WEAVER’S TOUGH TALK ON LNG IS MOSTLY HOT AIR
Green party’s threat to force election over issue is at odds with legislative procedures
Green party Leader Andrew Weaver continues to say he will force an election should the New Democrats proceed with liquefied natural gas development over commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Weaver first aired the threat at the outset of the year, then honed it last week after Premier John Horgan announced a revised tax and regulatory framework for the multibillion-dollar LNG Canada project in northwest B.C.
Emissions-heavy LNG development is not compatible with provincial targets for GHG reductions insisted Weaver, citing his credentials as a leading climate scientist.
He also said he and his two Green MLA colleagues would give the New Democrats until fall to release a revised climate plan and prove him wrong.
“If it doesn’t come in the fall, we no longer have confidence in this government,” Weaver told reporters, citing what he regards as an escape clause in the confidence and supply agreement between the Greens and the New Democrats.
Still, Weaver ducked questions about specific actions the Greens might take to defeat the government in the legislature and force a general election.
“There are many options we could take that would maybe happen in the fall or not,” he told reporters last Thursday. “We’re not there yet. … This is not about toppling the government at this juncture. Our confidence in government is predicated with them coming up with a climate plan.”
Weaver’s hesitation recalled earlier episodes — like the government decision to proceed with Site C — where he blasted the New Democrats without doing anything to stop them.
One of the strongest responses came from CKNW host Jon McComb. He branded Weaver a “toothless tiger” and suggested he should turn the party colours from green to “yellow.”
Ouch and double ouch. Weaver sought the right of reply and on Monday, the host granted it via an interview on his morning show.
Why not pull the plug right now? McComb challenged.
“We’ve told them straight up that that plug is going to be pulled,” returned Weaver. “But right now we need to give them the chance to develop that climate plan that they promised to do. I tweeted out earlier this year that the government will not survive if this goes forward. I have met with John Horgan multiple times and told him that straight to his face.”
“We’re not going to wait until after an LNG decision to have that plan in place,” he continued. “If that plan in place is not coming and it’s not realistic Mr. Horgan will be back on the campaign trail.”
One unlikely caveat: “Unless of course the B.C. Liberals choose to start an agreement with them.”
He also scoffed at the suggestion the Greens would hold off taking any action to bring down the government, pending a favourable verdict in the fall ballot-by-mail on switching to proportional representation.
“There are many tools that we have in our tool kit,” said the Green leader. “We are not going to stand by and watch this happen. And yes, indeed, there will be a confidence motion put in the fall if we do not see them delivering on this promise in a timely fashion.”
Next day, Weaver repeated the threat on CBC Radio’s On the Island.
“Would you be willing to bring down the NDP over this and pull them out of government?” asked host Gregor Craigie.
“Yes,” Weaver replied. “Yes, clearly there are a number of legislative tools that are available. Any time in the legislature you can introduce emergency non-confidence motions. This is a defining issue for us and we’re not willing to compromise.”
Weaver’s self-confidence notwithstanding, the options are actually quite limited.
Yes, he and any other member can introduce motions at “any time.” But motions only get called for debate and passage when the government chooses to call them. NDP house leader Mike Farnworth would be more likely to call a motion denouncing puppies and kittens than one expressing nonconfidence in his government.
Weaver has also cited the rule allowing members to seek to interrupt the regular business of the house for an impromptu debate on a “matter of urgent public importance.”
But the Speaker of the legislature has to be persuaded that there is a genuine need to debate the matter immediately, as opposed to some other time. Moreover, the rules allow for only a one-hour debate with no vote at the end of it.
The Greens could and probably will vote against the enabling legislation for the new framework for LNG. But the B.C. Liberals, having long supported LNG, would probably lend enough votes to the government for the legislation to pass. Nor does ordinary legislation equate to a motion of confidence.
Weaver and the other Greens could, in the extreme, try to obstruct the business of the house by voting against everything. But I doubt the public would support such a display and the NDP would probably try to cool off proceedings by proroguing the house.
The usual route for expressing non-confidence in the government is to vote against the budget. But the Greens have already voted in favour of this year’s budget and the next opportunity won’t be along until February of next year.
Until then, Weaver’s threat to bring down the government strikes me as more bluster than anything. And much could happen on LNG and any number of other fronts between now and next year.
We’ve told (the NDP) straight up that that plug is going to be pulled.