4 Goneretely the premier pro- osed that the Provincial Goy- 7 rnment take over the generat- Jig stations and transmission ‘7 nes of the BCElectric Go. and J uggested that the municipali- les. consider acquiring the * roperties of the Company re- ‘uired for the retailing of elec- rie power, the transportation = \ystems and gas services. Why is it that after almost wo years the Premier’s pro- Posals for public ownership of ydro-electrie resources in this rovince are no further ad- anced now than at the time ney were first announced? _ The truth is that powerful )\ influences in this province are So9pposing and blocking the aremier’s plan for public Swiiership. The municipali- ties coneerned and particu- arily Vancouyers City Cou'n- sil have adopted a policy of » 2assing the buck back to the Proyincal Government. May- 3 Cornett of # Vancouver ) olaces the entire onus on the ‘Tovincial - government and Bias submitted no proposals whereby Vancouver could participate in-a scheme of joint municipal and provin- ial government ownership. Of the three Vancouver news- B 2pers only the Vancouver Sun as supported the proposal of ablic ownership. The News- Hydro-Electric Volume 1, No. 3, November 18, 1944 lonopoly The stranglehold of electric power monopoly penalizes our people through exhorbitant rates, an antiquated transportation system and failure to develop and maintain available power resources. By Fergus McKean py t IS NOW almost two years since Premier Hart first made the proposal that the Properties of the BCElectric Rail- pray Company be acquired jointly by the Provincial Gov- Sirnment and the municipalities concerned, Hart of a system of public ownership of hydro-electric power development in this province. as an integral Herald has adopted a. position of direct opposition while the Proyinee has utilized the issue to snipe at the Premier and accuse him of “cramping the initiative of private enterprise.”’ Consider the arguments of the News-Herald against public ownership. They state: ‘There 1S No reason to believe that the Province can operate more ef- ficiently than the Company.” What are the facts? The facts are that the BCHlectric Company has failed miserabl7 to live up to its responsibilities to the people of B.C. It has failed to develop the resources it had acquired for the genera- tion of power, with the result Vancouver has had to undergo a semi-blackout for the past Several months. No power is available for the development of new in- dustries or the expansion of existing industries. The entire system of electric ; power and transportation - is antiquated, dilapidated and in- capable of servicing the public. In addition the rates charg- ed for electric light and power tend to discourage the use of- electric appliances by house- holders, thus keeping down liy- ing standards and discouraging the development of new indus- tries. Will you buy a ticke t? We are drawing to see who i T Pall get a seat on the streetcar tomorrow. (OSS EDEE the rates charged for electricity to consumers by the BC@Electrie under priv- ate ownership and those charged by the Winnipes Hydro Hileetrie system under public ownership. The average’ rate for electricity for domestic service charged by the B@Hlec- trie is approximately three cents per kilowatt hour., Gom- jpare this with the rate charged by the- Winnipeg Hydro. Here is the statement from their annual report: “The average rate for all domestic seryice for the year 1943 was four-fifths ef a eent per Wilowatt hour.” (That means that the house- holders serviced by the B.C. Hlectric under private owner- ship pay over three times as much for their electricity as do the citizens of Winnipeg un- der ‘public ownership of hydro; three cents per kilowatt hour in Vancouver as “against four- fifths of a cent in Winnipeg. In addition to furnishing elec- tricity at less than a third of the cost charged by the BC- Hiectric, the Winnipee Hydro, under public ownership, has in- creased the value of its hold- ‘ines from $5,000,000 in 1913 to $28,000,000 in 1943, while con- tributing nearly $2,000,000 to- wards other civic expenses. The News-Herald presents a: similar argument against mu- nicipal ownership of Vancou- ver’s . transportation system. They state: “Can our Mayor and City Aldermen operate more efficiently than the Com- pany? We think not.” In answer to the News-Her- ald’s assumption, let us con- sider another example of pub- lice . ownership, the Toronto Transportation Commission, a municipally owned enterprise which owns and operates the entire street railway and coach lines in the Greater. Toronto area. This publicly owned Com- pany is twenty-two years old. “it operates the most modern and efficient transportation system in Canada with 1,000 modern street cars and 400 motor buses over 267 miles of street railways and 786 miles of highway. During the 22 years of its existence this publicly own- ed company has acquired assets of $69,000,000 and re- serves of $53,000,000, a total of $122,000,000 against lia- bilities of only $15,000,000. At the outbreak of war the Company secured 250 new, modern street cars so there is no transportation problem in Toronto. In addition to providing mod- erm transportation service the Toronto Commission has a com- plet postwar construction pro- gram ready, which includes the building of a whole number of rapid transit lines radiating - by air seryice. from the City Centre which will enable them to abolish street car lines on the city streets en- tirely and replace them with buses. Im order to service the smaller communities outside the city, the Commission has plans ready for the introduc- tion of helicopters to provide feeder lines to their bus routes And yet the News--Herald has the audacity to state a publicity owned trans- portation system could. not op- ~ rate as efficiently as the priv- . ately owned BCElectrie sys- tem. ; @ 7 THE issue here, however, is not one of whether publicly owned utilities operate more profitably and efficiently than privately owned ones. Publicly. owned utilities have already proven their superiority all oyer North America. _ The real issue at stake in this controversy is simply this: Is British Columbia ¢go- omg to develop its natural resources to provide cheap electricity to householders, rural electrification for our farmers, irrigation -to bring thousands of acres of yirgin land now semi-arid into pro- duction, and develop new sec- ondary manufacturing indus- tries to provide jobs and se- curity for B.C. workers, or is. the stranglehold of electric power monopoly going to be permitted to hold back our province’s development, pen- alize our people through ex- orbitant rates, maintain an- tiquated transportation sys- ~tems and hold B.C. in the position of the most back- Ward province in Canada in order that the BCElectric imay continue to pay big: divi- dends to the financial sharks? That is the question. Consider the position of B.C. in comparison to other Gana- dian provinces. B.C. has the_ second greatest hydro-electric power resources of -any Cana- dian province, 17,000,000 horse power. Quebec has the great- esta available water power, 8,- - generate 2.9 per cent on their % 459,000 horse power of. which 5,847,000, or 70 per cent is al- ready developed. Ontario with 5,330,000 horsepower has 50 per cent of it developed. The three Maritime provinces are developed nearly 100 per cent, while B.C. has only 10 per cent; that is, the lowest de-~ velopment of available hydro- electric power resources of any province in the Dominion. Significantly B.C. has. also the lowest proportion of pub- licly owned hydro electric power of any Canadian prov- ince with only 10 per cent pub- licly owned. nae : At the present time electric power to light Vancouver streets and run our industries is being imported from the Bonneyille dam on the Colum- bia River in the USA. And not only that, but.at a time when we are suffering from a short- age of fuel oil, it is reliably re- ported that the B.C. ‘Blectric is burning up 50,000: barrels. of fuel oil per month in order to electricity in their auxiliary steam plant on Main Street. : ’ The shortage of hydro-elec- tric power and the ineffici- ency and antiquity of our transportation systems on _the lower mainland and Van- couver Island constitute .a public scandal in this proy- ince. And yet no remedial Measures have yet been taken. It would appear the influence of those elements who are desirous of seeing this state of affairs continue is stronger than the public spirited citizens and their or- ganizations’ desire to change it. Mr. Murrin, president of the B.C. Hlectrie, eomplains that the company’s stockholders are only getting a return of invest- ment. The Public Utilities Commission, however, in its re- port of July, 1943, regarding the B.C. Electric and its sub- sidiary companies, stated: “Investigation indieates that the aggregate net revenues of —Continued on Page 4. \