Untangling a logjam in B.C. politics
In this occasional feature, the National Post tells you everything you need to know about a complicated issue. Today, Stuart Thomson examines the political situation in British Columbia and the possibility of a new election:
OK, let’s get this out of the way first. Are we headed towards another election? It seems likely, but it comes a lot sooner in one scenario than the other.
Philippe Lagassé, a Carleton University professor who studies our parliamentary system, said a new election is likely to be called soon, simply because the proposed NDP/ Green alliance is so fragile. The two parties lose their majority if only one MLA is missing from the legislature, and that spells trouble for any government. This could lead to another election due to a failed confidence vote in the next year to 18 months, so at least British Columbians would have some time to catch their breath between elections.
In the other scenario, current B. C. Premier Christy Clark would give her throne speech, lose the confidence of the house and then ask the lieutenant- governor to dissolve the legislature and launch another election campaign. Clark has said she won’t do that, but the idea has been cropping up recently in B.C. That could bring a new election in a matter of months. ❚ Why would an NDP/Green government be so fragile when they have a majority of seats?
The NDP/ Green government’s one- seat advantage — the seat count is 44-43 — is dicey because someone has to be the Speaker. If the Speaker comes from the NDP or Green party, they lose their majority and end up in a 43- 43 tie with the Liberals. To pass anything, and to maintain the confidence of the house, the Speaker would have to cast a tie-breaking vote. ❚ Is the Speaker allowed to do that?
Sure. But we’re talking about parliamentary customs here, instead of hard and fast rules. The Speaker is expected to remain non- partisan and maintain the status quo. There’s a practical concern, though, which is that it’s better to have a working government than a legislature locked in a series of tied votes.
“I’m a bit of a pragmatist on this. The purpose of the Speaker casting a tie vote is to prevent there from being a total logjam,” Lagassé said.
The two parties have tried to shore up their fragile majority by setting a very high bar for a confidence vote. The agreement the two leaders signed states that “individual bills, including budget bills, will not be treated or designated as matters of confidence,” but the overall budgetary policy of the government will be. ❚ So what’s going to happen?
If Clark doesn’t ask for dissolution, there are a few possible scenarios — some messier than others. Clark could appoint a Liberal Speaker and then that Speaker could continue on under the NDP/ Green government after Clark’s Liberals lose a confidence vote. That would give the governing coalition a 44- 42 voting advantage. It’s the cleanest option. But the Liberals don’t seem inclined to make things easy for their opponents and they are under no obligation to do so. ❚ And the messy options?
That Liberal Speaker could resign, an act Green Party leader Andrew Weaver said would be “undermining democracy.” That would force the NDP/ Green coalition to choose a Speaker from their own benches, deadlocking the house at 43- 43. The Speaker would have to make some very tough decisions on when to break a tie and still maintain the status quo. It would be an unenviable position for someone trying to stay nonpartisan while also being wary of bringing down the government and causing another election. ❚ We’re not in a constitutional crisis now, but should we expect one?
Lagassé said the most troublesome situation would be if the coalition loses a vote that is widely considered to be a confidence vote and refuses to let the lieutenant-governor dissolve the legislature. There’s no rule saying what is and isn’t a confidence vote, so it could lead to an acrimonious dispute.
Lagassé said the fact that so many people are throwing around terms like “constitutional crisis” and talking about conventions that aren’t really conventions is a problem in itself and could muddy the water if things actually do go south.
“When you cry wolf on unconstitutional behaviour, the less likely it is to be taken seriously when it is clearly unconstitutional behaviour. That’s what is concerning me a little bit, is they’re banging around these terms without really giving them a lot of thought,” he said.