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

4 The Canadian Statesman, Bowmanville, Wednesday, August 17,1994 Section Two Opinion and Comments U.I.C. Can't be a Way of Life Fact: We can no longer afford an unemployment insurance system that for some of this country's citizens is viewed as a way of life for them. Fact: The federal government is under severe pressure - because it doesn't have the money - to reduce spending in all areas of social welfare. The U.I. system, when first put in place, was supposed to be self financing financing by both the employers and employees. employees. Fact: It didn't happea Taxpayers are on the hook for a $6 billion deficit in U.I. payments. And as I explained in past columns the money has been borrowed and now has to be paid back. Where does this leave unemployment unemployment insurance? Well it certainly isn't going to be abolished. But the government wants the system to be pro-active. In other words if you have a skill no longer needed you must retain to collect U.I. One of the ways to foster retraining retraining is to have employers match grants with employees to build up an education education fund. I would work to see employees receive receive tax deductions for paying into these funds similar to those enjoyed for RRSPs. The funds could be drawn on by employees to allow them to upgrade their skills. And the funds would be mobile between companies. What I like about this is that employees employees play a major role in deciding their professional future rather than some over-worked bureaucrat in a U.I. office placing an unemployed person into a course. Daycare is another area where there, in my view, isn't unlimited amounts of cash to maintain the system. system. Having said that I recognize many single women are trapped in a lifestyle lifestyle and we have a duty to assist in changing this. Therefore adequate daycare should be provided. However taxpayers money doesn't have to be wasted. Why can't more single mothers, as a career path, go into daycare in their own home. Wouldn't we rather pay people to contribute rather than pay them to do nothing? Don't we want to replace hopelessness with dignity and self respect? At die same time this would provide provide daycare space for mothers want ing to retrain in other areas to raise their own standard of living. As I said above the federal government government is under severe pressure to reduce reduce spending for social services. This isn't s smoke screen to slash spending in U.I. and social services. The banker has no more money. The taxpayer has no more to give. These are just a couple of areas where spending improvements have to be made. In the months ahead I will be holding a public meeting to find out from you how the government can best spend your money and how the government can best save some. f You can rest assured that your individual individual views, although seemingly insignificant in a sea of opinion, are extremely important to me and the government you elected last October. Please get together with your friends, talk in your clubs, unions and associations. And when I call upon all of you to take part in these discussions be ready with your ideas. They are going to form part of the future policy process. If you want to take part in these meetings phone my office at 721-7570 or from Uxbridge at 1-800-565-4105. Letters to the Editor M.P.'s Article Surprises Reader Open letter to M. P. Alex Shepherd Dear M.P.Alex Shepherd: Your article of August 3, 1994, in this paper soliciting ideas to get rid of the deficit surprised me very much, because prior to 1992, Mr. Paul Martin Martin and Mrs. Chaveva Hosek received such proposals in large numbers from dedicated Liberals for the Red Book on the election Platform. I was working on such money saving saving policies first with the Ontario Liberal Policy Committee and later with the Liberal Development Council Council for ten years. Through those years we gave voluntarily of our time, energy energy and experience from business and the professionals. It is sad that many of our volunteer colleagues left over the years, frustrated because budget cutting measures never seemed a high priority on the agenda. I persevered and updated all our collected proposals and forwarded them to the national team of Mrs. Hosek Hosek and Mr. Paul Martin in 1992. Our proposals were well received when I attended in person two of their meetings. meetings. Subsequent correspondence with them recognized and encouraged encouraged our flow of money saving ideas at that time. After the election in further letters I repeatedly urged some implementation implementation of those ideas both to save federal federal spending and to spur increased employment employment - objectives badly needed now. In response I received a letter on April 6, 1994, from Mr. Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, stating that our proposals on housing and increased employment policies were rejected, without even an adequate explanation. explanation. We were left with the impression impression that all our input over the years has never been perused or analyzed. Our efforts had solely been a public relations device to create the impression impression that the grassroots is listened to. Your letter requesting new ideas about reducing the deficit without any reference to the budgeted saving proposals from us suggests that our round of efforts was never really studied, scrutinized or even read. The grassroots people with whom for ten years I met to develop deficit reducing reducing proposals were from a wide range of business, professional and employment employment backgrounds. We never expected expected to provide complete answers, recognized recognized that our proposals should be scrutinized and analyzed. But, we couldn't and can't accept that our efforts efforts warranted summary rejection to the waste paper basket. Do you believe that more input will change that attitude? Or do political political parties just want to keep alive an impression that they listen? If you sincerely want government measures to save money you could have done some months ago. Just go back, for a start, to our files and you will have plenty of ideas to go from. It was great to cancel the helicopter helicopter deal, but that was no money saved, that was money not wasted, that we did not have in the first place. If you and the Liberal Party are now ready to guarantee that you are serious and committed to listen, to analyze new ideas, and to initiate vital vital responsible and responsive dialogue dialogue with the wide and varied experience experience of the grassroots, you'll stimulate a response from concerned and dedicated Canadians who elected you. But don't expect us to again go through a charade of being listened to, when our proposals are being rejected rejected and deposited Without examination examination or analysis in the waste paper basket. Truely yours, Wolfgang F. Arnold Trillium Lake Farm R.R.#l,Newtonville Ontario, Canada LOA 1J0 Let Nature Take Care of Purple Loosestrife Crisis By Mike Harris, MPP, Leader, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Any worker on the assembly line at a major car plant has the power to stop production at any time. Whenever Whenever a worker sees that a mistake is being being made that will affect the quality of the product, he or she has only to press a big red button to stop production production until tiie problem can be fixed. So, why is it that people do not have the power to stop the assembly line of government when it is producing producing bad laws and bad decisions that affect affect the quality of their lives, as well as those of their families and communities? communities? Where is the empowerment of the individual in our political process? Where is the big red button? People want and deserve to be a part of the political process. They want to choose their own directions, instead of being herded along by the decisions of the political elites. The demand today is for direct democracy. That demand is being driven not only by record levels of cynicism and anger over the traditional political process, process, but by major changes in technology, technology, education and information. Changes in technology have made it possible for people to gather infor- misinformation campaign being waged by wealthy private landlords which I suspect is influencing people to make such comments. This landlord landlord organization is perversely known as the Fair Rental Policy Organization. Organization. This group says that the cure-all is shelter allowances. In fact, shelter allowances arc part of social assistance, and they arc by far the biggest housing expenditure by the government of Ontario, Tory leader mation and be part of decisions from any distance. My Party took advantage advantage of that fact in our last leadership convention, when we eliminated the delegate system and empowered every single party member (one member - one vote). We eliminated any potential potential for backroom deals or power- brokering by elites. We instituted direct direct democracy. Changes in our society have vastly increased the number of educated people people and professionals. There are more individuals than ever with special insight insight and experience. We are attempting attempting to tap into this broad base of knowledge through task forces on major major policy areas. By touring the province, province, speaking directly to people on subjects such as the criminal justice system and eliminating government red tape, we can ensure that the policies policies of a Harris government will reflect reflect the needs and desires of the people people of Ontario. We are involving the public now, as our policies are formulated formulated and long before the next election. election. . The grassroots of our Party also has direct input into the formulation of our policies through Policy Forums, Forums, which attract hundreds of interested interested individuals from across the province. Mike Harris has been arguing for a shelter allowance program. His proposed proposed housing policy measures arc rivalled rivalled only by the worst excesses of the Thatcher regime in Great Britain. Harris proposals call for a sell off of all public housing to private owners and to end all subsidies to non-profit housing. More about that in my next week's column. See you all then. Gord. A Harris led government would also favour the increased use of referendums referendums for the people (on issues such as casino gambling) and more free votes for politicians. In other words, in formulating our policies, in running our Party and our caucus, and in representing the interests of our constituents, we are implementing the concepts of direct democracy. The public demand for this kind of empowerment continues to grow, and will not be met by rhetoric or promises promises .... only by action and results. Democracy must be more than a slogan waved at voters every few years. It must be the direct involvement involvement of the people and the direct response response of those elected to represent them. Any party or politician that doesn't realize tins by now had better beware. Somewhere out there is a big red button with their name On it. Former Statesman Readers Say Hello From Guelph Area Dear Mr. James: Wc received your letter to former subscribers of The Canadian Statesman. Statesman. It has been over 11 years since wc left Bowmanville, wc still have very fond memories of your town and the people in it. We wish you well with your newspaper, we certainly certainly enjoyed it while we live there from 1970-83. Our boys arc growing up fast 19 and almost 23, so as you can guess, Rod and I arc on our own in Guelph. Wc just had a transfer here in June and hopefully this is our last move. Wc hope you arc enjoying good health. All the very best with "The Canadian Statesman." Sincerely, Rod and Marlene Stork 108 Woodhorough, Road, Guelph, Ontario L1G3KS Dear Editor: It is good to see that there are still a few clear-minded, rational thinking individuals out there. I'm referring, of course, to the comments made by some Smith Township councillors, with regards to the "Purple Loosestrife" Loosestrife" (supposed) invasion and the ensuing ensuing "frenzy" it has created among some of the groups that say it is going going to be the death of our environment. environment. The councillors who responded believe that there's a big to-do about nothing. I'd have to say I agree with them. Ask any farmer who has been cultivating cultivating his property for decades, and their ancestors before them, and they are all likely to call the current controversy controversy a bunch of time-wasting bureaucratic bureaucratic nonsense. Perhaps just another another money-grabbing scheme to get our tax dollars? It brings to mind a conversation I had with a very wise gentleman back a few years ago, when the supposed professionals were wailing about the "zebra mussel" invasion, and how these little creatures had to be eradicated eradicated from our waterways. Now, I don't know a whole lot about much, but I do know that in recent days, the professionals, at least some of them, are finding that perhaps these little crustaceans might actually be beneficial beneficial to us. Something to do with the lime in their shells combatting the acid rain effects, and how the mussels mussels find some of our more noxious weeds and algae a real delicacy. I know the jury is still out on that one, or maybe we, as "John Q. Public" arc only hearing what the powcrs-that-bc want us to hear. Isn't that always the way it is? Now, with the loosestrife "epidemic", "epidemic", scientists have introduced some new kind of beetle to eat up all that "bad stuff'. They say that when the loosestrife is all gone, then the beetles won't have anything to eat, and they'll die. 1 wonder, inside my little mind, if we just aren't asking for more trouble. What happens if these little beetles somehow mutate, and decide they'd much rather snack on our coni, barley or oats? The loo sestrife will continue to grow its merry merry way, pretty as ever, and the "threat" will be all but forgotten while we try to figure out how to annihilate annihilate the insects. And what happens happens when the scientists, in all their wisdom, decide the insects need to bel abolished, so as not to threaten our fragile Canadian eco-system? Call out the "Pesticide Patrol"? Wonderful! Wonderful! Another human invention, and we simple-minded folk pay the price by contracting cancer, (or whatever these chemicals do to us). From a philosophical viewpoint, I suppose what concerns me most is that things like acid rain, the potential of vimlent strains of beetles, and a host of other complications are ALL human. By messing around with nature nature through our "technological advances" advances" we have systematically destroyed, destroyed, or very nearly, this beautiful world that the good Lord gave us to take care of. Nature, when left to its own devices, is capable of establishing establishing a new equilibrium, we throw everything into disarray. We decide that we need more electrical power, so we put in all kinds of dams to harness harness the power of the water, and in return, the earth retaliates by giving us earthquakes. Have you ever seen what unhealthy eating does to your arteries that carry blood throughout your body? Imagine the earth in the same way. Too much cmd, and putting putting wrong stuff into it, and wc end up paying for it. But if wc learn to take care of it, it will reward us by healing itself, and in turn, nurturing us. So, to those who would sec an end to the loosestrife "infestation" I have only one thing to say. Nature will take care of itself, if wc learn to respect respect it. And, if you ever get around to reading the "Good Book" ... take a look at Proverbs, where it says something something to the effect that "man throws the dice, but God determines how they will land." Human wisdom can't hold a candle to that of God's. Sincerely, Anita Locke Lakefield Queen's Park Report by Gord Mills, M.P.P. Continued from Page 3