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

PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, J UNE 5, 1985, WIIITBY FREE PRESS -hitb I>ublished every Wednesday Wh!É byMICHAEL KNELL h BM..Publishing community Editor and Phiotography Ince. r hone 1¡66-16111 VALERIE COWEN F rIm ri Advertising Manager The Free Press Builing. eodCasMi : rckStreet North,. second Class MaI Voice of the County Town Michael lan Burgess, Publisher . Managing Editor P.. Box 2<1, whitby, Ont. Registration No 5351 The only Whithy newspaper independently owned and operaàted by W'hitby residents for Whitby residents. It's the best way to clear the air We should hold an election The current antics at Queen's Park have left many residents of this province not only confused but upset with the political process in Ontario. The recently signed agreement between Liberal leader David Peterson and N.D.P. chief Bob Rae wili, apparently, put an end to some 43 years of continuous rule by the Progressive Conservatives. While this newspaper ls not opposed to change, IANCEORMn r OL GLOBAL NmW M Since free trade with the United States is likely to become a dominant issue in Canadian politics over the next few months, perhaps it would be a good idea to spell out what we're talking about. For one thing, we are not looking at something very different than the agreements we have now. By 1987, 80 per cent of Canadian goods will enter the U.S. duty free, and 65 per cent of their produc- ts will enter this country without tariffs. If you bolster those percentages with the products which will face tariff of under five per cent In the other country, 90 per cent of the trade between the two countries will be almost duty-free two years from now. That is why the main targets of those preaching a new and comprehensive free trade agreement are the non-tariff barriers that exist between the two countries, like import quotas. The argument for a free trade agreement is such a powerful one, that apart from perennial economic nationalists, it's hard to find the op- position. The four western premiers announced their support recently. The CD Howe Institute came out flat-footed in favor about the same time. Polis indicate that sôme 65 per cent of the general public favors a free trade agreement. And of course, it is supported by the Liberal senator for Vancouver Point Gray, George Van Roggen, who has been a convert for 16 years now. If he is not carefui, in fact, the good Senator will give the red chamber a reputation for "sober first thought", leaving second thought, sober or otherwise, to members of Parliament. Senator Van Roggen has some useful points to make about what a free trade agreement is not. It is not a common market, with common tariff walils against the rest of the universe. It is not a proposai for pooling water, energy and other resources, and it would not involve agricultural produce. Further, it is not a proposal for political integration, gradual or otherwise. Another thing it would not be is a threat to the battered remnents of what is referred to as Canadian culture. As a matter of fact, Senator Van Roggen makes the point that the funds available for protection of our national identity would be more readily available in an economically strong Canada than in a weak one. And what we need most desperately for economic strength, instead of a market of 25 million people, is a market of two hundred and seventy-five. we cannot help but feel that the May 2 election was not just a rebuke of the Tories under both Premier Frank Miller and former premier Bill Davis, but of the Liberals and the N.D.P. as well. The only rational explanation that we can find for the May 2 result was the public's displeasure over all three parties desire to implement full fun- ding for the Roman Catholic separate school system in Ontario. Most people didn't like the way in which the previous Davis administration an- nounced or implemented the proposal. They wan- ted full debate on the issue and needed to know all the ramifications and consequences of the government's action. We don't think that was such a terrible thing to want. But this Is no longer the central issue. The issue has now become what sort of government do we want in Ontario. There are really two sides to the question. If we accept the Tories' position that the agreement between the Liberals and the N.D.P. is contrary to the constitutional spirit of parliamentary democracy, then there is only one course of ac- tion that should be taken. A new election must be held. Admittedly, another election would be costly. It would place more burden on the already strained public purse. However, that is the price we must be prepared to pay if we are going to continue to enjoy a democratic system. On the other hand, the Liberal-N.D.P. alliance promises to introduce some, in their opinion, badly needed reforms. The agreement signed between the two parties calls for the introduction of freedom of information legislation. for the proclamation of the so-called "Spills Bill" which can potentially do much to improve and clean-up the environment, as well as banning extra-bIlling by doctors. While there are other pieces of reform legislation that are also worthy of attention, these are probably the most significant and the most important. No one, we believe, will question the need for many of the reforms the agreement calis for. But we now have to ask ourselves if we are willing to abandon centuries of parliamentary tradition to implement them. Is the trade-off worth the benefits that may ac- crue? We're not sure. The only thing we're sure of is that this province needs good and stable government. Any gover- nment, be it Conservative or Liberal, must have a clear mandate to deal with such explosive issues as separate school funding and rent controls. It must represent the majority of opinion in Ontario. And that is not currently evident at Queen's Park today. No party truly represents the majority opinion. Any two of the three parties together represent a majority opinion but because each party differs from the others on vital Issues, then there really is no majority opinion. Perhaps an election is the only way to truly decide the future of this province. But then again, if the results are similiar to those seen on May 2 we are going to be in the same boat. But we would rather take that risk than endure weeks, months or even years of uncertain and shaky government at Queen's Park. We are prepared to pay the price of democracy. We ail should be. THE GURU -7- If you want to keep an ear to the ground, stay away from expressways, busy intersections, and railway tracks.