Ald. Rankin charges: ‘Four to big r Seasons hare-faced sellout eal estate interests’ —s-crscr. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1971 atrogance 99? EDITORIAL ans, there any limit to the Cigknnce Of U.S. offi- Ct their war against ther, @Shermen and in impo determination to ee claims on territo S Pacific Coast Mal waters? isn’t appears that there dtiye WY limit in the U.S. tight 0 assert its alleged Waters M our coastal Seem, | hey don’t even the, °° Sive a damn if Policy endangers the life Ne a shen Pert of B.C.’s shoot is even more any qe the total lack of ations Umane consider- This aa the U.S. attitude. the in as demonstrated by W meet last week in Were Ive B.C. fishboats to ent nused permission Beg m2 U.S. port to Shoe 2 Storm. Satyr ey after 5 a.m. on skipnecod? May 29 the beca TS of five B.C. boats Seay . “larmed over high Winds "4 20 to 25 mph Coast aud asked the U.S. Wash uard at La Push, etter thee Permission to refus € Port. They were reasons On groundless lsewher ee told to go and Soren Needed shelter in moa. &lven a blunt no Natio elation of inter- This ; Maritime custom. ent oN Hot the only inci- Canad; this kind. U.S. and there (2 Officials admit See y ave been similar “S- ARROGANCE, pg. 12 ic Tribune ae pS 50 Se “ag 10e Vol. 32, No. 23 BE CUT, NOT RAISED B.C. Tel net | near record | President says rate-hike needed to attract funds | By TERRY HAMMOND Sun Business Editor Company enjoyed million in 1970 in spite of a $1.13 milion increase in uncollectable i depressed economy. ._ revenues attributed to a: depres eee released Thursday. The ror showed that in spite of the 1970 economic downswing, net earnings were only $143,000 below 1969's rec- ord earnings of $19.195 mil- lion. yi Uncollectables increased ‘from $1.39 million in 1969 to $2.526 million in 1970. The company’s earnings represented a 7.02 per cent re- turn on invested capital, down from 7.08 per cent in 1969 but still marginally above the 7 per cent guideline stemming from Canadian Transport RICHARDSON . .. must appeal without a rate increase the re- turn on investment would fall e Vancouver Sun Tel president J.E. Richardson. He's got ragserete lled up near-record profits in ow they want a rate boost imposed on the SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. Above clipping from th shows a happy and smiling E something to smile about. His company ro! 1970 of over $19 million. N long-suffering B.C. public. By MAURICE RUSH Facts emerging from the hearing in Vancouver into the B.C. Telephone Company’s application for a rate increase leads to one conclusion: that the giant U.S.- owned utility monopoly should be ordered to cut rates to the public rather than be allowed to increase them. The B.C. public are already paying B.C. Tel the highest rates in Canada for the poorest service. Now the company wants to boost rates which will take another $6.9 million from the pockets of phone users this year, and $17 million more in 1972. To grant such increases to this utility monopoly in face of near record profits in 1970, which exceeded the rate of earnings considered allowable by an earlier session of the Board of Transport Commissioners, would be contrary to the public interest and should not be allowed. a In 1966 the Board of Transport Commissioners made a decision which said that B.C. Tel should reduce its rates if its earnings exceed its permissible maximum of 6.6 percent on average capital. By this decision the U.S.-owned company should have reduced rates to the public in recent years, especially in 1969-70 and again this year. On the left, the Pacific Tribune reproduces a Vancouver Sun report by its business editor of the annual report for 1970 released by the company’s directors. It shows that B.C. Tel had near-record earnings in 1970 of $19.05 million, or 7.02 percent return on invested capital. This huge profit is only slightly under the record profits of 1969 which were $19.1 million, or 7.08 percent earnings on capital. If the-earlier ruling of the Board of Transport Commis- sioners mean anything it is that B.C. Tel owes the phone users a sizeable rebate over the past few years in which its earnings have run over the allowable rate of return. This is the question to which the present hearing in Vancouver should address itself. — B.C. Tel has no justification, in view of its profit picture, to come before a government regulating board to ask for further increases to boost its profits even higher. Truly, this monopoly’s greed knows no limit. The Vancouver Sun report on the left, and a study of the report itself, shows that the real reason why B.C. Tel wants a rate hike is because it wants to attract more capital — and the way to do that, it argues, is to offer foreign investors even bigger profits. This is admitted in the directors report which says: “Obviously, we must maintain earning levels which are appealing to other investors.”’ Clearly, from this the present application has nothing to do with the company needing a rate increase to maintain an adequate service. It is now making more than it is supposed to. What the company is after is to force up the allowable rate of. earnings so that it can charge the public more for the sake of higher profits for investors. The major issue brought out at the hearing to date is that even the high profits reported in 1970, and before, do not give the full picture of earnings, since these are covered up in the corporate structure of the huge U.S. monopoly of which B.C. Tel is a part. Moves made this week by the B.C. Federation of Labor and the provincial-government to compel the utility monopoly to divulge financial details of its dealing with associated com- panies,was turned down by the 3- man Canadian Transport Commission.