PRECARIOUS PARTNERSHIP HINGES ON ROLES, RULES

NDP-Green alliance may make changes to secure more tenable hold on power

Green Leader Andrew Weaver was near to finalizing his deal with the New Democrats when he suggested the procedural rules of the legislature could be rewritten to help the partnership along.

Weaver raised the possibility in a media scrum on the afternoon of May 26, two days before the Sunday morning session where he and NDP Leader John Horgan concluded their landmark power-sharing agreement.

Weaver’s strong hint that the Greens were headed into the arms of the NDP came when he was asked if the resulting 44-to-43 seat balance in the legislature would be manageable.

“Yes,” he assured reporters. And one way to make it work would be to amend the standing orders of the house, involving the Speaker and the lesser-known position of the deputy chair of the committee of the whole.

Ever since, the Greens and the New Democrats have refused to be drawn into speculation about precisely which orders they would change and why. Mike Farnworth, longtime house leader for the New Democrats, said it would be “presumptuous” to speculate on what those changes might be.

From Weaver’s meagre hints, the changes would arise from his decision to go into a 44-seat partnership with the NDP against 43 for the B.C. Liberals.

The committee of the whole is where the legislature scrutinizes ministry budgets in detail and legislation on a clause-by-clause basis. The Speaker does not attend those sessions. Instead they are chaired by the deputy Speaker or that person with the odd title — the deputy chair of the committee of the whole.

Both are drawn from government ranks. If you take the 44-43 balance of power as a starting point, elevate one member from the government side to serve as Speaker, and a second to oversee those sessions that the Speaker does not attend — well, the balance shifts to 43-42 in favour of the Liberals.

The government does not fall when it loses a standoff in the committee of the whole. It can call back those votes and reverse them in the larger legislative arena. Still, the arrangement portends multiple procedural delays and more than a few embarrassments.

Hence the NDP- Green partners might change the rules to allow the Speaker to preside over committee of the whole — making him/her one busy functionary — or transfer the committee voting power to the main house.

There’s more to this issue than the specifics of the rule changes. The standing orders belong to all members, crafted, in the classic formulation, to ensure that “the Opposition has its say and the government has its way.”

From time to time they are updated, modernized and otherwise amended, but more often than not that is done with consent from all members. When the Bill Bennett Socreds initiated a major overhaul of the rules following the near total breakdown in the house over the 1983 restrain budget and legislation, the resulting changes were adopted unanimously — “Nemine Contradicente” in the preferred formulation.

The New Democrats likewise supported two sets of rule changes under the Liberals in 2004 and 2005, including measures that extended question period and eliminated Friday sittings.

There have been exceptions. The B.C. Liberal adoption of a fixed calendar for the legislature came with rigid time allocation and the New Democrats have bridled at those, especially given the government reluctance to call fall sittings.

The New Democrats strongly opposed a rule change in 2014 that shifted the afternoon question period to mornings on Tuesday and Thursday, arguing it would give them less time to prepare. In retrospect, the concern was overwrought and I would be surprised if they switch it back.

Not likely would there be unanimous consent for rewriting the long-standing rules to minimize holdups, embarrassments and the occasional defeat for a partnership that is, by its own choice, balanced on a razor’s edge.

The prospect does shed light on why the Greens and their NDP partners hoped to minimize the procedural imbroglios by persuading a B.C. Liberal to volunteer as Speaker.

Weaver even claimed this week to have precedent on his side. He said the Liberal to be elected Speaker when the house sits next week should remain in office with the NDP- Green alliance: “It is entirely not tradition to have a Speaker resign.”

On the contrary, there is no B.C. precedent for Opposition members helping to prop up a government by serving as Speaker and ample precedent for Speaker resignations.

Three of the five Speakers who served in the last NDP administration resigned before their term was up. When that was pointed out to Weaver, he shifted ground and insisted those were cases of Speakers being promoted to cabinet, as if that were not a partisan act.

He’s wrong there as well. The Mike Harcourt New Democrats forced their first Speaker, Joan Sawicki, to resign and did so under the guise of a change in the standing orders imposed on the house by the NDP majority over strong objections of the Opposition.

All this talk of house roles and rule changes will fade once the new government takes office early next month and begins implementing the more ambitious and controversial aspects of the powersharing agreement.

But for now it highlights the precarious nature of the Green-NDP partnership, and why even with the best of intentions, it may have trouble surviving long.

The standing orders belong to all members, crafted, in the classic formulation, to ensure that ‘the Opposition has its say and the government has its way.’