By PHYLLIS CLARKE

TTAWA may have been fog-
bound. Parliament Hill might
have been tied up by its
‘Usual fog of confusion. But in a
| Small hotel in the center of our
Nation’s capital something new
iS born. As one of the found-
“ts said, “We think that people
‘Will say this was a great his-
toric event.”
About fifty women had come
together from as far east as
alifax and west as Winnipeg.
: legates from further west
ened to be lost somewhere in
grounding of planes that
aS going on that day.)
They established a new Cana-
‘Man organization, the Canadian
Sumer Protest Association.
j llr president, Mrs, Lawrence
Nilson of -.Ottawa described
a aim .as follows:
ie’ objective of this new
t “Canadian group is to improve
eee level of living of Canadians
; a Coordinating consumer ef-
ate and opinions across Can-
as In the immediate future
ats will be concentrated to
pace food prices.
To achieve these objectives
AN 8roup agreed to use all their
ever to pressure all our insti-
tions, government, industrial
ae especially the retail out-
8, and, in general, influence
Ublic opinion.”
ey agreed to start off with
Country-wide boycott on pack-
i dry cereals, to run from
€c. 15 to Jan. 5. The women
eo they picked this item first
Cause of the high profits and
aa Continual gimmickry associ-
€d with the product.
Reise were women with ex-
ae already in this fight.
N Some important victories.
ica. of them were the leading
. res in their own area in the
: a pickets, petitions on
aa paced prices that have stirr-
4 € Canadian scene over the
couple of months.
ene know that some prices
ie come down because of
. efforts. They know that
a moved the members of the
ing te-House Committee study-
"8 prices,

7 ad the first session in Ottawa

Y were told by Reid Scott,

WOMEN MEET IN OTTAWA

MP, member of this committee,
that a decision had been made
for the Senators and members
of the House of Commons to go
on the road early next year to
hear in all centres of Canada
what people have to say about
the price situation. The women
knew that it was their demand
that the committee come to
them, because they couldn’t af-
ford to go to Ottawa, that had
brought this decision.

Along with Mr. Scott at this
Ottawa conference were two
other members of the commit-
tee, Warren Allmand and Mac
T. McCutcheon.

These parliamentarians dis-
covered very quickly that the
women were no slouches when
it came to questioning. Why not
put a profit limit on companies
involved with basic foods? How
can you talk about food short-
ages when tomatoes and other
vegetables are ploughed under?
Why do you suggest we do re-
search on why prices are high—
what are we paying you so
much money for? Haven’t you
heard enough already to know
that something should be done
right now? How come you say
the workers wages have kept
up when all the figures show
that even for the organized
workers this isn’t the case?

The only relief for the MPs
came when the chairman cut off
the questioning so that the wo-
men could get to the business
of what they were going to do
in the future.

This discussion went on until
almost one in the morning and
all through the next morning,
with the press excluded.

By the time of the press con-
ference’ the next afternoon, an
organization was in being. A
brief to the joint Senate-House
Committee had been prepared.

What does it ask for? Truth
in marketing, truth in packag-
ing. “Standards must be set for
package sizes, weights and
measures, eliminating fractional
ounce sizes making statements
easily read and there must be
enforcement of these standards.”

They recommended a depart-
ment of Consumer Aflairs with
a minister directly responsible
to Parliament with power to in-

vestigate any rise in prices to
take action to protect the con-
sumer. “This,” they say, “could
consist of a Prices Review Board
made up of a cross section of
Canadians.” :

“The food industry,” the brief
continues, “by its performance,
deliberately not giving consum-
ers what they want, continually
acting to reduce competition, by
making excess profits from star-
vation and deprivation cannot
be allowed to pursue this in-
creasingly destructive course.
Unfortunately the food selling
industry, through its actions has
aroused the suspicion and mis-
trust of the Canadian public
and has forfeited any right to
our sympathy.”

How did they feel after their
meeting? Well, these are some of
their comments.

From Brantford, Mrs. Royce
Woolerton said that she felt they
needed a national voice, to mob-
ilize the talents, opinions and
energy of all those protesting.
She said they had started a pe-
tition in her area and that. they
already had 3,000 signatures.

Mrs. L. F. Anderson from Ke-
nora spoke on how pleased she
was with the meeting. Now, she
felt they will organize consum-
ers all through north west On-
tario. Her group had also been
petitioning and had 3,590 names.

Mrs. Sue Hammond from the
Hamilton and District Consum-
ers Protest Association spoke of
the support their group had got
from the Hamilton Labor Coun-

Launch country-wide boycott
on packaged dry cereals

cil, the Oakville Labor Council,
the Teamsters Union and the
United Electrical workers union.
She said that around Hamilton
people were used to picketing
and that they knew that strength
would come from unity and that
this would force the government
and the food monopolies to lis-
ten to the women.

A Laval resident, Mrs. Morri-
sette, said she was very impress-
ed by the development in Ottawa
and she is out to build up in
Laval an organization that will
have the support of all the con-
sumers.

League des Femmes, Montreal
representative Mrs. Blanche
Gelinas, spoke of the picketing
that her group had already done
and their 3,000 names on a peti-
tion. She spoke of the support
received from the unions in
Montreal. ‘We have the public
behind us,’ she added, “when
they see us on the picket line,
they clap their hands.”

The St. John Consumer Pro-
test Committee had its represen-
tative too. Mr. Raymond Roy,
speaking on their behalf also
reported on the advantage there
would be on having a national
body so that all the groups could
keep in touch. He said their
group too had strong labor
support.

Mrs. Margaret Rouble, spokes-
man for WASP in Toronto spoke
of how good the conference was
and welcomed the unity that
would now exist across the
country.

——— as ne + SecA SUE SMARTS cee dO OS EE Sa aaah aaeeeeee .
———— - oo ee

From Windsor there was Mrs.
Jean Dearing who spoke on be-
half of the trade union auxiliary
of which she is presidént (Local
444 UAW), the Essex local 374
of the Farmers Union and the
Consumer-Producer Association
of Essex county. “We can’t em-
phasize too much,” she said, -
“the importance of this occa-
sion.”

Mrs.. James Palmer, coming
from as she said a low wage
area in Halifax, was highly
pleased with the conference. She
went after the government on
the contrast between what hap-
pens to companies convicted un-
der the Combines Investigation
Act, who receive only small
fines, and the imprisonment of
trade unionists as for example
in British Columbia recently.

The delegate from Winnipeg,
Mrs. Gail Pearase, said, “I’ve
certainly got good news to bring
back to Manitoba. Now we are
united all across Canada.”

She said her group now had
38,800 names on a petition and
had been endorsed by labor,_
farmers and a number of the
city councils in the greater Win-
nipeg municipalities.

The enthusiasm that this Ot-
tawa meeting generated was
perhaps best expressed by Mrs.
Wilson, who when asked how
many people this new organiza-
tion spoke for, answered, quietly
and firmly, twenty million.

We'll certainly be hearing
from the Canadian Consumer —
Protest Association.

Labor-backed candidates
score gains in Hamilton

Special to the Tribune

The results of Hamilton’s Dec.
7 civic elections were a step
ahead for labor and a setback
for the big monopolies. The
number of candidates elected
who had been backed by the
Hamilton Labor Council jumped
from four aldermen in the out-
going city council to five alder-
men and one controller — SIX
out of a total of 2] on the

council.

Hamilton’s one and only news-
paper, the Spectator, pushed for
a board of control slate with
two big money mouthpieces on
it. Only one made it. The push
by labor and other democratic
people showed a growing Sup-
port for the candidates of the
Left, including the Communists.

The latter was evident in the
7,124 votes received by board of
control candidate Harry Hunter
— one vote out of every 10 cast.
While he did not run as a Com-
munist candidate, the press, Ta

dio and TV kept talking that

"way.

Don Stewart, running for al-
derman in Ward 4, received over
1,400 votes — 200 more than
two years ago — and came in
third, with two to be elected.

Alderman Pdwell, a steelwork-
er, who was endorsed by the
labor council and took a very
strong position in the fight
against pollution, headed the
polls.

In Ward 7, James Stowe, im-
mediate past president of the
Hamilton Labor Council, was
elected alderman. Brian O’Don-
nell, a Westinghouse worker
and an NDP member, although
not endorsed by the labor coun-
cil, ran a very close third among
five candidates.

During the election campaign
the powers that be tried to make
it look as though there was a
spirited battle going on, while
they sat on the lid so that the
real issues would not come
through. But the big question of

December 23, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 3

whether there will be planning
for the people of the community
or for big business kept popping
up.

The mass publicity media blew
up the importance of such issues
as the early closing of stores,
the attraction or loss of indus-
try and its alleged effects on
city revenue, fluoridation of the
city’s water supply, etc. In spite
of this, two elected controllers
made the question of reforming _
the city’s outdated tax system a>
major issue in their campaign.

The strong stand taken by
Hunter and Stewart that the big
profits of industry should be the |
chief source of the city’s income
proved to be popular and forced
the issue out into public debate.
However, the mayoralty candi-
daies scrupulously avoided this
issue and engaged in safe battle.

The elections’ showed the ©
growing influence of the pro-
gressives within the labor move-
ment and the effects of thei
proposals in the community,

=
=