Day 4 – Homelessness: It’s so Solvable
Day 4 – Homelessness: It’s so Solvable
Day 4 – going well – and I am delighted to see the commentary/support/tweets/facebook/discussion back and forth in support of the 2010 Hunger Strike Relay to end homelessness. Keep it all coming!!
I’ve had many comments about the “wooden spoon” (our relay version of the Olympic torch) and the picture of me holding it and making a comment that I’m tempted to use it to get Harper and Gordon Campbell’s attention! I’ve been carrying the big wooden spoon every day and its weirdly empowering – Councillor Ellen Woodsworth who dropped by to say hello at Carnegie – gave me a friendly warning about it!!
Earlier in the day I attended an announcement by the Veterans Affairs Minister about a program in partnership with Wounded Warriors to assist homeless veterans in the Downtown Eastside. There are many veterans in this community who are suffering, and it is critical they get attention and help. Many of these veterans are Aboriginal people who for decades got no recognition and help for the service and sacrifice they gave to their country. I’m mindful of the fact that it’s a small initiative – but still, I want to do everything I can to make veterans aware that the federal department has a store front service at 310 Alexander Street, to assist with medical, housing, and pension needs. I will be circulating info in the community to let people know about the storefront.
Ok – here’s a good story. I met a cool guy who is in really good social housing – The Lux on East Hastings Street. He’s in a wheelchair as a result of being in hospital with that flesh eating disease. He eventually recovered after many medical setbacks, – but of course, couldn’t find housing that was affordable and suitable for his special needs. When he finally got into the Lux, one of the lucky few – his quality of life improved dramatically and he’s doing well. There are similar stories from other people too, as a result of finding proper housing. I mean, it’s just so much common sense that decent housing means quality of life for each and every one of us. And that’s why it is so frighteningly appalling, that housing ISN’T a priority for the feds. Sometimes I can’t accept it – why DO we have this crisis in Canada? Why ARE people destitute and living hand to mouth? It’s so SOLVEABLE after all. The decision to off load housing in the early 90s was such a bad decision – and underscores that public policy decisions have a dramatic impact on peoples’ lives and can increase or decrease poverty in Canada, depending which way the decision goes.
Let’s stop the race to the bottom and make the government act in the public interest, and not in the personal interest of already powerful elites.
The job now is to move forward and fulfill this basic human right to housing. I would be singing from the roof tops if the federal gov’t would take, steal, borrow, adopt, or whatever, with Bill C304 and make it happen. Failing that we gotta keep pushing up that hill (also called Parliament Hill) and make it happen.
Libby
Libby supports regulations for safer cosmetic contact lenses – Libby Davies
Libby supports regulations for safer cosmetic contact lenses
House of Commons
HANSARD
January 31, 2012
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-313.
I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for bringing forward the bill. Some of my colleagues already spoke to the bill in the first hour of debate and signified our support for this legislation and that certainly continues. I do not know that there is more information to add in the second hour of debate, but it is important that we have a second hour of debate.
I want to begin my remarks by speaking more generally about what the bill raises in an important sense.
The health care system in Canada is huge. We have many health care concerns, such as natural health products and the mainstream health system itself. There is no doubt that we live in an age where more and more cosmetic-type therapies, aids and assistance, whether they are in drugs or other forms, are available on the market. One only has to look at television or any form of mass media to see the incredible amount of advertising and promotion of all kinds of products. One the one hand we can say that is a good thing in that consumers have lots of choice in this country. On the other hand, as Members of Parliament we hear stories from our constituents of things that have happened to people or complaints that have been made.
With that huge array of products and therapies on the market there also has to be a sense of responsibility. It speaks to the importance of why we are here, why we have government, and that is to look out for the public interest. Sometimes the marketplace does not do all it is hoped it would do. It does not necessarily assume the responsibility of safety and awareness. Although there are many instances where voluntary associations of businesses or sectors promote awareness and education, they sometimes do not go as far as they need to go.
This bill provides illumination and an example–I was going to say a lens; excuse the pun–of the enormous number of products that are available and that there is not necessarily the kind of consumer awareness, education and regulation that is needed to make sure that people are safe.
For that reason, it is an opportune time for the bill to come forward. It draws attention to the problems with cosmetic contact lenses and the fact that they are not regulated and that they have caused problems for people. Consumers may not be aware of the possible infections, irritations or allergies and other problems that these products can cause.
Bill C-313 would amend the Food and Drugs Act to classify cosmetic contact lenses as class II medical devices, which would bring them in line with what we normally see as regular contact corrective lenses. This first step would require all cosmetic lenses sold in Canada to be licensed through Health Canada. Distributors of the products would require a medical device establishment licence. People fret about bureaucracy, rules and regulations, but we have to strike that balance.
In years gone by, going back to October 2000, Health Canada actually issued warnings about coloured contact lenses. In 2003, Health Canada commissioned a third party risk assessment report, “Human Health Risk Assessment of Cosmetic Contact Lens”. There are some serious concerns. The report concluded that the available evidence suggests that the level of risk associated with the use of cosmetic contact lenses is comparable to that associated with corrective lenses and may be potentially higher. The risk assessment report recommended that cosmetic contact lenses be regulated by Health Canada, such as requiring prescriptions for their use and restricting their sale to regulated health professionals.
It is very important that this be followed up. One query which was raised by some of my NDP colleagues in the earlier part of the debate was that while we are happy that the member brought forward the bill as a private member’s bill, one would have hoped, as a result of this work that goes back to 2000 and 2003, the government would have brought it forward itself. That did not happen, but it is good that it is now before us as a private member’s bill.
We are in full support of the bill. We believe it is very important that the vision of Canadians be protected, that there be consumer awareness, that there be proper regulation and that there be a level of professionalism within the industry so that consumers have some measure of protection. That is the very least we should be doing.
I think the bill will pass at second reading. I look forward to it going to the health committee. I hope that we can look at the bill in more detail and that we will be able to hear some witnesses. Major organizations are supporting the bill and I am sure they will have some good recommendations for us to look at.
Again, I want to thank the member for bringing the bill forward.
I hope that we can deal with this issue. We will have taken just a little tiny step to ensure there is better safety for Canadians in terms of their vision and that we will have created a better awareness about this problem.
When people are out there in the marketplace and getting drawn in by the sometimes very persuasive advertising and marketing that goes on, there could be a counterbalance to that in terms of regulation, to ensure there are proper standards and licensing, but also in terms of making consumers and potential buyers aware of what it is they are purchasing, what are some of the risks and what needs to be done in terms of handling and using this particular product.
Libby supports regulations for safer cosmetic contact lenses
Libby calls on the Conservative government to support training for more health care professionals
Libby speaks up on the dangers of residential cell phone towers
Libby urges the Conservative government to work with the provinces to improve health care
Libby fights for Canadians' pensions
Libby fights for Canadians’ pensions
Libby fights for Canadians’ pensions
House of Commons
HANSARD
January 30, 2012
You can watch Libby deliver this speech at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-WowHFi_Uw
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-25, which is the pooled registered pension plans.
I will begin by commenting on the remarks made by the Minister of State for Finance during the debate earlier this morning and again in question period in response to one of his own member’s questions on this bill. He said that they were doing a great job on pensions and helping seniors. I was surprised to hear the minister of state say that Bill C-25 would be accessible. He kept stressing that it would be accessible.
When we look at the bill and the proposal the Conservatives have, there is absolutely nothing accessible about it. How can something be accessible when one cannot afford it? How can something be accessible when to go ahead with this kind of savings scheme would be to put one’s money at risk in very volatile markets? How can it be accessible to the 1.6 million seniors who are considered to be living in poverty, as estimated by the Canadian Labour Congress? I was very surprised to hear the Conservatives describe this proposal as something that is accessible.
I was further surprised when the minister of state remarked that currently in the RRSP plan there is, I think he said, $600 billion room for people to make contributions into RRSPs and that this would be a great opportunity to do that. Surely that begs the question as to why Canadians are not taking up what already exists under RRSPs if there is $600 billion tax room available that they could use individually. The answer is that most Canadians cannot afford to make RRSP contributions or, if they can, they are concerned about the security of their money, whether it is in various kinds of stocks, mutual funds and so on. Therefore, they have not been taking up that so-called room in RRSPs.
I want to make it clear that this so-called pooled registered pension plan would not guarantee an actual pension. There is also no guarantee about how much money would be left when people retire if they had been able to afford to put money into such a plan.
As we read through the legislation, it becomes clear that the risks of such a plan are borne entirely by the individual who is making the contribution, as well as the employer, if he or she decided to make a contribution.
We should also be aware that this so-called pension plan that has “accessibility” would be managed by for-profit financial institutions, like banks, insurance companies and trust companies. There would be no caps on administration fees or costs.
This so-called plan, which is no plan at all, from the Conservative government would push people into the marketplace. It is basically saying that if people can afford it they fend for themselves. That is the basis of the government’s plan here today.
We should be very clear that this proposal would not require matching contributions from employers. It also encourages hard-working Canadians to basically gamble on failing stock markets.
I find it quite incredible that, on the basis of public policy, a government would come forward with this proposal and say that it is the answer to the severe pension problems we have. It wants to just shuffle everybody off and tell them to go in the marketplace and see if it will fix it for them.
We know that is clearly not the case. For everybody who watched their RRSPs plummet over the past year or so, they know how risky it is to have their savings tied to the stock market and how risky it is for their retirement.
I also want to illuminate the bigger picture. We heard the Prime Minister’s speech in Davos, Switzerland, last Thursday about a fix for a generation, which he mentioned several times. I would say that it is more like a rip-off for generations to come.
One of the cores of that speech was his musings about how the Conservatives would tackle something that is very basic to Canadians, which is our old age security system. I find it quite reprehensible that we have a government that could make clear choices about economic performance and about how tax revenue is collected and where tax revenue goes and yet it has made clear choices and had the gall to announce those choices in Switzerland to a bunch of billionaires. The government did not even have the guts to be in Canada to roll out its plans. It did not have the guts to say it in the election.
We have a government, as we learned from the Davos speech, the “fix it for a generation” speech, that now plans to take aim at the old age security system and our pension system. The opening shot is the proposal that we have here today.
By contrast, the NDP has done an enormous amount of work studying, researching and analyzing what does need to be done to ensure pension security for Canadians who are already in retirement or Canadians who are planning to retire and are quickly approaching that age.
I want to pay tribute and thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for the amazing work he has done in bringing this issue forward. He has very doggedly, time after time, whether it is in question period, in bills he has proposed for the NDP and brought forward in the House, in the forums he has held across the country or in speaking with seniors organizations, made it clear on our behalf, on something that we all support, that the NDP has brought forward a very comprehensive plan for retirement income security.
We would not leave people out in the cold. We would not leave people to the vagaries of the marketplace. We would not say to people that they might have to get a bit older before they can collect their old age security. Our plan is based on income retirement security that is fair, equitable and, most important, affordable.
The member outlined earlier this morning the plan that works in our country, and that is the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. We would increase it to a maximum of $1,920 a month. We would ensure that it would be sustainable and that Canadians would get a fair and decent retirement pension.
We would also amend the bankruptcy legislation to ensure that pensioners and long-term disability recipients would be at the front of the line, not the end of it, of creditors when their employers entered court protection to declare bankruptcy. How many cases have we heard in the House of seniors who have worked hard over the years and paid into their pension plans only to see them go up in smoke because of bankruptcy proceedings? They found out that they were at the very bottom when it came to seeing some justice from the system such as it exists now. We have put forward legislation to correct that situation.
Finally, we have made it very clear that we would increase the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, to a sufficient level of about $700 million a year to lift every senior out of poverty in Canada immediately. Again, this is something that is affordable, realistic and it is the right kind of public policy decision to make at this time.
In debating the legislation today, we have to be very clear that we have a Conservative government that likes to make announcements in front of its billionaire elite supporters in Davos, Switzerland. It likes to put forward proposals that drive people into a marketplace situation, saying that they should go out there and fend for themselves, but if their savings get wrapped up in some kind of volatile market and they lose it, that it is not the government’s problem.
That is not our approach. We do not want to see income inequality grow in our country. What was announced at Davos was nothing more than a further step to huge corporate interests such as we have seen with the corporate tax cuts. We have to be very clear for Canadians that there is an alternative. We do not have to be driven by this kind of agenda. I hope Bill C-25 is the beginning of a massive campaign to show that Canadians will not allow their pension system to be tampered with.
Other prime ministers have tried to do this. Other Liberal and Conservative prime ministers tried to get in there and make changes and they heard the wrath of Canadian seniors, who are a very organized group. I hope today the bill will be the first opportunity to mount a campaign as to what we see as an attack on public services, on our public pension system and on seniors who are some of the most vulnerable in our society.
We have to say” no” to the idea that it is just about the marketplace and “yes” to sound public policy decisions that are fair, equitable, and affordable. That is what the NDP has put forward.
NDP MPs ask Health Committee to review federal health care funding
NDP MPs ask Health Committee to review federal health care funding
Cover Date:
January 26, 2012
OTTAWA – New Democrats have convened a meeting today of the Standing Committee on Health to address the urgent need to define the federal government’s role in future health care funding.
“We are at a critical crossroads in the history of Medicare in this country. Last week in Victoria, the premiers made it clear that they expect more from the federal government. But Conservatives have failed to take the lead in helping plan – and fund – future public health care in Canada,” said New Democrat Health critic Libby Davies. “Provinces, and Canadians, want action now. And the NDP is responding to that call.”
NDP members of the Health Committee submitted a letter to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Health on January 23, 2012, demanding an urgent meeting to discuss this issue.
The MPs are reacting to the Conservative proposal to unilaterally cut federal health transfers, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said would increase the amount provinces pay for health care and limit the funding they receive from Ottawa.
“As members of the Standing Committee on Health, we believe it is our responsibility as federal MPs to deal with this issue immediately,” added Davies. “This committee is accountable to the public. We ask the Conservative members of this Committee to listen to Canadians and work with New Democrats to ensure Canada live up to its commitments in the 2004 Health Accord and ensure we have a strong and sustainable public health care system for years to come.”