On roadblocks

The good news: the NDP's bill to facilitate the flow of AIDS drugs to poor countries has passed the House of Commons, signalling the approval of Canada's actual elected representatives. (Which looks to reflect some strong outside pressure over the past week, as the Libs in particular did everything they could to dismiss the bill before eventually voting for it.)

The bad news: the Senate's unelected nonrepresentatives will now get the chance to kill the bill.

So to those who would benefit from a supply of affordable drugs where they're needed most, take heart: Canada would be willing to help if Stephen Harper's cronies weren't standing in the way.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On exceptional outcomes

It's great news that the NDP's efforts to make AIDS drugs more accessible in Africa have received a surprising reprieve in the House of Commons, as federal MPs granted unanimous consent to allow Paul Dewar to assume sponsorship of a bill introduced by Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

But it's also worth noting how the obvious pluses to such a simple exception make the usual rules of Ottawa look even more pointless and petty than they might otherwise. And I'd be curious to know when the last time was that anything with the potential to produce substantive policy results was agreed to by all parties as a matter of comity (rather than, say, the political posturing involved in the legislation to override the regulatory decision to shut down the Chalk River reactor).

Across party lines

As tends to be the case, anybody looking for the most thorough and informative coverage of the ongoing by-election races will find it at the Pundits' Guide. And as part of a remarkably thorough roundup, Alice points out one noteworthy bit of cross-party support in the Winnipeg North campaign:

Also recently seen campaigning with (NDP candidate Kevin) Chief is former Liberal candidate and well-known Métis musician Ray St. Germain. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in some quarters that aboriginal people don't participate in canadian electoral politics, Chief's campaign is said to have signed up some 600 new members in that riding.

Now, I'm not sure how deep St. Germain's roots were within the Libs. But it certainly has to help Chief's cause that a prominent former candidate who was willing to challenge Pat Martin in what was then a reasonably promising target for the Libs (thanks in part to the efforts of Kevin Lamoureux himself two elections before) has joined the NDP's efforts to hold Winnipeg North. And based on the NDP's strong starting position in the riding, it's worth wondering whether the obstacles facing Lamoureux will prove insurmountable even if the race figures to be somewhat closer than the margins posted by Judy Wasylycia-Leis in recent elections.

On medical waste

With the federal political scene this week featuring a scathing auditor-general's report, a scathing environmental commissioner's report and a transparent attempt to deflect attention from both, it's not surprising that it's been difficult for other issues to make their way onto the scene. But lost in shuffle has been yet another addition to Tony Clement's list of asinine statements on the health care file.

Keep in mind Clement's track record for making handouts to Big Pharma his top priority in dealing with prescription drugs. Then take a look at this exchange from Tuesday's question period on the need for a national pharmacare program:

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we have reasonable recommendations from the Competition Bureau and from the pharmacists of the country, yet when it comes to helping families pay less for their drugs, the government is going in the wrong direction. There are some very reasonable things it could do.

It could start with catastrophic drug coverage for all families, move on a national pharmaceutical strategy, help the provinces and territories coordinate bulk buying, and stop extended patents on brand name drugs. Why is the government ignoring these reasonable ways to help Canadians save money on the drugs they need but cannot afford?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
As the hon. member well knows, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost these are issues that are of the provincial and territorial governments, but I would say to the hon. member that the federal government can be part of the solution. Typically for the NDP, its only solution is to tax Canadians more, spend more of their hard-earned money and not work on the innovative solutions that are there, in place, and can be done.

We are for innovation. We are for better health care. We are not for wasting the taxpayers' money.

As best I can tell, that makes Clement's position roughly the following:

Inflating prescription drug costs by gratuitously extending patents isn't "wasting the taxpayers' money".

Refusing to coordinate drug purchases to drive down bulk prices isn't "wasting the taxpayers' money".

Encouraging provinces to push the use of more expensive brand-name drugs to punish the generic drug industry isn't "wasting the taxpayers' money".

But actually making prescription drugs more affordable to Canadians? Now there's the kind of waste Canada can't afford.

On collaborative law-making

The Star reports that the NDP (perhaps alone among the federal parties) is still working to improve Canada's public policy rather than planning for an early summer break. And Judy Wasylycia-Leis' plan to deal with corporate crime looks like a winner both on policy grounds, and in its chances of building enough support to pass:

The NDP will call today for all federal parties to draft a joint bill to crack down on corporate crime in Canada.

NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis wants rules to force the disclosure of corporate perks for chief executives and prevent non-compete payments to individuals, two issues at the heart of Conrad Black's Chicago fraud trial. The proposed bill would also better protect Canadian investors through independent audits and oversight...

Wasylycia-Leis will ask for the co-operation of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the two other opposition parties to work together to draft a bill.

Normally, proposed legislation is drafted by either the government or an individual member of Parliament but procedural rules permit a House of Commons committee with members of all political parties to prepare a bill that would later be introduced for a vote in the Commons.

In an era of corporate crime, Canada is the only G8 country that has not toughened its laws on financial breaches, Wasylycia-Leis said.

From a policy standpoint, there's naturally a need to make sure that any added standards and rules serve a concrete purpose. But it should be beyond doubt that additional disclosure and transparency should lead to better results both for investors and for corporations who play by the rules.

As for the political strategy, the call for all-party participation figures first to highlight the potential for cooperation on both sides of the floor - to hopefully turn the current discussion away from a "can't get anything done" narrative. And it should also put significant pressure on all other parties to agree to quick action.

In particular, the Cons presumably won't want the opposition parties to be able to criticize a commitment to law and order that stops short of the boardroom. And if the Cons do go on record in support of the idea, the Libs in turn likely won't see this as an area where there's much to be won by arguing for weaker laws.

Of course, the plan itself is only in relatively early stages. And with Wasylycia-Leis calling for all parties to contribute to drafting the bill initially rather than merely asking for support for a fleshed-out plan, each party then figures to have some stake in making sure that any agreed bill gets passed.

Mind you, it doesn't seem unlikely that the Cons and/or Libs could make a public declaration of support for Wasylycia-Leis' plan and participate in some drafting, while gumming up the works just enough to make sure that nothing passes into law. But enough public attention could force either to at least get out of the way - and help make sure that at least one more positive measure comes out of the current Parliament.

The price of support

The NDP has released its priorities for the upcoming federal budget:

The federal NDP will release today a laundry list of measures it wants to see in the minority Harper government's March 19 budget, kicking off public negotiations over what it will take to win the party's support for the Conservative fiscal plan.

The party is warning the Tories it will oppose a reduction in capital gains taxes and further tax cuts for "large corporations."...

The NDP is calling for incentives to help low-income Canadians leave welfare and enter the work force and for more funding for postsecondary education that improves affordability of and accessibility to higher learning...

Other proposals include:
- An end to a special tax break for the oil sands that allows some firms to write off investments quickly.
- Rebates for fuel-efficient cars.
- Increases to seniors' monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement.
- Energy efficiency home retrofits for low-income families.
- A national disability income-support program.
- Accelerated recognition of foreign credentials of skilled workers.
- Funding for child care.
- Establishment of a federal minimum wage of $10 an hour.

The full text of Judy Wasylycia-Leis' letter to Jim Flaherty can be found in PDF format here. It's worth noting that the Globe and Mail's story appears to miss a significant number of important priorities listed in the actual letter: while my first reaction to the article was concern that the the set of demands might be too narrow, the letter includes most of the areas which were notable by their omission from the Globe's coverage (including health care, Aboriginal issues, foreign aid and equalization).

There's plenty to like within the NDP's requests, both from a policy and an electoral standpoint. But even more striking than the content of the letter is its apparent goal: on my reading, the list of policy priorities appears to be aimed primarily at staking out the NDP's position in advance of an election, rather than actually striking a budget deal with the Cons.

After all, the list includes some items which would could be dealt with in standalone legislation rather than the budget. In particular, a federal minimum wage isn't linked at all to government spending, and could seemingly be addressed more easily through Peggy Nash's existing private member's bill.

Meanwhile, other ideas such as a boost in Status of Women Canada funding (with a particular focus on the equality that the Cons believe to already exist) seem plainly aimed at the electorate, rather than at anything the Cons are likely to be willing to discuss. And of course the Cons aren't likely to take kindly to the NDP's rightful concern about another wave of random tax cuts.

It's still possible that Flaherty will be willing to meet enough of the NDP's terms for a deal to be struck. But it's looking far more likely that the Cons will wind up relying on the Libs' aversion to an election rather than finding common ground with the NDP. And if the Libs wind up allowing a budget to pass which doesn't meet the NDP's reasonable list of priorities to benefit Canadians at large, they'll have an awfully difficult time explaining that to voters looking for the strongest possible progressive voice in Parliament.

(h/t to Audacious Ontology.)