YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT HIGH GAS PRICES
- Details
-
Hits: 1526
VICTORIA – Remember when the price of gasoline went up dramatically during the last provincial election?
Smelling a nice little election issue, Premier Glen Clark, widely considered the underdog in that campaign, sprang into action. This is unpardonable gouging of the consumer, said Clark and, yessir, we’re going to look into it and do something about it.
Clark did tell his staff to inquire into the matter, but the oil industry apparently wasn’t too worried, and the gasoline prices stayed up there for the rest of the campaign.
Well, it happened again, as anyone filling his gas tank knows. A few weeks ago, in Victoria, the price for a litre of gasoline jumped overnight by about six cents. The increases were similar all over the province.
Now, although the industry swears up and down that there’s no price-fixing, the price hike happened simultaneously at all outlets. Just coincidence, I guess.
Six cents doesn’t sound like a lot, but let’s say there are about a million car owners in British Columbia, burning about 60 litres of gasoline a week. That means an increase of six cents a litre puts an extra $3.6 million a week into the pockets of the industry. Not a bad way to play penny-ante.
Now, what can we do about it, other than get mad a the poor gas jockey or the gas station owner, neither of whom are getting a penny more out of the industry’s windfall. The government doesn’t seem to be able to a lot about it either.
Years ago, the major oil companies had some real competition in British Columbia. Payless periodically started a nice little price war, forcing the big boys to lower their prices as well. One time the war go so out of hand that you could buy a litre of gas for five cents.
The eventual outcome was inevitable. One of the big companies bought the little trouble maker, and now it’s open season on consumers again, and the exact same prices appear miraculously at all competing outlets.
In a report to the premier, his staff said last year that "there is some evidence of price discrimination in B.C. gasoline markets" that couldn’t be explained away solely by underlying costs. Nor are costs a factor this time. The price of a barrel of oil didn’t go up.
The staff inquiry concluded that the government had several option, ranging from reforming to regulating the market, to participating in the industry as a direct competitor. In the end, none of the options seemed too appealing, and the whole matter was dropped.
This time, the premier didn’t even bat an eye when the gouging began anew. No election campaign, I suppose.
That means we can’t expect any help from the premier and his government. But there is something each and everyone of us can do: walk a little more and drive a little less.
In the cities, people could take the bus for a while, thereby depriving the oil companies of some of its revenue. And even in smaller towns with no public transportation, you can hurt the oil giants where it hurts -- in the pocket book.
Walk to the grocery store. Don’t take the car when you drive to a friend’s house. If you live fairly close to work, leave the car at home. And needless to say, don’t drive to the pub.
If we could cut our gasoline consumption in half for just a few weeks, I guarantee the price will come down, and further than it was before the latest increase.
The most powerful economic force is the consumer, and an angry consumer can hammer home a message better than any newspaper editorial.
Of course, you may not really care whether you’re paying a few cents more for your gas than you should, but I doubt it.
So why not give it a try.
IT’S TIME OTTAWA SHOWED SOME BACKBONE
- Details
-
Hits: 1350
VICTORIA – Last time I wrote about the Alaskan fishing fleet behaving like a horde of pirates of old, I got skinned alive by some readers, particularly those from Alaska who, thanks to the Internet, read my column.
A few days ago, an independent expert in international law confirmed just about everything I had said, except he didn’t refer to the Alaskans as pirates, not in so many words anyway.
What Dr. J. Alan Beesley did say, however, was that Alaska’s claim to B.C. salmon on the grounds of what it calls pasturage, "has no basis in fact or law." Now, if he’s right, the behavior of the Alaskan fleet during the past fishing season, pretty much amounts to piracy, I would say.
Beesley is a retired federal diplomat. He has served as Canadian ambassador in a number of countries and United Nations posts. He also headed the Canadian delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference some 15 years ago. His report probably prompted the B.C. government to launch a $325 million law suit against the U.S., Alaska and Washington.
His credentials make Beesley a more reliable expert on international law than the Alaskan cowboy attorney general who is trying to seize Canadian fishing vessels that took part in the recent blockade of the Alaska State Ferry in Prince Rupert. Some Canadian law, never designed for that purpose, allows him to do that right in our own ports.
Alaska’s claim to the salmon is based on what they call pasturage, referring to the salmon runs’ brief journey through American waters on their way to British Columbia streams, where they eventually spawn.
While the fish are in American waters, they say, the Alaskan fleet can scoop them up like cattle caught on some U.S. pasture.
Nuts, says Beesley. Such a claim is "diametrically opposed to the accepted principles of international law on anadromous species (species migrating from the ocean to spawn in fresh water).
"A claim as unfounded and legally frivolous as the Alaskan invention of a pasturage concept should be firmly rejected by both of the treaty parties, namely: the USA and Canada," says Beesley.
The frivolous pasturage concept emerged only recently, 12 years after the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which expired a few years ago, was signed by the two countries.
Beesley bases his opinion largely on the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention which was signed by more than 150 countries, including Canada. The U.S., however, wasn’t a signatory to the treaty and, therefore, evidently feels free to pillage the salmon runs on their way to the spawning grounds.
Article 66 of the convention, the International Law of Anadromous Species, often referred to as the Constitution of the Oceans, however, is legally binding on all nations, including the U.S. and Canada, says Beesley.
So why isn’t the U.S. government insisting that Alaska adhere to that law? Good question, considering that the salmon treaty was between the two federal governments, and neither states nor provinces were signatories to that treaty.
Of course, as long as Ottawa lines up with Washington against British Columbia in this international dispute, there’s little chance the problem will be resolved in time for next year’s fishing season. And not even the legal opinion of a respected expert on international laws governing fisheries and oceans will change that.
Frankly, I’m sick and tired of our federal government’s sycophantic tap dance on the international stage. And so are most British Columbians. A recent Environics poll showed that 58 per cent of British Columbians are supporting Premier Glen Clark’s tough stand on the issue.
And don’t tell me that diplomacy is where it’s at. I don’t believe it. And neither do most British Columbians.
We want the federal government to stand up for the rights of British Columbians. Federal Fisheries Minister David Anderson should give Beesley’s report a careful read and start standing up to American bullies instead of licking their boots.
NEW REFORM LEADER HAS BAD START
- Details
-
Hits: 1531
VICTORIA – Wilf Hanni, you’re a fool.
No sooner was Hanni elected leader of the B.C. Reform Party than he lashed out at the man who has consistently provided some of the best opposition in the legislature and assured the party’s standing at the top of public opinion polls.
If anyone can take the credit for Reform eclipsing both the Liberals and the NDP in the polls, no mean feat for a party that occupies only two seats in the legislature, it is Jack Weisgerber.
But rather than thanking him for a job well done, the political neophyte Hanni criticized Weisgerber and Reform’s other MLA, Richard Neufeld, for having supported the government’s legislation providing same-sex benefits.
Hanni said he plans to take action against Weisgerber and Neufeld for having supported the bill and demand that the legislation be withdrawn. The bill "conveys a vision of normalcy" on homosexual relations, he said.
Now, I admit homosexuality isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I believe in the old saw of live and let live. Just because you consider someone’s lifestyle, morals or whatever you want to call it inappropriate, you don’t deny them the basic protection offered anyone else.
If as a society we truly believe in equality, we must not exclude anyone from the benefits we bestow on each other. And that includes medical coverage for same-sex couples living together.
Responding to Hanni’s broadside, Weisgerber left no doubt where he stood and where the Reform Party of B.C. should stand. "Our party supports equality," he said.
Hanni might have reserved his homophobia for the proposed school program that is to inform students about homosexuality in order to stem the tide of gay-bashing in our schools.
The form of that program has not been established, but if anything could convey a sense of normalcy on homosexuality it might be such a course.
To bash Weisgerber and Neufeld for their support of the same-sex benefit legislation was outright stupid of Hanni.
The B.C. Reform Party has a good chance of making a better showing in the next election than it did in the last one, the poor results of which prompted Weisgerber to resign as party leader.
Since then, the polls have shown rather strange results. Despite the fact that it had no leader, Reform kept leading the polls, with the Liberals and the NDP trailing. That’s something to build on.
Hanni has never been elected to any public office. He’s a political babe in the woods, and instead of publicly crucifying Weisgerber, he should seek his counsel. He will need it. The September 15 byelection in Surrey-White Rock is going to be a make-or-break contest for both Liberal leader Gordon Campbell and the green Reform leader.
By all rights, Hanni should have contested that byelection, but his election as leader came too late. Instead, party president David Secord, a gillnetter, will carry the Reform banner, with Hanni standing on the sidelines until there is another byelection or the next general election.
Being a party leader and not an MLA has distinct drawbacks. Hanni will not be able to attack the government on the floor of the legislature. He will have to depend on his elected people, and even if Secord gets elected, he, too, will be green. That means Hanni will have to depend on Weisgerber, the man he just insulted.
In politics you often don’t even get three strikes, and Hanni has already one against him. Like I said, Hanni you’re a fool.
DIANA’S DEATH PUTS MEDIA UNDER SCRUTINY
- Details
-
Hits: 1215
VICTORIA – The senseless and tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, brings the conduct of the media under scrutiny as never before, because evidence suggests that the relentless pursuit to which she was subjected at the hands of the socalled paparazzi may have contributed to her death, if not caused it.
Let us be clear that the kind of reporters and photographers who hounded the princess wherever she went are not representative of the mainstream media.
Paparazzi peddle their often ill-gotten pictures to publications ranging from Trash TV shows and the slightly more respectable People magazine to News of the World and other equally reprehensible tabloids found at your local grocery store checkout.
But that doesn’t mean the major newspapers and television stations that bring a roundup of the daily news to you are without blame.
When I entered this business, the media still had respect for the privacy of the people who made the news. There were things one didn’t publicize. They included, for instance, affairs politicians may or may not have had. Then things began to change.
Years ago, a police officer, known to me, phoned me and said his department had proof that a certain cabinet minister used the services of a prostitute, suggesting that he paid with a credit card for which the public picked up the tab.
It turned out that he paid out of his own pocket, at which time I told the police officer I want nothing to do with the story. The man was a good cabinet minister, and whether or not he had sex with a prostitute didn’t, in my opinion, interfere with his duties.
If he had used the public purse for his private entertainment, it would have been a different matter, and I would probably have nailed him to the wall, but he hadn’t.
My colleagues were less charitable, and the story was headline news for months. The only column I wrote about the incident at the time dealt with the shameful behavior of some of my colleagues who mercilessly hounded the man’s wife.
Some 10 or 12 years ago, during one of Queen Elizabeth’s visits to Victoria, I was one of a few journalists invited to have lunch with the queen aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia. We were asked not to repeat in print anything the queen discussed with us. I enjoyed the lunch and a five-minute chat with the queen very much and kept my end of the bargain.
How things have changed. Today, even the respectable media feel that it is their responsibility to put every person in the public’s eye under a microscope. It is as if by finding fault with famous people, we can absolve ourselves of our own shortcomings.
This obsession with laying bare the private lives of public figures doesn’t stop at the living. Heroes must be dragged from whatever pedestal a previous generation put them. More than 30 years after John F. Kennedy’s death, there seems to be a public appetite for the man’s sexual peccadilloes.
And that brings me to an underlying cause of the media’s behavior: public demand. If nobody bought the supermarket tabloids, they wouldn’t be in business, and the paparazzi wouldn’t have a purchaser for their trash.
With no purchaser for their pictures in sight, the idiots on their motorcycles wouldn’t have pursued Princess Diana on that fateful night, and she would probably be alive today.
Diana’s brother said the reporters, photographers, editors and publishers that hounded the princess every step of her way had her blood on their hands.
I agree, to an extent, but in the final analysis, the public at large must accept at least some of the blame. The consumer dictates what is bought and what isn’t.
Anyone who wants to change what the mainstream media report should let them know what’s unacceptable. As for the supermarket tabloids and the trash TV shows, they have no hope of being rehabilitated and should be boycotted and shut down by the consumer.
Find out what Beyer had to say
Election are always a hot topic
When is the Budget not a hot search