PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, MAY 28. 19 80. WHITBY FRFE PRESS w -h it-b y I Pulse vr dnda [. by M.B.M. Publishing F and Photography ine. Phone 668-61 Il The Free Press Building Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor l'il Brock Street North, The only Whitby newspaper independently owned and operated by Whitby residents for Whitby residents. 1.0. Box 206. Whitby, O Comuiy dt-luk rI Production Manager Mari BurgIaS8 Advertiaing Manager Karen Thomp$Ot Ma " N.' B' e g. nt. Canada needs economic, noteonstitutional change Since Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois went down to a, universally accepted, rousing defeat in last week's referendum, many people in government, in the press, in every 'sector of Canadian society have been saying that Quebeckers have accepted Canada. They also say that the vote indicates that that province desires to see a new, vibrant constitution for this country. This, however, may only partially be true. Do Quebeckers really desire to remain part of Canada? It is not held that the results of the referendum say that they do. The major problem in the referendum was the referendum question itself. If Levesque had asked for a mandate to take Quebec out of Con- federation, it is highly possible that the results would have been different. Are Canadians better off now that the referen- dum is over? The answer must be, no. The concer- ns that Quebec has always had about Con- federation have yet to be resolved in any meaningful way. Whether or not Canada will survive as a nation is still up in the air. Should Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau call a Federal-Provincial First Ministers' Conference to debate a new constitution it is not guaranteed that it will be successful. The demands by the three most powerful provin- ces (Ontario, Quebec and Alberta) cause such great conflict that the question may never be settled. Most people here in Whitby have never been overly concerned about whether or not Canada should have a new constitution. Traditionally, the concerns have been economic ones, especially with the closing of Firestone and the layoffs at both General Motors and Chrysler. A new constitution is not an overpowering issue. The overpowering issue in this country is the general state of the economy. If this country was on a sound economic footing, then perhaps it would be time to discuss a new constitution. What Canada needs, is a Canadian economy. We need Canadian control, especially in the areas of resource development, production and sale. For example, if the government took a firm lead in leading this country economically, there is a distinct possibility that there would be no need for constitution change. The need for a new constitution in Canada sim- ply indicates a need to be more economically viable. If this country had a strong, healthy and growing economic situation there would be no need for constitutional reform. If the system that is fun- ctioning is working well, why change it? The desire for change from some sectors of this country simply indicate that economic change is needed. Basic economic theory states that ail other systems (political, social, cultural) are based on its economic system. The question is not political but economic. The previously mentioned First Ministers' Con- ference should deal with the economic problems of our confederation not with the perceived con- stitutional problems. The redistribution of power between the provin- ces and the federal government will not solve our economic problems, in fact they may worsen them. Now that the referendum is over, the time is right for turning our attention to Canada's economic problerns both domestically and in the inter- national marketplace. A new constitution is important, but it is not as important as a sound economic base for ail Canadians and ail Canadian business. Dear Sir: It was so good to read in the Free Press Weekly your articles entitled "If sex education is taught moral values should be taught", and "Is sex education pornography in schools". If teachers are to present sex education without moral values we will be faced with a society filled with venereal disease, abor- tions, unwed mothers, trial marriages and mental problems to name but a few. Whereas if our children are taught that they are special, made in the image of God, that He made our bodies, and was the author of sex and sex is not a bad word. If they are taught that marriage was also God's idea, that the sex act is intended for married couples only, so that families could be formed and that everyone would have the love and security of a home life, then the teens will have healthy attitudes towards sex and a correct moral and psychological ap- proach to life itself. I don't think anyone wants to stop the sex education program, but let's give our young people the very best in sex education. I agree completely with your Ruth Chambers. 1, too, believe this is part of a cleverly designed communistic plot to undermine our country - what better way could they do it than through our young people. Sincerely, Mrs. Catherine phrey Ashburn, Ont. Hum- EDITOR'S NOTE: Despite both Miss Chambers' and Mrs. Humphrey's best inten- tions, we must ferven- tly disagree that sex education is a "com- munistic plot to un- dermine our country." There is no known evidence that this is, indeed, the case. While this publication agrees in essence that sex education should only be taught if the accom- panying moral values are taught, to make such an accusation is a little far-fetched. The battle over the method of teaching sex education has nothing to do with the Western World's dispute with the Communist Block. The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago and it is difficult to believe that Com- munists, both within and without Canada, have the time or the resources available to corrupt the youth of this country in such a fashion. This may be hard to believe, but the Com- munists have a tougher moral code than we and already believe that our society is so decadent as it is that it will fall apart of its own accord. Because of this. it is not held that they would attempt to infiltrate this society in such a manner. I agree, well done Dear Sir: I want to commend your paper, for taking the stand that it has on 'Sex Education'. In your editorial, you expressed my sen- timents exactly. I was very much im- pressed with the column, "Between You and Me" written by Ruth Chambers. We have three children, one in public school come fall, two boys in high school. We are very concerned what this teaching will do to our children's minds. Thank you for having the courage to stand up and be counted, with the minority. Yours truly, Karen Hitchings. Reader says sex education is a "communistic" plot to undermine the youth of this country