GREENS’ ARGUMENT FOR PRO-REP ISN’T CONVINCING
Bluff-and-buckle behaviour looks like one of the realities of coalitions
When the New Democrats again this week stalled the implementation of ridehailing in B.C., their partners in power, the Greens, tried to turn the news into a teachable moment about proportional representation.
“Ride-hailing has been treated like a political football by the two establishment parties due to its importance in swing ridings,” said the statement Thursday from Green MLA Adam Olsen.
“I encourage anyone frustrated by this delay to consider how this issue would have played out differently under a system of proportional representation.”
Later he expanded on the point about successive governments putting their partisan interests in protecting the taxi companies ahead of the public interest in ridehailing services.
“This really is a result of the electoral system that we have right now,” he told host Jody Vance on radio station CKNW. “The former government kicked the can down the road. Now this government’s kicked the can. Time to stop kicking and get on with it.”
Nice try. But the argument sidesteps how the Greens could end the public frustration right now if they chose to make ride-hailing a condition of their continued support for the NDP.
They’ve not done so, even though Green Leader Andrew Weaver pioneered the enabling legislature for ride-hailing more than two years ago under the B.C. Liberals.
The Greens also hesitated to rein in their partners in power sharing earlier in the week, when the New Democrats announced a sweetheart deal for the unionized building trades on public construction projects.
Under so-called community benefit agreements, workers on projects like the Pattullo Bridge replacement will have to join and pay dues to those unions (and only those unions) endorsed by the NDP.
Still, the initial statement from Weaver was pretty much an endorsement: “Community benefit agreements are a great way to invest in our province’s future and a key tool that government can use to advance social and environmental goals.”
Hedging slightly, he added: “I look forward to seeing the details of the government’s overall framework — to ensure that it is fair and effective from a policy perspective, rather than a political or ideological one.”
By Thursday, having got a whiff of the favouritism toward certain unions, he began to walk back his enthusiasm.
CBAs must not be used “as a tool to pay back political favours or to advance ideology at the expense of good policy,” said Weaver via a blog posting. “We have made this perspective clear to the government.
“We have also asked government to provide reasoning for why the two projects announced earlier this week had a unionization requirement for workers. CBAs should be applicable for both union and non-union trade shops.”
But it remains to be seen to what extent the Green view will prevail with the New Democrats — if at all.
For it would not be the first time that Weaver voiced a strong stand against something the New Democrats were intending to do, only to buckle when they went ahead and did it anyway.
On Site C, Weaver argued in the election the project should be killed outright. In negotiations on the powersharing arrangement, he was placated by a clause that sent the hydroelectric dam to review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
The commission reported back with what Weaver regarded as an open and shut case for cancellation. But when the New Democrats reached a different interpretation and decided to complete the project, the Green leader contented himself with accusing the New Democrats of betraying the expectations of voters.
“For us, the only correct decision based on the BCUC report was to cancel,” he told reporters. “Does this mean we are going to topple government? No.”
Earlier this year, he threatened to defeat the New Democrats over continued support for the development of a liquefied natural gas industry. He later put the threat on hold to give them a chance to reconcile the LNG plan with greenhouse gasreduction targets.
Last month, Weaver said the Greens don’t support the NDP speculation tax in the current form “because 1) it doesn’t address speculation; 2) there are too many unforeseen consequences; 3) it is administratively burdensome.”
But again, it remains to be seen how this will play out in the fall session of the legislature. Complicating things for the Greens is the fall referendum on electoral reform. The change to pro-rep would improve their chances of winning seats in the next election.
But even if the referendum passes, the switchover won’t happen until 2021. Should the Greens bring down the government before that, the election would proceed under the current system.
So the hesitation to rein in the NDP is understandable. But it doesn’t help the case for electoral reform.
Advocates of pro-rep say one of the main advantages will be more minority governments and more powersharing arrangements like the one between the NDP and the Greens, where parties have to put aside partisanship to get things done.
However, we are living in the reality of a minority government right now. And we are seeing that when partisan self-interest is taken into account, the junior partner gives way and the senior partner proceeds as he sees fit.
Most times the threat to bring down the government is a bluff. That’s true in the current circumstances and the Greens have scarcely made the case that it would be any different under proportional representation.
We are seeing that when partisan self-interest is taken into account, the junior partner gives way and the senior partner proceeds as it sees fit.