Libby Davies speaks to the Simi Sara Show about her new memoir – Libby Davies

Libby Davies speaks to the Simi Sara Show about her new memoir

Former NDP MP, Libby Davies, joins the Simi Sara Show this holiday Monday to talk about her newly-published memoir, Outside In.

News 1130: Libby Davies looks back in Outside In: A Political Memoir – Libby Davies

News 1130: Libby Davies looks back in Outside In: A Political Memoir

From community organizer to city councillor to member of Parliament, Libby Davies has spent a lifetime fighting for Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Now, she is sharing her story in a new book. Outside In: A Political Memoir begins with her early days with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, more than 40 years ago. “It was a neighbourhood, it was a community of people,” she says. “It wasn’t just some area that could be wiped out.

EXCERPT: The federal NDP must stand tall in its commitment to a boldly progressive agenda – Libby Davies

EXCERPT: The federal NDP must stand tall in its commitment to a boldly progressive agenda

Originally published in rabble.ca, May 16, 2019

In 2015, Libby Davies retired as deputy leader of the NDP and member of Parliament for Vancouver East, after four decades of work as a politician, community organizer and activist for progressive causes. Her recently published book, Outside In: A Political Memoir, recounts her career and the causes she has worked for, from the legalization of same-sex marriage to housing justice and access to safe injection sites on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. In the following excerpt, Davies diagnoses what went wrong for the NDP in the 2015 federal election and how the party can avoid the same pitfalls in the future.

Many things have been written about the 2015 federal election, which sent the NDP back to third place with a Liberal majority government in power. Having retired from political office prior to the election, I nevertheless helped with the national campaign in B.C. What the NDP did or didn’t do — or should have done — has been the subject of much debate. What I think about is our drift . . . like a lifeboat cast from the mothership.

The common analysis is that the NDP abandoned some of its traditional social democratic principles and Thomas Mulcair took the party to the centre, in the hope that we would attract more centre-minded voters, particularly when it came to supporting balanced budgets. But it’s a lot more complicated than that. I think we lost the imagination of the voters because we thought being an efficient and pragmatic electoral machine would do the job. It didn’t begin with Tom; it began earlier as attention focused on “winning” — not at any cost, but by drifting at the margins.

What I dwell on is thinking that said: “it’s what’s happening in Parliament that Canadians pay attention to and determines how they will vote in an election.” That thinking bolstered our hope that we could win in 2015.

Certainly, what happens in Parliament is enormously important. The terrible legislation passed by Harper’s government, his disregard for democracy, his secrecy, arrogance, and elitism, it was all part of a decade of darkness. Fighting the government in Parliament was our job, and we did it well.

But somewhere along the way we lost our bigger vision and connection with people, including some of our base, as we became focused on winning. We forgot how to be creative and bold outside of Parliament and bring people with us.

One example involved the legalization of marijuana. I cannot fathom why we didn’t clearly take a stand. Instead, we let the Liberals walk all over us with their pronouncements on marijuana. For years the NDP had led the way on drug policy reform; we had been the first federal party in 1971 to call for the decriminalization of marijuana before legalization was even raised.

The need for a regulatory and legalized approach is obvious — just as it was during the prohibition of alcohol. But somehow, despite excellent resolutions crafted by NDP marijuana activist Dana Larsen calling for such an approach from more recent NDP provincial and national conventions, we couldn’t say it clearly and unambiguously. We wrapped ourselves in a blanket that we were protecting ourselves from Conservative attacks and that it was a niche issue that only a few people cared about.

I fought tooth and nail, along with Dave Christopherson in caucus, to get us on the right track. And many in the caucus supported a position of being bold and outspoken on the issue. In the end, we settled on lines that were so nuanced that they just missed the point. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was on the issue and we looked like tag-alongs, showing up after the fact.

The report of a parliamentary committee studying marijuana gave me the opportunity to table the NDP position in the House on June 15, 2015. Having worked closely with Steve Moran, the NDP’s head of parliamentary affairs and deputy chief of staff, I hoped the statement would make our policy clear — despite avoiding the term “legalization.” In part the statement read: “An NDP government would: Establish an independent commission with a broad mandate, including safety and public health, to consult Canadians on all aspects of the non-medical use of marijuana and to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use.” 

Unfortunately, our position was either ignored, or criticized by pro-legalization groups who thought the NDP had not gone far enough.

Of course that issue didn’t lose us the election. But it’s a nagging example of the mindset we got ourselves into. We acted cautiously and too late. The same with climate change, and natural resource management, including pipelines. We started on the right path and then somewhere along the way let ourselves limp along, becoming cautious and careful when people wanted boldness. As often happens in federal politics, we became focused on “managing” what was perceived as a difficult issue, particularly as it impacted various provincial party interests, rather than simply doing the right thing.

No political party is exempt from this kind of game plan; maybe it’s an inevitable outcome of our federation and its complexity of federal/provincial/territorial relations. But there are moments when it is necessary to speak truth to power. I think of the history of the NDP and its opposition to the War Measures Act during the 1970 October Crisis or the original anti-terrorism legislation in 2001, or earlier, speaking out against the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War — these were historic moments that displayed courage and integrity.

All of this to say, I am an optimist by nature and proud of so much of what the NDP does and stands for. I know we face formidable double standards in the mainstream media. Regardless of how well we do, they would still find a way to trash or ignore us. On that I am cynical. All the more reason for us to be smarter than all of them, and find new ways to do politics with people who have a passion for social justice and a better world.

In these political times, the NDP is needed more than ever. The rise of right-wing populism even here in Canada and the underwhelming position of Trudeau’s Liberal government on crucial issues such as climate change, democratic electoral reform, income inequality, and more make it crucial for the federal NDP to stand tall and unwavering in its commitment to a boldly progressive agenda. We must embrace a post-fossil-fuel economy and lead the way on an economic and social transition to it, and demonstrate that retraining, good jobs, and social advances create a healthier economy and healthier society overall.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain when we stand by what we believe in and learn from the historical roots that are our foundation. Tommy Douglas brought public health care that we couldn’t now not imagine. Jack Layton brought hope and optimism that a different kind of politics and country is possible. I know we have the ability and capacity to realize a vision with Canadians where people live their lives to the fullest potential without destroying the environment around us.

Excerpted with permission from Outside In: A Political Memoir, by Libby Davies (Between the Lines, 2019). Image credit: Joshua Berson

Government – Libby Davies

Government

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): – Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.

We showed up in this session ready to get to work and ready to get something done for Canadians. What did we get? We got a do nothing legislative agenda that is filled with housekeeping bills, committee reports and even leftovers from the Chrétien years.

I have a very straightforward question. Does the government have a priority for the fall, and if so, where is it and what is it?

Getting women into Canada’s Parliament – Libby Davies

Getting women into Canada’s Parliament

Originally published in Policy Options, May 14, 2019

Former NDP MP and deputy leader Libby Davies, who recently published a memoir, and political scientist Jeanette Ashe discuss gender and elected office.

Jeanette Ashe: You’re one of few women ever elected to Canada’s House of Commons, and you were also the first openly lesbian MP — where today LGBTQ MPs make up approximately 2 percent of the House. When you were first elected in 1997, there were only 62 women MPs, and when you left in 2015, there were 77 women MPs. This isn’t a terrific increase. Today, even with a prime minister who calls himself feminist at the helm, women make up only 27 percent of all MPs. While this is a record high, in real numbers it is only 90 women — less than one third of all MPs. And compared with other similarly situated countries, Canada’s international ranking of 62nd out of 193 is embarrassingly low, with most established democracies and many nondemocracies ahead of us.

We know women’s experience during the “pathway to Parliament” is different than men’s: they’re less likely to get recruited, to put their names forward, to get supported, to win the nomination, to sit in the House, and once there, they’re less likely to stay and get promoted to the front benches. But you shattered these odds.

Libby Davies: It never entered my mind that I shouldn’t run because I was a woman, but along the way I’ve reflected on the barriers. I don’t recall the party encouraging me the time I first ran — if anything, it was “hands off.” I’d been a parks commissioner and city councillor prior to running — and I had also run for mayor — so I had the experience behind me. I was encouraged by people in the community to run, and I wanted to run because I was so frustrated that the government had cut social housing as part of its austerity program in 1995. Before I put my name forward, though, I thought about who else was running, in particular a well-known male activist in the community. I was concerned about having two well-known activists run against each other, and I tried to speak to him about it. He didn’t divulge what he was planning. I realize now that my approach to running was gendered. In the end, I went ahead and ran. I discuss this in more length in my book.

Winning the nomination

JA: Many frame the “why are so few women in politics” question as a party issue: to get elected, you first need to get selected as a party’s candidate in a coveted “safe seat.” Party members are often inclined to choose candidates who look like politicians who’ve come before. Among other things, “standard-model candidates” tend to be white straight men. Many believe voters prefer such candidates, although research fails to support this claim. Still, in some parties, members are much more likely — with my own work suggesting up to five times as likely — to choose men over women.

LD: In that first nomination I ran against four men and it was a tough race — I won by a handful of votes. Over the years I’ve talked to many women who’ve sought nominations, some successful, some not. They all said the same thing: it wasn’t what they expected. It was combative, stressful and hard to raise money, and they often felt like they were up against an invisible set of controls that didn’t include them. I made it through because I had people on my side who knew how it worked — inside the party, and that was critical. These were people who knew how to sign up members and work a campaign. The nomination speech was crucial, and I worked hard with my team to hit the key issues, and to practise, practise, practise. I had a base from my previous electoral and activist experience and a reputation as a progressive fighter, having been a city councillor for five terms. Without that experience and support I think I would have been lost and would have lost the nomination too!

Getting elected

JA: The masculine culture in society transfers to parties and legislatures. The historical exclusion of women from public life permits masculine practices and gendered outcomes: for example, once elected, women are less likely to be promoted at the same rates as men. It’s also well documented that there’s a problem with retention when it comes to women MPs — once elected, they don’t stick around for as long as men. Not only were you promoted to front bench positions, including House leader and deputy leader, but you were elected six times.

Libby Davies (left) with former NDP Leader Alexa McDonough (middle) at a rally on Parliament Hill, October 29, 2002. Photo by Kim Elliott.

LD: It’s much harder for women to stick around, especially if they have a young family. I was lucky that my son was already a young adult, but I talked with many women MPs who struggled with the conflicting messages from their party: on the one hand being told they supported women in office, but then facing the challenging hours of work, and the expectation that the party’s needs were top of the list of demands on your life. It seems like a never-ending struggle. Over 18 years I had the opportunity to work with several leaders — Alexa McDonough, Jack Layton, Nycole Turmel and Thomas Mulcair — as well as several PMs, including Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper. Women — especially the female leaders — faced a tough time in these years. What finally started to make a difference was the number of women and young people elected in the Orange Wave of 2011 — this is when issues like harassment, sexual harassment and family accommodation began to be seriously discussed.

Parliament Hill is like a sports game — it has winners and losers, and as a player you’re expected to take one for the team no matter the cost to your integrity. There’s an expectation that MPs will always play the game even when the rules aren’t written down but are shared through an inherited culture of rewards and punishments, and are reinforced by the media who are quick to report on the play-by-play. These unwritten rules were applied differently to women, and the punishments were harsher for women. For example, I remember when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals, giving them a critical budget-passing vote, in 2005. The gendered, derogatory language was unbelievable and appalling — both what was permitted in Parliament and especially how it appeared in the media. In contrast, when a male MP crossed the floor to another party, it was generally seen as a matter of principle!

Former NDP MP Olivia Chow (left), the late NDP Leader Jack Layton (middle), and Libby Davies (right), at the 2004 Pride parade in Vancouver. Photo by Kim Elliott.

I was astounded to learn there had only ever been one other woman House leader in the history of Parliament, and then only for a few weeks. I managed to last eight and a half years. It was here again that polite persistence and not playing games of one-upmanship helped me navigate the turmoil and unpredictability of minority Parliaments as NDP House leader.

Reflections

JA: Women are still underrepresented, not just in the House but as committee members, chairs and Speakers. The calendar, night sittings and inadequate child care make it difficult for many MPs to fully participate in the work of Parliament, especially those who are in the later stages of pregnancy, breastfeeding or caring for dependants. And #MeToo has arrived on the Hill. It’s no secret that women MPs and staff are subject to sexual harassment and are much more likely to experience gender-based heckling. Even beyond the Hill, women MPs are subject to much more sexual harassment on social media. But policies, where there are any, fail to address the deep masculinized power structures of Parliament. We’ve just seen two women senior cabinet ministers kicked out of the Liberal caucus — one of whom was the first Indigenous woman minister of justice and attorney general. The intersectional implications of this were not lost on the dozens of young diverse women participating in Daughters of the Vote, who turned their backs on the PM.

Your story as told in Outside In gets at the guts of Parliament’s masculine culture and offers insight into making it a more gender- and diversity-sensitive place, so that everyone working there — from MPs to staff — can fully participate.

LD: Changing the sexist and patriarchal history of a place like Canada’s Parliament is no easy task! The biggest challenge is getting more women and underrepresented groups elected. Talk isn’t good enough anymore — it’s the actions that count. This change is happening — the growing presence and power of younger voices, as in #MeToo or the Indigenous rights movement, is inspirational.

Parties must not only seek out candidates from underrepresented groups — they must demonstrate they’ll change the political culture so that when we’re elected, we can be successful and not made invisible. We must demonstrate that those powerful unwritten rules that are so crushing if you don’t play the game can be thrown out in favour of transparency and building good will, not hyperpartisanship.

The late NDP Leader Jack Layton (centre), then MP Thomas Mulcair (right), along with then NDP House Leader Libby Davies (left) make their way to a news conference in Ottawa on September 27, 2007. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand

The media can be sexist and homophobic in its reporting — from how we dress (when a man can just wear the same suit every day!) to how women are characterized as “aggressive” or demeaned as “hysterical” when they try to be heard. I’ve had my own experiences of homophobia in media and federal politics, which I describe in my book, from how the media relayed my experience of coming out, to how opponents from other parties have tried to use homophobia to their political advantage.

Progressive women leaders approach politics differently. Look at PM Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand and what a difference she has made. Look at younger women who are African American and Latina who are taking elected office in the toxic environment in US politics. We have a duty to speak out. Rights are never handed out. We fight for them and then must make sure they are not eroded and undermined.

It’s a lifetime of work.

How sexist they were when I entered politics … how youthfully polite I was – Libby Davies

How sexist they were when I entered politics … how youthfully polite I was

In the research for my book Outside In: A Political Memoir, I came across a 1982 election interview on BCTV with Jack Webster — the journalist known as “king of the Vancouver airwaves” at the time — where my right to run for city council was challenged based solely on my gender. This wasn’t my first election: I had run in civic elections for city council in ’76 and ’78, and had been elected as a Parks Commissioner in 1980. That year my partner, Bruce Eriksen, had been elected to city council. In the 1982 election we both again ran for council seats. In the Webster interview, Councillor George Puil took aim at Bruce, accusing him of “trying to get his wife Libby Davies elected to city council, so we will have a man and wife team on council!” Webster replied, looking at Bruce, “You’re joking! You both aren’t running for council at the same time are you?” The sexist “joking” carried on into his interview with me where Webster challenged who would care for my son if we were both elected? Read the full article below.

Speaking out against Canada Post cuts – Libby Davies

Speaking out against Canada Post cuts

House of Commons

HANSARD

February 27, 2014

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I and my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway recently hosted a community forum, where we heard from hundreds of constituents and concerned citizens about how upset they are about Canada Post ending home delivery. They wanted to know why the Conservative government is not standing up for them.

They applauded that Vancouver City Council has unanimously called on Canada Post to suspend the cancellation of home delivery.

We heard loud and clear the safety concerns, the impact on small businesses, seniors and people with disabilities.

People expressed strong support for their letter carriers, who play a critical role in keeping our neighbourhoods safe. My 93-year-old mother Margaret supports her letter carrier. Margaret knows there is no evidence to eliminate this important service.

It is a further erosion of public services driven by a political agenda.

Our community has joined with many others across Canada who say no to the elimination of home delivery.

Top