Libby speaks in support of more palliative care services – Libby Davies
Libby speaks in support of more palliative care services
House of Commons
HANSARD
April 1, 2014
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to support my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, and this great motion that he has brought before the House.
It is a simple and straightforward motion, but it is incredibly important. As the member outlined, it is really about establishing a pan-Canadian palliative care, end-of-life care strategy. It is about providing more support for caregivers, improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice, palliative, end-of-life care, and actually encouraging Canadians to discuss this issue.
When we look at our health care system, sometimes we think that things do not affect us. However, I think it is very true to say that we have all had experiences where a family member, a close friend or maybe a neighbour has been in the situation where they are approaching the end of their life, and it becomes a real struggle in terms of where they might be and what kind of care they might receive.
Palliative care and end-of-life care, whether it is in a hospice or at home, is something that is really very deep. It is very meaningful. For many years, we did not talk about these issues. We do not like to talk about death. We do not like to think about what happens to us at the end.
However, it is something we should talk about. More than that, it is something that we need to have public policy around. I think that is why this motion is so important. It does show us that across the country there are incredible examples of palliative care.
It is very patchy. For example, in my community in East Vancouver, the St. James Cottage Hospice, which is located in an historic building in Burrard View Park, is an amazing place. It is like a home. It is a place where people feel comfortable. It is where they have dignity. They do tremendous work.
Every year in our community, in East Vancouver, there is a festival of lights. The houses are dressed up with Christmas lights, and people vote and give donations, on the street adjacent to the palliative care home. The money goes to palliative care. It is the whole community coming together to express itself. It is a very wonderful initiative that is being taken undertaken.
What I think we need to state in this debate is that, unfortunately, there are big gaps in the system. I was very proud last Monday when the NDP unveiled a very important document based on 18 months of consultation across the country about health care in this country.
We actually did go out and talk to Canadians. We did our homework about what needs to be done to improve and sustain our public health care system. It is a wonderful document, and I would certainly urge people to go check it out on the NDP website.
In the public forums and the consultations that we held across the country, one of the key issues that came forward from people based on their own experience, their own need about what they know needs to happen was the fact that we need better home, long-term and palliative care. It came through to us again and again.
I would just like to quote from our document that we just put out a week ago.
| Canadians want to see home care, long term care, and palliative care recognized as essential medical services just like treatment in the hospital. These services are not luxuries, and they need to be fully accessible, whatever a patient’s income, and provided at the same high quality and standards wherever they live. |
That quote has come to us in our document because of what people told us. We are very cognizant of the fact that palliative care is part of a bigger issue that needs to be critically addressed in this country, and that is the issue of continuing care of which palliative care is a part.
We do need to have home care. We do need to have long-term care. Again, it is very spotty across the country. Some provinces do well, others do not. People who live in smaller and remote communities have very little access.
So the reliance that we have on acute care facilities, the over-reliance because there is nowhere else to go for people to end up in hospital, as the member for Timmins—James Bay pointed out. For people to die with dignity, they need to be in an appropriate place where there is support, resources, the right kind of medication to relieve pain, the right kind of guidance, whether it be spiritual or emotional, for their family.
These are probably the most important times in anybody’s life, yet it really does not exist across the country in the way it should.
I really want to make the point today that in debating this motion, let us recognize that it is linked to a bigger issue around our health care system and that we have to make sure that the federal government shows leadership on this issue.
There are many reforms needed in our health care system. This is one of them. Today, I met with a group, the Parkinson’s Association. I have met with many other groups. They all say the same thing, which is that the difficulty, the burdens financially and sometimes emotionally of caregiving and what that places on the family where people have to leave work, quit their jobs, take out loans creates an enormous stress and burden.
This is not what should be happening. There are incredible groups out there who have been calling for this kind of pan-Canadian end-of-life care strategy for so long. I think it is fantastic that we had an all-party parliamentary committee working on this issue.
Now is the time that we are actually having this debate. We have our own power here to vote, one by one. We have the power to say that this motion has merit, it is legitimate and it has all of this groundwork, all of this homework that has been done. It is non-partisan. It crosses all political lines. We have this opportunity in this House to vote for this motion and to actually say to the government that this is the will of Parliament.
It is based on what we hear from our constituents. It might be based on our own experience. I certainly have my own experience. My partner of 24 years died of cancer just before I was elected. We were very fortunate that we had palliative care at home under the B.C. health care system.
I cannot imagine what that experience, as hard as it was, would have been like if my partner had been in a hospital, just in a ward or maybe in the hallway. Being at home and having people around him who loved him and cared for him on a daily basis and having the professional help and support that we needed was critical to how we went through our own process of grieving and losing someone that we loved so much.
That is just my experience, and this is manifest by hundreds of thousands of people across the country every day, so I want to say, let us pay attention to the motion. Let us look at how it is putting something forward that is real and legitimate. Let us put aside partisanship. Let us recognize the good work that has been done on this issue by an all-party committee. Let us unite, come together and say to the government that we want to pass this motion and we do want the Government of Canada to establish a pan-Canadian palliative care strategy.
I would also like to move an amendment. I move,
| That the motion be amended by replacing the words “Canada (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of Canada’s first nation, Inuit and Métis people” with the words “Canada, as well as Canada’s first nation, Inuit and Métis people (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of all Canadians”. |
Libby speaks in support of more palliative care services
NEW DEMOCRATS LAUNCH CAMPAIGN TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF CONTINUING CARE
NEW DEMOCRATS LAUNCH CAMPAIGN TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF CONTINUING CARE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 31, 2013
NEW DEMOCRATS LAUNCH CAMPAIGN TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF CONTINUING CARE
OTTAWA – New Democrats will introduce legislation today to improve the quality of continuing care beyond the treatment of hospitals.
“Across this country we are seeing the growing gaps in continuing care between rural and urban, rich and poor” said NDP Health critic Libby Davies (Vancouver East).
“It is unacceptable that quality of life is being undermined because the federal government is disinterested in maintaining a national vision for health care and senior support” said Davies. “Improving palliative care cannot happen without greater changes to the health care system and attention to how resources are allocated.”
As well as Davies’ Private Member’s Bill on continuing care, MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) introduced a Private Member’s Motion that would establish a national strategy on palliative care.
“Only 16 to 30% of Canadians have access to quality end of life care. There are huge disparities in access and service across this country. I challenge the Harper government to join the conversation on the need for quality palliative home and hospice care for Canadians” said Angus.
Check out the full details on Libby’s bill on home, long-term, and palliative care:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/412/Private/C-545/C-545_1/C-545_1.PDF
Charlie Angus’ motion on palliative care:
M-456 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy by working with provinces and territories on a flexible, integrated model of palliative care that: (a) takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of Canada’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis people; and (c) has the goal of (i) ensuring all Canadians have access to high quality home-based and hospice palliative end-of-life care, (ii) providing more support for caregivers, (iii) improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative end-of-life care in Canada, (iv) encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by:Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River) — October 24, 2013Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — October 30, 2013
NDP MPs Libby Davies and Charlie Angus introduce bill to improve end-of-life care
NDP MPs Libby Davies and Charlie Angus introduce bill to improve end-of-life care
The NDP Thursday called for a national framework to improve the quality of end-of-life care in Canada. Libby Davies, the NDP’s health critic and MP for Vancouver East, introduced a private member’s bill in the House of Commons calling for a co-ordinated, national response to continuing care. The bill was seconded by Charlie Angus, ethics critic and MP for Timmins-James Bay, who added a motion to establish a national strategy on palliative care specifically. “We know that many, many Canadians are falling through the cracks, we know that there’s not enough home care, long-term care or palliative care to meet the current demand in Canada,” Davies said.
The original article, NDP MPs Libby Davies and Charlie Angus introduce bill to improve end-of-life care was published on October 31, 2013 in . Author(s): Chris O'Gorman
Updates from Libby
Forum focuses on health-care solutions
Forum focuses on health-care solutions
Linked to NDP caucus meetings held in St. John’s this week, the official opposition in Ottawa hosted a public forum on health care Thursday evening in St. John’s looking at the system’s future in Canada. According to NDP health critic Libby Davies, her party’s goal is to make sure Canadians’ priorities are also government priorities when it comes to health care. In her estimation, the governing Conservative Party is not doing its job on that front.
The original article, Forum focuses on health-care solutions was published on September 7, 2012 in The Telegram. Author(s): Andrew Robinson
Libby’s Motion on cost sharing for visiting dignitaries
Libby’s Motion on cost sharing for visiting dignitaries
The NDP wants the federal government to be able to recoup the security costs when ex-presidents visit Canada for private business. NDP MP Libby Davies introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling for the measure after a series of high-profile private visits to Canada by former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (To read Libby's Motion please follow this link: https://libbydavies.ca/parliament/statement/2009/10/27/libbys-motion-security-costs-visiting-dignitaries)
The original article, New Democrat MP wants to shift security bill was published on November 2, 2009 in The Edmonton Sun. Author(s): Peter Zimonjic
Libby speaks in oppostition to the Canada-Panama Trade Agreement
Libby speaks in oppostition to the Canada-Panama Trade Agreement
[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_large”,”fid”:”152″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]
HANSARD
House of Commons
March 29, 2012
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I feel all fired up after hearing the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She gave a great summary of how the NDP feels about the bill and why we are opposed to it. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24, the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.
This is not the first time that we have dealt with the bill and not the first time that we have fought the bill. It came to the House in the last Parliament. It was passed at second reading. It went to committee and many witnesses were called. It started to go through a clause-by-clause review. It was finally concluded in December 2010, but then died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.
The legislation was re-introduced in November 2011. We do get to have another kick at the can, so to speak.
I just want to outline why we on the NDP side feel so strongly opposed to this bill and other trade agreements that we feel are exploitative, narrow and, as the previous member said, do not take a comprehensive approach.
I want to thank the labour movement, the Canadian Labour Congress. Individual unions have paid enormous attention to some of these bills. I remember the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which we opposed vigorously in this House for several years, as did the labour movement. We really feel that these trade agreements lay down a regime. They continue the NAFTA-style agreement that does not respect the integrity of human rights, that does not respect or even understand what needs to be addressed in the signing country and what Canada’s role is in these agreements.
I think sometimes the Conservative government thinks that nobody is watching these innocuous bills, that these trade agreements are boring and technical, and that they will just slip through.
The fact is many groups pay attention to these particular trade agreements, whether it is the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress or individual unions. I know the steelworkers did an incredible amount of work on the Canada-Colombia trade agreement because of their concern about labour rights and human rights in Colombia.
In my own community in east Vancouver, there is a whole movement of what is called fair trade. Commercial Drive is the first community in Canada that has a fair trade retail district. Stores are encouraged to sell retail products to customers that have been obtained through fair trade practices – products that are certified, transparent and healthy.
It is a consumer movement. It is partly in reaction to these massive trade agreements that are now being sent through this House, not just by Canada, but also by other governments. I do think it is important to know that there is an incredible amount of interest in the whole notion of fair trade that respects the rights, the environment and social justice in the country that we are trading with and also respects the need for jobs here in Canada.
This is a pretty large issue. If the government thinks it is just sort of sliding it through with no one watching, I think that is clearly not the case.
I want to highlight a couple of the things that we tried to do because, as the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said, in the NDP we are not just opposing, we are actually proposing. We are being very proactive, putting forward amendments and trying to suggest what would improve a trade agreement.
When it went to the committee last year, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was our trade critic at the time. He did an incredible job of providing awareness about this trade agreement and the Canada-Colombia agreement. He moved numerous motions to try to address some of the grievous aspects of the bill, and he focused on the fact that the bill would do nothing with respect to the tax haven environment in Panama.
I was not at the committee, but I know from the member that there were many witnesses who spoke about their concerns with the tax haven environment in Panama and its poor record on labour rights. The member valiantly tried to put forward amendments to address this. It is very distressing to know that both the Conservative and Liberal members of that committee shot down these amendments. Therefore, there were attempts made at committee to make this agreement a better agreement. It seems to me that is our job as legislators.
I think it is important to note for the record that the Canadian government has requested greater tax information and transparency from Panama. It is very concerning that Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. In fact, this has led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. Is this the kind of place we should be trading with?
We expect transparency in our country. Although it is a struggle, we are always working to ensure it happens. If we are to introduce a new agreement and develop a new trading relationship with a country, surely these are the kinds of provisions that should be front and centre in that agreement. It is very unfortunate that Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That should sound a warning bell that there is a problem here.
The member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion which would have stopped the implementation of the trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. However, that too was defeated.
He also moved amendments that would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult with labour and trade unions as well as work with human rights experts and organizations in order to create impact assessments for the trade agreement. To me, this is very important.
We recognize that there is a serious problem. There needs to be ongoing evaluation, assessment and monitoring. Surely our minister responsible for these areas should be able to consult with labour and trade unions as well as human rights organizations who work in this area to know what is happening on the ground. We are not talking about theoretical situations. We are talking about serious human rights violations. We are talking about serious labour violations where workers do not have the right to collective agreements or the right to strike. Their ability to organize as a union is sometimes threatened in a collective and personal sense. That is a very serious situation.
Therefore, it seemed to us to be a very reasonable suggestion to put forward as an amendment that the minister would want to know what was going on. He would want to consult with the organizations that are aware of these situations to be able to have impact assessments as part of the agreement. One would think that would have been supported, but no, that was defeated too.
The member also put forward amendments that would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right to collective bargaining as well as requiring the Minister of International Trade as the principle representative of Canada to consult on a regular basis with organizations in our country. That was defeated too.
The bill has a sorry history and it is back before us again. We will do our utmost to defeat the bill. It should go back to the drawing board. There should be a reverse in favour of an agreement that is based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade which builds trading relationships and partnerships with other countries, that supports the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding economic opportunities. That is what fair trade is about. That is what we should be doing in this agreement.