More on the gas tax
Jennifer Lyle
Regarding "On the gas tax" [October 3, 2005]. I had to chuckle upon reading this particular letter to the editor. The author of the source of my mirth suggests in his article that the Canadian government should leave the gas tax alone or better yet, raise it.
He states that the reason gas prices continue to climb is simply because of the non-renewable nature of this resource. Evidently, Mother Nature ran out of petrol over the Labour Day Weekend, causing the oil companies to jack up the price exponentially. Then, miraculously, oil wells found oil again on the following Tuesday and prices returned back to their normal position.
One could argue that the jump in prices is also due to larger global issues such as the hurricane disasters in the oil-producing belt of the United States and the threat of terrorism in the Middle East.
Apparently, these disasters happen every weekend, causing the price of gas to once again rise up. Equally apparent is that the oil companies must all be receiving their oil from the all the same oil wells, so that the oil prices not only jump up uniformly in cost to the nearest tenth of a cent, but also at the same time.
With respect to a growing demand, it is true that the number of cars per family in the Lower Mainland has increased over the past decade. However, this increase did not happen over the span of these past four months, in which we saw the gas prices jump from the double digits to the triple.
Let's not be naive. Today's oil prices are a direct result of oil companies manipulating the bottom line and taking advantage of global and local events to justify such actions.
The author goes on to suggest that the Canadian government should keep the gas tax as a way to bring in revenue to fund public programs.
I have difficulty believing that the government of Canada is pressed for funds when they apparently have no problem losing track of $1 billion dollars, as was the case with the Human Resources Department fiasco (I seem to remember Prime Minister Chrétien going to great lengths to defend the embattled Jane Stewart).
Technically speaking, putting money back into the pockets of Canadians would keep the money in Canada. Instead of spending that money on their gas bills, people would instead spend it on goods and services primarily within Canada.
For his piece de resistance, the author goes so far as to suggest that if the price of gas becomes too exorbitant, people will be forced to use the public transit system.
One problem: this only works in southwestern B.C. We must recall that not all of British Columbia revolves around its southwestern corner. For the majority of B.C., there is no transit system. The simple fact of the matter is that the bulk of British Columbia's communities are too isolated and too sparsely populated for a bus system. It would be incredibly impractical.
This being the case, those habitants of areas outside the golden southwestern sphere are entirely reliant upon their own vehicles. Ride a bike? Not in the middle of -30 degree weather. Go and walk? Not for groceries when the trek is a 10-kilometre roundtrip.
Public transit only works in areas of high density, such as the GVRD, the Greater Victoria area, and to a limited degree, the various satellite suburban communities around these two areas.
It is far too easy to ignore a whole other part of the province to which our style of life does not apply. People in these areas don't use their cars because they are rich and can afford to pay elevated gas prices. They use their cars because they have no other choice.