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

PAGE 4. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1981, WHITBY FREE PRESS r whitby w h itb yPublished every Wednesday . and Photography Inc. fiai I~.Phone 668-6111 The Free Press Building. Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor I131 Brock Street North, Ie only Whitby newspaper Independently owned and operated by Whitby residents for Whitby residents. P.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. MICHAEL J. KNELL Community Editor MARJORIE A. BURGESS Advertising Manager MaliIng Permit No. 40 Panel should have power to take action Recently, a public Institutions inspection panel submitted its report to County Court Judge Donald M. Lawson. This report contained many recommendations concerning seven public build- ings in the Town of Whitby. This within itself is nothing unusual sInce such a paneJ is convened on the first Monday of May and November In each year when the Court of the General Session of the Peace sîts. Under the Public Institutions Inspection Act of Ontario this seven-member panel Is authorized to inspect any building that is supported in whole or in part by the public purse. This panel may inspect the building, make note of any apparent faults or safety hazards and then report them to the presiding judge that convened it. This all sounds fine and good. This panel goes and inspects buildings to insure they do not pose a hazard. But where this system falls 'flat on its face' is that the act makes no provision for penalties for non-compliance with the recommendations of the panel. The panel is selected from the jurors roll and from reading the act it appears as though the Government of Ontario was attempting to ensure The world is ful of adventures, but I have grown up, in a sense, with Thor Heyerdahl, and I am more comfortable with him than with any of them. I've never met the man, but I've shared his excitement since I read his first book on the Kon-Tiki expedition. He is not a scholar, in the strict- est sense, and neither am 1, in any sense whatever. For one thing we are both too fond of speculation. But in his own speculative way he bas done a good deal for arche- ology and for all of those people who are fascinated by the history of the world. His Kon-Tiki expedition, in which Heyerdahl and a small but hardy band, sailed across the Pacific in a balsa wood raft, proved that primitive man might well have done the same thing. Then there were two voyages in papyrus reed boats, which proved that the Egyptians might have got further afield than any one imagined. The latest voyage, of a reed boat built on the Tigris river, raises some similar possibilities about the movements of men and trade goods around the Arabian gulf during man's misty past. What Heyerdahl has done is to expand our horizons, to suggest to scholars and scient- ists that man has been much more mobile, for much longer, than we ever suspected. He has expanded the range of possibilities about the beginnings of civilization. I may be overstating the case, but I don't think so. Heyer- dahl had the wit to tackle the investigation of pre-history in a totally different way. He has gone to archeology for the designs of the primitive boats he bas duplicated. But there he parted company. Instead of digging in point A or B for artifacts which would prove that the Egyptians had been there, or the Sumerians had, Heyerdahl sailed to A or B to prove that they could have. And at that point, it made sense for the conventional archeologists to dig. There must be something about lying at night on the bundles of a primitive reed boat or raft, in the middle of vast oceans, that leads a man to educated speculation. I won't vouch for the accuracy of the speculation, but if you want to share Heyerdahl's excitement, and perhaps become excited yourself, read his latest book, and his latest piece of speculation, The Tigris Expedition. Its also a wonderful piece of escapism. That's not news, but that too is reality. that ail public buildings are maintained in accept- able condition. However, neither the panel nor the judge has the authority under the act to enforce- Its recom- mendations. From what this publication has been able to find out, if the recommendations of the panel are not implemented then the judge has only-the authority 'to suggest' to the appropriate govern- ment ministry that the repairs to the building be done. In other words, the judge cannot order that the facility in question be brought up to accept- able standards. This is a perfectly ludicrous situation. Why should a panel such as this be appointed when they have no authority to take action when and where needed? The intent of the act cannot be quarrelled with, but it must be assumed to be incomplete because it makes rio provision for authority to compel adherence with the recommendations or to provide for appropriate penalties for non- compliance. This panels report did not contain, fortunately, any observations of truly major problems. But one must wonder what would happen if such a panel found a major problem. Since the act provides no method to force com- pliance with panel recommendations - major problems in public buildings could go uncorrec- ted perhaps even for a long time. It would also seem likely that if major problems did exist then the body responsible would probably be aware of them and would in ail likeli- hood make efforts to correct them. Then, if one uses this assumption, the panel should not have been formed in the first place. It is interesting to note that the act only pro- vides for a penalty if the panel is obstructed in anyway or forbidden to enter a public building. The penalty for such an offense is a fine of up to $5,000 or up to one year's imprisonment or both. Therefore, it is an offense to obstruct the panel, but It Is not an offense to ignore its recommenda- tions. This strikes us as ridiculous. This Is not a criticism of the panel, but a criticism of the government that enacted the law to create it. Another point that should be brought out, was made by the Town of Whltby's -parks and recrea- ti-on department director Wayne DeVeau. DeVeau has expressed his concern that the panel does not seem to verify ail the facts when inspecting a facility and points to their recommen- dation to have the compressor on the Iroqols Park Complex's sprinkler system repaired. He points out that the panel would never have discovered the problem had a repairman not been on the scene correcting the fault when themem- bers made their inspection tour. The director also said that many of the recom- mendations concerning Whitby's largest recrea- tional facilities did not reflect the current situation. The panel said that fire extinguishers had not been inspected in over a year and DeVeau says he can prove they were inspected on February 19,1981 - some nine months ago. It seems to this publication that the provincial government should take another look at the Public Institutions Inspection Act and the panels which are convened under it. The idea of having these panels to ensure that the facilities supported by the taxpayers are kept in good condition is a reasonable one and has the potential of better protecting the interests of the citizens. However, under the current situation the panel is essentially an information gathering body with no power to act. If they are to inspect, gather information about and make recommendations for the improvement of public buildings then they should have the authority, or the judge to whom they report should have the authority, to take action to correct any taults found. The panel should also be given the power to seek ail facts pertaining to ail buildings so that a situation such as the one concerning the Iroquois Park Complex does not arise again. Doing this would be in the best Interests of ail the taxpayers. nIr- IF- li OF I/<E /0 Gt ' P /41G