Safe and Fair Working Conditions Are Equally Important to Canada as the Transport of Goods
Safe and Fair Working Conditions Are Equally Important to Canada as the Transport of Goods
NDP MP Libby Davies, reminded the Liberals and the Conservatives today that safe and fair working conditions are equally important to Canada as the transport of goods. Davies, responding to a Liberal announcement, was not surprised to learn that the Liberal Party had once again abandoned working Canadians and called for back to work legislation in the legal CN rail strike.
“They joined the Conservatives and voted against leveling the playing field with anti-scab legislation, and now they are ganging up to undermine a legal strike, with hundreds of workers fighting for safe and fair working conditions” said Davies, the NDP Spokesperson for Labour.
“UTU members only want to get back to the negotiating table, and have agreed to minimal disruptions and continued commuter transportation. The workers are acting in good faith while the Liberals and Conservatives are offering an escape route for CN with a call for back to work legislation,” said Davies.
A Transport Canada March 2007 safety review of CN revealed that there are high safety defect rates at the company, and while CN is addressing some concerns, the report also showed that workers are under so much pressure to produce, there is a culture of fear of job loss that could compromise safe operations.
Davies added, “The union voted overwhelmingly to reject CN’s offer and so they should get back to the table. Instead, Liberal and Conservative threats to force workers back on the job can now be used as a bargaining chip by CN, erasing any chance for a fair collective bargaining process.”
The NDP will not support the back to work legislation, which would allow an appointed arbitrator to simply accept either the employer’s or the union’s proposal.
Libby speaking out on maternal and child health
Libby speaking out on maternal and child health
HANSARD DEBATES
House of Commons
March 23, 2010
Motion on Maternal and Child Health
Libby Davies (Vancouver East NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important debate. It is important that members of the House be able to express their strong opinions about this issue. The government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with previous governments that have stated that position, as well as all other G8 members last year in Italy. I certainly welcome this debate.
First and foremost, we have to insist that any initiative Canada takes forward must be based on scientific evidence as outlined in the motion before us today. That scientific evidence shows us that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths. That is a very significant statistic.
We are throwing around numbers and arguments and I hear the Conservatives claiming that this debate has been politicized. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is important that we stick to the facts and the scientific evidence about what needs to be done globally by Canada within the international community to prevent these kinds of deaths from taking place.
Looking at the statistics and facts that are available, it truly is shocking that more than 500 women die each year in pregnancy and nine million children die before the age of five. These deaths are entirely preventable if we set clear goals, objectives and outcomes and dedicate the necessary resources to ensure that very simple measures take place so that maternal and child health is made a primary priority.
For every woman who dies, there are 20 or more who experience serious complications as a result of their pregnancies. In fact, the World Health Organization has documented over and over again that the first step to avoiding maternal deaths is to ensure that women have access to family planning and safe abortions. That is a stated fact by the main UN body that monitors these things and does research. Anyone who disputes that is under some kind of strange illusion about what is going on in the world. It is important that we stick to the scientific evidence.
Family planning could prevent 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world by preventing risky births that are too close together, or are too early or too late in a woman’s life. This is a very real issue for women in the developing world. They need to have the education, be aware of prevention and have access to family planning at a grassroots level.
This is not rocket science. These are very basic provisions in supporting and empowering women and ensuring that they can carry safe pregnancies, engage in family planning and have control over it. To me, that is probably the most important thing. It is emphasized by the Stephen Lewis Foundation that when women have control over their own bodies and lives, when they can make their own decisions without a lot of resources, and we are talking about there being minimal resources for them, we will see a dramatic transformation take place. That is what the motion is trying to get at today.
The Conservative government has suddenly found this issue and stated that its goal is to focus on maternal and child health. It is important to point out because credibility on the record is something that counts here. It is fair to say that the Conservatives have very little credibility on issues affecting women in the developing world. Let us not forget that they are the ones who did away with the terms of gender equality, gender-based violence, impugnity and justice when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We in the NDP certainly welcome this interest that the Conservatives have suddenly developed in the health of mothers and children in the developing world, but it has to be on a comprehensive basis. It cannot be based on some sort of narrow ideological view. It has to be based on the scientific and factual evidence that is available globally, that has been developed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and many other organizations.
It will undermine Canada’s credibility if we do not advance these proposals in that broad way at the G8, if it becomes so narrowly focused with this conservative view, we become another embarrassment, just as happened in Copenhagen on climate change. I think Canadians feel pretty awful about what happens when we are on the international stage. The G8 is coming to Toronto. We have an opportunity to do something right, to express the will of the House and to do it in a comprehensive evidence-based way. I hope that is what will happen today.
Having said all of that, on the issue of credibility, a very stark question we have to ask is why the government is advancing this on the international stage, and yet here at home we still have appalling conditions for women and children in Canada. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
In my community of East Vancouver, there are women and children who are living far below the poverty line. They are living in slum housing. They are not getting enough food to eat. They do not have enough access to community-level health care provisions. There is no child care, or the waiting list is so long and child care is so expensive that the children cannot get in.
While we deal with the situation internationally, we are compelled to focus on what is happening in Canada also. These issues are not mutually exclusive. They do not cancel out each other. We demand of our government that it address both issues, that it address poverty here in Canada and poverty globally. They are very much interrelated in that it becomes a question of where resources go. If we did have a properly functioning gender analysis, whether it is on the budget that was just approved or whether it is on bills that come forward, there would be a much better analysis and a much better allocation of resources, instead of the incredible ideological and political frame that we have had to go through time and time again with the Conservative government.
I want to say in the strongest terms that I support the millennium development goals. I support Canada’s advancing this initiative as long as it is done in broad terms and it does not exclude family planning and access to safe abortions for women globally. I also feel very strongly that we have to set our sights on what is happening in our own communities. We have to recognize what is taking place in aboriginal communities. We have to recognize there are rural situations but there are also urban situations where people endure simply unliveable conditions which should not exist in this country.
Many organizations have done tremendous work on this issue not just over the last year or so but over the decades. I talked to a woman in the lobby a few minutes ago who told me she had been working on this issue for 30 years and she is very glad that this motion is being debated in the House today. It is very important that we recognize the work that is being done.
The Conservatives have somewhat reversed their position. Initially they were refusing to incorporate family planning into the maternal health initiative, and clearly they were absolutely out of step with the international community. I have to say that to me, it was a good lesson of what politics is about, to see the pressure both within the House and also in the broader community that took place, that forced the Conservatives to change their position.
I applaud groups such as Action Canada for Population and Development, the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, the Stephen Lewis Foundation and many others for the work they have done on this issue. They have made it clear that we will not tolerate a Conservative position that is so superficial it gives the illusion that it is helping women and children when in reality it is actually undermining the rights, freedoms and liberties of women and children not only in Canada but globally.
I hope the motion today will set us on the right course. Our leader and other members of our caucus have been raising this in question period. We will continue to press this matter until the Conservative government understands that if it wants to advance this proposal, it has to do it on the basis of supporting women’s equality and women’s rights and not denying women access to full services and programs, whether it be family planning or abortion. That is why this motion should pass today.
Long-time former MP Libby Davies reflects on what’s changed for women in Parliament
Long-time former MP Libby Davies reflects on what’s changed for women in Parliament
When it comes to women in politics, Libby Davies has seen a few things change. Davies was a Vancouver NDP member of parliament from 1997 until 2015 and in her new book, Outside In: A Political Memoir, she reflects on what’s changed for female leaders in Ottawa Read more at the link below.
The original article, Long-time former MP Libby Davies reflects on what’s changed for women in Parliament was published on May 23, 2019 in CBC. Author(s): Gloria Macarenko
Libby's Motion for Public Transit
Libby speaking out against Marc Emery’s extradition
Libby speaking out against Marc Emery’s extradition
VANCOUVER — Marijuana activist Marc Emery's battle to avoid going to a U.S. prison got a boost this week in the House of Commons. Three MPs — Libby Davies of the New Democratic Party, Ujjal Dosanjh of the Liberals and Scott Reid of the Conservatives — presented a petition asking Justice Minister Rob Nicholson not to sign extradition papers that would send Mr. Emery south to serve a five-year sentence for selling marijuana seeds online in 2005.
The original article, MPs move to block extradition of pot activist Emery was published on March 17, 2010 in The National Post. Author(s): Andy Ivens
Happy Pride Vancouver!
Nominations now being accepted for the 2014 Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism
Libby speaks up for the rights of refugees
Libby speaks up for the rights of refugees
[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_large”,”fid”:”155″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]
House of Commons
HANSARD
April 23, 2012
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this bill before, but we are now debating a reasoned amendment at second reading. I want to thank my colleague for Vancouver-Kingsway for putting forward the motion that we are now debating that would eliminate many of the very offensive provisions of this bill.
I listened to the government member who spoke before me. Obviously the government is feeling frustrated that yet again it cannot get one of its bills through. It brings in closure and tries to shut down debate. On this particular bill, as with many other bills that we have seen, the concern in the broader community is unbelievable.
I was in my riding over the last couple of weeks, as I know many members were. I heard from people time and again, particularly those working in the refugee settlement system assisting refugees, how worried they are about the bill and the fact that it is going through Parliament. I want to reflect how bad people think this bill is.
I am glad that we are having this debate and that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway put forward his motion. It gives us another opportunity to try to expose the grievous flaws in this bill. The bill would hurt people and tarnish Canada’s reputation as a place of refuge for refugees. In effect, it would create a two-tier refugee system and that is something we should be very concerned about.
I want to express concern about the discretion that the bill would give to the minister. I heard the minister earlier in his remarks saying that is not true and not something that would happen. However, when one reads it, this is clearly a strong element of the bill. Again, it is a trend that we have seen with the Conservative government. It tends to centralize more and more power in a minister’s hands and take away power from experts, panels and the system itself. It raises enormous suspicion among Canadians about the political motivation of the government with this kind of legislation.
We have a specific concern that the bill would make it easier to terminate refugee protection. I was astounded to learn that even once individuals became permanent residents they could have that taken away from them after the fact if conditions changed in their country of origin. This would create incredible uncertainty for refugees who had gone through the process and become permanent residents. In fact, it may even contravene international norms on the treatment of refugees. This is very concerning.
We have already had some debate and discussion on the clause that would prohibit refugee claimants who have been incarcerated in their home country for over 10 years and would not allow for tribunal discretion in the case of political prisoners. I heard the member give an example. What about someone like Nelson Mandela who is now an honorary citizen of Canada? Under the proposed system, he would not have been allowed in Canada. This very broad brush being cast over the system would deny unique and important circumstances of people who have been under political persecution to get the kind of protection they need. This leads me to wonder about the motivation behind a number of these bills.
I hear Conservative members time and again focus on the word “abuse”. It seems to me, whether it is the drug bills, bills under the criminal justice system or Bill C-31, they focus on a number of issues around abuse, make out that it is the norm and then penalize the whole system. They basically take a very hard-line approach on the whole system which penalizes legitimate claimants. I think this is very wrong. It is a pattern that has been emerging with the Conservative government in more and more legislation that has come before the House.
One of the areas of most concern in the bill is the changes to humanitarian and compassionate consideration. I know many of us, in our local constituencies, assist with casework for refugees. In my riding of Vancouver East, my staff and office work very hard. Over the years we have had hundreds of cases in which we have helped claimants with humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It is a very important element of the process.
The fact is the changes being contemplated in the bill mean that while claimants are waiting for an Immigration & Refugee Board decision, they cannot apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds concurrently. That means claimants have to make a very difficult decision at the beginning as to whether they want to file for refugee status or humanitarian and compassionate consideration. We know that failed refugee claimants cannot apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds for one year following a negative decision and possibly, by that time, they may have been deported.
Why is this important? I know from the casework we have done in our community that many people can have a refugee claim denied, but nonetheless may have a legitimate claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Our belief is that a failed refugee claim should not get in the way of humanitarian and compassionate consideration.
This change in the act will make it more and more difficult and onerous for refugee claimants to actually have options before them, which they now have. It is definitely a hardening of the system. It is a narrowing of the criteria. It is a focus on abuse that now applies system-wide and makes it much more difficult for people.
As a result of these changes, if they do go through, members of Parliament are going to find it very difficult to work with claimants in our local communities and we are going to see a lot of hardship. We are going to see people facing a system that has closed down on them. I am very worried and concerned about the impact the bill will have.
Another concern with the bill is the fact that the minister will have the power to designate a group of refugees as irregular arrivals. Exactly what that means and what the criteria will be is something we will need to find out. We need to find out how this will work. The very fact that it will create two classes of refugee claimants is something about which we should be very concerned.
As many of the experts have pointed out, and I referred to some of the organizations earlier that had voiced their concerns about the bill, this section of the bill is very possibly a violation of charter equality rights and also international conventions. The notion of detaining mandatory detention for up to a year when the minister has designated irregular arrivals is very offensive to us.
I remember reading over the years about the situation that took place in Australia where it had mandatory detention. First, it created a political environment of hatred against refugees and allowed that environment to get stronger. I think that is what we will see here. This is what the Conservative government is apparently motivated by creating an environment where we can beat up on refugees and say that somehow everybody is abusing the system.
The idea of having two tiers of refugees and singling certain people out when they may be legitimate refugees is very problematic.
I am proud that the NDP has stood in opposition to the bill, because there are serious flaws and concerns about it. It should be scrapped. I hope the amendment of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is approved in the House so we can go back to the drawing board and do this properly.
Nothing solved by eviction – Libby on BC forfeiture laws – Libby Davies
Nothing solved by eviction – Libby on BC forfeiture laws
On a clear, crisp March morning, Marianne Christine Sullivan sits on a dock at Trout Lake in east Vancouver and talks about being homeless and broke after the B.C. government took her $562,000 home under civil forfeiture legislation….Vancouver East MP Libby Davies says the sad situation Sullivan faces as a homeless person likely means it will cost society far more in the long run than what was taken with the forfeiture. “It is unbelievable this could happen to her,” she says. “The fact is, she is now living on the street and suffering from an addiction. What has been solved by making her homeless?
The original article, Bad luck and a bad crowd, but she’s ‘not a criminal’ was published on March 10, 2010 in The Vancouver Province. Author(s): John Colebourn