he era ot Social Credit in Alberta ended August 30th

1971. Albertans in their majority voted Tory for a

‘“‘change,’’ not much of a change, but a prophetic one never-

theless. It was fitting that the Socred mirage should expire in
the province which gave it birth.

Thirty-six years ago in the midst of the economic chaos of
the Hungry 30’s with Bible-thumping William Aberhart at the
controls and well stocked with economic nostrums to sell,
Social Credit ‘‘took over’ Alberta. Even now it is hard to
believe how a relatively enlightened electorate swallowed the
Aberhart bunkum or voted for such Social Credit tripe, but they
did, and in a big way.

Perhaps it was because of the pressures of the then crisis
or because Abie peddled his political guff as having the
“approval of God,” hence it would amount to blasphemy to
question his Socred menu. Be that as it may, August 30 marked
the final curtain to the Socred ‘‘holy trinity’? of Aberhart,
Manning and Strom, who, each in their turn during those 36-
years, served-Big Monopoly well and faithfully. Especially for
a party that boasted (and still does of being the “‘party of the
little man.”’)

I have before me a pamphlet issued by the Communist Pro-
vincial Election Committee at the time of that famous (or
infamous) election; a pamphlet entitled “‘Exposure of the
Fascist Character of Aberhart’s Social Credit Propaganda.”
An imposing title indeed, but more imposing is revelations of
Aberhart’s ‘‘25-dollar basic dividend’’ to all Albertans, his
‘just price’ to Alberta’s hard-pressed farmers, his “‘just
society’ when Social Credit had reached its full bloom.

But as the pamphlet quotes Aberhart on one of his’ many
radio broadcasts, ‘‘It does not matter if the people don’t under-
stand all about the theory of Social Credit, so long as they
support it’, and the late reputed top world theoritician of
Socredia, Major Douglas, warning the leaders of Social Credit
against the danger of letting the people know too much about
the Social Credit plans for their ‘‘salvation,’’ lest they get wise
to the political swindle and dump the lot.

In his first series of broadcasts after taking office, as the
pamphlet well illustrates, Aberhart harped continously on
Social Credit versus Communism. For this ‘‘party of the little
man,” the prime evil was Communism rather than capitalist
exploitation.

“The Communists want to change the system’’ boomed
Aberhart, ‘‘Social Credit means to make the system work for
all,’’ hense his “basic dividend of 25-dollars’’ to all and his
ultimate issuance of his own worthless ‘script’? dollars —
which the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA), superceding
Abie’s “‘God,”’ put the kibosh on; not out of any concern for
the peoples’ ‘welfare, but in protecting their own selfish
interests. Whith his “funny money’ nostrums Abie was
prepared to give inflation a boost such as Messrs. Trudeau and
Benson never dreamed of. 3

So Abie’s ‘*basic dividend” went down the drain, as did his
‘just price’ for farmers, the ‘‘just wage” in his anti-union
ravings, and the “‘just society’ for all Albertans. And it all
turned out just as the Communist Election pamphlet correctly
stated it would — some 36-years later. The worm had at long
last turned, and while Alberta’s tool and other big monopoly
tycoons have little to fear from the “new” Tory incumbents,
that ‘‘turn’’ augurs well for the future of Sunny Alberta.

Doubtless the election results in Alberta has thrown the
Victoria Social Credit dovecote into a flutter of apprehension,
much as if a ferret had got into the pigeon coop to warn the
denizens of their early demise.

The last B.C. provincial elction and the one before that
saw Premier W.A.C. Bennett ‘saving’ B.C. from ‘‘socialism,”’
just as Aberhart and Manning before him, during the 30’s and
40's. But it is more than likely that the people of B.C. do not
desire to be continuously ‘‘saved,”’ like a skidroad stiff at the
“Sally Ann’? — for the same old treadmill of exploitation,
frustration, joblessness, hunger and worse.

This time they'll probably want to be *‘saved’’ from Social
Credit itself even if like Alberta, they jump from the frying pan
into the fire. In such cases anti-Communism or anti-Socialism
or anti-unionism won't help much.

Big Business monopoly would of course mourn the passing
of Social Credit, in B.C. moreso than in the current Ablerta
“change.” but with the demise of Social Credit here, B.C.
could, should and must come into its own!

Get a sub—help the PT

Readers will notice that this week’s 12-page paper has only four
B.C. pages instead of the five usually found in our 12 page paper.

The editorial board has decided, reluctantly, that because of
rising costs and our difficult financial position we will for the next
period of time run four B.C. and 8 national pages. Our hope is to
return to a fifth B.C. page when our finances improve..

To a very large extent the coming Fall circulation drive will
determine whether the PT will be able to return to the five pages.
We will review the picture at the conclusion of the drive. If a larger
circulation and improved financial position make it possible we
would be happy to return to the five B.C. Pages.

The decision rests in the hands of our readers.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1971—PAGE 2

NEW RATES UNFAIR

Does B.C. Tel regulate
Transport Commission?

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

Can you imagine a telephone
company so petty and profit-
hungry that it charges you 20¢
just for asking an operator the
charges on a long distance call?
Or a government-appointed
regulatory commission that
allows such a thing?

Unfortunately it’s not an
abstract imaginary situation —
it’s an accomplished fact. The
company is B.C. Tel and the
government commission is the
Canadian Transport Commis
sion.

You will remember that
recently the commission held
public hearings in Vancouver,
into B.C. Tel’s application for a
whole range of exhorbitant
increases which its profit situa-
tion in no way justified.

As informed people know, B.C.
Tel’s expense figures are mani-
pulated by its parent company,
General Telephone and Elec-
tronics Corporation of New
York. This giant owns the firms
which supply B.C. Tel with equip-
ment and services. All it has to
do any time it wants to show a
low profit for B.C: Tel is to
increase the prices charged to
B.C. Tel for services and parts
by its subisdiaries — Lenkurt,
Canadian Telephone & Supplies,
Dominion Directories,
Automatic Electric and G.T.E:
Service Co.

This is public knowledge. Yet
when the lawyer for the B.C.
Federation of Labor at the
hearings asked the Canadian
Transport Commission to
compel the suppliers to open
their books for inspection to
expose this business, the
Commission turned him down!

B.C.-Tel asked for rate
increases which would bring it
an additional revenue of $17.1
million. The commission granted
it increases which would bring in
$9.4 million. I have no doubt
that’s just about what B.C. Tel
was really after in the first
place. é

Now our monthly rates will go
up, our long distance calls will
be drastically boosted and so
will installation fees and many
other charges. And in charac-
teristically arrogant fashion,
B.C. Tel has announced that
because it didn’t get all it asked
for, services will suffer some
more.

By its action the Canadian
Transport Commission has
permitted B.C. Tel to charge the
highest rates in North America
while providing the poorest
service. It’s always been a case
of paying more for less and now
it will be even more so.

No wonder many people are
asking does the Transport
Commission regulate B.C. Tel or
vice versa? Now an additional
$9 million a year at least will be
taken out of our pockets and sent
to New York as profits. I
strongly suspect that the actual
figure may be much greater.

The federal government is
directly to blame for this dis-
graceful situation. The
Commission had the legal power
not only to refuse the increase
demanded by B.C. Tel but to
order it to reduce rates and
improve services.

This is the sort of situation we
get when a private company is
given a monopoly of a public
utility. In Edmonton the city

owns the telephone system. Its
rates are about half of ours and
yet it shows a healthy profit
every year which goes into civic
revenues. s

It’s about time that we told
B.C. Tel that either it lowers its
rates and improves its services,
or it will be taken over and
operated as a publicly owned
utility. Its primary purpose
should be to provide service; not
to gouge the public for the
benefit of private foreign
interests. That means making
telephone service available to
all, with special consideration
to low income groups such as
senior citizens.

‘Don’t we have enough
problems with our ecology
already .. .?”-

A public conference in supP
of a rapid transit syste™
Greater Vancouver will
the Grandview Comm
Centre, 3350 Victoria Dr 7
urday, Oct. 2 between 9
4:30 p.m. 2

The conference is sponst
by the Citizens Committee
Public Transit, a represe?
group of citizens opposed
freeways and in favor of aP¥
rapid transit system.

Keynote speaker a
conference will bé i
Vaughan, town-plannel
architect from Toronto.
head of the Spadina
Corporation, the org@
which compelled the ’ ss
government to abandon t ‘i
million half-completed Se
Expressway in Toronto Wy
of a public transit system.

The conference is ope? at
those interested. Regist
will beat 9:30 a.m. Them
session will start at 10 a.
alderman Harry Rank}
John Leckie, chairma? a
Vancouver Town
Commission, as speakers:

Vaughan will speak @
and will be followed at2Pi,
William Eager, transP®
consultant. Seminar dis
will follow speeches.

For further into j
the parley contac
Law, secretary, 2306 Ma®=
St., 736-0714.

nizall

2
a

tion 4
iss |

Should Vancouver?
another New York’

The following short article is
submitted by Michael Bader, White
Rock. It is in part a translation from a
West’ German magazine, and is a
particularly sharp rebuke to people
such as Mayor Tom Campbell who
have said they would like to see
Vancouver grow into a city “like New
York.

“New york is dying. Until
now we had complaints of
deterioration of conditions.
Now we must talk of the possible
death of our city.”

These were the opening words
of an appeal to New York city
workers. Mayor Lindsay in his
desperate struggle to rescue his
city from financial collapse has
resorted to some very drastic
measures. Three thousand city
employees have been laid off,
including members of the police
force, and a thousand teachers
have been dismissed. The
closing of a number of hospitals
seems unavoidable.

Is the city of New York really
lost? Opinions vary but all of
them are agreed that the city is
very sick and near the dying
point. Nothing functions well in
that metropolis. One hundred
and fifty thousand drug addicts
are hunting every day for money
to buy the stuff they crave,
which means no one is safe on
the streets. Dirt and garbage on
the streets in indescribable.
Police are unreliable; every
second day a bribery scandal is
uncovered. The standards of the
schools sink from semester to
semester.

Some days ago Mayor Lindsay
called on the separate states and
the federal government to look
into the serious situation. He

invited the mayors of 1d ae
New York to discuss HOW
cities might be saved ee
The mayor of M!
declared: ‘The rich a
to live. in the suburbs ®
high taxes but the pO "ig
colored people who li¥f
city cannot afford taxes: t
The mayor of Det’
‘Unemployment now ©
to 25 percent of the 12% jy
and 50 percent
unemployed are youns ¥ o¢
am forced to také
drastic measures. p
and play centres be
closed down as well
welfare institutions.
some fire stations. - °

Similar stories wer
the mayors of New
burgh, Baltimore, ty
Seattle, Wilming!?
Orleans and Atlanta. __ jf

This is the situall
richest capitalist coun of
world. It is easy t0 oe as
why the USA is in SUS

and economic mess- 5,
e Us

For many years ti will
been involved ! I

d
conflict in small * iy
aggressive wars. al

of military air and ati
around. the globe. ve b
million people . E sty

accepted standa 1 dis
inequality and raci@
tion.

The fantastic milill
ditures which bring, jot
obviously lead tO Ma w
economic crisisy
millions of Amer!” qe
suffer ‘while the Vé
richer. :