January 30, 1973



Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my comments to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, specifically to on-the-job training. It appears this government has been dedicated to alleviating unemployment by a band-aid approach. For example, we have become the unhappy recipients of more types of programs than you can think of, such as LIP, OFY and Summer '73. Massive infusion of public moneys have been used to cut down the rate of unemployment. While the programs have merit in part-I do not want to be condemning in a general way-they are generally on a short-term basis. What we must concentrate on is long-term employment. On-the-job training, properly administered, could be a partial answer to that problem.

As I have stated in this House, I am very concerned about rural depopulation. I am also convinced that rural Canada has a labour force that can be utilized for the development of secondary industry in rural areas. Large numbers of our rural labour force are going to the cities to find employment that is more meaningful. Often they

January 30, 1973

receive on-the-job training in the cities which they do not receive in the rural areas. Often they are employed by companies in which they see job advancement as being more likely than in rural areas. How is the on-the-job training program working in the areas to which I refer?

We are all aware that the age group between 18 and 25 is experiencing the highest rate of unemployment. Many of these people after completing high school go to the city only to be dissilusioned by the workaday world. Often they cannot find meaningful employment or any employment at all. With the minimum wage rate rising in many provinces, employers are not willing to hire these young men and women and offer them a long period of on-the-job training. Rather, they continue to prefer older employees, people with experience who have been on the labour market for some time, who do not need further training or who need only limited training.

As I see it, three problems have developed in the field of on-the-job training. The first is that communication with regional offices has been difficult in some areas in Manitoba. Employers were placed in the unfortunate position of having to press the government for specific details in relation to the program. While the department often came out with a variety of glossy printed material, employers were not able to get specific answers from the department once they had read the material.

I submit that departmental officials should be in the field to help employers get started with the program. The department has spent large sums advertising the merits of the program and trying to get employers to take part in it. It seems incongruous to me that in these circumstances employers should find difficulty in obtaining information.

Second, No. 12 of the fact sheets presented by the department requires employers to show technical and financial competence to provide full-time employment. Surely, departmental officers can decide without an exchange of bureaucratic red tape whether a firm can in fact afford to employ a person for on-the-job training. If we look at the training schedule on the basis of a 40-hour week for 40 weeks, we are looking at an outlay per employer of approximately $1,000. The government reimburses an average of 62.5 per cent during the training. I suggest there are better ways of determining the financial position of employers than by requiring them to fill out one form after another.

Lastly, employees have been asked in certain cases to provide specific work schedules for trainees. While I can see merit in this requirement up to a point, I believe these

Adjournment Debate

schedules should not be such as to force an employer to second guess the question whether or not an employee should be accepted under this program. Employers generally consider that employees should be exposed to various areas of the industry rather than made subject to a specific schedule.

In conclusion, I should like to submit that on-the-job training has merit. 1 welcome the program, as a former teacher, but I suggest the department take a look at some of the bureaucratic practices which are being followed and the administrative detail which is required at the present time. This, I feel, is minimizing some of the positive effects the program could have.


Mark R. MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration)


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, as a result of last year's experience with the on-the-job training program we introduced certain refinements in this year's program. First, a sliding scale of wage reimbursement providing an average of 62.5 per cent to the employer in lieu of a flat 75 per cent. Second, reduction of the maximum training period to 40 weeks from 52 weeks. Third, introduction of a maximum reimbursement of $100,000 per employer per region.

As well, the closing date for receipt of proposals was advanced to January 31, 1973, to ensure that maximum program impact would more closely coincide with peak winter unemployment. By introducing these refinements we had hoped to increase the number of trainees at the same level of program funding. Though the actual response from employers in terms of number of trainees and proposals received is somewhat higher than last winter, so far it has not been as high as we had anticipated.

I am sure the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) would wish to ensure that employees in training on-the-job programs are adequately protected, and it is primarily for their benefit that adequate scrutiny of employers has been introduced. There has been some experience of employers going bankrupt, and since the government pays the employer in a case of that kind the employee may be left without reimbursement. While we have introduced a requirement for employers to provide evidence of their financial capability for this purpose, we have no evidence that employers are not submitting proposals because of the questions they are asked in this investigation. However, if the hon. member has any particular case he would wish to bring to our attention, we would be very pleased to investigate it.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

January 30, 1973



Statement By Transport Minister Jean Marchand On The Site Selection For A Second Toronto-centered Region International Airport The Minister of Public Works has now tabled the report of the Hearing Officer on the expropriation of the land for the new Toronto airport at Pickering and has indicated that the government intends to confirm the expropriation. As the minister responsible for transportation, I should like to explain the reasons which led the Government to take this decision. It is a decision with many broad facets. It involves the communications and business of the nation, the life style of Canadians, and their aspirations for travel. Equally it involves the growth and planning of the Toronto region and the opportunities for good community environment. The federal government shares this concern about the elements of growth in the Toronto planning region, and has been moved by its expression across Canada as a whole and, more specifically, in the Toronto region. It is not a matter of the airport alone. Commuter rail services, rapid transit expressways and other transportation considerations are all related. Projections indicate that by the end of the century, just 27 years away, the Toronto region will have a population in excess of six million people. Some projections are well in excess of this, if one considers the entire Toronto-centered region within a radius of some ninety miles. The quality, direction and pace of this growth is a matter of deep interest and involvement for the federal government. The government is satisfied that the new airport is required, and for this purpose the expropriation of the Pickering site has been confirmed. In making this decision we are aware of the broad implications of such a development, particularly coordinated as it is with Ontario's plan for the Toronto-centered region. Accordingly as the government stated on previous occasions we will establish an independent group who will look at these questions and in doing so receive representations on all the issues related to the planning and transportation needs of the region. Representations have been made in the recent Hearings on many aspects, but primarily on three main issues; the need for a second airport; the selection of the site; and the degree of public participation in the selection. With regard to the need, no one can question that Toronto is at the hub of the domestic air transportation system. Equally, its importance as a gateway internationally and to the United States is growing rapidly and can be expected to increase at an even greater pace. People are exchanging visits from this area with families and relatives across Canada and abroad to Britain, Italy, Germany and Scandinavia, to name just a few. Transportation by air is no longer for the wealthy few, and in the years to come, its role can be expected to increase even more. The new bilateral agreements now before the government provide improved access abroad for Toronto and Ontario residents to many parts of the world. Travel to improve Canada's trading position and very great increases in the use of air cargo will be a vital part of our international economic activity. Thus, more facilities will be needed-not just a little more but many times more than we have now. All technical studies affirm this. No one has challenged this although there have been differences as to what the forecast might be over the next twenty-five years. Most forecasts point to a seven to eight time increase. Some suggest a four-fold increase; and others a ten to twelve-fold increase. To deny this key area of Canada anything but its full potential for development would be dishonest and a true derogation of federal responsibility. In 1968, in anticipation of the need, the idea was put forward to enlarge the present airport at Malton. The plan called for acquiring some 2,500 acres of land, land planned, and, in some parts, already serviced by adjacent municipalities for other purposes. Concentrating virtually all traffic at Malton would have resulted in a vast increase in the area and number of people that would be affected by noise. Some 65,000 more people in existing homes would be disturbed by the resultant increase in flight activity. The government listened to the reaction of the people and of the municipalities and subsequently rejected this concept. Malton would continue to be expanded for the traffic of the 1970's, but not enlarged. This has continued to be our policy since the Minister of Transport, in December 1968, announced the two airport system. Ontario later established controls on land around the airport based on our forecasts of the traffic in the 1970's to keep the situation from becoming worse. Since then communities outside the controls have grown rapidly; this is the fastest growing area of the fastest growing region of Canada. In contrast the residential areas on the land that is controlled have grown very slowly. Some say that if we were more clever we could squeeze through all the traffic without enlarging the airport. Unfortunately this is simply not true. With all the traffic at Malton, a fourth runway will be required by the late 70's and a fifth will be required for the traffic to the year 2000. The idea of building the fourth runway-very close (1,000 feet) to the existing north-south runway was studied. Our critics feel that this is what we should do but such a proposition will only give us about a 20 per cent increase in capacity, simply not enough. The fourth runway should be separated by some 5,000 feet and certainly no less than 3,500 feet. More terminals will be required and will represent the major portion (85 per cent) of all the expenditures to the year 2000 whatever the proportion of traffic at Malton and at the new Toronto airport. January 30, 1973

There is simply not enough land for all these developments within the existing boundary; furthermore, the federal government and the province is concerned about the commitments made by the province of Ontario to those people in adjacent communities who were assured that the traffic would not increase and the noise would not become intolerable from the traffic of the 1970's. The technical studies clearly show that the problem of noise is simply the volume and frequency of traffic over existing built up areas. Even if no new runway were needed (and clearly it is) and all the traffic could be accommodated on the existing three runways, approximately the same number of people will be affected. And we looked for every possible advantage in quieter aircraft, quieter engines. We studied STOL in great detail as well as high speed ground transport. The development of STOL as Canadian transportation and industrial initiative is a matter to which the Government attaches high importance in both industrial and transportation terms. Clearly if it could solve the need of Toronto it would be most fortunate. But this solution does not meet the test. The fastest growing air marked is the long-haul; domestic, continental and international for which air is the natural way to travel. STOL will be important but will not reduce the need for facilities and the noise adequately to alter the basic need for the new airport. Similarly with high speed ground transport which in fact is a competitive mode with STOL: Neither are relevant or economic beyond 300 to 500 miles. Next I shall deal with the selection of the site. Experts have made very extensive studies on our behalf assessing various alternatives. These studies have been released to the public and subjected to critical evaluation. As one would expect, there is much conflicting information and opposing points of view, but there are some common themes that provide the basis for a decision. The Toronto region is continuing to expand. Ontario has elaborated a regional plan for orderly development in the area referred to as the Toronto-centered region. This plan recognizes that the growth should be distributed to reduce the pressures of urbanization in some areas and improve the economic and social opportunities in other areas; as this question is largely within provincial jurisdiction, the federal government does not feel that it should interfere with provincial planning priorities. It was therefore apparent to the government that close collaboration with the provincial government was desirable. In this regard we have learned some lessons from the experiences of establishing a second airport in the Montreal regin. When this decision was taken in 1969, it was apparent that traffic at Dorval would expand by the late 1970's to a point where the existing airport facilities could not accommodate it, and there was no way in physical or environmental terms to expand Dorval. A second airport was required-a decision which I believe was fully supported by Quebec. However, the provincial government had other objectives in the selection of the site not consistent with civil aviation requirements or other national interests. We proceeded, but the federal government was obliged, because of the lack of provincial support at the time, to acquire 88,000 acres of land to guarantee environmental protection. The land for the airport site itself was about 17,000 acres, roughly the equivalent of what we are expropriating at Pickering. In my view, it has been a substantial move forward in federal-provincial relations in that we have been able to achieve a consensus of view with the province of Ontario in selecting the site consistent with their planning and where they undertook to carry out zoning to protect potential noise land. Since 1970, working with the province jointly we boiled down the possibilities for a new site and reached some basic conclusions. We showed that Southern Ontario really consists of two broad regions of air travellers: The Toronto area; southwestern Ontario. Given the very great size of these regions, it became clear that two systems of airports for each region specifically developed for the needs of that region were most convenient. In fact the documents demonstrate that even if we could accommodate all of the traffic at Malton, which we cannot, new airports would be required for maximum convenience. The multiple system of airports that we have proposed is more convenient and will cost the users less than any one single airport, even Malton. With Malton to the west of Metro Toronto the closest possible site for the majority of travellers who live or are destined to Toronto is the Pickering site to the east. In turn the passengers from the southwest would increasingly use the improved facilities there especially for short haul or charter operations. Improved connections to regional domestic points and to key international airports from a number of centres like Hamilton, Windsor and London where relatively modest expansion is envisaged, would benefit these communities and adjacent areas; equally important, it would hopefully reduce automobile traffic congestion and fatalities. This conclusion has been challenged. Critics say that the majority of passengers live to the west and if a new airport is needed it should be west of Toronto. Actually the majority of passengers live in Toronto and the idea is to locate as close as possible to them for convenience while avoiding as far as possible disruption as at Malton. There are fewer, but still a considerable number of passengers to the southwest, and they will find it convenient to use the airports there. It emerged from all the studies that Pickering fully met aviation criteria, was convenient, and could be developed to satisfy future demand. The Ontario government also reached the basic conclusion that the airport at Pickering best suited their regional planning. In the airport they saw further opportunities to achieve the goal of stimulating more growth to the east. The planning of Ontario together with the establishment of a new airport held out the prospect of new jobs for 100,000 Canadians over the next decade. Clearly, this factor is a matter of interest to both levels of government. As one who has long worked with people, I deeply regret the disturbance of some homeowners. This is true at any site. The natural features of the site will also be

January 30, 1973 disturbed. These concerns must be weighed against the concerns of greater disruption elsewhere. We set ourselves the task of finding ways to minimize the disruption, and we set ourselves the obligation of having the general public test these conclusions before we made a fined decision. All those on the expropriated land will be paid not only the market value but also related payments for relocation and disturbance as provided for by the Expropriation Act and other related expenditures as the Act is based on the principle of "a home for a home". We will strive for the preservation of both historic buildings and the area's natural landscape; in this regard we will cooperate with the conservation authorities of Ontario, and also allow adequate opportunities to historic, horticulture and wildlife groups, to make recommendations as to steps that should be taken in respect to these questions. A great deal of concern has been expressed in respect to the destruction of agricultural lands and we are convinced that with proper planning a great deal of expropriated land can be made available for agricultural use within the airport zone. We wish to assure residents that such lands will be leased back at rates which will assure that farming can be conducted on an economically viable basis. Given the steps both levels of government have taken or envisaged, it can be fairly argued that the dangers in the general area around Pickering of unstructured urban sprawl and ravage to the environment that would have occurred had private speculation been allowed to continue, has been diminished rather than increased. The question so often raised in connection with green belts and urban growth east of Toronto are, in our view, extremely important from an environmental and quality of life viewpoint. The federal government is convinced that an airport in the region will not, in itself, prohibit the achievement of an adequate buffer zone for green belt and recreational lands between Toronto and communities to the east. This is a matter which the federal government would be prepared to discuss further with the provincial government. The final question concerns public participation. Since the original announcement about expansion at Malton, we have listened to the people. With respect to Pickering, hearings under the Expropriation Act have been held. This was the first time the act was employed for such a major project. The Hearing Officer conducted the hearings with objectivity and fairness. Everyone had the opportunity to object and was given the time to he heard. Many objections were heard and they have been very effectively summarized in the report that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has tabled. The report records only the objections. But it is an important document and it weighs heavily in the balance of reaching a final decision. In this balance we must also weigh the objections of others to the other alternatives and the objections of the majority of people today and in the future who will condemn us for procrastination and the abdication of our responsibilities until it is too late and impossible to plan sensibly. Let me review the numbers of people involved and the issues raised. 2,163 people objected. These include 136 households and the land being expropriated. Some 130 owners also being expropriated formally wrote asking that the expropriation go ahead. The majority of the total 815 property owners did not object. The approximately 2,000 people who objected and who live near the site and elsewhere were very articulate in their presentations. From the time of the announcement they have challenged the conclusions of the two governments. Over and above the hearings, groups have met with government ministers, and numerous officials have themselves been made available to answer their questions. In addition, technical reports have been released for their consideration. Their fundamental point is that we are overestimating the amount of the traffic, underestimating the amount of facilities that we could squeeze into Malton airport and not taking enough account of new technologies that could quieten the aircraft and reduce noise. They are right that aspects of future technology are uncertain. We have evaluated these possibilities ourselves and are continuing to do so. But these important possibilities do not negate the need for the land for the new airport. The report that I am tabling today summarizes reasons drawn basically from the previous documents that demonstrate this conclusion. Fundamentally it is a choice of either enlarging Malton or developing a new airport. Clearly failure to meet the growing demand is not an acceptable option for the people of the region, for Ontario and for the nation. And in the balance of the numbers of people disrupted, the economic and planning advantages gained and the capacity for air transportation achieved, Pickering is preferable. After years of technical studies and after all the arguments have been heard, it remains to elected governments to make the decision. I personally could claim the need for additional time to review the whole matter further, and a few would applaud. But I have reviewed the matter, and this government has decided to go ahead sincerely believing it to be the right decision, and supported in this belief by Ontario. While we intend to acquire the land, no one will be disturbed nor will construction begin until there has been an opportunity for an independent group working with the federal, provincial and municipal governments to determine the type and timing of facilities required and the one which in their view could be most consistent with the transportation and other planning activity of all three levels of government. The decisions resulting from such an open public discussion will affect the life style of the residents of the region for generations to come. For this reason, it is felt that concerned community groups, as well as governments, should have full opportunity for participation. January 30, 1973

This process will be the first of its kind and could be a model for the future. The land will remain secure while this participation of the public and various groups occurs. The people will be able to make whatever inputs they feel is appropriate, not only on the question of the airport but also on the kind of urban region and how this affects air service and airports. The independent group and the government will be open-minded and will consider all information including any vitally new facts on technology or changes in the attitudes of the people that might point to a different conclusion than our present conviction. Should such information come to light and should we be moved to reconsider our present conclusion that the people of Toronto and Canada need this facility, the land will still be there and the option will still be open. But in planning for the future we have concluded on the best information available that the Pickering airport is needed. I hope this public examination will proceed expeditiously so that we avoid within ten years any kind of transportation crisis for Toronto which would force the travelling public there to use less convenient methods of travel or rely on other gateways for access abroad. As the transportation and planning needs of the area are urgent, it would not be in the general interest to unduly prolong such a hearing. It is the government's intention to meet with the leaders of the other levels of government immediately to commence the study at the earliest possible date and report within twelve months.

Wednesday, January 31, 1973

January 30, 1973