Baking monopolies gouge public

By H.K. WARREN

Out of the recent bakery
strike, one message has come
out loud and clear. The bakery
combines came out making a
profit from the settlement.

One bakery that employs only
40 employees, produces 250,000
loaves of bread per week. At an
increase of one cent per loaf on
250,000 loaves, that is an
increase in income of $2,500 per
week. The settlement gave the
employees approximately $18
per week, including fringe
benefits. 40 employees at $18 per
week is a $720 increased wage
outlay by the company. They
stand to profit by the settlement
to the tune of $1,880.

Even next year, when the
second phase of the settlement
goes into effect, the company is
only spending $1,440 while the
company still profits to the tune
of $1,060 per week as a result of
the settlement.

McGavin Toastmaster is a
wholly owned subsididary of
Ogilvie Flour Mills. It is not easy
to estimate the profit that
McGavin makes from the settle-
ment, but, it is safe to say that

they profit to the same extent.
McGavin makes many baked
products besides bread, and
these have been increased the
same as bread, so it is almost
impossible to make even a close
guess as to the exact profit they

‘are making as a result of the

settlement, however, by using
the above authenticated case, it
is possible to visualize an
extensive price gouge.

Maple Leaf Milling, (now
defunct except in name,) and
Lake of the Woods Milling,
burned down at Keewatin,
Ontario, and Robin Hood Mills of
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan are
closed down entirely, all a part
of the immense combine that is
controlled by the bakery
interests under the main control
of Ogilvie Flour Mills whose
directorate reads like a ‘‘Whose
Who”’ of the financial world in
Canada. It includes the Bank of
Montreal, CPR, Cominco, INCO,
Sun Life, U.S. Rubber, Molson’s

Brewery, Ford Motor Co.,
Dominion Bridge, Dominion
Copper, Montreal Star, St.

Lawrence Sugar Refineries,
Massey Ferguson, Canada Life

or else.”’

protest — and win.

EDITORIAL

‘Blow the man down’

C anadian Merchant Marine? Why not? The issue just
» refuses to fade away and die, no matter how much
certain powerful shipping and government personnel may
wish it. When such interests fail in killing the issue outright,
they loudly proclaim, ‘tyes, Canada should have a merchant
marine, but what with inflation, rising labor costs, etc. and
etc., we just cannot afford it. Mebby later.’’

Last week there was a gathering of naval architects, naval
engineers, up at our posh Harrison Hot Springs. There the
absence of a Canadian Merchant Marine was mournfully
deplored. While some fine historical oratory on Canada’s ships
Sailing the Seven Seas was narrated, the fact was mentioned
that as far back as 1878, some 21-years after Confederation,
Canada did have a Merchant fleet of some 7,196 vessels of all
sizes plying the world’s oceans. Today Canada hasn’t a single
ship in deepsea service, and possibly less than 20 flag ships in
coast-wise waters and Great Lakes.

Along this sorry record is the fact that as an exporter,
Canada ships out more than one-quarter of the World’s grain,
ores and coal, potash, oil, etc., all going out in foreign bottoms,
sailing under foreign flags (flags of convenience — to the
shipowners) with nary a Canadian seaman on board, not a
Canadian flag on the masthead.

For this ‘“‘service’’ Canadian shipowners receive a large
chunk of the taxpayer’s money in the form of government
subsidies— but no Merchant Marine Canada can call her own?

Immediately after World War 11, the late and unlamented
Mackenzie King scuttled Canada’s Merchant Marine, by giving
its ships to big business, almost as a gift. Now the Liberal
toreador, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, forgetful the Canadians have
already built and paid for one Merchant Marine, which they
now haven't got, says in essence, if want Canada to have a
Merchant Marine you must be prepared now to pay forit...

Seemingly all but the Trudeau government are getting
wise to the reality that it is costing Canada much more in
terms of economy, prestige — and jobs, not to have a deepsea
Merchant Marine, than to be without one.

Sneers—and final victory

rE ollowing last Thursday’s nuclear test blast in the

Aleutians by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
in which nothing immediate or untoward happened, the kept
press of the market place, like a well-rehearsed prostitute,
gave out with a deluge of pontificating, pooh-poohing, and
general cheap sneering at the millions of people in all walks of
life who protested this criminal provocative act.

That no disaster followed, everyone, including the hacks of
the press, should feel deeply thankful. To most the Yankee’s
“‘we told you so’’ assurances carried no ~~~2 weight the day
after the explosion as the day preceeding it.

What millions were protesting was merely the brazen
continuation of this nuclear criminality, while the General
Assembly of the United Nations was in session; while Socialist
and democratic governments, backed by millions of peoples
the world over, were diligently seeking ways and means to end
this nuclear horror for all time.

- The kept press may sneer— but the people will protest and

dential area would be com-

~ PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 10, 1969—Page 2

barre

Insurance, Mutual Life
Insurance, and so many more
that’ we do not have space to
enumerate them.

Nevertheless, these are the
financial giants that the workers
are forced to battle when they
want a small wage increase.
These are the financial giants
that can keep the workers out of
work for weeks on end, making
the workers go through a maze
of legal acrobatics in negotiating
for a wage settlement. :

Yet, within 48 hours, without
recourse to any authority, legal
or otherwise, but their own
voracious appetite for more and
more profit, they can announce a
price increase of their product
that not only absorbs the wage
increase, but, makes a big profit
on it besides.

Before and during recent
negotiations the price of wheat
was steadily declining. At the
commencement of the negotia-
tions No. 1 milling wheat was
close to the $2.00 mark. At the
close of the settlement the price
had declined to $1.78. The daily
press quoted one highly-placed
government spokesman as
saying that any increase in the
price of bread would be
completely unjustified due to
the declining price of wheat. In
spite of this announcement, the
bakeries arrogantly increased
the price of bread by 1 cent per.
loaf, with the result as shown

above.
** a

Bakeries make 155 to 159
loaves of bread from 100 lbs. of
flour. (100 Ibs. flour, 50 Ibs.
water, 5 lbs. yeast, sugar and
other additives. )

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
price of 100 lbs. of flour (as
advertised in the Western
Producer) is $6.25 per 100. At 27
cents per loaf, then, the bakery
produces from 100 lbs. of flour a
product with a gross selling
price of $41.85!

In 1967 the price of bread was
23 cents per loaf, or a gross
product that would sell for $35.65

or just under an 18% hike in less
than two years. The price of
wheat in 1967 was right around
the $2.00 mark, yet even at this
price, and at the then price of
bread, the financial pages of the
daily press recorded that these
same bakeries made a
substantial profit for that year.
We could enumerate these profit
and loss (sic) statements in
detail, but space will not
permit. And, while these same
spokesmen for the bakery
interests make loud noises at
every Rotary luncheon, Cana-
dian Manufacturers Associa-
tion meeting, etc., about the
governmental folly of giving the
farmers a subsidy on the produc-
tion of farm products, these
same milling interests are

receiving a subsidy for evel!
bushel of wheat they mill inle
flour. 4

For years we have been told
that the secret to lower prices®

_to buy in bulk and sell in volum@

But it would appear that
reverse is true. The past I¢
months of strikes in the f0
industry have clearly shown tia
the large food distributio?
combines with their tremendous
bulk buying power, and, ie
almost limitless facilities to Se!
in volume have resulted in 0?
one thing. Higher prices.
It would seem to this write!
that it is about time thé
Consumer Affairs Minister RO"
Basford started investigall
the retail food industry, me”
packaged goods and bread.

“1T ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!”

' ae

Arbutus compromise hit

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

The real issue in the dispute
over whether or not to build a
huge new shopping complex at
Arbutus and King Edward is
quite clear and simple: Should
our city be developed in the
interests of the people or of
private commercial develop-
ers? It’s a problem that con-
fronts City Council almost con
tinuously.

In this case the CPR stands to
make a mint if its 38 acre site is
rezoned from RS-l, a single
family dwelling area, to CD-1, a
comprehensive area. Overnight
the value of its holding would
increase three or four times.

Woodwards, Simpson’s Sears
and other big retail firms expect
to increase their sales and
profits in this new shopping
centre, much of it at the expense
of local merchants.

Dominion Construction would
get a lucrative contract to build
this multi-million dollar
complex.

But what about the people in
the area? Do they need or want a
new shopping. centre? Their
answer has been a loud and
resounding no! This quiet resi-

pletely disrupted by the thou-
sands of shoppers, cars and
trucks that would be pouring into
the area.

Council faced a dilemma. It
has always served any and all
priviate developers — on that
point there can hardly be any
argument. But the fierce
opposition of the people in this
area created an obstacle. This is
a well-to-do community, most of
whose residents have always
supported the NPA. To permit
the shopping centre when the
residents vigorously opposed it
might result in a considerable
decline in NPA votes. TEAM
members on Council faced the
same dilemma. Their con-
nections with developers are
also close, but. they are also
looking to undercut the NPA in
voting strength.

The outcome was predictable.
A Council committee was set
up to bring in a compromise pro-
posal. The three TEAM
members on Council supported
this motion. I voted against. The
committee will be recom-
mending that the size of the shop-
ping complex be cut by about 50
percent. As far as I’m con-
cerned, cutting a rotten apple in

A gimme ne een e

re
half doesn’t make it mf

palatable. This scheme
throws one more monkey W!@
into city planning. ;
For me there was no q
I opposed the proposal fo!
new shopping centre when !
raised a year and a half a6
opposed it in Council this 4 "8
(the CPR’s second plat om
really very little different |
the first.) And I oppose it mit
even though it will now )& i

r this
twas

down 50 percent. a
My stand is based on the foll0"
ing approach: wel

(1). The city of Vance),
should be developed 1! tof
interests of its people, not Oe uty
private developers. It is the®”;.
of Council to see that Oe
done, and it should be
according toa long term pla

(2). No major develop ul
should be undertaken with nd
taking the issue to the peopl€
getting their views and ideas: ate a

(3). If the people don’t Wa?"
the development — should
dropped.

(4). The CPR’s Arb
property ehould be develope the
a housing project only, with i
addition of any local shopP y
facilities that may be necessat’

utus

das |