Mr. Ouellet:

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the very positive response of the previous Government to those citizens will be an example to be followed by this Tory Government. The Hon. Member should know that no airport was built in Pickering.

There is no Pickering airport. Our Government had consultations and decided afterwards according to the wishes of the population not to build an airport in Pickering.

I just hope now that the people of Toronto who are worried about jets being allowed to land in downtown Toronto will be heard by the Tory Government.

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill which would have the effect of establishing an airport on Toronto Island of a different sort from the one that exists now.

I will deal mainly with the problems as they are in Toronto, because I think that the Hon. Members are unaware of the conditions there.

The fact is that this airport site has been under discussion in Toronto for many years. It has been a matter of discussion, particularly between the City Council of Toronto and the harbour commission.

For a great many years, the harbour commission has been nominally responsible for conducting the business of the harbour. It has been winding up that business-for whatever reason, the harbour seems to be disappearing-and it is gradually converting itself into a real estate operation. As new buildings are built in Toronto, cheap fill is made available and the harbour commission has been busy for many decades filling the lake and selling the new land thereby created at next to no cost to the harbour commission. The harbour commission is going out of the shipping business, or at least the shipping business is certainly leaving Toronto, but the harbour commission does not seem to care if the use it makes of the old land and the new land created under its jurisdiction is a use that is desired by the citizens and residents of the City of Toronto.

Over the years, there have been many discussions between Toronto City Council, which appointed some of the members of the harbour commission, and the harbour commission itself about its accounts. The harbour commission was always complaining that the airport was losing money. This was an airport designed primarily for recreational and occasional light commercial use, not for regular commercial schedules. Hundreds of thousands of flights did go through that airport, but they were primarily recreational and light commercial flights.

When the commission complained it was losing money and had to expand in order to recoup its losses, it would never make available its accounts. The City Council could never find out why the Toronto Harbour Commission was always losing money when it was in the land selling business as well as in the transportation business.

There are other disputes surrounding that area. There have been disputes regarding the Toronto islands themselves. At one time there was a move afoot to clear out all the residents from the islands, and most of them were cleared off. A major regional park was developed and a good deal of water and land

October 4, 1985

was left in a natural state. That is to say, marshes exist there and, as has been mentioned, birds nest there regularly and migratory birds make it a regular stop. There is a school on the island which takes in children from Toronto for a week at a time to study natural things which cannot be studies at any other school in the city.

The citizens of Toronto have been very actively concerned with that park. When it was found that there was sufficient parkland for the needs of those people of Metro Toronto who wanted to use it, the City of Toronto pushed to stop the demolition and removal of houses because it has been found that the park is better off for having a few hundred people living alongside it. Now we have an island community as well as a park in the area.

Across the water on the mainland, as the harbour commission has been moving the harbour business to the east end of the harbour where there is now a container park, the land along the waterfront has been made available for housing, commerce and a variety of uses other than heavy industry. Heavy industry is slowly being phased out of the central part of the waterfront. In fact, a number of residential buildings have already been built and occupied on the waterfront and there are many more planned. As well, recreational, commercial and very light industrial buildings are planned.

City Council has given a great deal of attention to planning the housing and other facilities that should go in the waterfront area so that there is a good balance. The City Council wants to make sure that there are housing opportunities for families who wish to live there. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is responsible for housing thinks that it is a stupid idea to put family housing on the waterfront because the land is too expensive. However, City Council feels that the waterfront should be made available to all sorts of people. The council feels that the waterfront should be accessed from the land at many points and that the people who live in the waterfront area should be people of all incomes and of all family styles including singles and families. Through experience, that is the kind of neighbourhood that we have found works for Toronto.

There has been a continual debate with the harbour commission over City Council's plans for the waterfront. For that matter, there had been a continual debate with the previous federal Government which had other plans for the waterfront. It wanted to turn it into a much more expensive, aristocratic commercial and residential area. The pressure being exerted by Toronto City Council is with respect to keeping that waterfront, including the island and the Toronto Island Airport, as part of the City of Toronto. Therefore, it is disappointing to find that Bill C-76 was slipped in with the least possible notice and without any consultation with the City of Toronto.

When I raised the matter a few days ago with a member of Toronto City Council, who has been actively concerned with this issue for 12 or 13 years and who is one of the aldermen for Ward 9 in the Beaches, I found that Toronto City Council and

Toronto Island Airport

Toronto planning staff had been given no information whatsoever about this Bill. That is just part of the wonderful record of consultation about which the Tory Government advertised a year ago. This Government continues to send out bales and bales of printed material to our offices which say absolutely nothing. When there is something to say with respect to a proposed law which will make basic changes to Toronto's airports, there is not a word, not one line of notice. There was not the slightest invitation to the members of Toronto City Council, or to the Planning Department of the City of Toronto, to comment on the Bill during its drafting. Nor was there an invitation extended to it to get in on the debate until this point.

I heartily support the suggestion of the three previous speakers that this matter should be referred not only to committee but that the committee should hold hearings in the City of Toronto. That is where the airport will make a difference, for better or worse.

Of course, it is always posssible to point out the benefits of an airport to those people who have the occasion, the leisure and the money to travel. What has to be pointed out, and what has been pointed out by Toronto City Council many times, is that there is a down side to the issue. For example, if jets are allowed, as this Bill tacitly permits, there will be a tremendous increase of noise over the mainland and the island. If jets come in, there will be a tremendous increase of surface traffic, of people and freight, going to and from the island. There will be a disruption of the present traffic on streets such as Front, York, University and Spadina. There will have to be a long construction process in regard to putting up the facilities necessary for a jet port and, no doubt, a new bridge or tunnel will have to be cosntructed, which will spell the end to the island park as the quiet place it is now. There is talk of putting a light rapid transit system along the waterfront and up Spadina. That plan is opposed by many people. However, perhaps it is part of someone else's plan. Perhaps it is part of someone's plan relating to the airport and the idea that there will be jets at the airport which, as I say, is hinted at in the Bill in an upside-down way. It is stated in the Bill that the commissioners may pass by-laws to prevent jets or other noisy planes. In other words, if the commissioners neglect to do that, there will be jets and noisy planes in violation of an agreement negotiated between City Council, the previous Government of Canada and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. I will come to that agreement in a moment.

In addition to the disruption of the traffic, and in addition to that noise, there will be pressure to either stop any further residential buildings or even to do away with the residential buildings which are there on the mainland and on the island now. It will be argued that people have to move away to make more room for the jet planes. That would be the most serious violation of the spirit of the agreement which was negotiated four years ago between the Government of Canada and its harbour commission, which it controls, and the Toronto City Council.

October 4, 1985

Toronto Island Airport

In regard to the options for an airport, it has been pointed out by many people, including many people from the City of Toronto and many who sit on city council, that the money spent to upgrade the airport, and the money that will be spent in much greater quantity to upgrade it for a jet port, is needed to upgrade the rail system which runs east, west and north of Toronto. Rail fares are substantially lower than air fares. In fact, the travel time on the better trains between Toronto and Montreal are not that much greater than the STOL time. Of course, between Toronto and Ottawa that is a different story, which involves a train that often does not travel all the way. The train often stops in Kingston.

What is wanted by the people of Toronto is cheap and efficient rail transport, which could be available if the money were not diverted into an airport which, by its very nature, will be more expensive than rail transport and which will be used by only a few whose business or leisure concerns make that appropriate.

The Clerk of the Standing Committee on Transport is in receipt of a letter from Alderman Dale Martin, one of the aldermen in Ward 6 where this airport is located. Mr. Martin is very much concerned with the possibility of this Bill slipping through. He states, in part, in his letter:

As you are no doubt aware, the issue of jet plane traffic and commercial air traffic into the Toronto Island Airport is a very controversial one. There has been considerable debate both at the Council level and between the Council and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners on both matters. The proposals to transfer jurisdiction for the regulation and operation of the Island Airport to the Toronto Harbour Commission is, in vew of the Harbour Commission's stated agreement to allowing jet aircraft to use the Island Airport, of some concern.

He points out in his letter that the change of the method of appointment of commissioners will have some effect toward the weakening of the sense of responsibility and answerability of the harbour commission members to the Toronto City Council. He concludes his letter thus:

I would, therefore, respectfully submit that the Committee should hold public hearings into both of these matters, preferably in the City of Toronto prior to the Committee making its decision on the proposals.

Alderman Martin is referring, of course, to the Standing Committee on Transport which, in fact, will not be conducting these hearings. We now have in place a double system of committees which will mean twice as many meetings. There is no doubt that the meetings Alderman Martin seeks are meetings of the legislative committee with respect to this Bill. He is urging that those meetings be held in Toronto to give ample opportunity to members of the City Council, other municipalities which are concerned with the airport, the public, groups who use transportation other than air transportation, residents of the island and of the mainland, and representatives of the recreational industries around Toronto harbour and Toronto Island to speak to the committee in an effort to try to ensure that the agreement worked out with such long and arduous negotiation between City Council, the Government and its harbour commission is not just wiped out by one hastily and poorly considered Bill put through by Members of the House.

I know from my own experience, and other Hon. Members have probably had the same experience, that the new committee system is a problem. In effect, each committee has been split into two operations. Apparently, each operation must have as many meetings as the previous committee. In other words, there is almost a doubling of the work. In some cases, witnesses who give testimony before one committee will find it necessary to speak to the other half of the committee because the subject matters are different. We may have the same experience with the Committee on Transport, I don't know. It probably would have made much more sense had the Committee on Transport, prior to this Bill being introduced, held a meeting in Toronto to hear the views of Toronto people about the airport which is growing up within the City of Toronto. Had that been done, I think Bill C-76 would have been much better considered. Rather than saying the commissioners "may" make bylaws strictly prohibiting jet aircraft, I think it would have been better saying "there shall be no jet aircraft". Rather than making bylaws to prohbiit excessive noise, perhaps some kind of standard for noise should have been indicated, as has already been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The City of Toronto has engineers who have a great deal of experience in dealing with the noises of a modern city. They make sure that the noise level is not intolerable and at the same time the necessary operations of the city can continue. They know something about noise in Toronto.

Perhaps the Department of Transport knows something about noise as well. However, there should have been some agreement before this Bill was brought to Parliament about how the noise factor is going to be handled. I would also like to point out that it has been an unusual handling of the Bill. It has been slipped through with no notice. It was almost as if the Bill was to be given first reading last week before it was printed. It was not available to Hon. Members at the time first reading was asked for. There was no notice to the city which will be substantially affected one way or another by this Bill. There is no clarity as to whether there will be time for discussion. It may be that the committee will give the city only a couple of days in which to respond to this Bill. That is the way one committee I know of is operating. It wants to have everything wrapped up by the end of two weeks from now. That does not give City Council or the planning department a fair chance to respond. I ask that this Bill not only go to committee but that the committee hold hearings in Toronto and that the hearings be at a time which is practical and workable for the Toronto City Council in order to prepare its response. It should be given time to inquire of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) about the details which are not spelled out in order to have a fair assessment of what the impact of this law would be upon the 600,000 people who live in suburbs of Toronto and the two million who live in Metropolitan Toronto. I ask Hon. Members who do not live in Toronto to consider how they would feel if this were being dropped into the middle of the communities which each of them represents. I ask those Hon. Members to consider the necessity of giving Toronto time to consider this.

October 4, 1985

Mr. Belsher:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his speech talked about not knowing about the agreement, but later on he referred to a letter written by council with respect to the Toronto Island Airport. I am curious to know on what he was basing his remarks.

I believe the noise by-law provided for in the Bill does have the protection about which the Hon. Member is so worried. It also specifies that no straight jets will be permitted. It is also in the agreement, to my understanding, that no bridges or tunnels will be permitted. That is already in the agreement. The agreement is a public document. It is not something which is being hidden as implied by the Hon. Member.

With respect to the appointment system, it is my understanding that the City of Toronto will be able to appoint three out of five members to the Commission. It also goes one step further in that the members will not just be appointed by the executive of the City Council but will go before the total of the council, the whole council itself, which will make it in line with the rest of the nominations which go to other boards. Therefore, the council has the protection there. This has been worked out with the City of Toronto and the Commission and it is not all one way as the Hon. Member would lead us to believe.

I think those were the points I wanted to cover. I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to comment on those points or should we just leave it at that?

Mr. Heap:

Mr. Speaker, those are quite relevant points and more will be said about them when there are hearings in Toronto. The agreement may or may not be superseded by this legislation. It is not clear. I tried to make an inquiry as to the effects of this legislation on the agreement and I have not found here or in Toronto clear answers as to what can happen to the terms of that agreement once this legislation goes into effect.

With respect to the appointment of the commissioners, the Hon. Member is not quite accurate when he says they are appointed by the executive. They are nominated by the executive, according to the current system, and that nomination must be ratified by a vote of two thirds of council. In other words, no one becomes a commissioner unless he or she has the confidence of two thirds of council. This will reduce the base of the commissioner's support to possibly a bare majority of council which is more likely to leave the way open for pressure from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to have the terms of that agreement renegotiated so as to allow a drainage or tunnel or jets.

The powers of expropriation, newly given to the Harbour commission, will enable it to put pressure on the city, either through the council or through other enterprises, public or private, as a bargaining lever for getting what it wants on the airport land. These things, I believe, have not been considered by council because when I made an inquiry I did not find anything with respect to it. I know it was discussed in the Committee on Transport a number of years ago, but I do not believe the terms of this Bill were discussed in any way which

Toronto Island Airport

made it known to members of the Toronto City Council who are the most concerned.

Mr. Friesen:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), given his concern, is aware of the noise level created by jet aircraft using that airport? Is he aware that technology in that area has improved very significantly over the past years and that the jet aircraft using that airport, like the Challenger and other jets, have a noise level far below the parameters about which he is worried? Therefore, they would not infringe upon those parameters. The Hon. Member may have a legitimate concern about noise levels but if he draws the boundaries where he is, does he not realize that he is worried about the wrong thing?

Second, if Toronto is asking for this provision, does the Hon. Member not think that Toronto has a right to the services for which it is asking? Are we in a position to override what Toronto is asking for?

Mr. Heap:

On the second point, it has not been shown that Toronto is asking for this Bill. It is not a matter of whether Toronto should be given what it is asking for, it is a matter of whether Toronto should get what certain narrow interests are asking for.

As to the noise of the jets, it is true that there are some quiet jets, and there may well be in future some quieter jets. That does not prove those will be the only ones which come into Toronto Airport. The objection to the jet service is not based solely on the question of noise, it is based also on the amount of room taken up by the new facilities which will have to be constructed, and on the amount of heavy traffic in people and freight which will be required to justify the expenditure on a jet service. It is much more than the question of noise.

If the Hon. Member is so sure that jets no longer provide any problem to a residential community, perhaps he is going to get some jets in his backyard, and I invite him to come to Toronto and explain to the people there the benefit of having a jet airport in your neighbourhood.

Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):

Mr. Speaker, just a few words concerning this particular Bill. I was inspired by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who made his case so clearly a few moments ago.

I do not think anyone can deny that there should be a public hearing in Toronto on this particular request since there is some concern. If there is no concern, then what is wrong with having public hearings? Surely the Government of Canada should not be afraid of having people comment on this legislation. Surely it is not afraid of the environmentalists who will probably appear before the hearings and talk about the migratory birds-which this Government has abandonned through cuts in the Department of the Environment. Surely the Government of Canada is not afraid of that type of criticism.

There are obvious concerns regarding this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and what the Government is going to do. I have some concerns

October 4, 1985

Toronto Island Airport

about the Government's policy regarding airports in Canada. Clause 3(1) of this Bill under the heading "Jurisdiction and Powers" is very interesting. It says:

The Commissioners shall have power to operate the Airport for and at the expense of the Commissioners or, where there is an agreement between the Commissioners and the Government of Canada with respect to the operation of the Airport by the Commissioners for the Government of Canada, for and at the expense of the Government of Canada during such period as is described in the agreement and on such terms and conditions as are specified in the agreement.

Clause 3(2) says:

Subsection (1) shall not be read or construed so as to prevent the Government of Canada from providing financial or other assistance to the Commissioners with respect to the operation of the Airport, whether or not there is an agreement between the Commissioners and the Government of Canada as described in that subsection.

That clause will perhaps become very common in future policies of this Government. We heard about that when the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) brought the matter up during Question Period. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), under whose name this Bill was introduced, admitted that consultations were going on which would affect the policy of the Government with respect to someone other than the Government operating and financing airports. You can see where these two particular clauses are going to be used in the future by the Government to implement a policy whereby someone other than the Government will be asked to operate these small airports. Perhaps, in some cases, it will not just be small airports. This will be seen by the general public, correctly, to be a move by the Government to try and shift financial responsibility onto municipalities or local commissions in an effort to save money. In other words, it is very clear to the general public that you just cannot operate an airport in, say, Deer Lake or some part of British Columbia the way Transport Canada operates it at substantially less cost. The Minister should realize he cannot have it both ways.

In outlining this policy to the municipalities across this country, the Minister has really enacted a double standard. What he is saying is that the operating costs of the airport will be borne by the local commission or authority with the safety clause as I read it:

-shall not be read or construed so as to prevent the Government of Canada from providing financial or other assistance to the Commissioners with respect to the operation of the Airport-

However, there will certainly be no outright commitment of funds as far as the airport property is concerned. The Minister then turns around and says that as far as revenues associated with the operation of that airport are concerned, where a contact by a plane coming from the Pacific, the Atlantic or across the Northern Hemisphere is made with the air traffic control centre, there will be a charge. The airline pays an initial charge of $65 to contact air traffic control, and so on. However, the Minister is clearly saying that those revenues which currently go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund will remain as revenues to that fund and not be attributable to the operation of a particular airport. In other words, the airport will still have landing fees, yes, but it will not receive credit for these other fees collected on a daily basis by the Government.

All we need look at in this regard are some of the cases which went through the Supreme Court of Canada. Over the past five, six or seven years there were some U.S. airlines which did not land here in Canada, did not use our facilities at all, but made an inital contact by radio with Canadian authorities and they were charged by the Government of Canada for that contact. These airlines, mostly in the United States, then claimed that they did not really owe this money to the Government of Canada. I stand to be corrected, but I believe it was Trans World and-well, I know for sure it was Trans World but two other U.S. airlines as well which owed the Government of Canada something like $15 million. That issue had to go to court and as I understand it, and I cannot be sued for anything I say in this Chamber, they eventually paid the money they owed to the Government and the people of Canada. I believe they paid that amount, but they certainly owed the $15 million or $16 million. When an air traffic controller or air radio operator in a small airport makes an initial contact with a foreign air carrier he collects $65 for the Government and taxpayers of Canada. The air radio operator collects $45 for the people of Canada. It is incredible to think that the Bill for three airlines from the United States amounted to $15 million or $16 million over a period of four years and had to be collected through the courts.

The Minister of Transport intends to transfer the control of airports to local authority commissions in Canada and municipalities. However, he says, "We will not take into account these revenues that are generated by air radio and air traffic control. You can only have the landing fees". The reason is that the money goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Canada.

It is absolutely atrocious. In fact, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane), when one checks the Consolidated Revenue Fund listed under Moncton, New Brunswick, one sees that the funds amount to more money than the cost of air traffic and air radio control. The same can be said for airports in British Columbia, northern Ontario and southern Canada which make initial contact.

For example, when we look at marine radio operators in Gander, Newfoundland, there is an incredible amount of money involved. The Minister of Transport is going to transfer those airports in Moncton, Gander and elsewhere in southern Ontario and western Canada to commissions but he will not give them the revenues that come into those airports as a result of the air traffic controller or air radio operator. It is absolutely shameful. In fact, it is quite conceivable that one could make $2 million or $3 million a year at some airports in Canada if one took the money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and added it to the revenue of those airports.

If we look at the revenues for the airports listed in the Estimates, we see that it shows a deficit and that not one national or local airport is making any money at all. That is not true. Some of those airports are making significant amounts of money when one takes into account the revenues

October 4, 1985

generated from the example I have given concerning air traffic controllers and air radio operators. In fact, I could never understand why the unions representing air radio operators and air traffic controllers do not use that argument in bargaining because they perform a service that actually makes money for the Government of Canada.

When these clauses are to be used in other Bills to be presented in the House in relation to airports in Canada that the Government wishes to transfer to commissions or municipalities, the Government should tell the truth and give the airports all of the revenue that they deserve. Before doing so, the people in each community, as the people in Toronto, should be allowed a free and open debate through public hearings. We certainly should not be doing anything that the people in those areas do not want.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Questions or comments? Debate.

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-76. I must say that I stand with trepidation behind so distinguished a person as the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker) who has exhibited but a smidgen of the experience he has accumulated over the years with regard to transport matters.

Having said that, I shall attempt to make my own humble contribution to this debate. Let me say at the outset that we see an immediate dilemma facing the Toronto islands when we read Bill C-76. Bill C-76, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act is an Act to replace the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1939 which is an Act to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act of 1911. Even within the title of the Bill, we find the first and most pronounced difficulty that Members on this side-certainly in the Liberal Party-have with this exercise.

There is no recognition of the fact that we are not simply talking about a small class B airport operation in Toronto. This concerns a series of islands that represent the most important and critical recreation facility for the people who live in one of the most densely populated cities in Canada. For the people of Toronto, Bill C-76 is not just a Bill dealing with how an airport should be run and who should make decisions about such things as the kind of aircraft allowed, the number and frequency with which they land. While they are concerned about that aspect, they also see the islands as the last great important recreation area for millions of people in a city of concrete, steel, glass and diminishing green spaces. It is the last great important recreation area for them and their children.

It is with great regret that every Member from every part of this country wil discover that not a single iota, not a comma, a jot or a word has been dedicated to the preservation and recognition of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area on the islands surrounding this airport facility.

Bill C-76 could most kindly be described as a housekeeping measure. It is important from time to time to update Acts that go back to 1939 and 1911. But surely circumstances have

Toronto Island Airport

changes dramatically in the nearly 50 years since 1939 and surely circumstances have changed dramatically in the nearly 75 years since 1911 and that reality should be recognized. We in this Party believe that if the Minister is at all conscious of the importance of this facility to the people of Toronto he would agree to allow for public meetings in the City of Toronto so that those citizens may have input before this Bill receives final passage in the House.

It is not my objective to stop passage of the Bill or to suggest that there are not more efficient ways for the Harbour Commissioners to work. However, when we are talking about one of the last green spaces and most important recreational areas in that city, certainly there ought to be an opportunity for the people of Toronto to have a say and demand that the environmentally sensitive nature of that facility be recognized in this Bill and protected in law.

I suppose one of the good things about the way this airport has been run is that we have not seen large volume jet traffic cruising down into the heart and soul of the City of Toronto, splitting eardrums, wrecking the environment and abusing the sacred place. That has been a good thing. With this environment of deregulation, with this pronouncement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in his paper Freedom to Move, if a company is fit, able and qualified it can fly with unfettered competition, which will be the new law of the land in the airline industry as soon as he gets his legislation before the House in January. If I were concerned about the unique nature of this Toronto Island Airport, if 1 had not been concerned before, I would be terrified now.

What do we find in this Bill, Mr. Speaker? Talk about doublespeak. We have the Bill saying the following:

Without restricting the generality of section 6, the Commissioners may, in a like manner and subject to the like conditions as in the case of by-laws made under The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1911, make by-laws for the regulation and control of the airport and all persons engaged in the operation of Aircraft at the Airport, including by-laws prohibiting the landing or taking off of

(a) jet-powered aircraft-

There is provision in the Bill to give the Commissioners the right to make by-laws to prohibit the taking off or landing of jet-powered aircraft at this environmentally sensitive location.

A clause that gives the commissioners-I am sure the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate is pondering this-the right to prohibit the taking off or landing of jet-powered aircraft at the airport implicitly also gives them the right to allow the landing or taking off of jet-powered aircraft at the airport. Rather than say we are going to give to these commissioners in this era of deregulation permission to allow jet aircraft to land or depart at that airport, which up until now they have not done, the Government with doublespeak decides to write it in, giving them permission to prohibit such a thing from happening. Implicitly the commission, if it wants, under this Bill, via Clause 7 under by-laws, theoretically, can allow jet service into that airport, can allow that sanctuary to be violated, can allow this green place, our migratory birds, this recreational complex, which has become the womb of those who care about

October 4, 1985

Toronto Island Airport

God's green earth and a city surrounded by concrete, steel and glass, to be violated.

I come from Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. In Newfoundland we do not have a lot of concrete, steel, glass and high-rises. We have a lot of green space, God's fresh air, forest and blue sky. We have a continuing compassion and empathy for those people who have been denied the abundance of God's green earth that has been given to us. There is a special sympathy and a deep anger and frustration that I feel and see because the kind of thing we can take for granted in Newfoundland is not even recognized in Bill C-76. It is a tragedy.

What else does this Bill fail to deal with? This Bill has given the commissioners, approved by the majority of the Toronto City Council, the ability to move in, to take land and property and expropriate it away from entities in this environmentally sensitive area. You may say that is quite normal, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of commission should have the power to expropriate. Perhaps it might be. But there is no power of appeal. The collective will and voice of six million people will not have an opportunity to be heard under the Expropriation Act. You ought to read the Bill, Sir. There is no power to appeal. That is the reason the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who I think has earned a place of distinction in Canada as the most ardent and genuine-and those two words together are quite a testimony to the Member-environmentalist in this House, perhaps in this land, demands, before this Bill be given final reading in this Chamber that the Standing Committee on Transport be struck and a sub-committee go to Toronto to engage in public hearings so people in that city can be heard. The Minister himself and his officials should make themselves available for public meetings in the City of Toronto.

I do not think the message has got through. I do not think the Canadian public is yet aware that after January when the Minister brings in the legislation, he wants the Transport Committee to study his paper "Freedom to Move" in two months, which is an impossible task. It took the Minister and his officials 15 months to write the paper "Freedom to Move". With all the resources of Transport Canada, the resources of the Government of Canada, the resources in the Budget to hire specialists, consultants and airplanes to fly him all over the land, it took 15 months to write the paper. Yet the Minister advised us last week that he will give the Transport Committee two months to study it. He wants a report by November 30. Here I see the calendar in front of me stating that it is October 4. This House has not even provided a reference yet for that committee to study the Bill.

We have not even begun to look at the implications of deregulation, yet we are supposed to report by November 30. Something is being rushed through for some reason. I suspect that once Canadians fully appreciate what unfettered fire enterprise in this proposed deregulation package of the Minister will mean, there will be an outcry from one end of the country to the other. Canadians know that we are not a branch plant of the United States and that if something works in the United States, it will not necessarily work in Canada. Canadians know we are a nation of 25 million people spread over a

huge beautiful geographic land mass and that you cannot impose an American formula on a Canadian problem and expect the problem to go away.

Deregulation in the United States has meant that 350 communities have had reduced air service, 105 communities have lost air service entirely. It has also meant that environmentally sensitive areas in the heart of major urban centres, like Toronto Island Airport, have been changed forever because the pressure of an unregulated air industry will result-mark my words-in companies seeking to extend the facilities on Toronto Island and will seek to land jet aircraft right in the heart of that environmentally sensitive area.

Every Canadian whether living in British Columbia or Cape St. George, the tip of the Port au Port peninsula on the west coast of Newfoundland, or in the riding of the Member sitting opposite, of Burin-St. George where the great and beautiful community of Rose Blanche or Port aux Basques, Grey River, Fran$ois or Ramea, ought to stand and make his or her voice heard to ensure that his or her right to see something that belongs to all of us, something that is part of the character and part of the riches afforded to us as Canadians that exist downtown in Toronto not be violated by a Government insensitive to the historic concern and historic level of Torontonians for this environmental space on their doorsteps in the heart of Canada's largest city.

It is no secret that many Newfoundlanders have been persuaded with great difficulty over the decades to leave their native Newfoundland and to lend their talents to the development of Toronto. Despite their reluctance to leave Newfoundland and to provide their skills to the great Province of Ontario, particularly to the great City of Toronto, on occasion they have done so. Perhaps that city would not be so great without the expertise of Newfoundlanders. I have had the pleasure of talking with fellow Newfoundlanders living in the City of Toronto. They make a contribution to the City of Toronto and to its province. When I ask them how they survive in that big, concrete jungle, or how they keep their sanity now that they were removed from salt water and fresh air, without exception they say: "I take a stroll along the shores of Toronto Island for a time of peace and solitude downtown where the environment still reigns supreme in a modern jungle; that is what helps me maintain my sanity".

It was in recalling those conversations that I decided to rise in my place this Friday afternoon to beg, urge and demand of the Minister that the people of Toronto, including my expatriate colleagues from Newfoundland, have an opportunity to be heard before the Bill receives its final reading in the House.

Some Hon. Members; Hear, hear!

Mr. Hicks:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) for setting the record straight about the great City of Toronto. Earlier today the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) made some scathing, unfortu-

October 4, 1985

nate, deflammatory comments about that city. I did not have the opportunity to rise on that occasion because comments and questions were not allowed. However, the record has been set straight by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe who used the word "sacred" in his comments. That was more than I had even hoped for, but I appreciated it very much. Also he used the words "great City of Toronto" and "great Province of Ontario". Again I thank him for that.

I was born and raised in Toronto. I am very proud of that city. It is the greatest and safest city in North America. I assure the Hon. Member that his concerns about the people of Toronto, including transplanted people from the Province of Newfoundland, are appreciated very much. I do not think their interests will be jeopardized because much thought has gone into the formulation of this Bill. If the birds of the island and the people of the City of Toronto were to be jeopardized, the Bill would not have been put forward.

Mr. Tobin:

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I did not hear the Hon. Member's last few comments. I do not know whether he asked a question at the end of his remarks, as I was distracted for a moment. In any event, in case there was any doubt in his mind, the Liberal Party has always believed in the City of Toronto. That is why we in the Liberal Party have done so much over the years to contribute to its growth.

We in this Party look to the future. Actually it is similar to what is said in Newfoundland-if one builds a wharf and builds it strong, it will withstand the biggest storm. When that hurricane of last week took a look at Newfoundland wharves, it went the other way. The same is true with Liberals and their approach to Toronto. We have worked hard for Toronto. We believe in Toronto. We know that Toronto, given the chance soon, will indicate that it believes in us.

Ms. Copps:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. It deals with the Government's decision to move ahead on the possibility of jet aircraft on Toronto Island. We have heard much talk around the Chamber today about the wonderful City of Toronto. We also know of the great struggle on the part of the people of Toronto to keep Toronto Island as a haven for people who want to get away from the city. These people hop on the ferry to take part in Caribana or any number of activities which-and I must admit that Toronto is a suburb of Hamilton-make Toronto a great place within the Province of Ontario.

Does the Hon. Member feel that the Conservative Members of Toronto in fact believe that jet aircraft should be allowed at the Toronto Island Airport without any public hearings, without any response from the people of Toronto or without any chance for comment, not only by the island residents who fought long and hard to save their own community, but also by literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who use Toronto Island as a summer refuge? Does the Hon. Member think that those people should be consulted before we allow jet aircraft to take over what is currently a beautiful recreational oasis in the Toronto area?

Toronto Island Airport

Mr. Tobin:

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to attempt to answer that question. Of course it is a very difficult one. I am a humble fellow from Newfoundland who took the trouble to research and spend many hours of preparation to understand the impact of the Bill on Toronto. While I can give the Hon. Member my views on its impact, I have great difficulty in giving her the views of Conservative Members from Toronto.

Ms. Copps:

Because we have not heard from them.

Mr. Tobin:

That is right. In the interests of solidarity between the constituents of Toronto and their Conservative Members, I will send them a copy of my comments. I hope it will help them focus on and appreciate this environmentally beautiful, rare area in this part of Canada. I hope they will stand and be heard. Once they understand the feelings of their constituents, they will ensure that this area is preserved, protected and enhanced as an environmentally sensitive area for future generations of Canadians.

Mr. Dick:

Mr. Speaker, has the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) ever landed at the Toronto Island Airport?

Mr. Tobin:

No, Mr. Speaker. There are many unique and profound experiences which I have not yet had. One of them is landing at Toronto Island Airport. I am saving it for a particularly black and depressing time when I really need my spirits lifted.

Mr. Dick:

Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member wants to talk out this Bill until four o'clock so that we cannot get on to dealing with Canagrex.

Mr. Gauthier:

No.

Mr. Dick:

Oh, you want it to pass right now?