ruling, Smith noted suicide itself is not illegal, and therefore the law against assisted suicide contravenes Section 15 of the charter, which guarantees equality, because it denies physically disabled people like Taylor the same rights as able-bodied people who can take their own lives, she ruled. ”

            Note that the federal government has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

            The BC Supreme Court ruling was not unlike the Supreme Court of Canada ruling regarding abortion – the Court did not rule that abortions are legal or that women have a right to abort, the Court ruled that the laws on the books at the time (that allowed for abortion after review by a hospital panel) were discriminatory because they were not applied equally in all regions of Canada.

            In the case of abortions, this has left Canada with no laws at all regarding abortion – something I am not comfortable with, personally.

            In the Gloria Taylor case, the BC Court suspended the ruling for one year to allow the government the chance to correct the legislation (Taylor was granted a “constitutional exemption” in the interim).

            We need to wait and see if the BC ruling is upheld by the the Supreme Court of Canada – if it is it will be interesting to see if/how/when the government addresses the court decision.

            It is possible that they simply don’t, meaning we would have no laws regarding someone “assisting” the death of someone else – again, I’m not at all comfortable with that.

            These types of issues scare the crap out of politicians. But we need to force them to deal with them.

            Vote
              1  
            • i think it is a winning proposal to pursue the human right to assisted suicide, or however we want to name it. if one person (taylor) was granted that right, then all similar cases can be. it’s notable that she wasn’t physically unable to do it herself, but wanted to plan it to die with dignity. if the courts can’t resolve it, a willing government can.

              Vote
                2  
    • (putting this as a new comment instead of under your last comment Peter … getting too narrow in there and I lots to say – again :-))

      My point Peter was that your statement the “courts are with us” – is questionable once the actual ruling is understood. The BC Supreme Court was not supporting the right or legality of assisted suicide, they were saying, in their opinion, that the current law is unconstitutional based on section 15 of the charter guaranteeing equality. For example the government could correct the constitutional inequality problem by making suicide illegal for everyone – just saying. As far as the court supporting assisted suicide, Madam Justice Smith actually wrote that in her view a more appropriate, and proportionate, response would be to maintain an almost-absolute prohibition but with a stringently limited and carefully monitored system of exceptions that would allow persons in Ms. Taylor’s situation to access physician-assisted death. Here is a good explanation of the ruling by the BC Court: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ron-skolrood/bc-assisted-suicide-_b_1606732.html.

      As far as the idea being a “winning proposal”, I am not so sure. As recently as 2010 this question came before parliament in the form of Bill c-384 “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity)”. It was soundly defeated in free vote – 228-59.

      The proposed bill can be viewed here: http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=3895681. Have a read – do you agree with this bill?

      You can see some of the HoC discussion of the bill here: http://openparliament.ca/bills/40-3/C-384/?page=4. Note the submissions of petitions from Canadians against the bill.

      You can see the vote outcome here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&Vote=34. (Note: The page gives you several sort options) Interesting to note here is the breakdown of the voting. Of the 67 Liberals who voted only 8 were in favour. The only province/party that supported was Quebec/Bloc.

      Now … several polls done at the time (and since) show that Canadians support some form of assisted death by an overwhelming majority of between 65% and 70% (interestingly about the same % that support getting rid of the marijuana laws).

      So why the disconnect? Why do our politicians – even in a free vote – not support the wishes of the majority?

      . Fear of abuse by family and/or medical practitioners?
      . Already happens anyway? To use your thinking form another issue Peter, there is already de facto decriminalized euthanasia. Doctors and families do it, they just don’t talk about – so why do we need to change the law?
      . The religious right controls the vote? They are more likely to get involved with petitions and demonstrations etc.?

      Some useful articles from the huff: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tag/assisted-suicide-canada

      I looked around and I cannot even find an official policy position from the LPC on this issue. There was a resolution 120 Support of Euthanasia (http://convention.liberal.ca/health-2/120-support-of-euthanasia/?order_by=date) but I can’t see what happened to it … maybe @andre-brisebois or @maryanne-kampouris can help with that?

      Anyway Peter, I personally support the idea – but there is obviously work to be done on the issue.

      If it is not already an LPC policy we need to make it one. Then we need to get a leader that supports it … now is the time to ask the candidates what their opinion on the issue is, publicly and on the record.

      Vote
        0  
      • Hi Martin,
        To answer your question about resolution 120, it did not make it to the convention floor because resolution 40 on medical isotopes received more votes in the Health 2 category. The way it worked was that the resolutions with the most votes *per category* moved forward. Therefore resolution 40 made it to the plenary and did in fact get adopted.
        Resolutions in Health 2 category: http://convention.liberal.ca/category/health-2/
        Adopted resolutions: http://convention.liberal.ca/files/2012/01/Ottawa-2012_Policy-Resolutions-OUTCOME.pdf
        About the process (relevant to the Ottawa 2012 Biennial Convention): http://convention.liberal.ca/about-the-process/

        Vote
          0  
        • Thank you André … I figured it was just that it did not make it to convention but I was not clear on how it worked. As always your input is greatly appreciated.

          Peter … it looks like of the 15 proposed policy resolutions in the Health 1 and 2 categories, 120 Support of Euthanasia came in 5th.

          If we want to get this into LPC policy, looks like we’ll have to propose it again and do some work selling it.

          Vote
            1  
          • Individual members are way down the totem pole in matters of policy development, even though this is a supposedly new grassroots Party. I suggest we canvass the potential Leaders to get their opinion/backing/oppostion to this popular (Canadian population popular) proposal, and come up with a good backgrounder. It goes back to the Sue Rodriguez case, and continues to this day with organizations like “Dying with Dingnity” so there’s lots of meat to put on the barebones.

            Vote
              1  
            • It’s not euthanasia, it’s assisted suicide. Perhaps better terminology would be “assisted dying”. Maybe we have to wait for the courts, but that shouldn’t stop the LPC from adopting a policy that should be easily dervived from our Constitution and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (in my opinion much more so than the legalization of marijuana or how best to elect a leader). Human rights are humane and fundamental to which a person is inherently entitled, a life of equality and dignity, from birth to death. Surely we are a party that stands for that.

              Vote
                2  
              • I’m not sure I understand … please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia for a definition of euthanasia … how is this not the correct word?

                I agree the policy should be a no-brainer for our party. I guess not enough people in the party have championed the cause.

                I’m not sure if there is procedure for resurrecting old policy proposals or if a new one needs to be started. Are you active in your EDA? Are you willing to work towards making this policy? The procedure is there .. we just need to follow through on it.

                Vote
                  1  
            • I disagree. I think that the way we develop policy in the LPC starts with the individual initiative. Where do you think “grassroots” comes from Peter? Some “one” has to take the initiative and take it to a group (e.g. you EDA) and get the ball rolling. There is a system. Whether you choose to use it or not is up to you.

              You seem to have strong feelings on this issue … are you willing to work for it? Get a policy development started? Sell it to other EDA’s? Sell it to the membership? Go to the policy convention to support it (or vote in your EDA for someone who will)?

              Or do you think that we should let the new leader dictate all our policy and tell us what we want?

              Vote
                1  
              • This is a touchy subject, but it may have more to do with doctors’ fears of being sued by some family member than anything else (religious convictions which should be totally excluded from politics, especially when we have reform evangelists at the helm of the country). My wife has my directions in writing: no extraordinary procedure. Not one, not several. None. What I want of life is for me to decide. So should it be for every Canadian. All attempts to define and circumscribe the issue are doomed to failure, as no one -especially MPs, are willing to be identified as having voted in favour of “dying” or worse “killing”. The issue should be dealt with under the Charter as “all Canadians having an absolute right to dignity until their life’s end” and their last wishes should be respected without fear of legal proceedings. The means to achieving that last moment of dignity should not and must not be subject to interpretation.

                Vote
                  0  
                • I think what you are referring to is a “living will” which can state no resuscitation or whatever your instructions are to be considered by doctors in attendance, and, in your case, as advocated as your wishes by your wife. That’s not exactly what i’m referring to. It’s for those who are dying and are so incapacitated that they need someone to assist in their suicide on their demand. i agree it’s a touchy subject, and I like the manner in which you’ve articulated it, as a human right to die in dignity. Many of the policies adopted by the LPC will not come to fruition when and if the Liberals gain power. But I think it’s a topic where most Canadians would agree is worthy of consideration. It’s currently illegal, so that’s why legislation, or amendments to, would have to be involved, eventually at least. .

                  Vote
                    2  
              • oh? what policy have you developed Martin?

                Vote
                  -1  
                • That is a typical response from someone who is nothing but talk and no action, Peter. “Why should I fight for what I believe in … Martin hasn’t done anything”. Brilliant – I expected better from you.

                  Anyway, my point was more about you slamming the LPC policy process when you are obviously not interested in being part of it and ignorant of how it functions.

                  If this issue is so important to you, I merely suggested that you might want to follow through on it and try to make a difference – that’s all. I certainly didn’t mean to offend you or put you on the defensive.

                  As for me, I’m very lucky. When I joined the LPC last year, I did so after researching existing and upcoming policy. It turned out to be a very good fit for me … most of the policy I wanted to see already exists in the party. Two of the exceptions I have noted over the past year, would be something addressing assisted death, and a clear policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

                  I have recently started attending my EDA meetings (I am a very new member and still learning the process) but I definitely plan to become more involved at my EDA level especially when it comes to policy generation. The two above mentioned “gaps” are what I have chosen to begin working on in the hope of generating policy resolutions that can I can get support for at my EDA level and that we can then move along as per the existing process, in time for the next national policy convention. I am also awaiting the new policy discussion/adoption mechanism that we are hearing about from Maryanne Kampouris – very interested to see how that will work when the policy team is ready to launch it

                  So, I’ll go ahead and work on my pet issues at the “grassroots” level Peter, and you keep pointing fingers at other members and slamming the party what you “perceive” to be the lack of member-driven policy initiatives and mechanisms.

                  There are those that try to contribute to solutions and those that complain that there aren’t any. I know which I want to be …

                  Vote
                    2  
                  • So, in short, you have not developed any policies, but you do slam me for questioning how policies are developed and approved by the LPC. I don’t thnk you know either. Apparently one has to become a member of his/her riding association, and, when I submitted an intention to stand as a director at my assoication I was infomed that I need a nominee and seconder who are “members in good standing of this association”. I don’t even ask my neighbours how they vote, let alone associate with any association members, at least that I know of. That’s why I say the new so-called grassroots party has very entrenched roots that are hard to weed out to get new blood into decision-making. And if you continue to reply to me in your downward tone, I will not respond to you further.

                    Vote
                      0  
                    • When you hear about rebuilding the Liberal Party of Canada – it means renewal of the policy development process (happening, ask @maryanne-kampouris) and it also means rebuilding riding associations. This is happening in some ridings and taking longer in others.

                      As a member of the LPC, you are already a member of your riding association. They say all politics are local so I’d encourage you to attend your riding’s local events or observe one of their meetings. If you don’t know liberals in your community – well you’ve just found step one – find ways to get to know them. And if you want to be on your riding’s executive, get them to know you and get their support.

                      Here is the link to Liberal University’s section on riding associations where you can find the Hijacker’s Guide and much more useful info: http://liberaluniversity.liberal.ca/eda/

                      Having a nominee and seconder is a standard practice in many organizations, whether political or not for profit, etc.

                      Vote
                        1  
                      • Thank you. I did not realize that being a member of the LPC that I am already a member of the association. I have no problem with the normal nomination process, but I thought, I guess wrongly, that it had to come from the assoication’s executive.

                        Vote
                          1  
                        • Hello Peter, I note that there are some aspects of the Party that are best clarified.

                          First, policy is something that is supposed to come from the members. Every EDA is supposed to have a Policy Chair, who is responsible for engaging both members and members of the public in policy discussions to a) identify issues that matter locally, and develop policy solutions to those issues.

                          The Policy Chair is a member of the EDA Executive, and should develop a plan for policy development that is part of the EDA’s overarchign strategic plan.

                          LPC Policy direction starts with the membership and ultimately, the membership, through a delegated convention, every two years, approve a full range of policies and then identify those with which they wish to ‘bind’ the Party. Those are the final ‘priority’ resolutions adopted at convention…

                          There is a lot more to the process than this and I would suggest that we move the process discussion away from desire to highlingt a specific area of interest, thus keeping the discussions clear.

                          Maryanne

                          Vote
                            0  
                          • Yes, thank-you Maryanne. I think there is a difference between stated policy and what happens ion the ground. I know who the Policy Chair is in my riding (EDA), he in fact has a law office right across from my house. I was surprised to learn he was the Policy Chair, only known to me because of an e-mail I received when I stood for election as a director in the association. I say this only because of how invisible these people can be in the community. I have supported the Party for years and yet I have never been contacted by anyone from the assoication, nor did I know who they were.

                            I agree with you that the topic I raised should be brought back on track, that is, if there is any interest. This blog should be a good sounding board for an issue, and, to date, there have only been four people who have commented. I am taking from that that there is not a great deal of interest. If I am elected as a director, beleive me I will raise this issue again as I think it is an important one that many Canadians might favour if they realized that the LPC endorsed it as a policy.

                            Thanks again, back to the subject matter I’ll go.

                            Vote
                              3  
                          • The issue that seems to be missed is that too many EDAs that are functioning still aren’t functioning in the way they should be functioning, not to mention the ones that aren’t functioning at all. This has been a key rebuilding issue for years. Why hasn’t it been rectified yet?

                            Vote
                              2  
                            • that’s been my experience, douglas, but the Party either refuses to believe it or isn’t trying hard enough to rectify it.

                              Vote
                                2  
                              • Hey Peter and Doug, “the Party” is you and me, and even the best tools, left untouched cannot help us rebuild.

                                Every EDA President has access to a list of members. Some have capacity to reach out, others have less. If there is something you think can be done that you can help with, please step in.

                                For instance Peter, you have an issue of interest to you, it would be useful if you were connected to your Policy comittee (it it exists) so that you could find out if the issue matters in your community. If the issue is of more intrest to a more disparate group of Liberals across the country, the on-line policy development process would possibly be useful. I do note that your observation regarding the number of people involved in this discussion may be an indicator of interest… but then, it might just be an indicator that few peiople wish to get involved on-line, or in negative exchanges… We won’t know till we make this site move functional and we tone down the personal attacks.

                                You have also noted that your EDA has not contacted you.. I am somewhat surprised, since at the very least, each EDA has an annual meeting, they must send out notices to their members. The liberal.ca website also provides you with contact mechanisms for to the Provincial and Territorial Association and often with links to an e-mail address for the EDA. Many EDAs also have websites…

                                Note also that I fully appreciate that you hope to be able to put an idea out on the Party web site and get some meaningful response… This is our challenge: build the functionality, communicate new processes and make the site welcoming. The first is in my purview, the second needs to be done through the network of PTAs and EDAs and the last is something that we are all resonsible for.

                                I look forward to fruitful, content driven discussion.

                                Maryanne

                                Vote
                                  2  
                                • cat fights are not at all useful, unless just blowing off steam, but then you have to go into a corner alley somewhere and lick wounds. sorry for the ridiculous analogy, but that’s how my mind (?) works. fruitful i will be.

                                  Vote
                                    2  
                                • The problem is that some EDAs do not want to hear from its members and does not keep them informed, and some do not even attempt to keep in touch with the members. They have their own little group, and want to keep that power to them selves. I can not even get a list of members locally so that I can meet with them, and the upper party has no interest in correcting this, they suggest I hijack where I can not even get the name of local members. As for annual meeting and elections, even after having asked I can not even get an email from the EDA on who was elected and what policies they are working on. Sure there may be back door methods of finding some of this information but should not someone be looking into the EDA other then individual members struggling through a difficult process that usually ends in frustration.

                                  Not all of us have oodles of money and time to approach these problems but as concerned citizens we would like some opportunities to participate. If you really want to know why LPC membership is low this is your answer, you want our money not our opinion, and you tell us it is our problem to fix the operation of each EDA. There should be rules and performance tests for EDAs and if they are not met they should be removed.

                                  Vote
                                    1  
                    • No Peter you are correct, in the entire year that I have been active in the party I personally have not developed any new policy – shame on me.

                      However, I am working towards that as a member of my EDA. And yes I do know how it works because I asked people nicely and they responded.

                      As a member of the party I believe you are already a member of your EDA, so that excuse doesn’t work.

                      What does standing as a director of your EDA have to do with starting pr working on a policy resolution in your EDA? I know for a fact you do not need to be a director to be involved with policy, so that excuse doesn’t work either.

                      Any more excuses. Peter?

                      If you don’t want to respond to me .. please don’t … but remember, all I was saying was that agree with you that the LPC should have a policy of assisted death. You attacked the party for not having a methods for individuals to get involved in policy creation. I pointed out that you are incorrect. So, you attacked me because I haven’t personally created any new policy yet. Who is the problem in this discussion Peter? I obviously touched a nerve … but don’t blame it on me .. if you are not interested ion working towards a policy for this issue – by all means, don’t. Leave it those of us that care. Please just stop attacking everything and everyone around you.

                      Vote
                        0  
                      • Hey @martin.showell, there is no call to have everyone ‘develop’ policy. As we have ‘discussed’ previously, your efforts to reach out and engage in the communicty are way more important than writing resolutions. WE don’t get elected on paper, or on-line.. it is in our communities that we need to be seen and to be engaged.

                        This includes discussing other peoples ideas in a way that brings more people into the discussion. This is the contribution you bring to the table at this point.

                        Maryanne

                        Vote
                          2  
                        • I just happened on this discussion and I was struck by the angst about the policy process… It doesn’t work well, but this is exactly BECAUSE it happens at the grass-roots, EDA level. At this level everyone is a volunteer, usually with a busy life and not a lot of experience. There is often a handful of people who have been involved with the EDA for more than a few years plus another five or six who have become active members since the last election… and there are so many jobs that need to be done. I just attended our local EDA’s Annual General Meeting two weeks ago. Only half the positions on the Executive were filled at this meeting (I took one, trying to be helpful…). I think that many EDAs are in this position.

                          If you are passionate about policy or about politics in general you will be VERY welcome by the EDA’s executive. Join in ! You can have a huge impact!

                          Vote
                            5  
                          • excellent comment and advice michel. our eda is crowded a bit, and i expect with veterans, so i’ll have to get elected somehow (or not). either way, that will not discourage me from all things passionate.

                            Vote
                              2  
    • That’s right John. Apparently these comments we make back and forth are only overviewed for censorship. Nothing of what we say or advocate goes anywhere. As Andre indicated, euthanasia didn’t make it to the plenary floor, but really hasn’t spelled out how or if it can get back there. I mean, that’s it? There’s a priority list, obviously, but to restrict topics to a limited number in stock areas (health, etc.) to me is foolhardy and detrimental to what people really want to see as policies or statements or convictions or whatever defines the backbone and character of the Party.

      Vote
        1  
      • Hi Peter,
        To answer your question, I must start by clarifying the policy process for the biennial convention.

        All PTAs, Commissions, and Caucus can submit 10 resolutions for the convention. With 13 PTAs and 4 Commissions, that makes for a potential total of 180 resolutions. It is simply impossible to deal with 180 resolutions on the convention floor due to lack of time. That or you eliminate all discussion and defeat the whole purpose.

        So we must prioritize the resolutions. And when doing so, we want to ensure that there is still a variety of topics that are addressed, i.e. not have all resolutions being on the economy, or the environment, or health, etc. That’s why we grouped them by topic on convention.liberal.ca and had members vote on them. This narrowed it down to 30 policy resolutions being discussed on the convention floor. These 30 resolutions were selected by the Party membership. The resolutions with the most votes per category moved forward.

        Hence, if you want to see euthanasia move forward to the plenary, submit it again, organize a movement of support within the Party, and make it happen. Best example I can give you is the young liberals and their policy of same-sex marriage. They proposed it a few times before it passed but ultimately it actually became party policy and adopted in Parliament. Will the same happen now with the marijuana resolution (also submitted by young liberals)? Time will tell.

        As for your view that nothing goes anywhere… well we have yet to see a clear resolution be proposed, discussed, and agreed upon by a significant number of members. If there is one and we missed it than please point it out. I can assure you though that many more people read these comments than post. We can see that based on the number of visitors compared to the number of people who post.

        On a final note, I will note once again that @maryanne-kampouris and the national policy committee are working on an online policy development framework. It sounds like you are eager for this to be developed and implemented. This would allow for ongoing policy development by the Party membership in between biennial conventions while also breaking down geographic barriers.

        Vote
          3  
      • Well then why don’t we ask “nicely” for a clarification of the process instead of just complaining – wouldn’t that be more productive Peter?

        I’m sure that @andre-brisebois or @maryanne-kampouris will be more than happy to answer the questions.

        ————-

        André/MaryAnne, we had a policy resolution (120. Support of Euthanasia) that was submitted and made it to the on-line review process. Unfortunately it did not garner enough votes to make it to the convention floor for the plenary session.

        I have three questions:

        1) Is there an easy way for that resolution to be reintroduced or must the process start again?

        2) Can you explain how the “health” resolutions were divided into the two sections “Health 1″ and “health 2″? Was this just random?

        3) Can you explain how the categories were determined? It seems that there are some categories with only three or four resolutions while there were a total of 15 health resolutions. If only one resolution for each category made it to the floor this would seem to indicate that resolutions concerning health (or economy) have a lesser chance of making it to the plenary session. For example, one of three “energy” resolutions made it (33% chance) as opposed to 2 of 15 health (13% chance). Obviously the simple logistics of available time must limit the number of resolutions debated and voted on … but, if I understand the process correctly, then energy becomes more “important” than health. This seems an odd way to do things. Is there an explanation available somewhere?

        Thank you in advance for you response.

        ————

        And back to your comment Peter … do you have any grounds for your accusation of censorship on this site? If not please refrain from unfounded accusations – it does’t help anyone.

        And as far as “nothing goes anywhere” I personally have been contacted a few times now based on what I have input to the site. If no one is listening, how can that be? Maybe it is more about the attitude and what you write. Just saying.

        Vote
          2  
        • 1) Is there an easy way for that resolution to be reintroduced or must the process start again?

          Until the policy process is renewed, you’ll have to start the process again at the EDA level. I won’t expand because you’ve indicated how familiar you were with it in your response to Peter. The online policy framework should help with this. I would also assume a high level of policy activity next year, after the new Leader is chosen, and leading up to the 2014 biennial. Now’s the time to start planning and getting ready.

          2) Can you explain how the ”health” resolutions were divided into the two sections ”Health 1” and ”health 2”? Was this just random?

          As stated earlier, we received well over 100 resolutions from the Party – PTAs, Commissions, and Caucus. These were then organized in groups. It just happened that there were many on health. Considering this, we felt that this was a sign that health was important to members so we broke it up in 2 categories so that at least 2 resolutions on the topic would move forward instead of just one. As you can imagine, there is no perfect way to group policy resolutions. Health 1 can be considered the “broader” resolutions and Health 2 the more “specific” resolutions. You can argue that this is not perfect nor ideal. Agreed.

          We simply need to find the balance between having an appropriate number of resolutions moving to the plenary, allowing for sufficient discussion time for all of them, and covering a wide variety of topics, based on the resolutions submitted.

          All this said, the topics are based on the resolutions that are submitted. Hence the 2014 categories may be different than the 2012 categories. It depends on the work done by you and all other members involved in policy development.

          3) Can you explain how the categories were determined? It seems that there are some categories with only three or four resolutions while there were a total of 15 health resolutions. If only one resolution for each category made it to the floor this would seem to indicate that resolutions concerning health (or economy) have a lesser chance of making it to the plenary session. For example, one of three ”energy” resolutions made it (33% chance) as opposed to 2 of 15 health (13% chance). Obviously the simple logistics of available time must limit the number of resolutions debated and voted on … but, if I understand the process correctly, then energy becomes more ”important” than health. This seems an odd way to do things. Is there an explanation available somewhere?

          It’s all based on what is submitted for the biennial convention. EDA’s submit their policy resolutions to their PTA’s. Clubs do the same to their Commission. A provincial convention then takes place to prioritize the PTA resolutions (and commissions). What you see at the biennial convention is the outcome of the provincial conventions. I guess you could cal it an organic process.

          We have no control on A) which resolutions get worked on at the EDA level and B) which resolutions are adopted at the provincial conventions.

          As you posted, it’s all about getting involved and engaging in the process.

          Vote
            2  
          • Thanks very much André.

            I find that as I gain more knowledge on the process, I am more comfortable getting involved in it – I find it less ‘daunting’.

            As always, thank you very much for the response and the information.

            Vote
              1  
    • From André: About the process (relevant to the Ottawa 2012 Biennial Convention): http://convention.liberal.ca/about-the-process/

      Vote
        2  
      • this is good, but it’s about bureaucratized as any government department that i’ve worked in, and not grassroots. it is also out of date.

        Vote
          0  
    • interesting john. i just got elected to the exec last night, ottawa south (david mcguinty). i was more concerned in shaming them into developing a website…can’t believe there isn’t one for the EDA. the riding has been liberal for some time, but there’s no room for complacency. we don’t meet until january sometime, i hope before the convention. advocating through your EDA would be a good test. let’s do it! maybe there will be other takers too???

      Vote
        2  
    • thank you. i told them i’d do the dishwashing after the xmas party, only to find out there’s no xmas party.

      Vote
        1  
    • just raising this as a topic for an LPC platform. it’s starting to get wider coverage, and will inevitably be an issue as the population ages and becomes more infirmed. it sets out two ideological paths: on the right, the role of religion in setting the morals of the country; on the left, the role of the charter of rights and freedoms to be able to die with dignity as an individual choice. i’m on the left, and sick and tired (well, not infirmed) of the morlaists who want to tell me that i cannot tamper with “god’s law” and the state will be putting to death its unwanted. utter nonsense. there are many examples in many countries who recognize dying with dignity as a personal choice and not a criminal act. it could be a wedge issue for the LPC’s vs the hypocritical Conservatives who are so tough on crime that they overlook their own appointed senators’ criminal activites and care more about victim’s rights over addressing the consequnces of their policies that has seen first nations incarceration rates rise way beyond their population proportion. sure, ignore the endemic racism, social conditions, and disproportion of victims of poverty over justice and rehabilitation and individual rights for all canadians.

      Vote
        2