Do We Really Oppose Tanker Traffic?

(Aired on June 22, 2010)

Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has certainly gained support among many British Columbians for his announcement yesterday that his party is opposing oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast. Ignatieff says it only makes sense to protect a very sensitive area of the province.

While environmental groups, and certainly the big percentage of the citizens of the province, 80% of us in a recent poll, oppose the traffic, big business isn't so happy with Ignatieff's remarks. They come as Enbridge is working through the red tape trying establish an oil pipeline that would wind up in Kitimat, and ship oil by tanker down the coast. Enbridge officials are crying foul, claiming that tanker traffic has never been a problem in B.C. Of course, by that same token, no one working on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico had any problems before last month's oil spill that is currently devastating the environment in that area.

In fact, there were 25 million barrels of oil shipped by tanker from B.C. ports last year. It's a sensitive issue. On the one hand, we are so dependent on oil, and unless we want to stop driving, we have to get the oil from somewhere. Most of it is shipped somewhere by tanker. So a spill of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska is always possible. No one wants to see the disaster caused by such a spill. But what are we prepared to sacrifice if oil sits in the ground instead of our gas tank? What price are we prepared to pay to stop oil tanker traffic? It's easy to talk the the talk, but at the end of the day, are you willing to pay the price? And that's the issue the government has to deal with. You're concerned about gas at the pumps in Kamloops today rising to 1.06 a liter? What happens if it doubles or triples because we shut down tanker traffic?

The principle is a good one. I support it. But I honestly don't know how many of us would if push came to shove and we had to put our money where our mouth is.

Coalition? Please no.

(Aired on June 9, 2010)

Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit.  Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives.  I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either.  It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor. 

When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa.  They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular.  Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.

If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition.  But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support.  Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.

Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories.  They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.