So-called ‘tough’ drug bill all about politics
So-called ‘tough’ drug bill all about politics
After 35 years of experience with mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, Americans are beginning to abandon this discredited approach. Yet Stephen Harper's Conservative government now wants to saddle Canadians with these expensive and ineffective laws.
The original article, 'Tough' drug bill all about politics was published on May 11, 2009 in The Toronto Star. Author(s): Editorial
Feed aggregator
Women on top of anti-war wave – Libby Davies
Women on top of anti-war wave
Not that all men are warmongers, but it’s striking how, in recent years, the most outspoken, out-front, outrageous and out-there peace activists have been women. And older women at that. Is it because, as our baby-making hormones ebb, our anti-war-mones take over? Here in Canada, we have the Raging Grannies, often seen at the front lines of demonstrations against everything from the U.S. attack on Iraq to the globalization of trade that exploits workers, including women and children, around the word.
The original article, Women on top of anti-war wave was published on May 6, 2009 in Toronto Star. Author(s): Antonia Zerbisias
Hearing testimony on the failures of C-15
Hearing testimony on the failures of C-15
All the witnesses appearing on Bill C 15 Mandatory Minimum Sentences for drug crimes) so far (save one who supports MMS) have flatly called for the Bill to be defeated. I agree this Bill must be defeated!! And indeed the NDP voted against it at Second Reading.
And now the BQ are saying, they too, will oppose it. The Liberals have said they will support the bill, with some amendments. They have asked witnesses a lot about the Drug Treatment Courts, which is a minor element of the Bill, and is there only as a small concession for those who think drug treatment courts are the way to go. (I don’t, for various reasons which I’m happy to elaborate on). But on the substantive issue of MMS for drug crimes they have been silent – and are prepared to vote for the Bill, it seems. I think the Liberals need to think this one through carefully…..as the Bill is the antipathy of the balanced four pillar approach, they have supported previously.
I will bring forward amendments to mitigate the worst elements of the Bill – but the NDP will remain opposed overall.
A very powerful witness on Monday was Deborah Small, from Break the Chains in New York. She provided excellent testimony of MMS experience in the US and the many lives and families that have been destroyed. Surely, we should learn from the US experience? I am still waiting for the Minister to produce ANY evidence he has, that MM’s for drug crimes work. (There’s lots to show they don’t work). This is a classic battle of Conservative ideology vs rational public policy. I’m doing all I can to ensure public policy wins out. For every one out there who has been so great on this – thank you – we’ve got to keep the pressure up – this Bill has to go!
Same Prom Different Dress
Same Prom Different Dress
Building projects in Ottawa have so far received only a slim share of infrastructure funds allocated by the Harper government, while more than half the federal money committed in Ontario is earmarked for major transit improvements for Toronto. A breakdown of investments by Infrastructure Canada since the January federal budget shows that $50 million for the new convention centre is the only Ottawa project funded by the Tories out of about $1.4 billion committed for the province.
The original article, Same Prom Different Dress was published on April 27, 2009 in The Ottawa Citizen. Author(s): Glen McGregor
Glen Hillson
Glen Hillson
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I along with my colleague from Burnaby-Douglas, all members of our NDP caucus and our leader Jack Layton hear of the death of Glen Hillson, one of the greatest AIDS activists in B.C. and indeed the world.
The people of B.C. and Canada are indebted to Glen’s heroic and tireless work for people with HIV-AIDS and his relentless advocacy for government action, research, support and dignity for persons with HIV-AIDS.
Glen Hillson, as the chair of BCPWA and one of the longest surviving people to live with AIDS, was much loved, enormously respected and inspired all of us to work for human rights, accessible health care and dignity for all people.
He will be deeply missed. I am sure that all Members of the House join us in offering our sincere sympathy to his dear partner Gerald, his family and all who have known him and his profound presence in our lives.
December 2003
Made in Canada
The STV thing
The STV thing
Well, the STV thing…..
I’ve had many calls from people wanting to know where I stand on it. People have stopped me and asked and to be honest, I’ve ducked. “Undecided”, I’ve said. And Mez has heroically sent me messages, info, and encouragement (thanks Mez!). So, where am I at?
First off, the “First Past the Post” system we have now needs to be changed – no question about that. I and the federal NDP are big supporters of Mixed Member Proportional Representation. I understand it. I can explain it. And you still vote for a local representative with the additional list of party candidates that balances a fair representation by population overall. And women and underrepresented minorities have an increased voice and representation. That’s all good. Only problem is, MMP isn’t on the ballot in BC. Single Transferable Vote is.
Now, I have looked at the STV website many times, I voted on it, practised, read the info, and well, I don’t really get it. In fact I defy anyone to explain how STV really works. I can’t quite follow where my vote goes – what with these “fractions” and “may” go here or there. So that’s one problem – I feel loath to support something I don’t quite understand. Then there’s the problem of lack of local representation as the areas are so big. Local representation could get bypassed in the transfer process. I’ve fought long and hard to change the “at-large” system of voting in Vancouver municipal politics – is STV just a slightly better version of it? And then there’s the question of supporting a system that gets more women elected. MMP does that – but I’m not so sure about STV, though Mez assures me, it too, will help increase the representation of women in elected office.
The bottom line? People say to me – this is the best chance we have to get democratic electoral reform through, now and not in the distant future, especially as the last referendum was so close. This is a good point. Like many, I want change – progressive change – and I want to see the cynicism that people feel about politics and the political process change too. Not that STV will answer all that – it won’t. But maybe it’s a first step to affirm change brought forward by citizens, not political parties.
So here I am, in answer to all the questions about my position – I can’t duck it any longer. I’m voting YES to STV. I’m a bit of a reluctant comer to it and I’ve got my issues about it. But I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing to do, at least for my one vote! If it goes through and it turns out to be a dud, I’ll freely admit it, and work harder for MMP, as hard as it might be to get it. Alternatively, what I really hope is that STV will lead us to the next step of MMP.