Internet Payments

Secure & Reliable

Your data is encrypted and secure with us.
Godaddyseal image
VeraSafe Security Seal

Lethbridge Herald Newspaper Archives

- Page 4

Join us for 7 days to view your results

Enter your details to get started

or Login

What will you discover?

  • 108,666,265 Obituaries
  • 86,129,063 Archives
  • Birth & Marriages
  • Arrests & legal notices
  • And so much more
Issue Date:
Pages Available: 46

Search All United States newspapers

Research your ancestors and family tree, historical events, famous people and so much more!

Browse U.S. Newspaper Archives


Select the state you are looking for from the map or the list below

OCR Text

Lethbridge Herald, The (Newspaper) - March 27, 1974, Lethbridge, Alberta 4-THE LETHBRIDQE HERALD-Wednodav. March 27.1974 Development policy Two things have happened within recent weeks in Alberta which should spark much-needed public debate over. how the province is to develop, whether it should have a resource economy or attempt to become an industrialized province, a second Ontario. The first event was the almost unnoticed declaration by Nick Taylor, shortly after picking up the reins of the provincial Liberal party, that the province should develop its agriculture rather than its potential for industry. The latter position, of course, is that held by the present provincial government. The second event is the widely noticed announcement of the proposal to establish a fertilizer complex in the Lethbridge area. All of its product is slated initially to be sold in the United States. The questions that this raises as to whether Alberta's needs for fertilizer should be met first and whether the gas is really surplus to Alberta's (and Canada's) needs should precipitate the sort of discussion which Mr. Taylor's declaration did not, that is, whether Alberta should sell its resources or use them. There is something to be said for both approaches. There isn't always a clear distinction between the two and the best policy probably would include a little of both. An objective public debate, and one that is free of emotionalism, would help clarify matters and make choices more obvious. Drought and famine spread The drought in Africa is spreading and famine is intensifying. Now that a belt just south of the Sahara, from Senegal in the west to Ethiopia in the east, has been ravaged, indications are that other countries southward may now be in for a share of the suffering. Kenya, immediately south of Ethiopia, has experienced low rainfall over most of the country during the past three years. If the rains fail to come again this April there could be death from starvation on a scale matching that in Ethiopia and Mger. In fact, even if the rain comes, it is difficult to conceive that mass starvation can be averted. The number of cattle in the Kajara district alone has diminished by half in the last few months. This is a disaster since milk is the main food of the nomadic Masai in the region. Adding to the ominousness of the situation is the unwillingness of the Kenyan government to declare a state of famine reminiscent of the bungling of officialdom in Ethiopia permitted the problem of staving off starvation to get. out of hand. The worst effects of drought can be avoided only if, the situation is tackled early but relief organizations are stymied when governments do not admit to having need for help. A report made for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, published earlier this month, blamed a similar "pattern of neglect and inertia" for the scale of disaster in the west African countries. It also suggested that bureaucratic rivalries in the United Nations compounded the indifference of many western countries to the situation. There is urgent need for concerted attention to the mounting problem of combatting famine. Increased production of foodstuffs and better distribution are musts for the immediate and long-range future. Russian citizenship The Soviet Union, through the information bulletins of its embassies abroad, is circulating a discourse on Russian citizenship prepared by M. P. Malyarov. the first deputy procurator general of the U.S.S.R. It was instigated by the reaction to the Solzhenitsyn explusion and gives some insight into the Soviet constitution, which was adopted Aug. 19, 1938.. The article contains the following surprising statement: "The constitution of the Soviet state guarantees for its citizens the right to work, rest and leisure, maintenance in old age, education and a number of other rights, such as freedom of speech, of the press. of assembly, meeting, street processions and demonstrations.'" This statement is surprising in the light of reality and it is hard to accept it as part of the constitution until one reads further and discovers that the Soviet constitution also spells out the duties of Soviet citizenship. These are linked inextricably with the afore mentioned, guaranteed rights, providing them with a very tight perimeter. "According to Mr. Malyarov, Article 130 of the Soviet constitution states that it is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to abide by the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to observe the laws, to maintain labor discipline, honestly to perform public duties, and to respect the rules of socialist society. The constitution also deals with "other duties" of citizens of the U.S.S.R. which are not enumerated. The words "to maintain labor given as a constitutional duty, are exceptionally thought provoking, and "to respect the rules of socialist society" may, depending on the rules, negate all the guaranteed freedoms. If the rules of socialist society don't cancel those freedoms, the unenumerated "other duties" probably will. Obviously these words do not form the basis for a strong legal system that upholds the rights of individuals, or their freedoms. Supporting this is Mr. Malyarov's pursuant statement that "the broad democratic rights and freedoms granted to citizens can in no way be used to the detriment of the interests of the Soviet state, the cause of peace and socialism. Propaganda of war, racial and national strife, agitation and propaganda in order to undermine or weaken the Soviet state and allow the spreading of slanderous fabrications discrediting the Soviet social and state system are recognized by law as a grave crime before the state, and persons guilty are punishable as criminal offenders." Exit Solzhenitsyn. In-the Soviet Union, it would seem, freedom means freedom to say the "acceptable" thing, freedom to write "acceptable" thoughts, freedom to demonstrate for "acceptable" purposes. This is not freedom as it is known in the western democracies. It seems strange that the framers of. the Soviet constitution, believing as they did that the individual is subservient to the collective system, should have considered'it necessary to pay even lip service to to the concept of personal freedom, and it does indicate the hold this concept has on the minds of men. Footnote: Premiers (Regan and others) in Ottawa for Energy4 Conference No. 2, Regan has election April Z. Solving the pipeline problem By W. A. Wilson, Montreal Star commentator OTTAWA At one time the decision whether to build a gas pipeline from the Mackenzie delta to the south would have been a reflection of market forces. If it had seemed possible to deliver the fuel to market at prices competitive with other sources of energy, and if the markets had seemed large enough to amortize the cost and provide a profit, the pipeline would no doubt have been built. An intricate inter- play of economic factors would thereby have been set in play and, except for a generally cheerful as- sumption that this would have represented progress, not much effort would have been made to forecast the outcome in any precise way. Now we are completely un- willing to leave it to market forces to determine such ques- tions and this is quite apart from the modern appreciation that there is a need to protect the environment in such enter- prises. We are committed to a faith that what is essentially a bureaucratic process will in some way be able to arrive at a more just and reliable decision on the advantages and disadvantages of such a project. Even those of us who view the bureaucratic process with some pessimism would hardly be prepared to advocate a re- turn to 19th- century approach and we cer- tainly would not get much of a hearing if we did. But I do not think it is too gloomy to suspect that we are really watching change rather than progress. Our requirement for new sources of energy will make great demands on the resources of this country, physical and financial, during the next few years. There will be attempts to balance these. both in the sense of deciding between competing possibilities among energy sources and of attempting to meld the demands of energy development with other projects in the country. Hundreds of millions of words will be written and spoken as the competing arguments for and against possible courses of action are unfolded. The Arctic gas consortium has got this off to an impressive start with pages of documentation laid before the National Energy Board. Marshall Crowe and his staff can be relied upon to study all of this faithfully and then to move on and study with equal fidelity whatever opposing documentation comes before them. Recommendations will fol- low. Other public servants will study these, along with supporting and opposing data. Cabinet committees will become involved. The cabinet itself, one hopes, will not take up the matter in quite such detail when-its time comes, since it has other affairs of state on its platter as well. All of this will be very thor- ough, an extremely painstaking process. Yet nothing is less certain than that this process will produce a decision that will be better for the country than the old- fashioned calculation of market forces. It seems to me extremely doubtful that it is possible to chart with any real accuracy in advance the very intricate economic inter-play that inevitably follows when projects as large as James Bay. oil production from Alberta tar sands or Arctic gas' transmission are launched. For all the detail of the contemporary decision- making process in a matter such as Arctic gas, the basic conservation decisions are actually crude: How far should we export, how far should we retain resources for our own use? The state-run process can presumably make a reasoned decision between competing demands for development of Arctic gas and tar sands oil, but this is not likely to be much different than the market-force decision would have been. What remains very uncertain is the capacity of the bureaucratic process to make a more adequate assessment of the secondary economic aspects of such questions. How far, for instance, can pipeline construction be used as the basis from which some regional aspirations for expanded steel-making could be met with longer-term viability? If this is impossible, because the subsequent demand was not evident, what other economic areas will suffer constraints through the use of existing steel-making capacity to meet the demands of the new projects? Questions such as those represent only the first ring of the ripples that spread out from a project such as this. Yet we do not even seem clear in our minds whether we should view such things as opportunities or as hazards. In our refusal to leave such issues to settlement in the old way through market forces, we do not seem to have constructed an adequate general framework within which to make the decisions through the government process. The point that is truly troubling is how we can make an adequate decision on some- thing of the Arctic gas sort be- fore we have agreed upon a general economic and industrial strategy. Letters The education system Why is there public, separate, and private education? According to Mr. Lou Hyndman, minister of education, education is just the basis of developing the potential of students. If this is true, one education system is sufficient, and there would be no problem. However it is not that simple If one considers that schooling is not more than preparing a student for life, to make a dollar, and nothing else, then education should be directed towards that need, and public schools will fill that need. But if life is more than making a dollar, then education should be directed also towards that... which is found in Roman Catholic separate schools, Protestant private schools, etc One may believe in material gain only, while another may believe that life as a whole should be found as in Corinthians where it says, whatever you do, do all to the glory of God Many Christians think that being in church, being baptised, married, attending church service, makes him a Christian, which is not so according to the Bible; this is just a small and easy part of it. To one who believes, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not, no explanation is possible. If this is understood, then there is a need for public, separate, and independent school systems. Piblic schools have as their basis the dollar, separate and private schools teach the truth of God as creator In Lethbridge there is a private school on Stafford Drive which is operated by parents and financed by parents with a small government grant. Teaching is done by qualified Christian teachers. Tuition help funds, formed from donations by supporters, for those in need, help to meet the cost. There is no discrimination, anyone who agrees with the basis of the constitution can become a member. In Mr. Hyndman's statement, he said that private schools wanted equal treatment as public schools receive. This is not true. Private schools want: legal recognition; a grant from public funds (to which each citizen has a right) equal to 80 per cent of that received by other education systems. Mr. Hyndman's statement, that equal grants to private schools will lead to lower quality in public and separate schools, is nonsense. Would the quality be lowered if entered the public schools? Of course not, only the government would have to supply extra funds, which it is withholding now from private schools. If there are still people who think that parents or school boards have any say in education they'd better listen to what Mr. Hyndman made clear in his statement as he said: "Any education is important, but most of all, the preservation of a universal public system, irrespective of background or the resources ot their parents." In the U.S. it took only one woman to take prayer away from the schools. In Alberta it will take only one minister to take away the right of the parents. Both have in common that they say, what is good for me should be good for you. This spells out Mr. Hyndman's thinking. At a meeting in April for independent schools, he stated that education in private schools had better standards and quality than public schools, yet he refused to talk in cabinet about the plight and the rights of private schools. It is very strange that private school boards have to find in the media any statement regarding private schools from our minister of education, yet he never bothers to answer letters sent to him by supporters of private schools. Private schools should be possible in a democratic country if the Human Rights Act is of any value, where no discrimination is allowed against anyone, regardless of race, color, belief, etc. D. BEINTEMA Lethbridge Watergate is so dry Watergate Ho-Hum. Anything to make it interesting? No espionage, no sex. President Nixon accepted some campaign money from a friend, and said friend agreed that for the favor, he would keep the president's sidewalks free of snow. Is that anything to get "net up" about? Politics in Canada have punch. A Russian spy in Canada, worked for years in a post office in Vancouver, during Lester 'Pearson's reign. When caught, and he confessed, we felt we just had to do SOMETHING about that. We denied the poor fellow his pension. Remember Igor Gousenko. a Russian spy all during the Second World War? He decided not to return to Russia, told everything to the police, exposed several others. He was granted political asylum, still lives in Canada under an assumed name and police protection. Remember the husband and wife team of spys. in the United States? When convicted, they were both executed. Remember the Munsinger Sevigny affair? The German spy, Gerda Munsinger, was back-door girl friend to cabinet minister, Sevigny. We sent her home in a hurry.__ Remember the 'Profumo affair, the Russian spy in England? She was girl friend of not only one, but several Lords and Dukes in the government. I tell you England sent that naughty spy home, with orders not to come back. Remember the Rivard case? He master-minded the entry of perhaps millions of dollars worth of drugs into Canada, all confiscated by the government; a big help to our economy. When we finally tracked him down, we left the prison door open so he could escape and continue his activities. Ho-Hum. Watergate is so dry. Cardston T.LOWE The short life of one federal-provincial open agreement Subsidized day care By Anthony Westell, Toronto Star commentator OTTAWA The last federal provincial conference on energy closed on Jan. 23 on a note of compromise. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers retreated from the public gaze into a private room for straight talk over hot roast beef, and emerged with a consensus or so they said. 'Well, ladies and gentlemen, after a very pleasant lunch the first ministers agreed that, as chairman. I would read some notes which reflect the consensus which was reached among ourselves." said Trudsau when the public meeting resumed. He then outlined the basis for an agreement on oil prices across Canada, and said: "Now. unless made some {paring omissions or errors, 1 would like to call the in an end." There were no ohjeriions from the premiers, and so the conference closed. Six days later Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed repudiated the consensus point by point. "I have your Telex of Jan. 28. 1974. which, in my view, does not reflect my understanding of the nature of the discussions by first ministers after lunch in Ottawa on Jan. 23, 1974." he said in a message to Trudeau. At the conference, the federal government had proposed to continue the freeze on the price of Canadian oil until the end of April Alberta, among other provinces, objected that three months was loo long to continue the voluntary restraint, and the compromise was two months until the end of March. "For the long as Trudeau put it in his statement of the consensus, "the only thing thai we are prepared to declare is that at the end of the restraint period there wil] be an agreed a Tessoriabie increased price that would continue increasing reasonably and by stages. These figures and reasons will be filled in in the coming time that is the two- month extension of the freeze. This was the key to the consensus. There was an agreement to negotiate a price over the next 60 days. But in his Jan. 29 message to Trudeau. Lougheed repudiated that procedure "Alberta's undertaking to respect the price freeze on crude oil for a farther 60 days to April at enormous cost to out provincial economy was entirely on the basis of protecting consumers in Canada from the consequences of rising oil prices during the winter and in no way involved a deadline upon Alberta to attempt to conclude any long-term understanding of oil pricing and related matter? within Ihis period of The second part of the consensus was that there should be one price for oil across Canada. Trndcau explained that, as a first step. the federal government would subsidize the price of foreign oil coming into eastern Canada to prevent it rising from to the new world price of Then the price of western oil would rise to the price in the east, after the end of the freeze. We would be then, after the end of this restraint period. 60 days, on a one price system across Canada." said Trudeau. There was one reservation, he added: "Alberta asked that on this point it be mentioned that the Alberta government did express its concern aad would want to work in co operation with other provinces and certainly we said we would be prepared to work in co-operation to see if we could apply this principle of parity to other commodities, but of course. this will reouire further and further A few days later. Lougheed made this vague reservation to a firm condition of agreement: "The federal government's commitment to a one-price system across Canada for petroleum would receive Alberta co operation provided we are satisfied that significant progress is being made to apply this principle of parity to other major consumer commodities." The federal government and the other provinces had agreed only to study the idea raised by Alberta. Nobody seemed to have any idea how a general agreement on parity could work, and Lougheed admitted in his message to Trudeau: "We will be working over the coming months to develop suggestions for equitably expanding this one-price concept to other major commodities." So the agreement to have one price for oil across Canada by April was now vibjor-t to Alberta's whim that progress was being made toward a goal it had yet to explain. The federal government had proposed at the conference that at the end of the freeze, the price of Western oil be allowed to rise from a barrel to and by stages to 17 and This would yield billions of dollars in revenues, and it was proposed to use some of the money to subsidize the price of foreign oil coming into eastern Canada. Alberta and other provinces rejected the federal figures. So the principle of using some of the west's windfall gains from rising prices to help the hard-hit easterners was not stated in the consensus, although it was, perhaps, implied. Lougheed seems to accept some commitment to the principle, but introduced, in his message to Trudeau, a major qualification: Any revenues derived from rising oil prices must be used only to subsidize individual consumers and not industries m the east. So much for open agreements arrived at federal provincial conferences. Over the years I have become increasingly aware of the need for more subsidized day care services in Lethbridge and of the significance and potential value of such services. The low income family is particularly vulnerable to many social problems. These families defined as "socially in need" may often be able to overcome some of their problems if the mother, if she so chooses, could find high quality day care at a cost based on her ability to pay. Contrary to public opinion. most families receiving social assistance are not cheats or loafers but poor. They are poor not only in money but in everything. They have had a poor education, poor health care, a poor chance at decent employment, and poor prospects for anything better. Although I no longer have children who require day care. I support the North Lethbridge Day Care Committee's efforts to establish a high quality program. ANONYMOUS Lethbridge The Lethbridge Herald lETMSmDGE HERALD CO LTD Proprietors and Second Clan Mall RegWlraSon No. 0012 CLEO MOWERS. Editor and PtfWWher DON H. PILLING DONALD R. DOftAM General Manager MILES Manager DOUGLAS K. WALKER EtJJIorlel Page editor ROBERT M. FENTON Ctrwrtatton Manager KENNETH E, BARWETT Business Manager THE HERALD SERVES THE SOUTH" ;