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

Pa * SELLING ONTARIO HYDRO Durham East MPP John O'Toole is on public record as being opposed to the sale of the nuclear plants operated by Ontario Hydro. O'Toole issued a statement last week to this effect And the reason he gave is concern over safety should those nuke plants end up in the hands of the private sector. He also noted that as a resident of Bowmanville, he lives close to the giant Darlington plant. Good for you, John, Now, why don't you really take a Wart step in the right direction and say you are 'opposed to the sale of any part of Hydro tothe private sector. As just about everybody in this province knows by now (or should know) the Conservative government has a study going on now into the pros and cons of privatization. Former Liberal Cabinet Minister Donald MacDonald is heading up this study and is expected to™veport to the government this summer. Premier Mike Harris is keeping an "open mind" on this crucial and very sensitive issue, saying he wants to wait until MacDonald submits his report before making any decisions. OK, that's fair enough. But & lot of people in Ontario, myself included, have dome very grave concerns about even the prospect that Hydra,could be sold to the private sector, which would operate it on a "fof profit" basis. Selling Hydro (all or part of i) would be a huge mistake. If there is one thing that Hydro has given Ontario over the past century, it is electrical power--safe, reliable and cheap. Yes, the price tag has come high. Hydro's debt is in the billions, but large steps have been taken in the last few years to get the spending under control and reduce the debt. There is now enough generating capacity in the system to meet the power needs of Ontario well into the next century. What possible geasons' could there be to §ven contemplate the sale of something that works well and will continue to work well for the foreseeable future? Well, money for starters. Selling Hydro would inject a big chunk of cash into government coffers. The people who handle the transactions would make bundles on commissions and those companies that buy Hydro would stand to make a few bucks as well. After all, where does the customer go for electrical r in Ontario? Does it make sense that the private sector can buy Hydro, supply us with power, make a reasonable return on investment (profit) and not raise the rates or sacrifice service and reliability? 1 don't think so. And, as MPP O'Toole notes, what about the safety factor. Operating nuclear plants, even the superb CANDU reactors used by Hydro, is no easy task. And then there's the thorny question of what to do with all the used fuel rods which are still radioactive. They are being stored now in temporary facilities while Hydro and the federal Atomic Energy Control Board figures out some way to get rid of them permanently, and safely. Some pro-sale folks point to the British experience when Margaret Thatcher privatized power production in the UK about ten years ago. They say prices went down to "VIEWPOINT ab John B. McClelland -society's energy all fall into that stake in their ousted workers? Of consumers, True, they did for a while. But the main reason was a decline in the price of natural resources used to generate the power, not some magical private sector formula. And prices since then have crept back up again, while service and reliability has dropped. id Ontario Hydro used to have a reputation as being "out of control" when it Tomes to Spending. There is truth to that. Darlington, example, wound up costing $13 oo more than double the original estimates. Hydro employees, from the brass to. the sweepers, enjoyed wages and benefits far beyond anything in the priva ctor. Alot of that has changed, and it had to change if the rates charged Ontario industry were to stay at levels that would keep us competitive. Finally, I have nothing against free enterprise and the drive to make profits. It's not perfect, but is the best economic model we have these days (just ask the Russians who "enjoyed" seven decades of socialist utopia). But I strongly bélieve some things in our society are better left out of the hands of those whose driving force. i is profit and the bottom line. « Education, health care, food inspection, defense and the supply of category. oi If-the lights go out at three in the morning, I want to be assured that crews are fixing the problem on overtime, rather than waiting for the regular time "day shift" to come on duty five hours later. A decision whether or not to sell part or.all of Hydro may come tothe present members of the Ontario Legislature. I gincerely hope that if that day comes (as it likely will) MPPs of all parties, including John O'Toole of the party in power, will do | the right thing and vote to"leave Hydro alone. t is the most important decisions MPPs, will be asked to make in their term of office. I hope the citizens of Ontario tell their MPPs in plain and clear language that the sale of Hydro to the private sector would be a ifrge and dangerous mistake. IN 'CLOSING: It is hardly surprising that a recent poll of Canadians found a majority are none too happy with panies that are getting rid Pras as they rake in record p! ~Down-sizing (don't you love that term) used to happen when times were tough. Not'any more. The same 'survey found that Canadians want the gov t to do ng about this p . After all, when a company slashes the payroll, people end up on UI or social assistance. Should these companies not be taking more of a financial thi -_ course they should. Little wonder there is a lack of consumer confidence these days when employees know that even if they work for a highly successful company making handsome profits, they could be pink-slipped any time, I can't understand why the private sector has not twigged on the idea it is killing what makes the private sector tick: consumption. When people stop buying and put their money under the mattress just in case that pink slip does arrive, the entire system starts to shut down. So jo Cites --Tudas Aprils 1096-9 LETTERS TO EDITOR ' 'Development should ¢ go in the proper zoning To the Editor: w I've just finished reading a didiribe from Mr. Bill Lishman about "pulling the plug" because he was asked to follow the guidelines that have been put in place over the years to protect the environment. My first question is "why have some wells run dry when new ones are dug or drilled" In an agricultural area, livestock drink enormous amounts of water. Maybe," just maybe, these "cholesterol" safeguards are there for a reason. What is wrong with the already zoned Reach Industrial Park, an area that has already undergond all the required testing and 'Would welcome the addition of new industry? Agricultural areas are a lot more fragile than many of us realize. People whose families have lived on these farms for generations know what's right. They, more than most, have a sense of fair play and openness to others gnd their ideas but they haven't schooled , in the arena of®tonsultants and their jargon. It's ironic that these 'suits" come in, make their presentations, intimidate others with their 'panache, collect their fees and then go back to urban scene and move on to theif next appgintmegt. Where's the commitment? Lishman's not-so-veiled threat reminds me of a youngster who didn't get his way 80 he's made up his mind to "get back". The benefit of new jobs in our community. would be a welcome addition to the local economy but why not in the appropriately zoned areas? Forget buzzing around the neighbourhood in vintage warplanes, direct your energies and talents towards "something positive. Ron Dempster Scugog Township DDT was once okay To the Editor: In respdnse to the letter last week from, M.J. Anderson on the use of 2, 4-D. Mr./Ms. Anderson states that it must be , safe to use 2, 4-D because if it caused any harm, "the Ministry of Environment would fiot be recogmending its use". It's too bad the MOE supports the use of 2, 4- D, but'at least Environment Canada recommends that people find alternatives to the use of pesticides. In a pamphlet called "Alternati s to Pesticides in Yards , and Gardens", they state, "Pesticides are poisons, otherwise they wouldn't work". They go on to say, "Pesticide residues can accumulate in the food chain, causing damage to birds, fish, and other forms of animal life. In many cases titese side effects are not"immediately apparent, but .sholy up later; for example, in the "abnormal eggs laid by birds that have fed on pesticide-treated insects. Ultimately some side effects may extend to human d "is not a product Fates program. In fact, federal law prohibits manufactarers from making - claims that EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) registration of their products means they are safe". Blind faith 'in our governments' Willingness or ability to protect our health can be dangerous. Don't forget, the use of DDT, now long since banned for use in North America, was once permitted, afd thalidomide was once considered A-okay too! And never underestimate the ability of the chemical companies to exert enormous pressure on our governments to condone the widespread use of their products: As for pesticides not harming anyone, think again. The World Health Organization reports that thousands of People die every year as a result df pesticide poisoning. Farm workers who harvest grapes and other products fall ill life as well" (I will send my spare copy of) themselves.and/or give birth to babies this to anyone who would like it). A pamphlet from the American Cancer, Society entitled "Warning" The use of pesticides may be hazardous to your health" (available in the Scugog Library environmental handout unit), cites a whole list of ill health effects related to pesticide use. It mentions that 2, 4-D is a suspected cause of rising rates of non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, and also that this chemical is used in about 1500 lawn tare products. The pamphlet "Lawn Caré Pesticides and Safety; What You Shduld Know", put out by the Attorney General of N8w York State's En: tal Protection Bureau, has this to say in response to the queftion, "Are pesticides safe" "All pesticides are associated with some risk of harm to human health or the environment". It goes on to explain that registration of You're always To The Editor: The Heart & Stroke Foundation Committee for the Township of Scugog wish to thank the 21 captains and 160 door to door canvassers, who gave valuable time and effort to this year's campaign. Thanks to the community for your generous response to our "door to door" canvass and "Rose Boxes Campaign" which resulted in $19,822 being raised. Special thanks to Audrey Hall who * convened the coin box campaign and to the Merchants who accepted these boxes. with birth defects (call me at 985 - 3225 to botrow avideo called "No Grapes" to learn more about this), 16 million U.S! citizens are sensitive to pesticides (i.e. have compromised immune functioning as a. result of pesticide exposure), and pesticides are the second most common 'cause of poisoning in young children in the US. Some people may sul be willing to submit themselves, their children and * their neighbourhoods to the risks of using dangerous chemicals, but I know I no longer give a darn about the sight of on my lawn, and now also choose to buy foods that have been organically grown. | know I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating: dandelions don't cause cancer, but pesticides can and do. Janet Banting Greenbank, Ontario . ion; th of February - he iH 'who sponsored a page in th uary 30th edition of this paper, thank-you, this was a good start to our campaign. ' Thank you to eur local papers and Community 10 TV for their excellent Sincerely, ! Chairpersons: ~~