Andrew J. Weaver – the leader
of the B.C. Green party is poised to be the person in control of at least part of
the next B.C. government’s agenda. He or other members of his party were not
elected by a significant percentage of the B.C. electorate for that job, nor do
they represent a cross section of B.C. voters – in fact all three of their
newly won seats come from Vancouver Island. However, because of some perhaps
unusual voting patterns, the Green Party may now hold the balance of power in a
Liberal minority government. That makes him and his two fellow Green party
members a powerful force for shaping a government that has, at least in part, a
clear vision of how to run a province from an environmental perspective. The real
questions are : is there really a clear vision of how to do that and td they
have a mandate to do it?
One has to believe that
never in their wildest dreams did the Green Party think that in 2017 they would
be in such a position. I have to assume that they would have been excited if
they had just gained two extra seats. Their primary goal was in all likelihood
to get enough seats so that they could become a party as defined by the legislature
and therefor get government funding for its operations within the Legislature.
They, unlike the two other parties, spent very little, if any time thinking
about what policies they would want to be presented in the Throne Speech. It is
a giant step to go from a small – perhaps one could say insignificant opposition
force within the Legislature - to a party that holds the balance of power.
It is interesting to note
that their first priority is to be given the status of an official party (a
party needs to have four elected members in the legislature before they are
awarded that status). Their second stated priority is to have the rules as to
who can and cannot contribute to political parties. If the Greens have their
way, neither unions nor large corporations will be allowed to donate. While
this change is frequently seen as a way of leveling the playing field
especially as the Green Party does not accept such donations, one cannot assume
that this guarantees that the Green’s coffers will fill at the same rate as the
Liberals. In fact I would argue that in other jurisdictions where this policy
has become law, dominate parties continue to raise the most money from
individuals. I think that it is worth
noting that the first two demands that Weaver made public had to do with how,
in his mind, the Green Party could be made stronger. I don’t think his position
is unusual or even inappropriate, but they feel more than slightly self-serving.
Weaver in more recent
days has started to discuss the Green Party’s general opposition to both the
building of the Site C dam and the expansion of the Kinder-Morton pipeline. I suspect that the first item will get a fair
amount of support from the general public. Unless someone does a much better
job than in the past in selling the concept, there does not appear to be a lot
of support for it to be built – at least in the short term. It is an issue internal
to B.C. that affects no other province.
The Kinder-Morton pipeline
is another issue. While it is true that a significant part of the expansion
will occur in B.C. and that the highest places of risk in transporting the
partially processed oil, including the loading it on to ships, is in B.C., a decision
to not allow the pipeline’s construction generally affects people outside of
the province. There are thousands of people in Alberta and elsewhere who depend
upon the income they earn from oil production. If the pipeline is not built,
there will be fewer jobs – jobs that Albertans need to maintain their economy.
If Alberta cannot, at least in the short term, earn the money it does from oil
revenues, then they will not be able to sustain their economy. Families will be
forced to re-locate, small business will not thrive, house prices will continue
their downward trend and Alberta as a province will stop paying into the
Canadian Equalization Plan. Alberta will not be able to transition to another
type of economy if the economy is not vibrant.
Whether we like it not,
there is a demand for the oil. If it is not shipped through a pipeline, it will
be shipped by train – something that is far more dangerous and less well
controlled. CN and CP do not need any permission to transport as much oil as
they wish through whatever territory they want. Rail transport is not a viable
alternative. The only viable alternative to the pipeline is to shut down oil
production. And I don’t have a problem with them but...
It seems to me that the
people who are advocating for less (or no) oil to be shipped from Alberta are
the people who will suffer the least from such an embargo. The people who voted
for Andrew Weaver will not suffer one little bit if jobs are lost in Alberta or
if there is a major train derailment in the Rockies. They will continue to live
on their nice island (as I do), driving their generally overly large vehicles
and enjoying what traditionally has been the warmest climate in Canada. There
will be no cost to them. They will continue to enjoy their pleasant life style
AND get the chance to pontificate upon how wonderful they are because they
stopped the pipeline. It seems to me that if people like me are opposed to oil
productions (and fracking for natural gas), then we should pay some sort of
price. Are we prepared to significantly reduce (or stop) our use of gas; are we
prepared to invest the millions and millions of dollars in developing
affordable alternatives; are we prepared, at least in the short term, to financially
support the people of Alberta as they go through a transitional process from
oil production to....? Of course, for the majority of people, the answer to those
questions is no.
The Greens have this rather
scary opportunity to demand implementation of their election platform– in spite
of the fact that only a small percentage of people voted for them. While that
might be great for the planet – and for that reason I support them – it is not
democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment