" “Page 4, The Herald, Thursday, Apeil 2, 196) (irtK VOF-RLEI A (daily General Office - 635-6357 Circulation - 635-4157 CIRCULATION -TE Pubiisned every weekday Terrace. 8 C Avthorizred postage guaranieed photographic content \ permission of the Publisher herald Publisher — Garry Husak Editor — Pete Nadeau CLASS 46S TERRACE . 635.4000 Registration number 1201. Postage paid in cash, return NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT : Tne Herald retains full. complete and sale copyright in any advertisement produced and.or any editarial ar published Repreduction is net permitted without the written Published by" Sterling Publishers RRACE, . 635-4357 at 3010 Kalu Street. as second class mail in the Herald. LETTERS TO THE ED ITOR To the editor: Many people have not seen a copy of the proposed Constitution and do not feel qualified to write the Prime Minister about it. Well, 1 have a copy and would urge you to write him im- mediately about the two following items: 1. There is no right to own property. Many of you either now own or hope to own homes, businesses, farms, ete. Unless you ask that this right be included, you will no longer have it even though you do now have that right under our unwritten con- stitution, 2. On future constitutional amendments, your province will not have as big a voice as that of Ontario or Quebec regardless of how your population grows. Under the proposed constitution it wilt require two Atlantic Provinces plus at least two Western provinces plus Consumer | Comment— Ontario and Quebec to make changes. Therefore Ontario and Quebec will have a perpetual veto which is why your premiers are speaking about first and second class provinces. You must tell the Prime Minister to change this. I have a letter from the Prime Minister's office indicating he wants lo know what the Canadian people are writing in. | would like to see him receive a million letters from Canadians if only covering the two abave § points which affect us all directly. I have myself written to all Cabinet Ministers, to all 90 or so Senators and in French to about 60 Quebec back- benchers, sa feel [have done ‘my share. Will you do yours to-day? Time is of the essence. Miss M. McLetchie, Toronto (Former Winnipegger) . Homemaker pensions attacked i OTTAWA (CP) ~ The Canadian Manufacturers Association threw cold water Wednesday on suggestions women who stay home and raise children or care for an invalid should be entitled to a government-paid pension. “T hate to talk about costs, but sqmebody somewhere will have to pay, and we will have to ask ourselves whether we can afford it,” association spokesman Mare Turcotte told a workshop at the national peasions con- ference. Turcotte said everyone is in favor of motherhood, but to take the pension suggestions to their logical conclusion, homemakers should also be paid a wage by the government. Turcotte, whose association took the same hard line at workshops on other pension issues, was responding to suggestions from other panelists that the Canada Pension Plan should be broadened to include women who work in the home. The plan is currently based on deductions from earnings and doesn't provide a pension for women in the home since they don't earn a wage. : Mary Eady, representing the Canadian Labor Congress, and Betty Haveris, representing the Canadian Association on Gerontology, set off the argument by recommending the plan be expanded to include women who leave work to raise children or have to care for an Ipeapacitated child or adult. Havens cited statistics from three provinces she -said show 15 per cent of - wornen of working age have bad to leave their jobs to take cate of someone wha otherwise would have been in a hospital or other in- stitution. She argued those women are saving the government money by taking care of people who otherwise would have been the government's responsibility, and providing a pension is one way of recognizing that. She then suggested, at the very least, women working in the home should be allawed to contribute to the pension plan so they would have an income in later The workshop also split on providing a pension for seasonal or part-time workers, many of whom are women. ; Sydney Jackson, — spokesman for the Business Council on National Issues, said the problem seems to be twothirds of women who work earn $8,00) a year or less — leaving little or nothing to set aside for a pension. ; He suggested the issue is, therefore, a social problem related to income, aot a pension problem. Pensions _ Would go up a8 wages went eThe CLC representative agreed wages are an Issue, since women earn 58 per cent on average of what men earn and, therefore, start at a dis- advantage. . But she sald Jackson couldn’t avoid the problem by calling it a social issue. Until wages were equal, the government should con- tribute to pensions so they meet women's needs. - Jowered the sates tax In 1976-79, just before an ‘ election. : a EVER EAT MASS-PRODUCED CHICKEN? “4 HAMBURGERS? CUTE LITLE BABY FISHES? DO YOU WEAR LEATHER SHOES, BELTS OR ANY OTHER CLOTHING ARTICLEG? . HAVE YOU WASHED WITH SOAP OR SHAMPOO? EVER USED ANY DETERGENTS, COSMETICS OR "4 BENEFITED FROM LABORATORY oN Although these days it seems that consumers may be struck by just about everything except falling food prices ... did it ever strike you that much of what goes into your shopping cart is quality graded for your protection and convenience? . Food grading started in Canada shortly alter the turn of the century, when grades for apples, previously established only for export, were applied to those sold on the home market. Today we have grades for butter, cheddar cheese, instant skim milk powder, eggs, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, honey, maple syrup, meat and poultry. Foods are graded according to national and provincial standards established by legislation. Agriculture Canada works in close cooperation with industry in developing the national standards. The word “‘Canada™ in the grade name on the package or produc! means that the food is graded and packed in Canada in accordance with federal standards. Jt may not be used In a grade name on imported foods sold in their original containers; or on products not subject to federal] grading regulations. Betore beef can be graded it must pass health inspection. Health-inspected meat and poultry products from plants registered with the department's health of animals branch are marked with round Canada Approved or Canada in- spection symbol, which means the [coda are wholesome, bul does not indicate that they are graded. Federal gradestandards apply tofood exports, to imported foods of a kind produced in Canada, and to fonds shipped from one province to another. Agriculture Canada inspectors are responsible for enforcing federal grade standards at the wholesale or packers level, while Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada carries out inspection at the retail level, The grading of foods produced and sold withina province Is a provincial responsibility. However, where grade standards have been established under provincial authority, federal inspectors collaborate with the provinces in enforcing provincial regulations. Further information on food grading may be obtalned from the district office of Consumer & Corporate Affairs Canada at 299 Victoria Street, 7th Floor, Prince George, B.C. V2L 5Ba, TESTS ON ANIMALS? DRIVEN ON , BALL BEARINGS GREASED WITH “"% WHALE QIL? BECOME INDIGNANT ABOUT THE ANNUAL SEALHUNT? . 4 } i AISLN 31 9 Socreds have. gut reactions | VANCOUVER (CP) — The apparently muddled response of the Social Credit government to proposed corporate changes in the B.C. forest industry masks a clear ideological sentiment: A distike of bigness, . “I's a gut, seat-of-ihe pants thing,"' Forest Minister Tom Waterland said in a recent interview. “it's the old syndrome, ‘I owe my soul to the company store.*" . Not acceptabia |s control of regional economies. ‘I don’t think regional con- centration ls any better than provincial concentration,” Walerland sald. Acceptable is growth that guarantees jobs through manufacturing inveatmnent and maximum use of the forests or thal keeps profits al home for reinvestment and job creatlon in the province. . ; Noranda Mines Ltd. has said it will sell its 28 per cent interest in B.C. Forest Products Ltd. to meet government objections to its offer to buy 49 per cent of MacMillan Bloede! Ltd. A starting point in an exploration of government sentiments is Premier Bill Benneit’s refusal to allow Ian Sinclair and Canadian Pacific of Montreal to take over MacMillan Bloedel in 1978. Successful completion of the bid would have resulted in two regions ‘whose economic fortunes were ’ Vancouver another just across strait at. governed by the fortunes of one company. On the west, MB has two pulp and paper mills on Island and Powell River. It has five or six more sawmills and plywood plants and almost 12,-000 mill and wood workers. Canadian Pacific's existing forest company, Pacifie Logging, since renamed Pacific Forest Products Ltd., unlike many in the Industry, owns lis forests through a turn-of-the- century federal government land grant to CP to build the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. On the east, at both Trail and Kimberley, is Cominco Ltd., a CP subsidiary. In the - Rocky Mountains’ at Spar- wood is Fording Coal, a CP-| Cominco operation. Bennett recently said he considered CP's approach to “the proposed. deal. heavy- handed and “arrogant.” In 1978, a few months before Bennett rebuffed Sinclair, Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., ihe Kamloops subsidiary af the U.S. farest giant, received federal and provincial approval to buy.” three Northwood Properties. Ltd. Interior sawmills: The government: could. have asked the Foreign Investment Review Agency - ’ to kill the deal, because area. independent operatocs were prepared to bid, but it didn't. . T ALWAYS GET CAUGHT SHORT. F AN ASSASSINATION fLOT FROM A MOVIE, — ( ( ' Save you some money now, We have found ways 4 VICTORIA REPORT by FRANK HOWARD _SKEENA MLA \ | never thought we. would have trouble trying to save the taxpayers some money. | thought _ that if a person could show where savings could be made, the government would feap with joy! Ever since Curtis’ Budget was presented we In the NOP have been working with a view to fin- ding some way to save you money. We feel that — : the massive tax increases are not. justifiable. There is something seriously wrong. We have a booming economy, lots of jobs, plenty of sales’ and we're short of maney. It just doesn’t add up. We fee! the Budget is padded in order to build up a surplus which can be used in an election year attempt to buy votes. We are suspicious of the Budget because the Socreds juggled taxes once before. You remember. They raised sales -tax In 1976, just after an election. Then they In any event, we in the NDP found ways to of cutting excessive fat out of the Socreds’ ‘Budget. We have found instances where the _ budget hasbeen padded. And we have started to mave motions in the Legistature to cut that fat out and give you a break. ; in the Ministry of Forests alone we were able to find about $12 million that. was not necessary and we moved motions to reduce the ex- penditures by that amount. We found one in- stance where funds for advertising (propaganda?) were increased by a staggering 400 per cent. That‘s right - 400 per cent! We moved to reduce that expenditure and the Sacreds voted against it. Surprised? Well, we spre were. The Socreds voted against every single attempt. For some obscure reason the Secreds In the Legislature, led by Premier Bennett and Finance Minister Curtls, rejected every attempt to save your tax dollars. Doesn‘t that make.you wonder if something is . wrong here? Doesn't It make you feel that our _ assessment about the Socreds padding the Budget is correct? . After all, why would the Socreds refuse to support positive ideas about reducing taxes? Perhaps It is straight politics on the part of the °. . Socreds.. We In the. NDP want. io cut;back on “government extravagance now. We want taxes reduced now. We want you to have the benefits now. The Socreds want to build up a huge savings account by overtaxing now and then give the money back to you when the election rolls around, : If you had your way, which option would you choose? meant Ottawa offers. ' more deals © EDMONTON (CP) — Rumors persisted today that Ottawa will offer Alberta a warmed-over version of a previously-rejected proposal to create a two-tier pricing plan for oil. One point of agreement among government officials ‘and oi] industry observers was that the proposal would almoet certainly be tumed _ down again. The Journal today quoted an unnamed, highly-placed federal source as saying federal Energy Minister Marc Lalonde will raise the two-price plan as a “discussion point’? when pricing talks’ resume in Winnipeg April 13. On Wednesday, the Calgary Herald quoted federal sources saying that the proposal would cofme in the form of a firm offer, . A spokeaman for Alberta Energy Minister Merv Leitch said the province does not like two-price proposals no matter what form they take. “Someone's been sniffing glue,” said another Alberta “ spokeaman in respose to ihe reports, while Lalonde’s office in Ottawa dismissed them as “pure speculation.” Denials io the coutrary, * the rumors of a fresh bid from Cttawa to settle the - Contentious pricing dispute . | With Alberta fuelled a surge _ Wednesday in the Toronta Stock Exchange oil and gas index which climbed 151.89 . points from the Tuesday chee ‘Richard Osler, an in- vesiment analyst with Pemberton Securities Lid. in Calgary, termed the surge an "April Fool's rally” due more to other factors than the rumoes of a new pricing deal. The Herald's report said thai the offer would consist of modest increases for “old” oil from producing wells, but much higher prices for “new" oil dis- covered after a certain, unspecified date. A spokesman for Leitch noted that similar proposals have been kicking around since 1975 and that they. are no nore acceptable now. Alberta opposes two-price plans because it feels it would be cheated oul, af higher prices because old oil accounts for almost all of its Production and new discoveries are tapering off, The current wellhead price: on all Alberta oil now js $17.75 a barrel, The Journal's federal] Source Was quoted as adying that Ottawa is thinking in . terms of about $38 4 barre] for new ail to discourage | Canadian exploration companies from fleeing to the United States. , The federal national energy program already . forecasis that Price for oll sands oll and $30 «for recov: of = ventional oi], id = “Tdon't think Mr. Lalonde will May (to Mr. Leitch) ‘if You sign an agreement, Ill see that new oil gets $38," ane the newpaper's source, “But the idea will. be