Author: admin

Libby speaks ups to ban oil tanker traffic off BC’s coast – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin
Posted on 2010.12.2

Libby speaks ups to ban oil tanker traffic off BC’s coast

Today Libby spoke out in the House to support the NDP Oppostion Day Motion on banning oil tanker traffic off BC’s coast.

HANSARD
House of Commons
December 2, 2010

Motion:
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley) : That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately propose legislation to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound as a way to protect the West Coast’s unique and diverse ocean ecosystem, to preserve the marine resources which sustain the community and regional economies of British Columbia, and to honour the extensive First Nations rights and title in the area.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) :
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

I was just listening to the Conservative member who said he is not going to take any lessons from the NDP, and that is fine. We sort of expect that. However, at the heart of this debate today is whether or not the Conservative government is going to take any lessons from the people of B.C. and whether or not it is actually going to listen to the people of B.C.

The first thing I would like to do is thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for bringing forward this excellent motion that would ensure there is legislation to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance. This is something that the member, along with other members of our caucus, has worked on diligently and passionately. It has been part of the broad public discourse in our province over this issue. I would like to thank the member and congratulate him for the fine work that he has done.

I would also like to give recognition to Catherine Bell, who was a member of this House for Vancouver Island North and who will again be a member of this House. In 2008, it was Catherine Bell who brought forward Bill C-571 and introduced legislation to ban tanker traffic in this same area. We are very appreciative of the work that Catherine Bell did on this issue. She is still working on this issue. It is of key interest to people in Vancouver Island North, and we know that she will be back here to represent those folks very soon.

To me this motion is very straightforward. When we look at what is at risk here, in terms of one of the most pristine, beautiful parts of our planet, our country and certainly in British Columbia, the thought of these massive super tankers carrying this oil from the Enbridge pipeline and from the tar sands through this very ecologically and historically sensitive, beautiful area is something that nobody in British Columbia can contemplate.
The risks are so high that there is obviously nothing more to be said than that we need to have a legislative ban to make it abundantly clear that this is not acceptable in terms of the risk to our environment and to our local communities.

This motion today does present a very clear choice. When one begins to look at the people who have weighed on this issue, poll after poll has consistently supported a ban on tanker traffic by as much as 80%. We know the proposed pipeline by Enbridge crosses the territory of more than 50 first nations. That is massive.

We know that coastal first nations made a very important declaration on banning tanker traffic on their traditional territory in March 2010. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, representing many communities, large and small, also passed a resolution at their convention in October. That is very recent. The First Nations Summit Chiefs Council passed a resolution, also in October. The list goes on and on.

I do believe that part of this debate today is whether or not the Conservative government is listening to the people of British Columbia. This is the government that got itself elected by saying that it was going to be accountable to British Columbians, that we would not experience western alienation, and that the people of British Columbia counted.

What has the government done, time after time? Let us just think of issues like the HST. I do not remember one Conservative member standing up and saying anything in defence of their constituents and how they felt about the HST. They all ran for cover. They tried to pass it off on the Gordon Campbell Liberals, and we saw what happened to him.

That was one example of where the Conservative members of Parliament from British Columbia refused to listen to their constituents in B.C. Let us look at Insite, in my community. There has been a groundswell of support for lifesaving measures for people who are facing addiction and overdoses. The board of trade, the local police, city council, the premier of B.C., all supported Insite along with the local community, and most importantly the people who use the facility.

What did the government do? It is taking it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is fighting it every step of the way.
We could look at the destaffing of lighthouses in B.C., where small coastal communities that are dependent on this very important service, and the staffing of lighthouses, are now facing another uphill battle in terms of the future of those lighthouses and the staffing that has been there.

We could name issue after issue on which the Conservatives have abandon the people of British Columbia. However, on the issue of supertankers going through this very sensitive area in B.C. is probably the most significant thing that has happened to date. I have to say that Conservative members should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring all of the opinions and strong feelings out there about what this motion means.

The government can go ahead and ignore the NDP, we can deal with that and we will fight tooth and nail in this Parliament, but if the government votes against this motion, then it is a clear indication of how it feels about the people in their local communities.

I was very proud recently to host a public forum with two of my colleagues from Burnaby—Douglas and Burnaby—New Westminster on the issue of tanker traffic. We had a full house with leaders from industry, the Marine Pilots’ Association, environmental activists from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and a number of excellent speakers. I know all of us heard the concerns from folks in Burnaby and in east Vancouver and how strongly they feel about these issues.

This is more than the supertankers. As we know, this is linked to the growth in the tar sands. I think it is well-known that if this pipeline goes ahead and these tankers are allowed to operate, it will lead to a massive growth of the tar sands by at least 30%. That has been raised in the debate here today. It throws into question the whole future of the tar sands and why it is that we are so hell bent on exporting this raw bitumen to other countries and using this pipeline. At least, as a first priority, we should have a made in Canada energy policy that respects our domestic markets and serves our local markets, instead of shipping out raw resources, notwithstanding the environmental damage that will take place.

I strongly support this motion today. It will be an environmental travesty if we allow these proposals to go ahead. As legislators, we should take a clear stand and position to say that there should be a ban on these supertankers through this area of northern B.C. That is what we are here to do. We are here to represent our constituents. We are here to make decisions that respect the future of our environment. I cannot think of a more important thing that we have to do.

If we are not willing to take this on and recognize that there is a public interest at stake here, then we are abdicating our responsibility. If we only listen to the statements by the captains of industry about what they see as future profits and export markets, then we are not getting the full picture. I believe that the people in our communities, our constituents, are demanding that we, as legislators, bring a balanced and fair view to the decisions we make. The environment is part of that. The social impact is part of that. The impact on first nations is part of that.

Organizations, like the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the First Nations Summit, the labour organizations and many others, have supported this ban. They have come to this conclusion because they are looking at the full picture. They are looking at the impact on the environment. They are looking at the impact on future generations and the image of what a spill would look like in that area of British Columbia, which is something that none of us want to even contemplate.

I urge my colleagues to support this very important motion today. We will be watching very closely to what every member of the Conservative Party for British Columbia does on this motion. We want to know if they have been listening to their constituents to uphold the future of our province, our environment and to ensure we do not go through a scenario of disaster, which will surely result unless we pass this motion.

MDC’s Miami Book Fair Presents Books on the LGBTQIA+ Experience – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin

MDC’s Miami Book Fair Presents Books on the LGBTQIA+ Experience

Sunday Nov. 24, at 1:30 p.m. LGBTQ Lives Wolfson Campus, Room 3209 (Bldg. 3, Second Floor) 300 N.E. Second Ave. Edie Windsor, an icon of the gay rights movement presents A Wild and Precious Life a lively, intimate memoir describing gay life in 1950s and 60s New York City and her longtime activism, which opened the door for marriage equality. Judith Kasen-Windsor, Edie’s widow, will talk about Edie’s groundbreaking life. Transgender reporter Samantha Allen takes a narrative tour through the surprisingly vibrant queer communities sprouting up in conservative states, offering a vision of a stronger, more humane America in Real Queer America: LGBT Stories from Red States. Part memoir, and part analysis of the political process, Outside In: A Political Memoir is the work of Libby Davies, the first openly lesbian MP in Canadian politics.

The original article, MDC’s Miami Book Fair Presents Books on the LGBTQIA+ Experience was published on October 22, 2019 in MDC News. Author(s): Miami Dade College

Gangs and Prohibition – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin
Posted on 2009.03.4

Gangs and Prohibition

Like other metro Vancouver communities, East Vancouver has been recently caught in the horrific and terrifying gun violence, resulting from gangs involved in organized crime and drugs. I have heard from a number of constituents who are horrified at what’s taking place and have a sense of dread at the level of violence, randomness, and the impact on innocent people. I share that horror too. No one should have to live in fear in their home and community.

Even the Provincial Attorney General and Solicitor General have noted that “of the over 200 incidents of reported shots fired in the Vancouver region in 2008, the vast majority are a direct result of organized crime’s drug trade”.

Federal New Democrats in Ottawa have called for:

* an overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime;
* an improved witness protection program;
* more resources for prosecution and enforcement;
* toughened proceeds of crime legislation;
* more officers on the street as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered; and
* better and more prevention programs to divert youth-at-risk.

I am also very mindful that while we need immediate action to prevent gun violence and shootings on our streets, we cannot ignore the big question of our drug laws and prohibition and the impact it has on all of us.

It’s time to have an honest debate about prohibition and recognize that things have gotten worse not better. The so-called war on drugs has cost billions of dollars and has incarcerated millions of people both in Canada and the US, and has fuelled organized crime.

Since being elected in 1997, I have been a strong advocate for changing Canada’s drug laws. I have seen all too often the impacts of an enforcement regime that targets drug users, instead of recognizing the need for a public health approach. I have always supported INSITE and other harm reduction measures, as well as accessible treatment, as a more intelligent approach to drug use.

It’s time to look at new polices and a system based on regulation and control, not outright prohibition, which is no deterrence at all.
We need to recognize that drug use, both what is deemed legal and illegal, has always existed, and that the best policy is to provide realistic and honest education about substances that can be harmful, and provide help where needed for addictions.
It’s time to embark on a common sense approach and accept the overwhelming evidence that the war on drugs has caused more death, pain, harm and crime than we can bear, and that it’s time to stop it.
I know that’s not going to happen overnight – but let’s at least have the courage to see what’s failed and what alternatives there are.

We can begin with Marijuana and ensure there is real information and education, especially for young people – and ensure there are clear rules that spell out what is allowed for adult use.
Or we can continue on this tragic course of playing on people’s fear and trying to convince people that tougher and tougher laws will make it all go away.

It’s not an easy debate, but I believe we have to have it and recognize what is happening here.

Any feedback or comments are welcome!

Libby

The Conservative government needs to address hunger and poverty in Canada – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin
Posted on 2013.03.4

The Conservative government needs to address hunger and poverty in Canada

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_large”,”fid”:”244″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

House of Commons

HANSARD

March 4, 2013

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, what a typical response.

An international expert reports on a real problem in our communities and the Conservatives respond by attacking the messenger.

A serious government would recognize that 800,000 Canadians depend on food banks every month.

A serious government would listen to UN concerns about nutrition, especially for children.

When will the Conservatives stop ignoring these problems and bring in measures to ensure good nutrition and bring an end to hunger in this country?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Artic Council, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is the same member who wants to create a massive new bureaucracy called the sodium registry.  Those members want to force every family bakery, every family restaurant to register with the government how much salt they put in their foods.  Canadians do not want bureaucracy; they want choices.  That is why our focus is on providing Canadians with information they need to make health decisions for their families.  This just goes to show again how out of touch the NDP is with Canadians.

Alberta would be $810-million winner under new health scheme – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin

Alberta would be $810-million winner under new health scheme

VICTORIA — The Harper government’s health plan is often said to divide booming western provinces and poorer eastern provinces. But, more accurately, it pits Alberta against everyone else. Alberta would be handed about $810 million more under Ottawa’s new per capita transfer model if it were in place today, calculations by The Chronicle Herald show. Every other province would lose out…The federal NDP has gone so far as to say Prime Minister Stephen Harper designed the system to pit the provinces against each other in a divide-and-conquer strategy. "This is a very calculating prime minister," said federal NDP health critic Libby Davies. "I’m sure he knew full well that just slapping down one formula was going to create divisions. I just don’t think there’s any two ways about that."

The original article, Alberta would be $810-million winner under new health scheme was published on January 18, 2012 in The Chronicle-Herald. Author(s):

Ottawa mayor Jim Watson: After 40 years, I’m opening the closet door – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin

Ottawa mayor Jim Watson: After 40 years, I’m opening the closet door

“There were some great pioneers in the political world who I would consider positive role models – locally councillors such as Stéphane Émard-Chabot, Alex Munter and Catherine McKenney; provincially people such as George Smitherman, Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray; and federally Svend Robinson, Libby Davies, Scott Brison and Rob Oliphant.”

The original article, Ottawa mayor Jim Watson: After 40 years, I’m opening the closet door was published on August 17, 2019 in The Ottawa Citizen. Author(s): Jim Watson

Libby speaking out against the Conservative’s budget – Libby Davies

Posted on by admin
Posted on 2010.04.20

Libby speaking out against the Conservative’s budget

HANSARD DEBATES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Arpil 15, 2010

Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. I want to begin my remarks by commenting on the enormity of this bill. It is 872 pages long and has 24 different parts.

When one goes through the bill, whether one goes through the summary or starts looking at the bill in its totality, one can see immediately that the Conservative government has decided to use this bill as a cover for all kinds of very negative and bad public policy initiatives. We are certainly aware of that and this is one of the reasons it is very important that debate take place on Bill C-9.

I would add to the comments made by my colleagues that it is very ironic that Conservative members are choosing not to debate this bill, because it is simply enormous when one considers what is covered in it. We did hear the budget speech and we had the budget itself, but this budget implementation bill goes far beyond what was contained in the budget. It is using itself as a cover for all kinds of draconian measures. I will mention a couple.

Environmental assessment is a very important issue in terms of ensuring that the public interest is represented in dealing with environmental issues. Why is it in a budget implementation bill that the minister will now have all kinds of discretion to dictate the scope of environmental assessments of any of the projects to be reviewed? Why would it be that federally funded infrastructure projects can now be exempted from environmental assessment?

These are very serious questions which in and of themselves should be debated separately through legislation in a debate in the House, yet they have been slipped into Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. We are very concerned about that. We are very disturbed that the government is yet again using these kinds of means to try and slip important matters through the House.

The Conservatives did it a few years ago with Bill C-50, when they brought in all kinds of very substantive changes to the Citizenship and Immigration Act. They used a budget bill to do that. We see the same in this bill with Canada Post. We know that the Conservatives have tried to move a bill through the House which in effect would privatize aspects of Canada Post and affect the jobs and services that are provided by that crown corporation and federal agency.

We have held up that bill. We prevented it from coming forward. What is the response? Yet again, the Conservatives are trying to slip it through in the budget implementation bill. I am actually surprised that they did not try to include the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and sneak that one through, too, because we have been holding that one up.

I want to reserve the rest of my comments for issues pertaining to what I think are very serious in my community and how this budget implementation bill does not deal with them.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East. It is a wonderful riding, full of activists and great neighbourhoods, and yet right now in the city of Vancouver there is a crisis taking place. The seven Vancouver homeless emergency action team shelters are slated to close by April 30.

Those shelters have been providing a safe, warm, appropriate place for people to go where there is a laundry facility, food, good management and care for about 600 people a night. There was a lot of suspicion that these shelters were put up just for the Olympics. Hundreds of thousands of people were in our city for the Olympics. We were all aware that we had a serious homelessness and housing affordability crisis in our city. These shelters were opened and they have provided support to people. That has been very important. Now they are going to close.

In fact, there has been a very public conflict going on between the province of B.C. and the city of Vancouver as to what will happen with these shelters. What is remarkable to me is that the federal government has not said one word. There is nothing about the federal homelessness partnering strategy and that maybe it could provide some assistance with these shelters now slated to be closed and the fact that there will be hundreds of people out on the street. It is just so staggering to understand what is taking place.

We are dealing with issues in my community that are deeply systemic. This housing crisis has gone on for two decades. It started with the former Liberal government that eliminated all of the housing programs. My Bill C-304 would try to get the federal government back into housing by working with the provinces, municipalities, first nations and civil society.

This crisis is incredible to me. People are out on the street in our city right now and more people will be out on the street because these shelters are going to close down.

The annual homeless count that was done on March 23 showed that the number of homeless people in Vancouver had increased 12% from 2008 from 1,576 people to 1,762 people. Those are numbers but we also need to think about this in terms of individual people. We need to think about the impact on people’s lives when they do not know where they will go each night, do not have access to proper food, do not have a decent income, do not have proper shelter assistance to keep out of the cold and wet weather and do not have access to laundry facilities. These figures are staggering.

The only good news, if there is any good news, is that 1,300 of those 1,700 homeless people were in shelters. In fact, the number of people in shelters has increased, which is good, but, as I said before, these shelters will be closing.

I have to question the government with this budget implementation bill that is nearly 900 pages long as to why there is nothing in the budget that will help the City of Vancouver deal with this crisis as it tries to cope with the costs. It costs the city about $7 million to keep these shelters open when the federal government could be doing that.

The City of Vancouver, like other municipalities, relies on the property tax base. It does the best it can in stretching every single dollar. It has gone more than its distance and more than its responsibility in ensuring that these shelters are operating. It did get some assistance from the provincial government but most of that is now coming to an end.

This raises a very stark contrast. On the one hand, we see a budget that continues with outrageous tax breaks to corporations in the billions of dollars, robbing the public purse of desperately needed revenue, and on the other hand, we see communities, like the Downtown Eastside and other communities across the country, where people are destitute on the street and do not know where they will go each night.

A budget is about disclosing the real priorities and the real objectives of a government. We have had so much emphasis and focus on crime bills and little boutique bills. We have had so much overemphasis on law enforcement and tough on crime measures that will solve every problem we have, but we have deeply systemic and complex social issues in the urban environment, whether it is a lack of funds for public transit,lack of funds for housing or lack of funds for child care. People are literally struggling each month to get by.

The plight of homeless people is quite shocking but it affects a broader segment of society too. I know lots of working folks where both parents are working and making minimum wage or maybe a bit more and they are struggling to keep up with exorbitant child care costs, even if they can get into child care.

In addressing Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, I want to put it right out there that this is an outrage and a shame in terms of what the government has not done to address some of these ongoing and deeply systemic issues in our country. The gap is growing between wealth and poverty. More Canadians are falling into an environment where they cannot make ends meet.

We saw a wonder film the other night Poor no More that was premiered here on Parliament Hill hosted by Mary Walsh that showed so well in a very articulate way what is taking place for the working poor. These are people who are working, many of whom are getting a minimum wage. It showed how people are struggling and are actually living below the poverty line.

This is a bad budget implementation bill because it does not deal with what needs to be dealt with in my community and other communities. I hope that we can convince other members of the House not to support it.

Top