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

alevo, Astute Political Commentator, giving the Prime Minister some words of encouragement.

I just got a phone call from someone who claimed to be conducting a survey for a mumbled organization called “International Respiratory”. I had to ask him twice to repeat the name. I think the whole point was to figure out if they could sell an air filter, dehumidifier, or duct cleaning to us. After the bit about what organization he was calling from, the conversation went something like this:

HIM: Do you or anyone in your household have breathing problems?
ME: No.
HIM: Do you have any pets?
ME: No.
HIM: Do you have any dampness or mildew in your basement?
ME: No.
HIM: Do you have any problems with dust in the house?
ME: No.
HIM: Okay sir, it’s standard that we ask you your occupation, we don’t want to know where you work of course, but what do you do?
ME: I’m a duct installer.
HIM: What? A dog installer?
ME: No, a duct installer, I install ducts – you know, ventilation systems.
HIM: Okay sir, thank you for your time.

Goodbye.

Sharia is the Arabic word for Islamic law – law either specifically outlined in the Qur’an or derived from it by religious scholars. In the past it has been in the news because of particularly drastic consequences for people tried under it – for example, Amina Lawal, who was sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria after being accused of adultery. It’s back in the news right now because, remarkably, Ontario is considering allowing sharia to be used in family arbitration.

I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail this morning and I decided I’d had enough – I was going to call my MPP and let her know how stupid I thought this idea was. I was about to make the call when my maidservant popped her head into my office and asked me to write an article on sharia. “I’m just about to call my MPP about that”, I said, “so don’t get your burqa in a knot”. I made the call and left a rambling, semi-coherent message for my MPP that will probably be dismissed as coming from a non-voter or worse, a supporter of the Green Party. Then I spoke with alevo.

“I think it’s a great idea,” he said. “Bring it on over. Progressive Islamic countries all over the world are trying to get rid of it. We’re like, ‘we’ll take it!’ Give us your sharia.”

So where the heck did this wacky idea come from, anyway? What possessed Ontario to decide that a judicial system best known for oppressing women and chopping off the hands of thieves would be a good thing here?

Well, in 1991 Ontario passed the Arbitration Act, which allows people to agree to resolve a dispute by arbitration instead of going to court. As it relates to this issue, this Act allows Christians and Jews to resolve family issues like divorce and custody of children by using a religious arbitrator, like a pastor or rabbi for example, to decide what happens and who gets what. The idea now is to allow Muslims the same “rights” to religious arbitration using sharia.

I could have told you in 1991 that this entire thing was a stupid idea, except I was 13 at the time and too busy wanking to read up on politics. It’s only logical that Muslims now want what Christians and Jews got in ’91. But there are two main differences.

The first is the “unique” way sharia handles women, which is to say, with an iron fist. Covered with spikes. As a non-Muslim, I don’t want to make any inaccurate claims about what the Qur’an says or how it is interpreted so here, take a look for yourselves:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Qur’an 4:34 English translation: MH Shakir) [Emphasis mine]

Apparently there is some dispute about whether “beat them” means “beat them” or whether it means “don’t beat them” or perhaps “gently caress them”, for example, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, says:

If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.

Alex, I’ll take gentle and loving beating methods for $500, please.

But my goal is not to denigrate Islam on this site any more than I have previously denigrated other religions, so if anyone else has any good texts, send em on over. The point is that sharia discriminates against women: men automatically get the kids. Sons get half of what daughters get from inheritances. Men may divorce easily (as easily as saying “I divorce you” three times), women must show abundant grounds (to a male Muslim judge).

The second main reason sharia has no place in Ontario is an argument I rarely resort to: tradition. Let’s face it. Judeo-Christianity is the traditional basis of our society. As our society has progressed, so have our religions (well, some of them). The harshness of medieval Christianity is mostly gone, but the same cannot be said of many societies where Islamic law is in effect today.

Unsurprisingly, Muslim women don’t seem particularly fond of having sharia in Canada either. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women is dead-set against it, saying “We are concerned that, in deference to their religious beliefs, some Canadian Muslim women may be persuaded to use the Muslim family law (Sharia) option, rather than seeking protection under the law of the land.” What they’re talking about here is Michael Bryant’s assertion, as Ontario’s Attorney General, that Ontario is “completely committed” to equality for women and their rights under the Charter. According to him, women will have the choice of secular arbitration. But choice is often lacking in problematic relationships, which are exactly what these tribunals are set up to deal with.

Which begs the question: who, exactly, is going to be happy about sharia in Ontario? If orthodox Muslims aren’t going to get their way because Ontario will stop them from using it in an orthodox manner, and moderate Muslims want nothing to do with it, then what’s the point of having it at all? Is Ontario going to appoint sharia judgment interpreters who take the arbitrators’ recommendations and then modify them according to Ontario law? I can see it already:

SHARIA ARBITRATOR: You, sir, get the kids, the cash, and your honour.

ONTARIO SHARIA INTERPRETER: What he meant was: you, ma’am, get the kids, half the cash, and honour has nothing to do with these proceedings.

Separation of church and state still sounds pretty good to me.

Courtesy of a US Army survival manual, here’s how you can test to see if a plant is edible if you are lost in the wilderness: