The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

L] ! b editor TY T 3 - EY = 2 eS TAYE A ANN A "a * ASAD 4 WAAL Ed XT Rh A CAR CE AE Yen ™ LT Fes AA ER INVITED SFY By Lah lei 39 ofyt hl . oly Lb ARIE RY v.10 as V8 Ae La EASEMN LAS AERA RAP AR Sd Sh ECA CLUE RL A PUR SOREL TH SH BL 4350! AY Ry PAR PA LA EA A DAC CRE (FLEA SHEA ARAN So) EA Gada DR RR HA Sa 4) Fork Ron a @ WL FOL SAL DPR HEN NE APA Leb RR HRC AS TREE 0 SER VTORNT A, Sed Weld NLA wR Validea KYRA ARE ARR NH A Ce 'Newspapers ~ 11 Is little wonder that newspapers across Canada are virtually unaminous in their condemnation of + most of the findings of a Royal Commission which examined the nation's press. "The major culprits, according to the three man commission headed by Thomas Kent, are the large publishers such as Thomson and Southam which own many newspapers andl In"some cases broadcasting facilities as well, The most radical recommendation is tha Thomson should be forced to sell either the Globe and Mail, or its chain of 39 other papers across the country. * Although the Intentions, to somehow Improve the editorial content of newspapers for the benefit of readers, are ~ Whenever government steps into the private sector with regulations and rules, the cure becomes more oppressive than the disease. There are always going to be good newspapers and bad newspapers, no matter who owns them. Forcing a chain to sell off part of its holdings is no guarantee of an improvement in quality. The writers of the Commission report seem to imply that it is evil and bad for a company to make executive decisions affecting the quality of news- papers, but it's fine for the government to do so with rules and regulations. If the government accepts the Commission's recommendations, what is next for the newspaper industry? If controls in one area are fine, then why not controls in other areas, such as content? As if the federal government doesn't have enough on its hands right now trying to sort out the overall economic mess in the country. What Is needed in Canada Is less interference from above in the private sectors, not more. Serious Charge " Te ae [ [ J ® Against Via Rail The charges levelled last week that VIA Rail supplied incorrect information to federal transport minister Jean Luc Pepin is a serious one, and should be grounds for an immediate investigation by the Minister or the Transport Commission. 2 Brian Newton went on public record In front of a Conservative Task Force on passenger service cut-backs last week with the charge that VIA may 'have under-stated 1980 revenues from the Toronto- Havelock line by as much as $100,000 to Mr. Pepin, and no doubt this was a factor in the Minister's honourable, the methods suggested are iol con i ANE . . IEE PEPIN 2S ISIC - el EQ. Sk UALS $3432 FOR © = NanionaL pea £8 zvery CanaDA} I 3 re DOREELE 7 YY Ve id { SAAR An Na \ » I Cy ies Ger Frey carmsHeE Jy 8a8Y Bons, 141.85 J49 BEFORE 11y oyrarmock ! iH ¥ . ' i HK = i: &4 = | ' A bi / ol yn . 2 a 22 4 i a nx 34 ' F ox : Ea Al ; A : oid Tr b) thn, ' 2 { 22 < ~~ ' . decision to suspend the service. : That is a serious charge, and Mr. Newton backed it up with a detailed and well documented brief containing financial data and information on the number of passengers who use the line. There iS no reason fo actuary, and 'he went on public record to present them, Besides, the figures were those given fo the Canadian Transport Commission by VIA Rall itself.' They show that In 1979," 129,190 "3 "One need not be a financial wizard to figure out that something somewhere [ust doesn'tadd up. . if indeed, the decision to. shut the Toronto- "Havelock line by Mr. Pepin was based even partly on these figures, then the minister_should delay any action until the financial operations are fully investigaged. The hearing in front of the Task Force in Peterborough last week was told by more than one speaker that VIA seems to be doing everything it can not to promote use of the line. a : question the figures «contained in Mr. Newton's brief. He is a professional 'generated revenues of $360,009. In 1980, 123,460 _pasgengers.generated revenue of $244,066. - © Potential customers all the way from Havelock to Toronto are ignorant of the fact that daily train service exists at reasonable rates. ~ There are probably a lot of people right here in Scugog Township who don't know they can get on that train in Myrtle, Burketon, or Dagmar any - morning of the week, and return from Union Station in the evening for $6. © Via has not done one line of advertising In this 'paper, and to'our knowledge, the same is true with ~ other papers serving communifiés along the route, Via 'took over. the. Havelock-Toronto passenger service in 1979, and it Is hard riot fo agree. that. the company just couldn't wait to phase out the service. The passenger association that has been formed to - fight the cancellation ef .the Toronto-Havelock line proved at the hearing last week that it is credible and serious. Mr. Pepin should also prove that he is credible and serious by taking a second look at the data, and if the revenue figures are indeed incorrect, as they appear to be; that alone should be reason for a change in the decision to shut down the line. GROWING UP He's right . . . for once. - They feel deprived if they don't have a Prime Minister Trudeau suggested a ® L& patio, an expensive barbecue outfit, a power while back that Canadians had never had it ; mower, a freezer, a boat, a van, you name it. 80 good. As usual, his rather abrasive : And because your friendly bank manager bluntness raised a good many hackles, but a or jovial finance company practically force by golly, he was right. At least in one sense - ; loans on them, they get in so deep that when materialistically. ; i PN Ls, - grie a bit of a 'crunch or:recession comes along, Despite our increasing panic about in- Sy they weep and wail and demand that the Slotion ay yoliuion and fre shiiking duller : government do soniething about it. taxes, we're so m = tr Tain .-J worked . ' better off in the sense of goods than folding couch, a two-burner gas stove, anda Finally, we had a house all to ourselves, ; iy a bo fe most other people in the world, that our bathroom up the stairs and along a hall in complete with mortgage. As I recall, the gloom and doom attitude would be laugh- which people were frying things, mostly 'mortgage payments were $35 a month, able, were it not a pit pitiable. ~~ onions. It Cost $50 a month, and our total practically for life. Andbelieve it or not, we - Certainly interest rates are horrific, but < income was $80 a month. ~ ":* "ii - fell behind in our payments. But we lovedtt. -. our 'ability to pay them is probably better Our next abode was a step up. For $70 a This plackihad 'areal: nace and a fair . than it was 35 years ago, wher standard month, we had a real bedroom, a real amount of . The was of the An security. Said interest rates were about five per cent. kitchen and a real. dining-living room, All coal variety, and from trying to keep it How many kids today get out and make When I went into business about that time, furnished from second-hand dealers, with a going, I finally realized why my father, a their own money? I know many teenagers I had to borrow almost $20,000, with no epirance, a bit of backyard gentle, quiet-spoken man, used to go to the - do, but most younger kids get an allowance security (try that sometime), and and a loopy old landlady. ~~ basement and send up a voleano of profanity 40 blow on pop, junk foods, records and those takehome income was about $35 a week. It wa ews toda red! leap, sharing a hive accompanied by shovel-hanging of the old "star war 'eléetronic which have was like your own personal another young couple, us a furnace. . BY iar tory; replaced the old pinball machines. albatross and tying it about your own neck. child. Two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, My point is that it took us nearly 10 years 'How many kids today in this country ever Certainly it's a pity that young couples share the bath. And get up every morning in to acquire a real house of our own, and we go hungry? How many farmers; despite have little hope today of 3 a house, winter, light the stove in the living-room, = were still up the navel in debt. Along about their outcries are forced off the land Iwas thaw the water-pipes, and get a the eighth year, we bought our first car, because they can't meet their mortgages, with both of them working. po omg pee dn ghd were just as remote or moreso. ; And in those days, very few couples had two incomes, because we could not plan our family, as You an loday. Ob, we tried, but every so another little stranger would pop into the family, and there thing as the mother the infant on a baby-sitter, or into a day-care centre, and rushing back to her job. Our first home was a one-room flat, with a another young couple, and then another with another young couple. By this time, there were four of us and four of them. You could hear their kids and they could hear yours. You could hear the other fighting, and they could hear you. * young ant in ont Sa Els Dajents we same E e apartments, doing without so they could buy a home someday. I wonder how many young couples today do not have at least one car. It seems that they want instant security; house, furniture, appliances, automobile, holidays in the south, and short work week, right after they = 33 of this polemic, I had to a nd mrt But I did add the ma ! think we never had it so bad in the other direction: spiritually.