Dublic vs. private power

By NIGEL MORGAN :

_ There is no issue which has exposed the reactionary, big business policies of the |", ©!

present Social Credit government of B.C. as has its servitude to the dictates of the B.C.) .:

tric monopoly. The question of whether this province’s energy sources are to be! ~ \

3 loped to serve the people’s interests, or be left in the hands of a grasping, privately-
ned power trust has emerged as the biggest provincial political issue of this decade.

In addition to the struggle
setween private and public
er, there is involved the
Question of Canadian de-
Opment and independence
U.S. domination and cold
“integration” through the

- Electric’s participation in

ie U.S. Northwest power pool.
S become a big issue be-
use it is one that reaches into
ally every home, into
ery industry and every com-

° Bennett to show

his Social Credit admin-
tion stood—for, or against
the people’s ‘interests; for, or
ainst the moriopolies. Ben-

came through with flying
lors — FOR the privately-
med monopoly, and
GAINST the people!

What is the record? The B.C.
tric — $600 million sub-

Y of the B.C. Power Cor-

ition — is one of the most
erful monopolies in the
Ovince. Its directors, oper-
4ng from Eastern board-
rooms, also are directors of
er Corporation of Canada,

sign Power Securities, the

‘CPR, B.C. Packers, Cun-
am Drugs, the Powell

er Company and (U.S.)
srown Zellerbach Corporation,

Nobody imagines service is
€ prime interest of its direc-
Ss — at least people who
lave to wait for a crowded bus
during the five o’clock rush in
‘ancouver. First, last and al-
ys these directors want su-
profits, fancy stock market
inipulations. and special mu-
beneficial deals.

Concern for the public? They
extracted the highest pos-|.
rates from the public
r could get away with. In
B.C. Electric rates are so
astically high, that they
only’ exceeded by three
er Canadian cities — name-
Summerside, P.E.1.: Swift
reni, Saskatchewan; and
ex, N.B,; all of which have
mbined population less

han North Vancouver. -
‘Concern for their employ-
2? Yet, which condition or
ge scale was won without a
sustained and often ~ bitter

ggle by the union?

eeoy ne a monopoly posi-} public utilities.

tion, under the protective wing
of a Socred-appointed Public
Utilities Commission which
has. granted practically its
every wish, the B.C. Electric
eats into every pocket. In the
areas it serves it maintains the
highest possible rates; and in
the areas like northern Van-
couver Island, the Cariboo and
Okanagan, which are now
served by the government-run
B.C. Power Commission, rates
are kept excessively high be-
cause the densely-populated,
and consequently profitable
areas like Vancouver are main-
tained as special preserves for
the privately-owned monopoly
to exploit. 4

Decision of the Bennett cab-
inet even turned back to the
B.C. Electric the Powell River
area (previously served by the
B.C. Power Commission) when
the paper town’s expansion and
decision of the paper company
to contract out its power -sup-
ply made it financially worth-
while for Bennett’s friends
(Grauer, Mainwaring, Foley
and company).

The B.C.E.R.’s powertul in-
fluence on provincial and civic
politicians has cost the people
of British Columbia heavily.

For years the people of B.C.
have objected to this. exploita-
tion. As long ago as 15 years,
public pressure in this prov-
ince forced the municipal gov-
ernments to hire the services
of the well-known engineering
firm of W.° C. Gilman and
Company to bring in a report
on the practicability of public
ownership of the B.C.E.R.
When that report was submit-
ted to the government, it prov-
ed that the properties of the
B.C. Electric could be taken
over on a self-liquidating bas-

is, and run to the public’s ad- |

vantage ona “service- -at-cost’’
basis.

The then Minister of Muni-
cipalities, Conservative R. C.
McDonald, told the legislature:
“Public ownership is no longer
an experiment — it’s worked
every time it’s been tried.” ©

Since that time many hun-
dreds of favorable resolutions
have been adopted;
trade unions, community,
ratepayer, and farm organiza-
tions, including the powerful
B.C. Federation of Labor, the
CCF and the LPP, have gone
on record for public-owner-
ship’ of the. province’s: main

x

‘taken

many

=

The expropriation of priv-
ate utilities and their opera-
tion as public bodies has been
in’ leading centres
throughout Canada, the Unit-
ed States and around the
world. All the great power
projects of the world today
are publicly-owned.
familiar with what has been
accomplished by the Tennes-
see Valley Authority, the Bon-
neville system, and the Ontar-
io. Hydro -are ‘aghast at the
lack .of leadership and pro-
gress in B.C.

British - Columbia sorely
needs a man of the stature of
Adam Beck, great patriot and
father of Ontario’s  govern-

ment-run Hydro Commission’

that has served the people of
that province -so well. That
Commission’s .1956 balance
sheet shows that it had been
able to’pay off all but 7%
million dollars on a worth of
126% million dollars, with
rates that are half those of
Vancouver.

Precisely the same kind of
big money is involved in B.C.
Electric dealings, except that
it is operated for the benefit
of a few private shareholders.

The basic principle which
governs the operation of On-
tario hydro system is that el-
ectric service is provided there
to the consumer at cost. Elec-
trical development is regarded
the same as water supply: a
fundamental service based on
waterfalls, in which every
citizen has an inherent right
of ownership.

‘What are the main reasons
why publicly-owned utilities
give better service at cheaper
rates? =

First, they can’ obtain funds
at lower interest. One of the
major costs of electricity is
the borrowing ~ of money to
provide the huge dams, gener-
ating equipment and trans-
mission lines. For example, on
the cost of $1,000 million that

lit is estimated that it would

cost Wenner-Gién to build the

Peace. River project, the inter-

est charges would amount, to
some $60 million per annum;
plus an additional $40 million
profits to: the owners, income
tax, etc. Constructed as a pub-
licly-owned project, with the
low interest possible on gov-
ernment-guaranteed bonds, in-
stead of $100 million Wenner-

People | .

Public development of the

Columbia River is needed. _

Gren. would. require, there
would be only $50 million to
pay for interest. Private own-
ership would thus actually
double the costs.

Secondly, publicly - owneac
utilities are exempt not only
from shareholders profits, bui
from sizeable federal taxes as
well.

Thirdly, publicly-owned. ut-
ilities retire their debt as fasi
as possible, while private util-
ities perpetuate their debi.

And fourthly, as the public-
ly-owned systems (like the B.C.
Power Commission, Ontario
Hydro and many similar ex-
amples in. Edmonton, Regina,
Winnipeg, Montreal) have
shown, they had the advant-
age of being run by public ser-
vants who use the service, and
who have no. other interest
than the best: possible service
at the lowest possible cost.

One of British Columbia’s
greatest needs today is com-
pletion of the job of bringing
its public utilities under one
unified, publicly-owned _ sys-
tem. The province‘s hydro and
natural gas resources, and as-
sociated services, need to be

—

returned to the public domain.

Successive Tory, Liberal,
Coalition, and Social Credit
administrayions have helisp6
the B.C.E.R. monopoly keep
the people in their grip. They
have helped maintain the pub-
lic ownership demand at arms
length. But the issue is far
from dead. The demand is
growing
Concern is growing about
the acute danger of our power
resources falling under con-
trol of the U.S., or some other
foreign big business clique.
Opposition is growing to the —
Socred policy sabotaging the
government - financed B.C.
Power Commission, while let-
ting the B.C. Electric skim off
the cream. More and more are
asking why must B.C.E.R.
rates be so high? Why .must
we pay out unnecessarily mii-
lions in profits to B.C.E.R.
“coupon clippers” and mil-
lions more in income and ex-
cess profits taxes.

Out of all these comes the
$64 dollar question: How
much longer are we going to
let it go on?”

re
August 14, 1959—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 3