Weaver *said* he would support meat retention, and in many email exchanges with me he was very reasonable and accommodating. However, you need to leaven that dough a bit. His co-party members are clearly not big on hunting, and at the time that Andrew Weaver was being very reasonable with me I spoke directly with other people who had dealt with him in the past who indicated that he was not trustworthy in their experience.
Before anyone says "Well, I told you so, why did you ever listen to him and get tricked" try to remember that when dealing with people that you suspect you disagree with it can be helpful to have them commit to positions. Later, if they stick with their original statements you know you've got a solid person. If they change you know you've got what you suspected you might get, and you have the opportunity to call them on it.
The cost? All you need to die is ask some questions and remember the answers.
So, I for one do not have a link to any proof that killing the hunt was a trade off for Site C, but I'd submit that a simple read of politics renders such a deal unimportant. Killing the hunt pays lots of dividends to a party (and yes, I mean that in some circumstances the Liberals would have killed it just as fast). If you're a politician and something pays political dividends, you do it. The name of the game in politics is...power, not conservation or doing the right thing.
For Mr. Weaver there is one thing that he needs: more power. He is currently in flash in the pan territory. He got elected because Christy Clarke stunk and pissed off a lot of people and John Horgan isn't a real winner, so didn't inspire enough people. That gave the Greens a bit of room.
Next time Christy will not be here to piss people off. Horgan will be, with an increasingly long list of accomplishments that piss people off. Weaver can either develop as an inspiring leader (who wants to bet he can do that?), follow the path of Elizabeth May and be a perennial loser hang around, or....
...get proportional representation through, in which case he's set for the long run.
Anyone who's good at reading policy statements and who is concerned about conservation might take some time to review the proposed proportional rep system. I know Bill Tillman, long time NDP stalwart, opposes it. He sees fringe parties, not all of them pro-NDP, or "progressive" emerging. He fears far-right parties.
Is there room for a weird, single issue party? They've got them in Israel and they exercise significant power on certain issues. Food for thought.