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

=~] 3% SEs A" Arr. LR ALLAN v FPL GEA LAS NAM SFL YS AD FS Yar SONYA AAT TES sii) UNS PE CPS StS PAL Ton I ME AAR CUS PASO CRA INR fg AR SETA a nd Ty TE RN a eR EA IIR ra VAT a REE 2 tn pat (hy Rosie ad BAe A AA AF IRAE ¥ AL ST RAL A NR A EE RE pA A SA A A ne 3 24 2A LSA as editoriol poge Ontario Hydro Out Of Control? The announcement last week by Ontario Hydro that it is mothballing construction of the Wesleyville Generating plant near Port Hope, taking a serious look at a plant under construction near Atikokan, and "stretching out' work on plants at Darlington and the Bruce peninsula helped confirm a suspicion that nags the people of this province: namely that the gigantic utility is either completely out of control, hasn't got a clue what is doing, or both. The decision to mothball Wesleyville and likely Atikokan cost Hydro $428 million that has already been spent on these two projects plus another $80 million to phase out the construction at Wesleyville during 1979. Whether or not these two projects will ever be started again remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely in the foreseeably future. Why did Ontario Hydro decide last week to cut back construction and stretch out work on the other two plants? It seems that Hydro made a few miscalculations along the way about how much electrical energy the province would need between now and the end of the century. Hydro made its long range demand calculations back in the late 1960's when the economy was expanding and energy from all sources was relatively cheap. The jump in world oil prices changed all that and forced the need for reduced consumption and reduc- ed waste. The question that begs to be answered is why it took Hydro so long, and so many spent dollars, to figure out that demand would taper off, and that homes and industry would be using less and wasting less. Hydro says the average growth in demand for electricity will be 4.7 per cent until 1990 and 4.2 per cent until the end of 1999. Are those figures correct? If Hydro admits it has been wrong, can we believe the utility now? The two major construction projects that Hydro will continue with (Darlington and Bruce) will cost just under $7 billion. About $1.4 billion of that has already been spent. Do we really need to spend the rest? While Hydro's milti-million dollar mis-calculations are baffling to the people of Ontario who must pick up the tab, even more baffling is the fact that Hydro is now saying we need less power at a time when supplies of energy around the world are being depleted. Hydro, your slip is showing. "VELL you wor, PODNER ---- WE LL AGREE 70 AY ARMS LimrgATIons LN Ta bill smiley BORROWING MONEY Recently I've been teaching that peren- nial favorite, The Merchant of Venice, by one Will Shakespeare. It's a light, romantic comedy, but through the pretty speeches and comic complications runs an iron and an irony that almost steals the play every time it is read or performed: the story of Shylock the money-lender and his insistence on his pound of flesh. That word and that phrase have become part of our language. You may have heard someone say, "He's a regular Shylock', or '"'He always wants his pound of flesh". They are synonyms of a merciless greed, hatred, and desire for revenge. For those who have forgotten the play, or haven't read or seen the play, I'll give a pocket synopsis. A rich merchant is approached by his best friend, a young man who has squandered all his money, including a goodly sum the merchant has lent him. The young fellow wants his friend to lend him another sum, about $35,000, so that he can get himself all duded up and marry a wealthy heiress, upon which he will return all the money he owes. For friendship's sake, the rich merchant AE I Cw RE a Pa lA DEN A ES Be abe BA ARS RT ARR says, "No problem. All my cash is tied up in. ships at sea with rich cargoes, but my credit is excellent. Go borrow the money and I'll back your note". Or words to that effect. I am Will Smiley, not Will Shakespeare. So the young blade goes to a notorious money-lender, Shylock, who agrees to lend him the money for three months. Usually, he charges more interest than Household Finance, but this time he won't charge any. The plot thickens. In a few sneering asides, we learn that Shylock hates the rich merchant. He has reasons. The merchant has spat upon him, spurned him, called him dog, and hurt him badly in the pocketbook by lending money interest-free. Shylock can stand the spitting and the names, but he turns purple when he thinks someone is lending money with no interest when he could be copping 40 per cent. He sees his chance. Sure, he'll lend the young spender the money, interest-free, provided the merchants will sign a bond: that if the money is not repaid by a certain date, Shylock may take a pound of flesh from any part of the merchant's body. It's all a joke, of course. As Shylock points UTI NG EL AVA AR REIS Syma EERE R RY CATES ALES Bret 4 Tr) I pK Oe Sr i Err wi out, a pound of flesh worth as much as a pound of veal or even a pound of hamburger. (This was before inflation. I wouldn't bet on it nowadays.) The rich merchant agrees, airily. After all, his ships will be in with their rich cargoes a whole month before the bond is due. And nobody would take a pound of flesh. (Shhh! We in the audience know that Shylock will take a pound of flesh from the heart area, and that the laws of the city will back him up, if the bond is signed in quadruplicate.) Well, well. It is rumoured on the stock exchange that the rich merchant's ships have all been lost at sea, and he is bankrupt. Big trial scene. The law upholds Shylock's claim. Old Shy is whetting a big carving knife on his boot. The rich merchant stand, breast bared. It's as good as the old melodrama, with the heroine tied to the railway track by the villian, and the train fast approaching. Smart young lawyer to the rescue. Shylock may take his pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood, not one ninth of an ounce more or less that pound, or his own life, and all his property, is forfeit. Try that one on the next pig you kill. Now Shylock was stumped. (An old cricket term, chaps.) And that Will Shakes- peare knew his law. He was continually involved in litigation, like many a play- wright. A great (to me) line in one of his plays goes, "Let's hang all the lawyers." Anyway. The whole thing got me thinking of usury. This was once an honest term YA TCA Set ne meaning interest on money loaned. It has since come to mean chargin excessive interest on money loaned. A dirty business. In Elizabethan England, usury was a crime, and heavily punished. Right up to the death penalty, depending on whom you knew, in the right circles. And I began thinking about usury, in it's pejorative (that means name-calling) sense in our society today. Is it shameful to be a usurer? Is usury something to be hidden under the'rug? Are there any penalties for usury? Answer: no. ' Our modern usurers are not even as- hamed of what they do. They advertise it in all the media. They run all the way from our banks, among our most respected institutions, down to our finance companies, so called, among our less respected institutions, all the way to the hood in Montreal who will lend you money at 100 per cent interest, and break your knees with a baseball bat if you don't pay up. Try borrowing $20,000 from Ann Murray, who touts for a Canadian bank, with no interest. Her look would shrivel your gizzard. Try borrowing from a "finance company" without pledging your grand- mother's bones for fertilizer in casé you can't meet the deadline. : We are surrounded by usurers, sucking the blood out of us. Maybe Shakespeare was right. Line up all the bank managers in 'Canada, shoot them quietly, and burn the presidents of banks and finance companies at the stake. I'd enjoy that. The Argyle Syndicate Ltd.