LIBERALS, NDP OPEN FIRE DURING FIRST FALL PERIOD
Fragile coalition tested by LNG, but ‘we’re staying together for the sake of the kids’
For the first question period of the fall session, the B.C. Liberals and New Democrats taunted each other for overruns on public construction, not a topic on which either side has especially clean hands.
Opposition Leader Andrew Wilkinson started by challenging the New Democrats for a fuller costing of union preferences on the Pattullo Bridge replacement and other infrastructure projects.
The New Democrats have already admitted that the socalled community benefits agreement accounts for as much as seven per cent — or $100 million — in the $1.377-billion budget for the Pattullo.
But Wilkinson wanted details, details, details about what he kept calling “payoffs to union bosses.”
Yes, bosses. I found myself thinking back to how premier Christy Clark was happy to share the platform with private-sector union leaders on projects like Site C, LNG and skills training.
Now here was her successor referring to some of those same union leaders as if they were bit players on an episode of the Sopranos. What’s next for Wilkinson? Giving them all gangster nicknames?
Responding for the New Democrats was Premier John Horgan, who came armed with a sheaf of apt material from NDP caucus research.
“You might remember the Vancouver Convention Centre was tagged at $355 million,” he returned. “But when the leader of the opposition got on the board, he ran it up to $900 million. You will forgive me if I don’t take advice from him on how to manage capital projects in British Columbia.”
Ouch.
Then it was on to Green Leader Andrew Weaver, who pressed Environment Minister George Heyman over the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.
The court having echoed concerns about tanker traffic raised earlier by both Greens and New Democrats, Weaver wanted to know why the New Democrats were not repudiating the overall environmental assessment process on the project.
Specifically, they could within 30 days give notice that B.C. was withdrawing from the equivalency agreement under which the province agrees to go along with the federal review.
Weaver reminded Heyman that the New Democrats had themselves called for just such a withdrawal from the equivalency agreement during their days in opposition.
“The leader of the third party raises some very significant points,” replied Heyman, acknowledging the substance of the question without actually answering it.
“The decision of the Federal Court was complex. We are reviewing it with both internal and external legal advice. We are preparing a range of options that are thorough, they are well considered.”
Would those options likely include the suggested withdrawal? Heyman was noncommittal when I asked him that outside the house.
The greater likelihood, he suggested, was a direct provincial intervention with the National Energy Board in the federally ordered 22-week review of risks of tanker traffic and marine oil spills.
A hotter topic of the day for the Green leader was the looming prospect that the LNG Canada project would secure a final investment decision from lead proponent Shell and its partners.
Partners in China and Korea were already in as the week began and Shell itself was on the verge of a yes as well. That was enough for most of the press gallery to descend on Weaver for a hallway scrum over his multiple threats to bring down the government if LNG goes ahead.
He started by expressing reluctance to say too much in the absence of an actual confirmed final investment decision. Still, he repeated that any change of legislation to implement the NDP’s promise of $6 billion in relief for LNG Canada “is not legislation that would be supported by the B.C. Greens.”
Rather, it would be up to the New Democrats to “work with the Liberals” to secure the necessary support.
But he confirmed that the Greens were still working “hard” with the New Democrats on a plan that would address the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030.
“There is a lot of work still to be done and a couple of months to do that work,” said Weaver, suggesting that the end product would be tabled late in the session, but before the scheduled Nov. 29 adjournment.
Returning to the proposed relief for LNG, Weaver blasted the New Democrats, calling it “a sellout,” “a giveaway” and “reckless.”
As the Green leader ratcheted up another attack on his partners in power sharing, an NDP MLA walked by the scrum, paused, shook his head, and moved on.
But not before sharing a laugh about the troubled domestic relations between New Democrats and Greens: “We’re staying together for the sake of the kids.”
For all of Weaver’s fulminations against LNG, it is not clear that there will even be anything to vote on in the current session. Finance Minister Carole James indicated as much in talking to Rob Shaw of Postmedia News.
Nor must the LNG tax changes be part of the next provincial budget. Since the first LNG terminal is not expected to be up and running before 2023 at the earliest, the changes could be implemented as stand-alone legislation at any time.
Weaver may yet decide to carry out his threat to bring down the government over LNG. But the opportunity to do so probably won’t present itself until next year, and then not necessarily over a specific bill providing tax relief for the industry.
It would be up to the (NDP) to ‘work with the Liberals’ to secure the necessary support.