HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimes Advocate, 1994-02-09, Page 4Page 4 Times -Advocate, February 9, 1994
Publisher: Jim Beckett
News Editor: Adrian Harte cr...FE/A•
Business Manager: Don Smith
Composition Manager: Deb Lord
Pubiica.ons Mail Registration Number 0386
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: CANADA
Within 40 miles (65 km.) addressed
to non letter carrier addresses $30.00 plus $2.10 0.S.T.
Outside 40 miles (65 km.) or any letter carrier address
830.00 plus 830.00 (total 60.00) + 4.20 A.S.T.
Outside Canada 899.00 (includes $88.40 postage)
EDITORIAL
Better yet
The Exeter Town Library, a
mild unassuming building with a crum-
bling exterior and an interior filled with
warm wood bookcases and reassuring
history, still serves its community well
- or at least as well as can be expected
from a building its age.
What was presented Monday evening
was a plan for a library to take Exeter
well into the twenty-first century. The
town will have to decide if that is what
they want.
While constructing a new facility
shared with the Exeter Public School
will be expensive, so will the renova-
tions needed to bring the old building
up to snuff.
The lure of better parking, extended
hours, and a bigger building will prove
tempting enough. The down side is the
loss of all that tradition, and the loca-
tion so central it's embarrassing.
Could the old building be renovated
into an adequate facility as cheaply as
starting again, likely with significant
government grants?
Whatever the case, this proposal is cer-
tainly better than council's original idea
to join the town library with that at the
high school. The trouble is, will the
idea of going all the way down Victoria
Street to wade through hundreds of chil-
dren to return a book still give local sen-
iors the hives?
This is no small point. A library has to
make its patrons feel comfortable and
welcome.
Despite vehement public objections to
moving the town library, this proposal
shows the possibility is not yet dead,
and may have real and genuine benefits
for Exeter residents, and for those out-
side town who also rely on it for their
literary pursuits.
A. D.
Which way is up?
"For some time now, I have
noticed the one outside their
hall is flying upside down."
Dear Sir:
Congratulations to the Canadian Legion, Exeter
branch, No 167 on joining inose who do not know
which way up to fly the Union Jack!
For some time now, I have noticed that the one
outside their hall is flying upside down, this is after
I had called them about it.
Luckily, the Canadian flag has a maple leaf which
looks something like an arrow saying "This way
up", so they can't go wrong there (?).
Come on lads, if you can't fly the flag properly,
take it down.
Yours sincerely,
John Sanderson
Exeter
Editor's note: For those readers wondering
whether or not the British flag has a top or bottom,
we can confirm that the flag is not quite symmetri-
cal. The red "X" is not centred within the white
"X", and the flag should be flown so the broader
white area is in the top left corner. In this photo-
graph here, the flag is indeed upside down.
w
Speak out!
Letters to the editor
The Times Advocate continues to welcome letters to the editor as a forum for open discussion of local is
sues, concems, complaints, and kudos. The Times Advocate reserves the right to edit letters for brevity.
Please send your letters to P.O. Box 850 Exeter, Ontario, NOM 1S6. Sign your letter with both name and
address. Anonymous lettrrs will not be published.
(Di
BLUE
RIBBON
AWARD
"Men are never so likely ,
to settle a question rightly
as when they discuss it
freely."
... Thomas Macauley
Published Each Wednesday Morning at 424 Maul St.,
Exeter, Ontario, NOM 188 by 1.W. Eedy Publications Ltd.
Telephone 1-519-235.1331
O.S.T. #R105210835
Your Views
Letters to the editor
OFA misrepresented
"OFA representing farmers
interests in areas such as tax
reform, etc."
Dear Editor:
To suggest the OFA has failed to scrutinize Bill
91 the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, as the
Times Advocate claimed in last weeks lead
editorial, is at best willful ignorance or at worst a
blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
The facts are that the OFA has been involved
since 1991 in dealing with the labor driven NDP
government's intentions to change labour
legislation affecting Ontario farm operations. Early
tha! year Precir1ent Roger (;enrve ennvene..l a
meeting of all major commodity groups and farm
organizations,so that a proactive strategy could be
developed.
This group, the Labour Issues Coordinating
Committee, (LICC) included active participation
from farm leaders elected to represent commodities
such as tobacco, fruit and vegetable,•dairy. poultry,
greenhouse, mushrooms and others. as well as
elected and staff members from the OFA and the
CFFO.
The facts are that the LICC recognized that the
government intended to inflict the farm community
with the same type of labour legislation that applies
to the industrial sector with no recognition of the
unique nature of the agricultural workplace. Thc
LICC developed the strategy of seeking a separate
piece of legislation that would apply to the farm
workplace.
Thc fact is that after two years of difficult work
the government commited to bringing forth a
separate piece of legislation that would give
agricultural workers the right to organize without
the right to strike, disputes being settled by a system
of arbitration.
The facts arc that when this legislation was given
first reading on July 29. 1993 it was found to be
severely flawed in 11 separate areas. The LICC
with active OFA involvement and support
immediately went to work to acheive satisfactory
changes in each of these areas. The minister of
labour, when pressed at the OFA convention
indicated a desire to amend the legislation to meet
the concerns of the agricultural community. The
OFA is currently pursuing either significant
amendments or the withdrawal of this bill to be
replaced by a mOresati5factory bill.
It is always easy for groups such as ORG to
criticize tough decision that are made by elected
farm leaders. However we must recognize that it
was the farm leaders, many of whom stand to be
personally affected by changes to this legislation.
that have pragmatically developed the strategy
around this isuse.
It is difficult to understand whz the Times
Advocate failed in its responsibility to check the
facts and deliver an accurate message around this
subject. OFA elected members and staff have
answered many queries from individuals and the
media on this issue. It is unfortunate that the Times
Advocate chose not to do its job, but rather used as
its source a group that is unelected. with unknown
motives, soliciting money for unknown purposes,
who somehow claim to speak for some farmers.
It is also irresponsible to suggest that OFA is
lessening its criticism of the government because of
stable funding. The OFA is aggressively
representing farmers interests in areas such as tax
reform, land use planning. environmental issues, as
well as many others including labour legislation.
We continue over 55 years of proudly representing
the farm families of Ontario fulfilling our motto
"Fanners working for farmers."
We look forward to the opportunities that a stable
funding system will provide to allow us to better
represent the issucs facing agriculture as we move
towards the next century. We also look forward to
the challenge of representing a wider membership
base. insuring involvement of all in the Jevlcopmcnt
anis implementation of new agricultural policy.
Bill Weaver
First vice-president, Ontario Federation of
Agriculture.
Peter's Point •
By Peter Hessel
I consider chewing gum an obnoxious form of
pollution.
I have heard the argument that the act of gum -
chewing exercises the jaw muscles and therefore
relieves facial tension. Maybe so.
However, I suspect that is not why millions of
Canadians and Amercians (and increasingly people
all over the world) are using the stuff. Our kids, at
any rate, have never complained about suffering
from facial tension. And yet they think that they're
deprived when they can't -have a gum in their
mouths. They think that I'm abusing them when I
tell them to throw their gum away.
We have two rules about gum: not in the house,
and not in the car. Since our kids are also not
allowed to chew gum in school, this reduces the
consumption a little. Theoretically, they could chew
it in someone else's house, in the garage, or in the
great outdoors.
Although our kids don't like this restriction, they
obey it most of the time. Occasionally a piece of
bubble gum will be smuggled in, or brought in by an
unsuspecting sleepover friend or visiting relative.
Why don't we want our poor children to indulge
in this harmless pleasure?
First of all, I don't know whether it is all that
harmless. I suppose it might be -- in comparison
with other chemically prepared snack -foods and
sweets. The package of "Hubba Bubba Double
Gum" (grape -flavoured) which Duncan brought
home the other day, for example, is made of sugar,
gum base, corn syrup, glycerin, artificial flavour,
lecithin, malls acid, tartaric acid, colour, acetic acid,
and ethyl maltol (in that order). Hardly one of the
world's purest delicacies, I'm sure.
Maybe I wouldn't mind gum quite so much if 1
didn't find it weeks later in the form of disgustingly
grey blobs under the kitchen table and under counter
m chewing - an ugly habit
tops. If I wouhave to scrape it from the soles of
my shoes or boots. If I wouldn't have to dig it out of
carpets. Or remove it from window sills.
Why is it that gum chewers have such horrible
manners? Why can't they dispose of their chewed -
out remains in a civilized fashion - by wrapping
them in the orginial paper or foil, or in a tissue. and
placing them in a trash can?
Perhaps chewing gum manufacturers should he
advised to provide their consumers with lessons -
via TV and radio, or else to pay a special municipal
tax to assist in the cleanup.
Another problem is that the action that is
supposed to relax the facial muscles is extremely
unpleasant to watch. The face of a pretty girl
becomes common and repulsive when she is
chewing gum. The features of a handsome man
become coarse and Kase when he is chewing gum. I
•
think that the gum chewing habit brings out the
worst in all faces.
On the positive side one might claim that gum is
an improvement over other "chews", such as
chewing tobacco. And there is the economic factor.
I can believe that the chewing gum industry
employs a fair number of people and/or robots.
Perhaps gum -chewing should be treated somewhat
like smoking. Have chewing and non -chewing areas
in restaurants. Have gum -free planes, trains and
buses. At this point I do not advocate a complete
ban on chewing gum.
But 1 do suggest the following warning on all gum
packages: "Some hosts may consider it had manners
to find their guests' half -used gum stuck under their
table", or: " 1f you cannot find a receptacle for your
dead gum, please, swallow it".
1
i♦