WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1986, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell I've been sitting in my chair for the past few hours trying to decide if I've got egg on my face or not. You see, -or perhaps remember, that I wrote this fairly prohetic column last week. However, while my. insight proved to be correct, I was a bit late. While these thoughts were being transmitted from my brain to my typewriter, Coun. Ross Batten was standing before council putting them in- to action. Now, mind you, I had no idea of what was coming down the pipe. Not one of the Fearsome Foursome told me what they were doing. As far as I can deter- mine, they did what they did without telling anyone - except, perhaps, their wives. They bamboozled everyone. Ross and the boys (in case you've forgotten: Joe Bugelli, Joe Drumm and Gerry Emm) took the rules of parliamentary procedure, rammed them down Bob Attersley's throat and came up victorious. They won the day. Or did they? Let us examine, for the moment, exactly what they did last week. Simply put, the Fearsome Foursome decided to sink some $3 million into Iroquois Park - primarily to effect some much needed renovations and build a second ice pad. Then, they thought it would be an excellent idea if a fitness facility were built somewhere in the Rossland Rd./Brock St. area. While no price tag was put on this new development, the figure of $5.5 million was mentioned. Those of you who feasted (or famined) your eyes on the ink in this space last week will recall that ail I said was that I suspected what happened would hap- pen. I did not advocate it. And I am not doing so now but I would like to cast a lit- tle light on the subject. The first thing that the Fearsome Foursome did was ignor what has become accepted practise in the Town of Whitby. The original recommendation that these four gentlemen vehemently and angrily rejected was the result of 18 mon- ths of study and public meetings. The process that resulted in the original motion to invest some $6.2 million in Iroquois Park was subject to full public debate and input. The motion that was put forward and legally passed 10 days ago was a specific instruction to town staff to carry out a certain policy requiring the ex- penditure of millions of public dollars without seeking public input and con- sultation. Granted, it was their decision to make. It was fully within their althority and mandate to do exactly what they did. But it has been the practise of Whitby Town Council, at least for the last six years, to seek input and hold-- public meetings before proceeding with a project of this magnitude. Another thing I would like to point out is that these gentlemen are experien- ced enough politicians to know that this issue isn't over. Not by a long shot. And they can still lose and lose badly. First question. They've sent their idea to staff for action. What are they going to do if staff comes back and says that the best price the town can hope for for 'Complex North' is $8 to $10 million? If 'Complex North' costs one nickel more than the original motion for Iroquois Park, how are they going to justify that to an already overburned taxpayer? What rational argument are they going to persuade us with? I still reject the notion that Iroquois Park is in the wrong location. If people in Brooklin are willing to drive 20 minutes or more to either the Oshawa Shopping Centre or the Pickering Town Centre, I would like to point out that Iroquois Park is no more than 10 or 12 minutes away from downtown Brooklin. And if the weather is bad, I don't care if you live on Charles St. or Princess St. - you probably aren't going to venture out of doors unless absolutely necessary. I will concede that Brooklin'is a bit far for the town's summer rec programs - but with a little thought I'm sure the town could arrive at a reasonable and ac- ceptable solution to that problem. The reason for including the fitness facility in the Iroquois expansion was a simple one: money. Fitness facilities are the only part of a complex like Iroquois that makes a profit - that generates more revenues than cost. So, what the Fearsome Foursome have given us is an Iroquois Park that will forever be a drain on the taxpayer and a facility in another part of town that will probably turn a profit. I'm not sure that was the right thing to do. I've watched the seven men who make up Whitby Town Council for a few years now. Until 10 days ago they worked as a team for the common good and the best interests of the town. Sure, they've had their arguments, their disagreements, but they've always been able to overcome their differences and work together. But not this time. Whitby has a divided council, one that is so badly cracked I'm not sure anything will heal the wound. Every member of council will publically say that they've made nice, shaken hands, said I'm sorry and decided to be friends again. I don't believe it for a minute. And for a very simple reason. If I were in Bob Attersley's, Marcel Brunelle's or Tom Edwards shoes I wouldn't trust any member of the Fear- some Foursome. They ignored council practise, they used the rules and suc- cessfully avoided the process council established for the original Iroquois motion. What they did was legal and binding. But I wonder if it's worth the price they may have to pay for what they have done. Batten, Bugelli, Drumm and Emm have taken a monumental risk. If 'Com- plex North' costs too much, if it turns out that the town should have gone with the original proposal, if it turns out that, for whatever reason, it can't be done or can't be done in the forseeable future, they alone will be responsible. They alone will be at fault. There will be no one to blame. They won't be able to blame it on staff or an outside consultant. The responsibility will be theirs alone. There will be no one with whom to share it. I wonder if it will be worth it. But then again, if 'Complex North' works, and it just might, ail four of them will come out of this smelling like prize roses. WITH OUR FEET UP By Bill Swan A mountain full of words has been spilled in every direction about free trade. The difficulty for the average consumer of news lies in this: none of it makes sense. I suppose that may be old-fashioned, this hankering ta have things make sense. For example. if some enterprising politician where to stand up and say, "There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as free trade." - well, then, maybe the arguments would have some cohesion. But what we have been getting from politicians and interested parties amounts to heat rather than light. The whole topic has been reduced to slogans. Ap- parently you're either for 'em or agin' 'em. and now all you have to do is shout the right slogan. If you remember what it is. Free trade will affect a high percentage of jobs in each and every community in Canada. We have assurances that Canada will be the net beneficiary of all this. But playing free trade poker with the United States may not be the best way in the world to hitch up your pants. You run the risk of losing not only your suspenders, shirt, but possibly your pants as well. Surely our federal government has, closeted away somewhere, definitive studies on the effect of free trade. Undoubtedly Brian Mulroney has clearly in his mind which cards he will play and which he will discard. Before getting into the game, he should share some of his knowledge with the rest of us. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. But let's be more specific. The Mulroney government has announced in clear and resounding terms that as the party of free enterprise, it supports the view that broadcasting and telecommunications "must be seen and treated as industries like any other and not simply as cultural forces of vehicles." That quote from An- drew Bureau, chairman of the Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). With that sort of clarity, one knows the priority broadcasting will get in the free trade talks: there's a bunch for the discard pile. So? Would not an unregulated broadcasting in- dustry cater specifically to the market place? Is this not free enterprise? Well, yes and no. What free enterprisers forget is this: the market place the broadcasting industry will respond to is not the market of audience; the prime market is advertisers. We are talking about an industry that even under the horrid shackles of government regulations still provides us with only 28 percent Canadian programming. (23 percent in prime time.) Some of us recall the industry before the current broadcasting act was passed in 1968. That Act then set the current regulations about Canadian content. The industry put up a lot of fuss. The Act decreed that some forty percent of radio content be Canadian. The industry threw up its collective hands in horror. What! Play Canadian music in prime time? We'd lose our audience. Canadians are too close to American border stations; they'd tune in to that quality Yankee stuff. Canadians, they said, would never sit still to listen to second rate performers. To become a pop singer in the sixties, a Canadian had to migrate to the States, become a star there, and then his/her records would get play on Canadian radio stations. But native Canadians, working at home? Forget it. We were toosmall. But one radio station, CFPL in London, quietly assessed the situation. Then, as the arguments rose to a fever pitch. dropped a quiet Canadian bom- bshell. "Gentlemen,' the station announced (the in- dustry was decidedly more chauvinist then) "this argument about lack of Canadian talent is nonsen- se, even if many of our listening audience have panicked with you. We've been playing ail Canadian stuff for six months, and have gained in audience." Well, the Act passed, and the radio stations com- plied. And the resuit was not what the prophets of profit predicted. Out of the Act emerged a need for Canadian ar- tists. Out of the need emerged Canadian artists. And out of the Canadian artists emerged a number of in- ternational stars - who continued to live (surprise! surprise!)in Canada. Anne Murray. Gordon Light- foot. Shirley Eckhart. Rush. etc. etc. etc. The list is longer than our space here. The point is SEE PG. 10 ~40LU ABOUT'TAT OLDIE_ &//.o 7)Mx?Ea/ Th'EA cIZD #A "/ Me. 1&zqoA/Eyr%ýC~Ioa/e ? ',