Loading...
The Huron Expositor, 1985-08-21, Page 2fUlHuron Axpos!tor SINCE 1860, SERVING THE COMMUNITY FIRST 4CNA BLUE RIBBON AWARD 1985 HEATHER McILWRAITH, Editor Incorporating Bruscels,Post 10 Main Street 527-0240 • Published in SEAFORTH, ONTARIO Every Wednesday morning The Expositor is brought to you each week by the efforts of: Pat Armes. Bessie Broome, Marlene Charters, Joan Guichelaar, Gary Heist, Anne Huff, Joanne Jewitt, Stephanie Levesque, Dianne McGrath, Lois.McLlwain, Bob McMillan, Cathy Melody, Larry Till and Steve Walters, Member Canadian Community Newspaper Assoc. Ontario Community Newspaper Association Ontario Press Council ,Commonwealth Press Union International Press Institute Subscription rates: Canada $18.75 a year (In advance) Outside Canada $55.00 a year (in advance) Single Copies - 50 cents each SEAFORTH, ONTARIO, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1985 Second class mall registration Number 0696 Unfair practice,? It's not surprising public perception of business is growing increasingly negative. When one has to deal on a regular basis with companies like Bell Canada, one almost can't help but feel burned. Back in December, Bell applied to its parent body,, the Canadian Radio and Television Telecommunications Commission, for a two per cent rate increase. Bell said it needed the extra revenue to offset increasing costs. Anyone who has been out shopping recently would know there's some truth to the argument everything costs more. What Bell officials neglected to tell the CRTC was prices weren't the only thing on the increase. The company's profits were up substantially, too. In the meantime, the CRTC allowed Bell a "temporary" two per cent hike, until it could determine whether a permanent increase was justified. The CRTC decided last week. Bell didn't need the extra money. Its profit picture was rosy enough, the commission felt, to enable it to continue without difficulty and without the increase. Meanwhile, consumers have been forking out an extra two per cent for every phone billtheyyve received in the past nine months, and there's been nothing to indicate any kind of rebate might be forthcoming. That smacks of unfair business practice. If there is no evidence to indicate Bell needs the money, then it should never have got it in the first place. Every single ratepayer should be entitled to a refund of some kind. The chances of that happening are about the same as the Argos winning the Stanley Cup. In the United States, the government broke up the phone company's monopoly a couple of years ago. There have been some complaints of inferior service, and in some cases even higher rates to consumers. But that's to be expected. Once the new companies in the market get a handle on how things are done (properly and efficiently), the quality of the service will go up and the prices will come down. In the case of Bell, deregulation may not be the answer. In general, Canadian telecommunications technology is considered leagues ahead of its nearest international competitor. Breaking up Bell's monopoly, while perhaps politically expedient in today's climate of less government, might cost us our competitive edge. At the same time, something should be done to curb Bell's ravenous appetite for our money. Most people would have little difficulty supporting the company in its time of need. To return the favor, though, Bell should be a little more cautious about reaching into our pockets. — Money for value People always complain because they don't get value for their money. Unfortunately the reverse can be said as well, people don't get money for their value. A recent series of articles in a Toronto newspaper paralleling Jobs and wages has further pointed out the absurdity of society's value system. In one of the articles, comparing the job of a zookeeper to that of an early childhood education teacher, that absurdity Is paramount. The article points out a substantial difference in pay between the two jobs. One has to however be fair and say the zookeeper is more than likely entitled to make the wages he/she does. But on the other hand the preschool teacher provides a vital service to the community and by that token is ridiculously underpaid in comparison. Once viewed as a glorified babysitting job, early childhood education in this day of two breadwinners per family, has taken on a new perspective. With both parents absent from the home a great deal of the time early childhood education has filled a gap. Teachers and preschool centres have taken on a whole new significance and provide a whole new sphere of education for the child. Parents rely on their services and have great expectations when it comes to what they want for their children. To keep up with these expectations teachers are expected to provide more than a diaper changing, baby watching service. Instead they become in fact a pseudo -parent of sorts, there to educate the child in every realm, and to understand and cope with a variety of problems. Their post secondary education reflects this changing trend too, listing courses such as health, nutrition, psychology, sociology, child abuse, art, science and children's literature as some of the areas of study. / There was a day when a babysitter just picked up a book and read it to the child. Today, early childhood education teachers may read a book but those books are used as tools of education in addition to a form of entertainment. More and more too these centres are expanding to take on problem children — children from broken or difficult family situations — and attempting to give them a positive outlook on life where possibly a positive outlook would never exist. They are attempting to bring a semblance of normality to what normally would be a very upturned life of a child, and they are providing a worthwhile service to parents, who in this day and age need their services and to the community, who are reaping the benefits of a service that puts so many children on the right path early in life. It is apparent society doesn't pay based on the value of its employees, or the importance of the job they're doing. Why? Do we, for example, value more the contribution a zookeeper makes to society, or do we just value too little our children and their tomorrow. — H.M. OPINION THE PEOPLE ON THE BUS — While these schooibuses now sit giggling children heading back to school. The autumn season is . empty in a Seaforth parking lot, they'll soon be full of squirming, descending quickly, . (Mcliwraith photo) A lesson to be learned When the 40th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rolled around the world was deluged with controversy, a controversy that unfortunately obscured a valuable lesson of hope. The anniversary brought those out who said the bombings should never have happened, who with the hindsight of 40 years, in these days when Japan is a friend, not an enemy, can say there was no need for the bombings at all and that U.S. leaders were guilty of a crime against humanity. On the other side there were those who deplored the attention paid to the climatic conclusion to the war with Japan, without recalling all the atrocities Japan had perpetrated to bring about that war in the first place. Lost in it all was the reality of Japan then and now. In the late 1930s and 1940s, Japan invaded and occupied nations to create what it called the Greater East Asia Co -Prosperity Sphere. The aim was to secure for Japan sources of raw materials and markets for the finished products of their industry. When free trade was strangled by protectionism during the Depression years Japan suffered. The growing mood of frustration gave the military more and more influence until in BEHIND THE SCENES by Keith Roulston 1941 General Hideki Tolo became Prime Minister and the military had control of the government. The bombing of Pearl Harbor came weeks later. Within four years Japan lay in ruins. The U.S. occupying forces put the civilians back in charge of the government. knew constitution .was adopted to make sure Japan would never again become a nation bent on military adventure. Only a tiny armed force was allowed, strictly for defence. Military spend- ing was limited to one per cent of gross national product. Japanese ingenuity and aggressiveness was channelled instead into industry and the rest is history. Japan became more powerful in peace than it was in war. As one observer noted, even if Japan had won all its objectives in the war, the new markets could not have supported the kind of economy Japan has today. The United States could. and should, take a lot of credit for this marvellous transition, this beacon of hope for a peaceful world. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Stung by competi- tion from this new business rival, many Americans are crying foul. It is unfair trade. they say, when the Japanese spend so little on defence while the Americans pour a huge portion of their gross national product into defence. The American government is now pushing Japan to rearm, To cut American defence budgets and, on suspects, drive up the cost of doing business in Japan because of higher taxes, the Americans want Japan to build an air force and navy that can protect sea lanes up to 1,000 nautical miles from the Japanese shore. For American's, who now pay to protect Japan this is fair. It is. however, both ironic and tragic the one nation that has learned how to win more from peace than war should be pushed to spend more on armed forces. Giving the other guy a chance A columnist sometimes has an unfair advantage over people he disagrees with, He has a handy forum to express his side of the story to a public audience. This situation is illustrated in a recent column in which I criticized Jack Riddell, our new Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Riddell kindly sent me a letter explaining his position. He felt I had misunderstood the speech he made at the farm rally in Queen's Park. The point in question was my interpretation of his intentions regarding bi-partite stabilization for hog producers. I understood from the speech Ontario would not start the program this year and I expressed my concern over this new delay. I formed that opinion when he said "Should the federal stabilization program not be in place this year for whatever reasons, Ontario will act on behalf of its own producers." It seemed reasonable to con- clude it would be necessary for the province to wait until the end of the year to see if the federal program was "in place." This leads me to the conclusion the province will not institute a bipartite stabilization program COUNTRY CORNER by Larry Dillon until next year at the earliest. Mr. Riddell promised in his letter to me that the bi-partite program would be retroactive to January 1985. in order to be fair to him i must admit this promise was also made in his speech at the rally. it is difficult to get excited about possible help, next year, which will be retroactive to this year. The problems in the red meat industry in Ontario are so acute, many farmers will be put out of business this year. Promising help later is like telling a condemned man that, immediately after his execution, capital punishment will be banned retroactively Ihope that my interpretation of the speech was wrong. Mr. Riddell did not state specifically he was delaying the program. Perhaps it can happen this year. The red meat producers in Ontario cannot continue to compete with producers in other provinces who receive substantial subsidies. The matter is made even more unfair by an American tariff passed in retaliation for these subsidies. Farmers in other provinces benefit while those in Ontario are punished My opinion of politicians is perhaps distorted by a dose of cynicism i nave listened to too many political promises which turned out to be just so much hot air. I now tend to expect the. worst. I hope sincerely i was wrong about Mr. Riddell's intentions. I can and do make mistakes. Let's all hope this is one of them. U Mr. Riddell does get a meaningful stabilization program in place this year i owe him an apology i promise if he does. I will make that apology. Growing old comfortably How to supplement your income when you go into retirement? This is an occupational hazard of potential retirees, who, after living in this country for the past thirty years, know full well that their paper money is going to be good for starting fires with, and not much else, in a decade or so. ' Canadians are extremely security - conscious. They don't give a diddle about growing old gracefully. They want to grow old comfortably. it's hard to believe. These are the same people whose ancestors came from the fogs of Scotland and the bogs of Ireland and the smogs of England, with plenty of nerve and not much else. They paid their dues with hard work, taking chances, raising and feeding huge families. The last things in their minds were pensions, condominiums in the south, the falling dollar, or Ayrabs. They didn't need oil; they cut their own wood. They couldn't even spell condomin- ium. There was no such thing as a pension. The old man was Grampa, and he hung onto his land, bullied his sons, and made most of the decisions, until he retired to senility and the fireside. The old lady was Gramma, and she helped birth her grandchildren, bossed her daugh- ters, had a wisdom that only hard living can give, and was buried thankfully, but with copious tears all around. They lived with a certain ugliness: brutal work, vicious weather, cruel child-bearing by the women, until they were warped and arthritic and sick in body. Few pleasures like music and books and drama and automatic dishwashers and television and milk in a plastic carton instead of a cow. But they didn't need two martinis to give them an appetite for dinner. They didn't need a couple of Seconal to put them to sleep, or a couple of mood elevators to relieve their depression, or a couple of Valium to relax their muscles. SUGAR AND SPICE by Bill Smiley They ate like animals because they worked like horses. They slept like animals because they were exhausted. They didn't need mood changers because they had only two or three moods: angry, tired out, or joyful. They didn't need muscle relaxers because their muscles were too busy to relax. Now you may think I'm making a pitch for "The good old days." I'm not. i think they were dreadful days. I remember the look on my Dad when he couldn't even make a payment on the coal bill. i remember watching my mother, who never cried, weeping over the sewing machine at midnight, when she thought no one was looking. But in those days, people grew old with a certain dignity. if not beauty. They accepted their final illness as "God's will." Most people today say, "Why me?'.' when they are stricken. Today people want to he beautiful when they're old, They want to be thought of as "young at heart." They want to be comfortable. They don't want to be ill. They dread the cold, They fear poverty. They search, sometimes desperately, for some sort of womb, or cocoon to go back to, where they will be safe and warm and fed, and never have to look that grim Old Man straight in the eye. And modern economy lets them down. Their hard-earned, and hard -saved dollars dwindle into cents. They come close to heart attacks and strokes when they have to pay $3.80 for a pound of beef, 89 cents for a lousy head of lettuce, over a dollar for a pound of butter. 'They are disoriented, confused, and frightened. And it's not only the old who are frightened and insecure I see it in my younger colleagues. They don't talk about Truth and Beauty. ideas and Life. They talk about property and R.RSPS and the price of gold, and inflation, and the terrorizing. possibility of losing their jobs. Some of the smart younger teachers boughesome land when it was cheap (they're not so young anymore, eh') and built on it. The smarter ones have a working wife. The smartest ones have both Most of them. even those in their thirties, are already figuring on a second income when they retire: selling real estate or boats: doing the books for some small businessman: market gardening: an- tique shops. Who can blame them? But i have the answer for every one of them. No problem about retirement. Just follow Bill Smiley around, do exactly the opposite to what he does, and you'll come out healthy. wealthy and wise, when it's lime to put your feet up if Smiley buys equities, buy blue chip stocks If Smiley buys gold mining stock, buy a swamp. If Smiley calls the Tories to win. vote Liberal If Smiley buys an ounce of gold, dump yours fast, because it will drop $200 overnight. If Smiley gets into seat -belts, because they are compulsory you get out. The law will change. i could go on and on, but. i won't Just watch what i do, and do the opposite And have all the papers to prove it. But I'm charging twenty per cent of everything you make. And that's how i plan to weather inflation and retirement. s