Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):

Mr. Speaker, on December 13 I asked the Minister of Transport if he would abandon the proposal to enlarge the Toronto international airport at Malton. In the few minutes allowed me I shall try to persuade him to do so.

During the last three months I have done a great deal of research on the subject. My views have been fortified by studies conducted by the municipalities and by others. In addition, I have received objections, with reasons, from thousands of families who would be adversely affected.

I have concluded that the proposal is holding up the production of 19,000 housing units

or accommodation for 50,000 people in Mississauga and Etobicoke. Living conditions would become unbearable for another 50,000 people now living to the south of the proposed enlargement. It would impair or destroy housing accommodation for another 150,000 people living to the east. Dozens of schools and hospitals would have to be soundproofed at great cost, and even then their efficiency would be lessened. It would disrupt the planned course of development, and thus the economic stability of the municipalities concerned. It would withdraw about 2,000 acres from a limited supply of 40,000 to 50,000 acres of land ready for urbanization, and thus have an extreme adverse effect on housing and other urban developments in the Toronto metro area. It would conflict with the Ontario planning act and be an insult to the planning of the area, as planned by the municipalities and approved by the province and by the Department of Transport itself. It would commit the federal government to pollution, in the sense that where investment is large enough we must accept it and thus make it impossible ever to cleanse thoroughly the air in the Toronto area.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)

Think of the air in ten years, at a time when there is no wind and thus no movement of air, with 2,000 flights a day spewing gas and carbon over the area. I understand that each plane burns approximately four tons of fuel during a take-off. This could lead to a total of 10,000 tons a day in the 1980's. Future generations would rightly condemn us.

The proposal has been rejected by all of the municipalities concerned. Their refusal to rezone the land for flight paths means that such land would have to be purchased, and the cost of the land alone would, I believe, be at least half a billion, whereas the original estimate for the whole project was approximately $300 million. Appropriately, the Central Ontario Planning Institute of Canada concluded that the expansion is wrong and would lead to a growing and insoluble conflict between the metro demand for land and the airport's demand for control.

A more acceptable and less expensive site can and must be found. I suggest for consideration a site on undeveloped and inexpensive land north of Kingston for a double jet port to serve Toronto and Montreal. If this is thought to be too far into the future, then perhaps Camp Borden would provide a site, since the government already owns 20,000

December 17, 1968 COMMONS

acres there. In both cases, the land is submarginal farm land, and could be acquired at a minimum cost. The recent trend in North America is for jet ports to be 50 to 100 miles from city centres. Pending development of rapid transit, there could be flying bus service from smaller ports such as de Havilland and the island in Toronto, by means of the new short take-off planes.

A second alternative, that of a floating airport seems worthy of investigation since the flightways would be over open water and would disturb no one. Leading civil engineers hesitate to estimate the cost, but feel a study costing about $100,000 would be a worthwhile investment. In fact, the United States federal aviation administration has just recently launched an intensive study of this solution. Two immediate objections, those of water pollution and a greater use of United States air space for descending planes, are not really tenable.

The airport of the late 70's or early 80's will require a staff of perhaps 30,000 people with a supporting city having a total population of perhaps 200,000. Rather than cause these people to settle in Toronto and Montreal metropolitan areas, where land is scarce and at a premium, we should plan for a new city to be compatible with an airport which would help to relieve the pressure in the metro areas, and at the same time allow the development of a new city on a pre-planned and logical basis.

Since severe intensification of flights would be as undesirable as the major expansion, I support a second airport as early as possible, but better still now, sufficiently removed to avoid a repetition of the present problem, and where land is inexpensive and can be zoned to provide for future further expansion.

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), to reply to the hon. member's interesting remarks. As indicated in the house a few days ago, the Minister of Transport is now in the process of reviewing the entire situation with regard to the proposed expansion of Toronto international airport. The minister has looked at the evidence which has been acquired by the Department of Transport and other agencies, and has examined the reports of meetings which have been held with officials of the municipality and the province of Ontario. He

DEBATES 4087

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has also spoken to groups representing citizens of all the surrounding communities of the Toronto international airport. It is expected that within the next few days the Minister of Transport will make a statement concerning the Toronto international airport situation.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister the following question on orders of the day:

In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the outrageous prices being charged for Christmas toys this season, would the Prime Minister consider requesting the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to conduct an immediate investigation into this serious problem?

In a supplementary question I noted that millions of dollars are spent on toys, that there are only a few shopping days until Christmas and that advertising creates additional pressures on our society. My interest in this question was aroused on Saturday when I accompanied my wife on a Christmas shopping expedition. We were appalled at the prices. Since our oldest child is now over eight years of age we have had some years of experience in Christmas shopping for our own children, within the limitations of a family budget. On this basis we noted that prices had skyrocketed since last year.

We were interested in buying several items in which our children had expressed interest, largely as a result of viewing television advertising. The items in which we were interested ranged from $15 to $30 or more, each. This was beyond the family budget. After our initial shock we started to look around. There was hardly any toy selling for less than $8 which would give any child pleasure. Curiously, there were a number of items which had been marked down to half price. I suggest that very likely these were not loss leaders, because they were still selling at a considerable price. Rather, they represented items where the desired profit had been made on the total consignment of the item, and the remaining stock was being sold at a lower level of return.

A friend who heard of my inquiry sent me the following note:

I bought Billy Blastoff for $8.88 at a well known toy store. I've since seen it for sale in other stores

December 17, 1968

4088 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion at several different prices, including as low as $4.88. This price range seems ridiculous. We parents need protection.

On Monday, prior to orders of the day, I purchased a plastic building set for $8.98, plus tax, and presented it to the Prime Minister following my question. I hope he enjoys playing with the set and that it will give him some relief from the tensions of office. I believe I obtained the beginner's set; with it I hope the Prime Minister may make more progress than he has so far in building his just society. Possibly he is fortunate that I did not give him the instant insanity set of blocks.

Since then I have discussed this matter with other people. I heard of one case where a four year old girl decided she wanted a particular make of doll. When her mother took her to see Santa Claus at a store the girl informed him she wanted the doll and Santa replied, "You tell your mother we have your doll already wrapped for you." On investigating the mother found the doll cost over $18, and had considerable difficulty, of course, in persuading her daughter that it would be better to buy another doll.

Another mother here in Ottawa investigated the toy situation just after Christmas a year or more ago. She was informed by the merchandising people that any toy could be sold through television advertising. They also told her that toys advertised on television could be sold for three times the ordinary retail price.

Christmas giving is a tradition in our society, stemming from the giving of gifts to the child Jesus in Bethlehem. Down through the centuries the giving of gifts, particularly to children, has become a tradition. Foisted on this beautiful tradition is the influence of mass advertising, and particularly television. The crass commercialization of Christmas for purposes of profit has prostituted this tradition. The conventions of our own society help to create a captive market in the Christmas season. The impact of television advertising constitutes a form of torture, used to squeeze out every possible dollar from the consumer under the guise of Christmas tradition.

I witnessed the impact of television advertising just this evening. My wife and I were looking at a Christmas catalogue and noted a "happy, happy doll" selling for around $15. Our four year old son was able to recite the words of the television ad at the mere mention of the name-"She laughs, and she'll make you laugh, too". Millions of dollars are

spent on toys each year, and toys bring merchants one of the highest levels of retail mark-up. I am reliably informed that the average retail mark-up on toys is well above 40 per cent. I am also reliably informed that the retail price of toys is generally double what they cost to manufacture.

Further questions of toy safety have arisen. In the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, December 13 we read:

So you're thinking of buying your daughter a miniature vacuum cleaner or sewing machine just like mommy's for Christmas?

Better think again. Consumers Union in the United States tested 42 electric toys of this nature for last months' issue of their magazine Consumer Reports, and found ten to be unacceptable from a safety standpoint.

The article goes on to give many examples. This is an excellent illustration of the type of thing that should be tackled by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Only a few shopping days remain until Christmas. If the Department of Consumer Affairs is to be effective it must develop a capacity to cope with such situations as this in a matter of a few days. Only in this way will the new department be of real value.

In the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, December 14, appeared an article under the heading: Space toys "in", guns "out". In it we read:

Canadians are spending more than ever in the frantic crush of pre-Christmas buying and toy-makers forecast sales about 30 per cent higher than last season.

The '67 seasonal sale totalled about $180,000,000, or $32 per child.

I am sure this is a matter worthy of investigation by the department.

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

With only seven shopping days left before Christmas I welcome this opportunity to answer the hon. member on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). I appreciate very much the remarks he has made about the tradition of Christmas giving. I would also like to state with deference to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that I cannot make any remarks as to his reference to what the Prime Minister said on the subject of block building.

I listened intently to what the hon. member said as to the price of toys, particularly since during the Christmas season all citizens with families of young children have the purchase

December 17. 1968 COMMONS

of toys very much on their minds. In attempting to ascertain the degree to which the current price of toys is a matter of concern to consumers we have checked returns to box 99 which, as hon. members are aware, is the facility through which the consumers of Canada register their complaints with the department. I find there has been little reaction to the price of toys. Out of fewer than 3,000 complaints since the inception of box 99, only 23 have related to toys and of these only two were concerned with price. There is, of course, a wide selection of toys available on the market, presenting the consumer with the opportunity to make a choice as to the variety, quality and, above all, price, to suit his purse. Price shopping is so important that the minister has strongly urged the consumer to shop by price, not only for toys but for all consumer goods.

Especially in cases where consumers regard the price of an article as essential and when

DEBATES 4089

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion other choices are available, as is the case with toys, the exercise of consumer wisdom in buying less expensive articles will have an appropriate effect on the market. Of course if the hon. member has any information to suggest that illegal restraints exist with respect to toys, he should immediately convey that information to the minister, or to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act-

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Or

to Santa Claus.

Mr. Haidasz:

-and complaints so directed will, I am sure, receive the appropriate attention and action.

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Ho,

ho, ho.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

4090

December 17, 1968