Perhaps I shouldn’t care this much about American politics…but I couldn’t help but be overjoyed by this news.

Jury indicts top US congressman

Screw you, Mr. Delay.

China is cracking down further on online expression. New regulations for news websites introduced on Sunday widen restrictions that were already harsh. News websites must be “directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests” according to Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency.

The Chinese government has been remarkably successful at monitoring, censoring and controlling the internet. An anti-free speech campaign that combines repressive technology and a willingness to make examples out of people has proven effective.

They couldn’t have done it on their own, and in fact, they haven’t. Western corporations have been happy to help. Microsoft’s Chinese web portal does not allow its users to search for “democracy”, “freedom” or “human rights”. Google agreed to remove “subversive” news from its Chinese news search engine. I read one report that said that searching for certain terms on Google China causes the search engine to stop working for several minutes.

Even worse is the case of Yahoo! and Shi Tao. A journalist who worked for a daily publication called Dangdai Shang Bao (Contemporary Business News), Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison after Yahoo! helped the Chinese authorities identify him as the source of an email that communicated “state secrets abroad”. The email contained the text of a warning sent to his newspaper by the Chinese authorities not to publish anything related to the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Yahoo! had this explanation for why it helped condemn a journalist to the notoriously brutal Chinese prison system: “Just like any other global company, Yahoo! must ensure that its local country sites must operate within the laws, regulations and customs of the country in which they are based.”

Legal, of course, is not the same thing as moral. This is the problem with corporations. By their very nature they are amoral.

They are also disloyal, something we ought to remember as we deregulate. Yahoo! is an American company, but it has no loyalty to the American right to freedom of speech. Money talks, even if it means sending innocents to a gulag. I’m reminded of the willingness of companies to provide Nazi Germany with whatever it needed for the Holocaust. That, after all, was perfectly legal too, according to the “laws, regulations and customs of the country”.

It’s not just web companies that deserve a closer look. Corporations are falling over themselves trying to gain access to the Chinese market. The Chinese government has played this out very cleverly. When they started to open up China’s markets a couple of decades ago, the standard Western thinking was that if the Chinese people had more freedom to make money, they’d have more political freedom too. After all, aren’t capitalism and democracy supposed to go hand-in-hand?

So companies were encouraged to do business in China. But the current situation in China makes it clear that capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. In fact, the corporations who were supposed to help bring freedom to the Chinese people are helping the Chinese government keep it from them.

I think the Chinese government might be even more clever than this. They are threatened by democracy, but when they look at our democracies, they feel reassured.

They see that people in the West care less and less about participating in the governing of their societies and that voter turnout here is declining. They see that people in the West are disillusioned about their democracies and increasingly have no voice, that media and government are more and more corporate, that power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

What’s good for the Canada goose is good for the Chinese gander. Rome gave the Romans bread and circuses to keep them quiet, Beijing gives the Chinese Big Macs and Hollywood.

But we do have options. Canada should pass laws that require that companies that operate in Canada adhere to ethical standards internationally. If Canadian individuals can be prosecuted for having sex with minors in East Asia – perhaps even according to the “customs of the country” they happen to be in – then Canadian companies, or Canadian subsidiaries, can be held responsible for helping throw dissidents into gulags.

Vidkun Quisling, Minister President of Norway during WWII, cooperated with the Nazis and handed over Norway to them when they invaded. His name has since become synonymous with traitor. He was later executed for high treason. I wonder what fate lies ahead for the corporate quislings of the 21st century.

Next week is an important week for Canadian politics. With all that is set to take place in the House of Commons this fall, one has to expect some explicit posturing and partisan rabble-rousing as Canadian politicians burst from the gates on Monday. I thought it was time to go on record with a brief prognostication of events to come – if only to defend my title as political oracle on Ade. I’m looking to go 2-0 on electoral predictions. So I say there will be no fall election. Let me tell you why.

Harper is wounded and he has no ammo to defend himself. My prediction: the Libs will kick him while he’s down and attempt to defend their record as strong fiscal managers in the process. There is scarcely an issue for Harper to champion, and his public credibility east of Alberta has never looked worse. To put it bluntly, the cards are not in his favour.

The key issues defining the political narrative this fall are well known. Gas prices and softwood lumber are likely to emerge as the first two topics tackled in the opening round of Question period. This follows two months full of national media attention doted on these two topics. The dire situation in New Orleans (and expectantly in Texas) has increased political expediency of both issues – Can-Am relations & gas price controls.

That said it is also expected that the opening of Parliament will usher in other familiar domestic concerns, issues that dominated the political dialogue in Ottawa before the summer recess. This includes an implicit recognition that an election is around the corner and campaigning is already under way.

Justice Gomery will release the first of two reports about the sponsorship scandal on November 1st. This first report is expected to rile public sentiment about a perceived democratic deficit in Canada, and make partisan politics between parties the order of the day. If Gomery’s conclusions are particularly damaging to the Libs (as it is widely expected to be), one could expect the Liberal government to have a major announcement in the works to push the report off the media’s radar. This announcement could define the premise of the next election. More likely however, it will be some form of omnibus tax legislation that includes two components: corporate tax cuts & gas tax relief – more on this in a moment.

It has also recently been revealed that Justice Gomery’s second report, one that will oblige the Prime Minister’s to fulfill his promise to call and election within 30 days, is going to be delayed. This will set back the forthcoming election – by most recent accounts until March (I’ve recently heard rumours that it could be as late as May). However, an election call could come before winter, if the Government loses a vote of confidence in the House. There are two considerations defining this possibility. First, that Conservative leader Stephen Harper is willing to go to the polls before Gomery issues his final report. Second, that the Liberal’s fall agenda is thought to include some kind of confidence vote in the form of a money bill.

Mr. Harper has recently said he would not hesitate to call an election, if it is required to hold the Government accountable for details of the sponsorship inquiry. And while sources in Ottawa suggest that the Liberals want to avoid giving the Opposition undue opportunity to force an early election, I would say they have little to fear. It is rumoured Finance Minister Ralph Goodale’s fall fiscal update will presage the Liberal’s legislative agenda and could contain budget-like pronouncements such as new tax measures. This is similar to the situation before the 2000 election. I would take this rumour one step further and suggest that, given the current context of a weak and distorted Conservative Party, the tax legislation will become a reality before November. It is unlikely that the Liberal’s would lose on such a bill, literally or figuratively. There are two reasons I say this.

First, being bold enough to introduce such a policy would make the government look active and it would be a show of leadership – something Martin is in dire need of having. Second, it would confuse and divide the opposition to the point that the chances for defeat are nil. If the potential legislative ingredients included corporate tax cuts and also a home heating rebate, or some form gas price regulation, the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP would all be at odds to support or deny the passage of the bill. The Tories don’t want to oppose corporate tax cuts (although they could say the cuts don’t go far enough); the Bloc has publicly stated in today’s Gazette that gas prices are the party’s top priority; the NDP too would have a hard time pooh-poohing a home heating rebate. Taken together, I doubt any of them would find ground for a politically expedient coalition to take down the Martin government. (*watch for senior Martinis and the PM publicly criticizing Harper for “holding hands” with the separatists – I suspect this will be the cornerstone of their pre-election smear.)

Consider the country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves: Saudi Arabia. The largest country on the Arabian Peninsula, Saudi Arabia is still not particularly large, although it has a strategic position in the heart of the Arab world and borders both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

It also has an enormous cultural importance as the birthplace of Islam and the home of its two holy cities, Mecca and Medina. But its geographical location and its cultural importance pale in comparison to what gives Saudi Arabia worldwide clout. Oil.

262 billion barrels of it. A massive amount and one-quarter of the world’s proven reserves of some 1 trillion barrels. When Saudi Arabia speaks, the world listens. The Saudi ambassador to the United States until 2005, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, held such a close relationship with President Bush he was nicknamed Bandar Bush. The world is addicted to oil and Saudi Arabia is pusher #1.

Consider pusher #2, the country with the world’s second-largest oil reserves: Canada.

The second-largest country in the world (Russia is still number 1, contrary to the belief of many Canadians), Canada is blessed with vast resources, not the least of which is oil: 179 billion barrels of it, or over one sixth of the world’s proven reserves.

We also have iron, nickel, zinc, copper, gold, lead, uranium and many other resources, as well as possibly the world’s largest supply of the most vital resource of all, fresh water. Notably absent on this list of resources is something Saudi Arabia has in abundance: influence. Clout. Or even, as un-Canadian as it is to say it, power.

It’s time to stop screwing around. We are heading for a future where Canada’s resources aren’t just going to be what people want, they’re what people are going to need.

Whether it’s by military force (unlikely), or by subtle influence that counsels separation and division (more likely) or by the skillful slippery funneling of transnational corporations (it’s happening already), there will be those who seek what belongs to Canadians for themselves. After all, where there is treasure, there will be treasure seekers.

Canada’s gold rush days are here again, except this time the stakes are far higher and the treasure isn’t just huge, it’s hugely important. Are we prepared?

Two things are certain in life: death and taxes. Everybody hates taxes. But we recognize that they are a necessity. We empower our government to raise money through taxes so that government can administer the country and provide us with essential services and protections. This covenant is a fact of life Canadians know too well. Government waste and neglect have catalyzed public calls for accountability and scrutiny in how our tax dollars are accumulated and spent. Occasionally, we are left to feel like the government is getting the better of us.

There is no better example then the current tax on gas, which is purported to pay for everything from roads, to environmental controls, to public transportation, hospitals, crossing guards, you name it. These expenditures occur at every level of government – federal, provincial and municipal – and are described as necessary. Some go so far as to say that Canadian cities are so dependent on gas tax revenues that they would crumble without their share of the pie.

The argument that usually follows this statement is that we (the gas-guzzling consumer) should never expect price relief in the form of a gas tax break. It would be self-defeating given the number of good things gas taxes do for us. So where do we turn for lower gas prices? Who else can possibly be involved in the price of gasoline? Surely there must be a complex network of suppliers and vendors. If not, the government would already be regulating the gas industry. There must be nothing they can do.

Bullshit. If we can’t expect tax relief on our gas purchases then it is high time to look at some form of government regulation of the petroleum industry. The situation is out of control.

Gas prices across Canada have reached epic proportions. After the Katrina disaster, the price of gas in most Canadian cities rose almost 50 percent. Some cities reported 25 price changes in one day and prices as high as $1.50 a litre. Of course, an array of pundits was on hand to tell the public that the situation was necessary, if not normal. Apparently, oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico were unrigged and floating aimlessly adrift and the normal reaction was stratospheric gas prices in Canada. This was part of the explanation on offer. One can’t help but feel that the situation is anything but normal.

Did it suddenly cost Canadian oil companies 50 percent more to deliver a barrel of oil? Did Canada’s oil production suddenly drop by 50 percent? Of course not. We’re told that prices jumped this much because of “supply and demand”. But this explanation seems lacking, at least from a common-sense perspective: after all, Canada produces enough refined oil to make it a net exporter of gasoline. Did the Canadian supply drop by 50 percent? Did demand increase by 50 percent? No one was offering straight answers. The Canadian media was the worst offender.

As Tom Korski writes in a recent article for the Hill Times, the news coverage explaining gas prices in the aftermath of Katrina was so blunt and misleading that “it could have been ghostwritten by an Esso publicist.” Industry spokespeople were quoted saying production was “very tight,” and the headlines seemed to normalize the situation. The National Post told consumers that price increases were “perfectly normal” and warned against making “bogeymen out of Canadian oil companies.” But as Korski points out, that is exactly what we should be doing.

Protecting the oil industry while consumers and local industry suffer makes no sense. Since 1970 the number of oil refineries in Canada has declined from 58 to 16. Now, three companies, Imperial Oil, Shell, and Petro-Canada, control more than half the country’s gasoline production, reaping $5.238 billion dollars in profit last year. Imperial Oil’s “perfectly normal” revenues are bigger than the national budget of Egypt. Shell Canada’s “perfectly normal” profits increased 59 percent just last year. The CEO of Petro Canada made a “perfectly normal” wage last year – 23 times more than the Prime Minister’s salary.

“Governments regulate the sale of milk, eggs, turkey, chicken, even Maple syrup. But one essential commodity, gasoline, is controlled by three companies.”

These companies are very adept at manipulating our perception of the petroleum industry. How many people have stared at the sticker that adorns most Esso gas pumps? In case you haven’t, it looks a lot like this:

This is the Imperial Oil crash course on gas prices taken from their web page. Take note. The refiner’s “operating margins” (the necessary price that the refiner must charge in order to cover its costs and maintain a particular profit margin) and the market’s operating margins are the two smallest slices of the pie. The rest is the cost of oil and taxes for the government.

According to this chart, Imperial Oil really has little to do with the price of gas. The green slice, which represents the “market operating margins” is what’s required to run a gas station. The yellow slice, which represents the “refiner operating margins” is what’s required to run a refinery. (Interestingly, these slices do not indicate costs or profits, for example, they don’t show how much of the green slice goes toward operating a gas station and how much is pure profit.) Finally, the blue slice is the cost of “crude oil”. Doesn’t this make it look as though Imperial Oil is at the mercy of market forces beyond its control?

Except that Imperial Oil extracts its own crude oil, refines its oil into gasoline, and then sells its gasoline in its gas stations. In other words, Imperial Oil owns and controls the blue, yellow and green slices of the pie. Instead of a pie chart with four slices, only two are needed: the money that goes to Imperial Oil (a slice which keeps on getting fatter), and the money that goes to the government. Crude oil costs, the biggest blue slice of the pie, are domestic, albeit pegged on an international market scale. Surely, an Imperial refinery in Calgary doesn’t buy Saudi oil and sell the gas in Puerto Rico? I’m confused. How do all of these elements add up to make the incredible price we’ve been paying for gas?

On their website, Imperial Oil offers a more vivid explanation of gas pricing:

Let’s take a look.

Competition: Local competition has the greatest short-term impact on price. Unlike any other product, Canadian consumers shop for gasoline at 50 kilometres per hour, using two metre-high posted prices to comparison shop. Research has shown that Canadian consumers will cross two lanes of traffic to save 0.2 cents per litre or eight cents on a 40-litre fill-up. This is why marketers and individual retailers watch one another’s price signs like hawks. When one competitor lowers the price, others follow right away, to avoid losing sales. Consumers often have the impression that the prices all change in unison, but they don’t. In reality, it’s a rapid chain reaction. These fluctuations in price take place often daily and sometimes several times a day and they can be very frustrating for the consumer.

It’s definitely frustrating. What choice? I have to choose between three major gas retailers, who change prices in unison…er… rapid chain reaction. Fact: the number of gas stations in Canada has declined one-third since 1990, with independent retailers now making up less than 18 per cent of that choice. Of course we consumers try to save money, but we didn’t choose to market gas to the tenth of a cent. It’s hard to see how this could justify post-Katrina pricing. Let’s keep looking.

Taxes: Provincial and federal taxes account for between 40 and 50 per cent of the average price of regular unleaded gasoline in Canada. In 2004, the average price in Canada was 81.3 cents per litre, 31.9 cents of which was tax (or just over 40 per cent). In 2004, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States was 66.4 cents per litre, 15.9 cents of which was tax (or just over 24 per cent). Some areas in Canada also have municipal gasoline taxes. Excluding tax, however, Canadian gasoline prices are among the lowest in the world.

Taxes as a component to gas prices were already dealt with at the beginning of this article. We know they exist. We know basically what they are for. We also know they didn’t go up after Katrina. When prices jumped from 81.3 cents per litre to 126.3 per litre, who got the extra 45 cents? Was it the company who buys crude oil from itself to sell it at discount prices in its own gas stations? Still not certain – must be an answer in here somewhere.

Retail margins: Gasoline retailing is a relatively high fixed-cost business. Expenses such as rent, property taxes, employee wages and utilities have to be covered by the retailer’s margin, which is the difference between wholesale and retail prices. In order to cover fixed costs, a retailer with a smaller volume of sales needs to recover a higher margin per litre. Conversely, a high-volume site can cover fixed costs with a smaller margin.

Pardon? That sounds like business 101. This is hardly an explanation for skyrocketing prices all across Canada. Let’s see if I can try my own explanation. First, start advertising and selling secondary products not at all associated with gas at your brand of gas stations. This will surely boost your revenue and allow you to pass some savings on to the consumer. Put signs on the pumps and around the station, sell cigarettes and candy (with generous compensation from the manufacturers of those products I might add). Second, put ads on the pump handles so people have something to look at while they buy expensive gas, then put a video screen on the pump to broadcast more ads. While you’re at it, fire the gas attendants and let the customer key in their own debit card transactions. Third, put a Tim Horton’s in the gas station and turn it into a third rate grocery store. Start selling bottled water by the 24, fresh fruit, and magazines. Lastly, lecture your paying customers on the banality of overhead costs and tell them you’re just trying to get by. What a crock. Let’s keep looking.

Refining and marketing margins: Refineries, service stations and other distribution facilities must be upgraded and modernized to meet present and future environmental standards. They must also cover operating, distribution and marketing costs as well pay income tax. The distance gasoline has to be transported to market can affect prices, too.

Oh yeah, the environment. While transporting gas all over the country to be sold at astronomical prices, Imperial took the time to think of their role in protecting the environment. Keep in mind, in case you forgot, there are also overhead costs associated with this practice, including transportation costs. With the price of gas being what it is these days, you can understand how difficult it can be to get all that gas from Alberta to Nova Scotia. At the end of the day, gas companies are really just gas guzzling, tax-paying slobs like you and me. They pay income tax. And believe me they have a lot of income to tax, so you can imagine how much that sets them back. Sorry, Imperial, I’m still not convinced. What else have you got?

Crude oil costs and wholesale prices: Because Canadian crude is priced on the international market, Canadian crude costs are affected by world supply and demand changes, as well as by political events.

This looks promising. What’s this? Political events can affect prices? Now I have it. Katrina came along, an event that oil executives must have been thrilled about on some level, because it gave them the opportunity to crank the price of gas up to unprecedented levels. Why didn’t they just say so in the first place?

Who still thinks we need an unfettered petroleum industry?

———
This article was written by alevo and Ade