HomeMy WebLinkAbout520Spiral bound book, university paper, written by Chris Laird,
submitted to Professor Peter Oliver, March 1, 1995, 46 pages.
"On March 2, 1972, the Ministry of Transport and the Ontario government jointly
announced their decision to build a second international airport for Toronto in the
Town of Pickering1. This controversial airport was to be built on 18,000 acres of
prime agricultural land2 in Pickering, stretching through the areas of Markham and
Uxbridge Township. In conjunction with the airport, the government also announced
their plan to develop an urban city, 'Cedarwood', on the adjacent 25,000 acres of land in
North Pickering, which was expected to house a population of 150,000 to 200,000
people by the year 20003. This new airport, along with the urban centre were supposed
to make Pickering into another industrial zone between Toronto and Oshawa to the east.
However, the proposed Pickering airport was in trouble from the beginning due to
several political blunders and dishonest politicians. The federal and provincial
governments had chosen the Pickering site as a political compromise,
and the inability of the Federal Ministry of Transport and the Ontario government to
resolve certain aspects of their agreement led to the eventual breakdown of the
proposed airport. Due to the carelessness of the airport planners,
opposition groups were soon able to prove that both the Ministry of
Transportation and the Ontario government had employed dishonesty and
deceit in order to manufacture a false need for a
—————
1 Pickering Township consists of a total of 74,660 acres.
2 For purposes of comparison it should be noted that Pearson International Airport is built
on only 4200 acres.
3 North Pickering Development Team: Ministry of Treasury, Economics and
Intergovernmental Affairs, ""North Pickering Community Development Project,
Discussion No. 1: Initial Assumptions and Issues"", September, 1973.
"
"2
second airport in Toronto. The opposition groups were able to produce very convincing
evidence which brought the competence of certain politicians involved into question.
Transport Minister Donald Jamieson, and Ontario Treasurer Darcy Mckeough, were the
main political characters that came under criticism. After investigating the documents and
other pertinent information on the issue, it becomes clear that both the need for a second
airport for Toronto, as well as the choice of sites, were largely the decision of Mckeough
and Jamieson. These two politicians had proceeded to openly lie to the public,
manipulate information, and even quote from documents which did not actually exist in
order to deceive the public in regards to the need for a second airport, as well as to
support the fraudulent myth of the superiority of the Pickering site.
These politicians also did not hesitate to ignore information which contradicted their plans,
much of which had been prepared by the government's own experts.
In order to accomplish their scheme, the government tried to deny the Pickering residents
of their inherent right under the democratic system, this was the right to oppose government
decisions if they feel that they have been treated unjustly.
However the inability of politicians to form a consolidated force in support of the Pickering
airport represented a huge weakness in the Pickering project. Ontario member of
Parliament Norm Cafik, and M.P.P. Bill Newman, had joined together to help organize
opposition groups to fight against the proposed airport. Also Premier Bill Davis,
who initially supported the Pickering
"
"3
airport, changed his mind at the last minute and decided to oppose it. Even Prime
Minister Trudeau, who visited Pickering shortly-after the announcement and met with angry
opposition, was confused because he thought the people of Pickering wanted the airport.
Trudeau said that he was under this impression because almost every member of the
Parliament of Southern Ontario ""had been pushing for a second airport"". Trudeau then
said that as far as he was concerned ""the airport now under construction at Ste.
Scholastique, north of Montreal, was enough"" 4. This statement by Prime Minister
Trudeau would imply that it was primarily the Ontario government that was pressing for the
airport, and not the federal government. To add to the schism in government planning,
Trudeau had stated in a public speech that ""the [federal] government's decision is not
irrevocable"", while in another article the Ontario Conservative government claimed that the
Pickering decision was final, and that there was no use in arguing 5. The inconsistencies
which existed between the federal and provincial government's interpretation of the
announcement seemed to show a lack of communication and understanding between the
two levels of government.
The background to the government's decision to build a second international airport in
Toronto is a long and confusing one which began in 1966. It was at this time that concerns
were raised by the current Transport Minister, Paul Hellyer, over future
———
4 Toronto Star, ""Our Second Airport: PM says 'Just living up to the Joneses'"",
March 16, 1972.
5 Markham Economist and Sun, March 30, 1972.
"
"4
congestion at Malton which could result if the immense growth in air travel of the 1960's
were to continue. In response to these concerns, a detailed study by John B. Parkin
Associates was commissioned by the federal Ministry of Transport in 1970 to study the
projected growth in air traffic in the Toronto region 6. The outcome of the study predicted
further increases in passenger volume up to 6.6 million in 1970, 14.4 million in 1980,
and a whopping 25 million by the end of the century 7. Transport Minister Hellyer therefore
concluded that it would be necessary to expand Malton airport in order to handle the
estimated increases in passenger volume. The study had concluded that the expansion of
Malton would adequately solve future problems as ""all elements and components of the
complex can be developed and increased to a capacity that will satisfy the forecast of air
traveller demands to the year 1986, and even to the end of the century""8.
The Minister's announcement was followed by a community protest in the summer of 1968
against the increased noise that would result if Malton were expanded. The Malton
protesters however said that they were prepared to accept the expansion of Malton
provided certain modifications were made. However, on December 20,
Hellyer decided not to proceed with the expansion at Malton as they claimed the noise
impact on the surrounding area
————
6 The Malton Master Plan, or the Parkin Plan, was commissioned by the Federal Ministry
of Transport in 1967.
7 Stewart, W. , Paper Juggernaut: Big Government Gone Mad Toronto: McClelland and
Stewart, 1979, page 37.
8 Stewart, W., 1979, page 38.
"
"5
would be too great. So on December 20, 1968 the Ministry of Transport commissioned
the 'Airport Planning Team' to conduct a survey of over 50 potential sites in which to build
a second airport to service the Toronto region.
This airport site study, the Hodge Report, actually was done in a very adhoc,
unprofessional and unorganized fashion, where ""some sites were taken out,
put back and generally fooled around with until no one knew what was going on"" 9.
In early 1970, after the preliminary work had been completed on the various sites,
airport planners had chosen the site in Guelph, but later they reconsidered and rejected it.
In March 1970, Hodge reported to the Ontario government that the planners had narrowed
the sites down to four potential choices for the airport, the finalists were: Lake Simcoe,
the Town of Sutton, Orangeville, and Guelph. Of the four sites, Hodge favoured either
Orangeville or Sutton. However, it was later claimed that ""the federal government would
have settled for any one of these, so anxious was it to get the airport under way""10.
At this point, the airport question and the politics of planning began to get complicated.
On April 22, 1970 consultant Phillip Beinhaker, who worked on Montreal airport,
was appointed as the new person in charge of Toronto airport planning. On May 11,
Beinhaker reported that the best solution for Toronto would be to either expand Malton,
or build a series of airports. Also on the
————
9 Stewart, W., 1979, page 42.
10 Stewart, W., 1979, page 44.
"
"6
same day, the Transport planning team also reported that none of the four
Toronto sites worked well, but Malton expansion would solve the problem.
The Airport Planning Team explored this further and reported in August that Malton could
be ""reconfigured"" within its present boundaries, which would work better and would be
cheaper than to build a second airport. Shortly afterwards, Beinhaker reported that the
expansion of Malton was the ""best and least costly solution"" 11, but he stated rather
ambiguously that the government should keep their options open and consider the
construction of a series of regional airports, the called the Design for Aviation.
By mid-September, the planning team concluded that the government should build an
airport at Guelph. However on September 18, Beinhaker briefed the new Transport Minister,
Donald Jamieson, on the Design for Aviation, and Jamieson liked the plan and announced
that the Malton alternative was not ""politically saleable"". Jamieson convinced the Federal
government to approve this plan, which they did on October 27. The Ontario Premier,
John Robarts, also accepted it on December 11 and discussions between Ottawa and
Ontario over cost sharing began. At this point the Deputy Transport Minister, O.G. Stoner,
tried to set up a meeting between Jamieson and the new Premier of Ontario Bill Davis as
he remained sure that Davis could be pushed into accepting one of three sites, of which
Transport preferred Guelph, while Jamieson preferred Orangeville or Sutton.
Just when it appeared that
————
11 Stewart, W., 1979, page 201.
"
"7
Orangeville was to be chosen, a new internal which was released in April 1971 suggested
that choosing an airport site should be temporarily suspended due to the recent
development of STOL aircraft technology, which it was said, would once again make
Malton expansion a possibility.
However the airport planners chose not to follow this recommendation and two new sites
were introduced into the study by the Ministry in May of 1971, Beverley and Pickering 12.
Shortly afterwards, in March 1972, and with no explanation, the planners announced their
decision to build the airport at Pickering despite the fact that the results of this latest study
had rejected the Pickering site. The study had concluded that the land at the Beverley site
was of less quality than that of Pickering and therefore more of it could be purchased for
cheaper price 13. This sudden and unexplained move by the government caused a great
deal of controversy and would lead opposition groups to question the competence of
federal and provincial planning. The choice of Pickering also raised public suspicion of
possible ulterior motives of the government. Some believed that the Pickering airport
decision was a result of a mutually profitable alliance between the government and
big-business. The chosen site for the also seemed to be preferable from the province of
Ontario's point of view, but whatever the reasons were the decision had already been
made.
————
12 This study was called the ""Airport Study--A Revised Approach"".
13 Godfrey, Massey, 1972. p.40.
"
"8
Although there had been some rumours of an airport in Pickering in the previous few
months the announcement still shocked and angered local residents.
This was not surprising considering that Donald Jamieson himself had denied the
Pickering rumour in a public statement on March 2 14. As a result, on March 3,
the day after the governments announcement, a local opposition movement, 'People or
Planes' (POP), was formed by members of the 18 communities within the expropriated
and surrounding areas. This group was to be led by Charles Godfrey, a long time resident
farmer in Pickering, and was to become the voice of the Pickering opposition which would
lobby for an official government hearing to be held to investigate the airport decision.
The group hired J.J. Robinette to represent them, a very prominent lawyer who had only
recently fought against the proposed construction of the Spadina Expressway.
More recent studies on the subject of airport development have called citizen opposition a
major threat to the planning process, and has accused them of employing 'environmental
scare tactics' to oppose developments. One researcher argues that ""during the past two
decades it has become impossible to build new airports in most metropolitan areas.
The reason is the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) movement""15. The NIMBY theory however
tends to generalize citizen opposition as being frivolous and accuse it of merely standing
in
————
14 This statement reported by Markham Economist and Sun, February 24, 1972.
15 Conway, M., Airport Cities 21, The New Global Transport Centres of the 21st Centuries.
Atlanta : Conway Data Inc., 1993.
"
"9
the way of progress. However in the case of Pickering, the opposition's platform did not
hinge on anti-development propaganda, instead it concentrated on the facts which
contradicted the actual need for a second airport in Toronto. The opposition also argued
that the government had ignored the proper principles of democracy in the manner in
which they expropriated the citizens affected.
There are obvious shortcomings in the NIMBY theory when applied to the Pickering case.
For one, environmental consideration formed only one of several facets of the oppositional
movement, and the majority of argument on this theme was directed at the lack of
government studies on the Pickering environment. In addition, the opposition in
Pickering was not limited to only local residents, in fact the struggle was joined by
several other sizeable groups such as the Metro Toronto Airport Review Committee
(MTARC), CORRA (Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Groups in Toronto,
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, GAG (a fellow Pickering group),
Trinity Square Community Programs, Toronto's Field Naturalists, and Forward 9.
The opposition to the Pickering airport was also not a badly organized protest,
on the contrary it proved to be extremely well organized. POP was successful in making the
Pickering airport decision into a massive national political issue which gained sympathy
from many other parts of the country. For these reasons the opposition to the Pickering
airport should not be regarded as a trivial protest or seen in the negative light that the
NIMBY theory does.
POP represented the local residents outrage at the federal and
"
"10
provincial governments decision. Many local residents abhorred the construction of an
airport in Pickering and they spoke of a deep respect for the land, and about their love of
fresh air and open spaces, where they could go to escape urban life. Many more spoke
of the noise that residents in the surrounding area would be forced to endure. Residents
argued that their growing needs were for ""quality of life"", and not development 16.
One opponent, Kathleen Strike, cleverly alluded to a previous campaign speech delivered
by Trudeau on May 1, 1971 to show the hypocrisy of the government. Strike quoted
Trudeau: ""Have we let our value system become so distorted that we equate good with
'consumption' and 'quality' with 'growth'? I say we should replace GNP with NHB
(Net Human Benefit) "" 17.
A large part of local opposition to the airport stemmed from the agricultural sector,
who were in disbelief that the government would build an airport on land of which 80%
consisted of ""Class 1"" soil 18, which constitutes only 11% of the overall land in Ontario.
Neither could the farmers understand why the government had described their farms as
unproductive in their two official summary position papers concluded in 1972.
There were in fact 126 working farms within the proposed airport site, with many excellent
farm
————
16 Report of J.W. Swackhamer, Q.C. Hearing Officer, ""Site for Toronto II Airport"",
submitted to Jean-Eudes Dube, P.C., Minister of Public Works, House of Commons,
December 29, 1972, page 12.
17Swackhamer Hearings, Kathleen Strike quoting Pierre Elliot Trudeau's campaign
speech May 1, 1971, page 12.
18 Class One agricultural soil is the best quality land for growing crops, class 7 is the
lowest grade.
"
"11
buildings, and there were also 30 farms with substantial silos. It had been estimated that
when the proposed community of Cedarwood was added to the 18,000 acre airport,
Ontario would experience an agricultural loss exceeding 5 million per annum19.
POP also expressed the confusion as to why many of Pickering's large conservation areas
were also downgraded, and why the large bird population in this area had been ignored by
studies. Essentially, residents were completely astonished at the governments decision of
the Pickering site for the airport as there were several aspects that had been overlooked
in the government studies. One lady remarked that the authorities who had chosen
Pickering ""must indeed never have set eyes on it""20.
POP organized a headquarters for the opposition movement and immediately set to work
organizing the local opposition. The group, which consisted of 2200 members at its peak,
began to manufacture POP bumper stickers, pins, lawn signs, and even sent out helium
balloons with messages in them. POP also got on radio programs, wrote letters,
organized parades, picnics, motorcades, walkathons and they even began to publish
their own propaganda flyers in support of their cause, all of which was done with money
donated to them by supporters. On March 29, 1972 the first POP Newsletter was sent out
which asked the question, ""do I really own my home or am I just allowed to occupy it and
pay taxes on it, until such time as the government may require my property for
————
19 Godfrey, Massey, 1972, page 10.
20 Swackhamer Hearings, page 11.
"
"12
another project?"". The Newsletter encouraged people to oppose the decision by writing
petitions to Trudeau, Donald Jamieson, Darcy Mckeough, or Premier Bill Davis,
and their mailing addresses were included at the bottom of the letter.
A subsequent POP propaganda flyer entitled ""Did You Know"" 21, listed a series of facts
which they believed raised suspicions over the actual need for a second airport in Toronto.
It pointed out that in 1971, a severe slump had hit airports around the world,
and they recorded an average increase in passenger volume of only 1-2%,
compared to previous years which had experienced 15% increases.
Also POP claimed that 70% of all planes leaving Malton airport set down within 1 to 1-1/2
hours. It then argued that more advanced countries use 175mph trains for these short
excursions, rather than flying. Next POP said that several pilots who use Malton frequently
say that it is one of the best airports in the world and that it is nowhere near capacity.
Also an article in the Toronto Star claimed that although Transport Minister Jamieson had
said that his experts have proved the need for a second airport, ""even the members of his
own department privately expressed lingering doubts"" 22. The article also quoted two
spokesmen for the Canadian Airline Pilots Association as saying that they felt the airport
plans were ""a waste of tax payers money"".
The greatest controversy that POP outlined was the fact that
————
21 POP fact sheet, ""Did You Know"", April 1, 1972.
22 Toronto Star, ""The $400 million airport question: Do we really need 2 terminals?"",
March 20, 1972.
"
"13
in order to build the airport, the government would have to expropriate hundreds of
residents from their land. Several recent as well as long-standing residents expressed their
dismay at losing priceless and well restored homes, some of which dated to as early as
the mid 1800's. The residents affected were upset over the unfairness of being
expropriated with no prior announcement or consultation. The chairman of POP was
outraged and he explained that ""Canadian democracy has been set back by the secret
manouverings that preceded the announcement of Airport II. Vital information had been
withheld from the public; the residents of the area have not been consulted!""23. POP's
main platform came to rest on a book which a member had brought to the first meeting
called The Householder's Guide to Community Defense Against Bureaucratic Aggression,
by Anthony Jay, and with this inspiration they began a crusade against the government.
Residents charged that under the federal 'Expropriation Act', they were entitled to a full
public hearing in which they could voice their objections against the ruling before a final
decision was made. Jamieson and Prime Minister Trudeau at first refused POP's demand,
however under criticism they finally granted POP the right to a public hearing at the end of
1972. Despite the public hearing, many residents became convinced that the Minister had
already verified the expropriations, as appraisers were visiting their homes during the time
that the hearings were being conducted.
Meetings for the Swackhamer Hearings began in late November
————
23 Godfrey, Massey, 1972. p.57.
"
"14
and were concluded on December 7, 1972. POP helped organize the objections of
residents, while others such as the Metropolitan Toronto Airport Review Committee,
CORRA, and various other experts joined them to fight against what they perceived as the
government's attempt to force an unneeded second airport upon the people of Pickering.
Swackhamer commended the citizen opposition for the quality of their grievances and he
said that, ""while their pleas were in many cases impassioned, they consistently gave their
evidence in an articulate and manifestly well considered fashion"" 24.
The first objections heard in the Swackhamer Hearings were to come from the Metro
Toronto Airport Review Committee (MTARC) and CORRA 25. These two groups had
become interested in the Pickering airport issue as a result of a statement made by the
Ontario Treasurer, Mckeough and the Transport Minister, Jamieson on March 2, 1972.
On this day, Mckeough and Jamieson had jointly announced their decision for the
Pickering site decision in both the Ontario legislature and the House of Commons,
claiming that the site had been chosen only after ""an exhaustive federal-provincial
evaluation since 1968 of 59 potential airport sites in the area within a 50 mile radius of
Metro Toronto"" 26. However, it was discovered shortly afterwards, in April,
that Pickering had not in fact been
———
24 Swackhamer Hearings, 1972, page 8.
25 Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Groups in Toronto (CORRA), membership of
3000.
26 Swackhamer Hearings, page 18.
"
"15
on the list of the 59 sites surveyed. It was not until the end of 1971, and just two months
before the governments announcement, that two new sites, Pickering and Beverley
Township, were added to the study. Also, when these additional sites were added,
no comparable studies to the previous ones were undertaken. Next, on June 6 POP
produced a leaked report which gave further evidence that very little work had been done
on the Pickering site prior to its selection. These two incidents immediately brought
suspicion upon Mckeough and Jamieson and the rest of the federal planners,
and opponents were convinced that the Pickering site had been chosen for political
reasons. The MTARC and CORRA were to argue that both Mckeough and Jamieson
had blatantly tried to deceive the public into believing the need for a second airport and
they became determined to discover the underlying motives for the government's decision.
The objections made by the MTARC and CORRA in the Report of J.W. Swackhamer
can be summarized as generally following two major themes: First, after studying the
governments own analysis, and then comparing this to the available reports and documents,
they concluded that the weight of the existing background material in fact contradicts the
government's position as to the need and the chosen site for the airport; second,
they claimed that the material used to support the government's decision was ill-considered
and incompetent in its analysis.
After investigating the studies that were completed on the late entries of Beverley and
Pickering, the MTARC and CORRA
"
"16
concluded that, despite the fact that the studies were much less extensive than the
previous site studies, still Pickering was rated as inferior to other proposed sites in
terms of noise annoyance and flight path flexibility, yet it was still chosen.
Also they discovered that, contrary to the government's claims, Pickering was not the most
accessible of the sites. The opponents claimed that the results of the study were false
because the study ignored the fact that the majority of passenger demand comes from the
southwest of Toronto, and in addition 96% of the population to be served lived west of
Pickering 27.
Also, although Mckeough had stated that the ""Environmental Impact Study"" 28 had
shown that the airport would not have any great impact on Pickering, the MTARC and
CORRA found numerous faults in this study. For example the study downgraded
Pickering's water quality by ignoring the abundance of Pickering's fresh water streams,
and concentrating instead on sewage disposal site areas. Also the study wrongly
described Pickering's farms as ""vacant and run down"", when in fact they were found to
be extremely productive. A further fault of this study was that it failed to investigate the
impact of the airport on all wildlife, as the study omitted a number of habitat,
in particular they failed to take into account that the airport site was to be built underneath a
bird flyway. William Draper, a Field Representative of the 'Federation of
————
27 Swackhamer Hearings, page 22 and page 137.
28 One study undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation's Airport Planning Team in
January, 1972. It is claimed that this was a rushed study which was completed in 72 hours
and in the snow.
"
"17
Ontario Naturalists' 29, claimed that this bird flyway could pose an extreme hazard to
aircraft in the area and he believed that the failure of the government to consider this
indicated a total absence of on-site observations at the Pickering site.
The MTARC and CORRA also disbelieved Mckeough's and Jamieson's claim that a new
airport was needed to relieve the congestion at Malton. These two groups were able to
gather a large amount of information which contradicted the actual need for a second
airport for Toronto and they accused government officials of utilizing selective studies in
order to support a false need for the airport. They denounced Mckeough for attempting to
'tailor' or manipulate existing information and for ignoring information which contradicted the need for the Pickering airport. These amazing revelations brought suspicion onto the honesty of government politicians, which was illustrated by a Toronto Star article which pointed out that ""the same Department of Transport experts who now tell us that a second airport is imperative, made just as good a case in 1968 for an expanded Malton being capable of handling any increase that might take place during this century"" 30.
The MTARC and CORRA presented several arguments against the need for a second
airport for Toronto in the Swackhamer hearings. Firstly they claimed that the conclusion
of a detailed analysis prepared by the Ministry of Transportation's own experts in August
————
29 Draper represented the Federation of Ontario Naturalists in the Swackhamer Hearings,
pages 110-112.
30 Godfrey, Massey, 1972, p. 22.
"
"18
1970 31, reported that a reconfiguration and addition of a fourth runway
(with no physical expansion at Malton) could adequately handle capacity at Malton until the
year 2000. This could be done with no noise increase at Malton, would have a cost savings
of $2 billion and would work better than a second airport. The opponents also accused the
government of ignoring previous reports which said that the building of the second airport
was not economically viable, one of which concluded that in terms of direct user costs,
the Malton alternative would be 820 million cheaper than Pickering32. An earlier study
commissioned by the Ministry of Transport called the ""Airport Capacity Analysis Toronto
International Airport""33 also supported the expansion of Malton. This report found that an
expanded Malton would suffice until 1987, and if an additional [fourth] runway were built it
could last until well after the year 2000. Although this conclusion stood unchallenged,
the federal government rejected the reconfiguration of Malton with no explanation.
Transport Minister Donald Jamieson called the reconfiguration of Malton ""politically
unsaleable"", however he refused to discuss the reasons for this opinion. Ontario Treasurer
Darcy Mckeough did respond however, saying that a study conducted by the Ontario
————
31 Department of Transport's Airport Planning Team, ""Toronto Airport Planning,
Position Paper"", presented August 1970.
32 Swackhamer Hearings, 1972, page 32.
33 Ministry of Transportation, ""Airport Capacity Analysis Toronto International Airport"",
presented to federal government in April 1970.
"
"19
Economic Review 34 had shown that the reconfiguration of Malton would cause increased
noise pollution and would effect more people than the Pickering alternative.
However, the opponents soon discovered that there was actually no such report which
backed up Mckeough's statement. It would appear that it was in fact the ""Ontario
government leaders"" that rejected Malton in 1970, not the federal government's experts
Airport Planning Team.
A large focus of the MTARC's and CORRA's argument was over the federal planner's
use of 'passenger forecasting' as a method to estimate projected annual passenger
volumes. The politicians tried to justify the need for a new airport based on this data,
however many doubted the accuracy of the forecasting method. It was widely believed that
as the enthusiasm for a second airport increased, the earlier passenger forecasts likewise
increased sharply. Estimates seemed extraordinarily high and they projected annual
passenger volume increases to 32.5 million in 1990, 55.9 million in 1995,
and an astounding 96.4 million by the year 2000 35. Still other government bodies made
higher estimates, one even predicting an annual passenger volume of 198 million by the
year 2000. One critic of passenger forecasting claimed that the future problem would not
be where is the airport going to put all of these people but rather, ""where are you going to
get them all?"" 36.
————
34 Darcy Mckeough sited a report supposedly conducted by the Ontario Economic Review,
volume 10, No.3, page 4. It did not in fact exist.
35 Stewart, W., 1979, page 41.
36 Stewart, W., 1979, page 41.
"
"20
Gerald Hodge was the government research expert that was primarily responsible for the
passenger forecasting data which the government attempted to justify the need for a
second airport with. Hodge's report, the ""Regional Impact of a New International Airport
for Toronto"" 37, or simply 'Document IV, was to become an infamous report which the
government often alluded to when asked why a second airport was needed.
However, the government failed to mention that in the report, Hodge himself questioned the
reality of passenger forecasting and the conclusions that had been drawn from it.
Hodge actually disagreed with the government estimates and had claimed that the
government based its estimates on growth trends of the past years,
which they then projected forward with no indication of a levelling off.
Hodge also felt that the government's conclusion that passenger volume in
Toronto would double every ten years were ridiculous.
Hodge was angered at the government's use of his report to justify their claims and he was
to publicly testify in the Swackhamer Hearings. In the Hearings, Hodge said that he
disagreed with the governments findings and he also stressed the danger of passenger
forecasting, admitting that it was ""one of the lesser sophisticated varieties of forecasting
in use today"" 38. Hodge claimed that the government had originally estimated annual
passenger volume at 96 million by the year 2000, however Hodge had
————
37 Gerald Hodge, ""Regional Impact of a New International Airport for Toronto"" or ""
Document IV"", completed March 1970.
38 Swackhamer Hearings, page 100.
"
"21
demanded that the government reduce this estimate to a maximum of 54 million,
and even this was merely an approximation.
In the Public Hearing, Hodge called Mckeough and other government planners
irresponsible for using his report to support their desired conclusions while ignoring the
warnings and recommendations which Hodge had also brought up. Hodge questioned the
wisdom of the government making a premature commitment to a second airport by using
the ""inverted pyramid"" method of planning, in which many decisions are built on a
presumed fact, which may or may not occur. An article found in the April 12 edition of the
Globe and Mail reflected Hodge's fears when it said ""to build an airport now [before
needed] would be a modern example of the same blindness that led railroad builders of
earlier times to build huge temples of railroad stations"" 39. Critics maintained that
passenger forecasting was merely utilized by the federal planners as it was a convenient
way in which to produce a rationale for building a new airport. It should be clarified however
it was Mckeough and Jamieson, and not the actual planners such as Hodge,
who were behind the drive to create the need for a second airport.
Along this same theme, the MTARC and CORRA criticized the government for making
their statements ambiguous in a deliberate attempt to fool the public into supporting their
decision. The opposition claimed that the government had demanded that their own
federal experts produce justifications for the new airport rather than conduct any kind of
thorough analysis, or else their opinions
———
39 Globe and Mail, March 12, 1972.
"
"22
would simply be ignored. In their concluding statement at the Swackhamer Hearings,
the MTARC and CORRA said that they remained convinced that the government's
claimed need for a second airport had been based primarily on political concerns about
noise at Malton. They also said that according to existing data and studies,
when a second airport was in fact needed, the best and most logical site would be the
Lake Skugog site and not Pickering. The MTARC and CORRA accused the government of
""land banking"", or attempting to reserve an area of land for possible future development,
which was in fact illegal.
Some other significant objections to the proposed airport were presented at the
Swackhamer Hearings by residents and experts. Mr. Almack, a certified management
consultant and professional engineer, argued that although the Pickering site had
originally been considered for the study of 59 airport sites, it was immediately
eliminated as it failed to meet essential criteria. Although the Pickering site was within
50 miles of Toronto, it was not consistent with urban growth, it had airspace interferences,
and it failed to meet various physiographic criteria. The fact that Pickering was later
chosen as a potential airport site seems to therefore undermine the entire purpose of the
59 airport site study. By adding Pickering to the study, the planners had clearly abandoned
their standards, thus leaving the necessary requirements for the chosen airport to meet
unclear or undefined.
Almack next proceeded to give reasons why he felt that the Pickering site was inadequate
for an airport. Almack first claimed
"
"23
that the Pickering site could only have a maximum of four runways, and only with great
difficulty could this be achieved. Also due to the remoteness of the airport location it would
fail to serve Western Ontario if a major off-load at Malton was needed. Almack also did
research and found that due to the number of people that would have to be expropriated in
Pickering, the social disruption here would actually be greater than the impact at the other
four sites as well as Malton.
Almack centered his next argument on a document called the ""Toronto II Site Evaluation
Report--Beverley Township Site and Pickering Township Site"" 40, which was the first
report to even mention the Pickering site. Almack argued that although there were a
multitude of studies available on the other four preferred sites, this single document was
the only evaluation of the Pickering site that the government had made available to the
public. Despite the lack of adequate studies, this report actually concluded that it favoured
the Beverley site for the airport as Pickering had better farms, agricultural land,
as well as higher quality homes. Almack feels that for these reasons the Pickering site was
chosen in conformity with the 3 airport system 41, rather than a component arrived at after
thorough analysis.
Almack further supported this accusation by alluding to a
————
40 This report was conducted by the federal government's Airport Planning Team and
presented to the Federal Cabinet on June 21, 1971.
41 The 3 airport system is the same as the Design for Aviation.
"
"24
report 42 by the Toronto Area Airport Project Team from January 1972. Almack claimed
that this document, Report 1.27, which briefed the federal government on an airport at
Pickering as well as the expansion of regional airports, was written as a ""justification
statement"" for the Pickering airport, as the site itself was in severe conflict to prior
technical reports prepared by the Ministry of Transport. This report to the federal cabinet
also admitted that no detailed analysis had ever been completed on the Pickering site.
The report also acknowledged that in fact, the evidence in support of the Pickering site
was inadequate as it relied heavily on studies conducted on the other four potential airport
sites 43. Almack also had found that report 1.27 had at first chosen the site at Orangeville
but had later eliminated it for fear that this decision might generate negative reaction from
environmentalists, and yet no reference was made to this possibility at Pickering.
In fact Almack noted that there was no environmental impact study even undertaken on the
Pickering site prior to the March 1972 announcement, which he felt showed a total lack of
concern on the part of government planners. Almack concluded his arguments by saying
that the government is wrong ""to plan [an airport] on the basis of political considerations"".
Almack also firmly believes that before any decisions are made, both social and
environmental costs should be accounted for
———
42 Almack simply refers to this document as report 1.27 in his testimony in the
Swackhamer Hearings.
43 Report called the ""Comparison for sites for new airports"", also called report 1.25.
"
"25
accurately by the government.
Another opponent which gave convincing testimony against the government at the
Swackhamer Hearings was Kenneth Fallis, a local resident and employee for the Ontario
Department of Agriculture. In addition to arguing that the Pickering site is an excellent and
productive farming region 44, Fallis reiterated previous complaints that the treatment of
Pickering in the ""Proposed Toronto Airport Environmental Study"", referred to as
Document XII 45, was misleading and substantial ecological damage could result if the
airport were built in Pickering. Fallis argued that the conclusions to the Environmental
Impact study are very ambiguous and would imply that the researchers had only conducted
a visual examination of the site rather than a detailed study, probably due to the fact that
they were under pressure from the Ontario government to produce a rushed study so that
they could make the announcement that they had chosen Pickering. In addition to this,
Fallis complained that the study had found the Pickering farms unproductive because they
had only surveyed the farms in the east of the site, most of which had been abandoned or
neglected years ago when the smaller farms were amalgamated into larger ones.
For the reasons outlined, Fallis found the Ontario government extremely dishonest and
irresponsible for trying to base an important decision on the basis of a number
————
44 Fallis gives statistics that Pickering site produces an annual 4 million quarts of milk,
375,000 pounds of pork, 200,000 dozen eggs, 45,000 of winter wheat in Swackhamer
Hearings, page 73.
45 Document XII was the hurried environmental impact study prepared by the Ontario
provincial planners in February 1972.
"
"27
document so it would support the planner's already existing decision for Pickering.
Oehm argued that Mckeough had failed to mention a vital fact which the author had
included in his report. Oehm had written in Document X that the Pickering site was not
consistent with the demands set down previously in the Toronto-Centered Regional
Development Plan, in which the government called for the creation of another urban area
outside of Toronto which would stimulate development further to the east in Oshawa.
Oehm had actually rejected the Pickering site in the conclusion of his report because
he claimed that, ""the Pickering site only partly satisfies the requirement for general
economic stimulus in the eastern corridor, but it falls short to an extent which may have the
effect of stimulating growth in and adjacent to eastern Metropolitan Toronto, rather than in
and near Oshawa as desired"" 47. Oehm believed that the government's exploitation of his
document was an example of the failure of the Ontario government to follow proper
methods and guidelines of planning and carrying out a systematic analysis.
Further objections at the Public Hearings came from a professional engineer,
Clark Muirhead, who believed that the second airport was proposed in order to quell
objections of noise from Malton. For this reason, Muirhead saw the second airport as
""a monumental blunder which should be immediately stopped"" 48, and he
————
47 Oehm, P., ""Review of Proposed Airport Sites E and F"", 1972, page 15.
48 Swackhamer Hearings, page 85.
"
"28
claimed that Pickering would be the first time in history that a second airport was built just
to alleviate noise. Muirhead also estimated that a second airport would only reduce 15%
of noise at Malton, and would transfer this inconvenience to Pickering instead. Muirhead
found that the $5 billion that would be required to build the airport along with infrastructure
surrounding the airport was a high price to pay to alleviate noise at Malton.
As one commercial pilot noted, Toronto could have 6 airports with very little noise but only
with great consumer inconvenience, negligible airline services and enormous costs.
Muirhead, an expert in aeronautics and familiar with international developments in airline
technology, also disagreed with Transport Minister Donald Jamieson's statement that
STOL 49 aircraft would not be available for the next twenty years. Muirhead had found a
report written by that the Director of Engineering of the British Aircraft Corporation in
October 1971 which in fact claimed that STOL aircraft would be around by the end of the
1970's. Many experts felt that Jamieson and the Transport Ministry had ignored or
downplayed the development of STOL aircraft because they were fully aware of the
ramifications which could result. The much quieter STOL aircraft would have the potential
to greatly reduce noise from airports to as little as three-quarters of a square mile 50,
which would make the construction of a second airport at Pickering to alleviate noise at
Malton unnecessary.
————
49 Short-take-off and landing aircraft.
50 Swackhamer Hearings, page 91.
"
"29
However, a flaw of the opposition's argument also results with the mention of the
development of quieter STOL aircraft. If the opponents claim that STOL aircraft would
drastically reduce noise levels at Malton, it would also be true that they would decrease
potential noise at Pickering. So essentially, when the opposition presents evidence
showing that Malton could be expanded with little noise increase by implementing newer
aircraft or different angles of plane take-off and landing, it harms some of their own
arguments which oppose the Pickering airport for reasons of noise pollution.
By bringing up potential solutions to airport noise, the Pickering opposition risk appearing
as hypocrites and perhaps give justification to the ""Not in my Backyard"" theory.
An example of how this line of oppositional argument is inadequate can be illustrated in the
following case. The Pickering airport was not scheduled for completion until approximately
1980. An opponent to the airport, Mr. Duggan, gave evidence at the Swackhamer
Hearings in support of the alternative expansion of Malton at the hearings, in which he said
""by 1980, a new generation of much quieter aircraft will dominate the market... the
revolutionary engines, on the new generation of planes will be remarkably quiet.
Noise will be confined to the airport site itself""51. Essentially, Mr. Duggan had given
support for an airport at Pickering in the process of attempting to promote the expansion
of Malton. Since objections towards potential noise could thus work to support either
Pickering or Malton, they must be dismissed
————
51 Swackhamer Hearings, page 14 7.
"
"30
or the opposition could be accused of endorsing a 'double standard'.
The Municipality of York and the Municipality of Markham also voiced similar objections
at the Public Hearings. These two municipalities claimed that they had not been consulted
with at all by the federal or provincial government's prior to Mckeough's and Jamieson's
public announcement on March 2, 1972. In addition, both complained that they had an
extreme difficulty setting up any line of communication with the federal and provincial
governments after the announcement. This attitude is contrary to the process of democracy,
as it appeared that the higher levels of government bypassed the lower levels of
government, probably to avoid the raising of unwanted local concerns which might impede
the plans of the federal and provincial planners. By neglecting to consult with Municipal
governments, whom the Pickering airport would unquestionably affect most directly,
the federal and provincial governments displayed a sense of arrogance.
The upper levels of government obviously felt that the opinions of the localities was only of
secondary importance to their overriding agenda, an attitude which is not acceptable in a
democratic system of government which exists in Canada.
The main arguments of the Swackhamer Hearings were completed by POP's lawyer J.J.
Robinette at a cost of $7500, and had summarized the arguments of over 2200 objectors.
After reading over the report, Swackhamer presented the case to the federal
"
"31
Minister of Public Works, John-Eudes Dube on December 7, 1972. Swackhamer opened
by saying, ""I put the question, Sir: Are we going to spend millions of dollars on an airport
based on ""tenuous foundations"" 52 when the need for decent housing in the city,
not only in the city but in the whole Metropolitan area, is real and imminent and here today?''
53. Swackhamer went on to say that in his professional opinion, he believed that the
decision for the Pickering airport site was the result of the Ontario government's
desire to stimulate growth to the east of Toronto, and was not chosen because of the
suitability of the site itself. Swackhamer then said that he disagreed that the overlying
consideration for an airport should be to stimulate development, rather he believed that
considerations of safety as well as accessibility were much more important.
Swackhamer concluded his report to the Hearing Officer by saying that it was in his
opinion that the decision for the Pickering site was that of the Federal and Provincial
governments, and primarily that of Mckeough and Jamieson. Swackhamer called the
decision a ""comedy, or a tragedy more accurately, of continued errors between the
Ontario government and the Federal government"" 54, and he urged the government to
withdraw the airport proposal as the land speculators would be the only ones hurt.
Despite the incriminating evidence presented by the Swackhamer Hearings,
under the advice of the new Transport Minister, Marchand,
————
52 ie .passenger forecasting.
53 Report given to Hearing Officer December 7, 1971. Page 17.
54 Report to Jean-Eudes Dube, page 36.
"
"32
the House of Commons reject the Report and confirmed expropriation on January 30, 1973.
Marchand claimed that the Swackhamer Hearings had only been commissioned to
investigate expropriation, and he therefore said that a future inquiry would have to be held
to investigate the need and site of the airport. Transport Canada did however prepare a
weak response to the Swackhamer Report55. The response to the Public Hearing was in
fact much less factual, less professional, and generally less convincing than the
Swackhamer Report.
Transport Canada's response tried to justify the decision for the airport in Pickering by
claiming that this land was already under pressure for urban development because of the
Toronto Centered Regional Development Plan. However, this statement can not be seen
as a valid excuse, as once again politicians have attempted to explain their decision upon
circumstances that were out of their control. The response also offered a pathetic response
to the numerous concerns over potential noise by merely promising that those affected by
noise would be recognized.
The Ministry of Transportation also claimed in their response that they had followed the
proper legal procedures during expropriation, and appear to commend themselves on a
job well done. The Ministry had emphasized how well organized and professional the
expropriation process had been, as well as how friendly and eager to help its
representatives had been. However, after analyzing
————
55 Transport Canada, ""Response to Synopsis of the Hearing Officer,
New Toronto Airport"", completed February 10, 1974.
"
"33
over two and one-half years of mail sent to a resident during the expropriation process,
as well as numerous complaints made by local residents in regards to government
rudeness, a much different and realistic picture is can be seen. Throughout the process of
expropriation, several residents had complained of the government's unprofessional
manner and also claimed that although the government had said they would be available
to address any questions and concerns regarding expropriation, in reality they offered little
to no support for them. In addition, Pickering residents reported rude, uncooperative and
unresponsive behaviour displayed by the staff of the federal and provincial information
centers set up on the proposed site.
The Ministry's response to the Swackhamer report also admitted that Pickering was not
one of the 59 airport sites studies, but they claimed that they had never tried to fool
anybody that it was, claiming that the ambiguity of federal politician's statements was
merely coincidental. The report also claimed that the government had consulted an
adequate amount with the people before they started construction of the airport,
however it did not comment on the failure to include local residents and politicians in any
discussion prior to the actual decision for the Pickering airport. The general theme of the
response reads like a sales pitch which can be illustrated in their justification for the
second airport which claims that it will raise the quality of life, ""bringing Canadians closer
together and providing millions with the opportunity to visit distant parts of Canada and
other countries
"
"34
for holidays 56. Aside form the fact that this comment sounds like a commercial for Bell
Telephone or Air Canada, the statement can not be proven, which essentially applies to the entire response of the Ministry.
I have found that after studying letters received by a local couple, John and Winfred Brass 57, who were being expropriated by the federal government, a more realistic account of the government's attitude can be gained. In reality the government officials were very unfair and offered little support or cooperation to the 815 property owners affected is adequately illustrated. Immediately following the government's decision to let expropriation proceed, property owners affected were overwhelmed with frequent mail from the Ministry of Public Works and other institutions such as real estate firms, which basically became harassment. Residents received a multitude of information regarding urban development plans as well as numerous Bulletins, giving property owners pertinent information on matters such as when they had to be off of their property.
Bulletin #1 was sent to the Brass' on July 5, 1973 explaining that they were going to choose specific properties which would serve as benchmarks, which would be evaluated and appraised, after which the government would compare other properties to these ones in order to determine a fair a value to be paid to purchase the property from the owner. However, when the results of values
————
56 Transport Canada, 1974, page 10.
57 Mail to John and Winfred Brass between 1972 and 1974.
"
35
offered by the Ministry were received by residents in Bulletin q9
on November 21, 1973, the amounts were drastically lower than
homeowners felt they were entitled to. This prompted the Ontario
MP Norm Cafik to jump to the defense of the expropriated and demand
the formation of a Compensation Review Committee, which was granted
by the government. Cafik claimed that the government's purchase
offers were extremely unfair to property owners and he felt that
this board should be created in order to "upgrade them [property
values] to more realistic and acceptable figures". In addition
Cafik successfully lobbied to have a general payment increase of
$3000 to the expropriated residents by the government".
In a 1974 newsletter, POP criticized the government for low -
balling the residents and a headline read, "The carpet beggars are
coming! What they want is your home, your farm, and they don't
intend to pay you one cent more than they have to". The newsletter
claimed that Mr. Mekeough had estimated that the government will
pay $2800 per acre, this including all dwellings, while only
recently an estimate was made which claimed that in the adjoining
Cedarwood area, an acre of land would cost over $6500. John and
Winfred Brass actually went through the process of appealing the
amount offered for their property through the Compensation Review
Board and were only granted an additional $2000, bringing the total
paid to them $45,632, an amount that was not even generous in 1974.
:"Letter sent to all expropriated residents by POP quoting Norm
Cafik, March 14, 1974.
"Cafik secured a 30-35& range increase on all offers through
the Compensation Review Board in 1974
36
After analyzing a multitude of this such mail sent by the
government to the expropriated residents, it would appear that the
government was in fact very fair, cooperative or friendly as they
had claimed.
The Minister of Transportation, Marchand, had promised after
the Swackhamer Hearings were rejected that he would postpone the
initiation of Pickering for a year while a "full" investigation
into the need and site for the second airport was conducted. The
Airport Inquiry Commission (AIC) was commissioned on October 5,
1973 and was reported on January 31, 1975. The Gibson Inquiry as
it was called was a disappointment as it was very lop -sided and all
in favour of the airport at Pickering, and it did not permit
citizen participation. Essentially, "the AIC took one of the more
controversial and emotional issues of modern life and reduced it to
the level of propaganda... the Committee chose simply to hear one
side of the atory and to make a case for an airport"°°. For this
reason the Gibson Report was not seen as being very credible, many
critics believing that the Ministry of Transport only agreed to the
Inquiry because under the pressure of approaching federal
elections.
The Gibson Inquiry however also recommended the expansion of
Melton, but Marchand indefinitely opposed further development at
Melton. Under the advice of Transport Minister Marchand, the
Gibson Report was rejected by the Federal Cabinet and a new review
was commissioned. The results of this next review, completed by
"Budden, S., Ernst, J., 1973, page 29.
37
Michael Pitfield on February 15 1975, suggested a phased
development of Pickering. Marchand accepted the report's
conclusions and on February 20 Transport he announced the
construction of an initial one -runway 'Minimum Airport` for
Pickering. The announcement of the Pickering 'minimum airport'
caused a further wave of protest and led POP to hold the Bulldozer
Tea, on April 30, in which they collected signatures of people who
were willing to lie down in front of construction equipment to
block their progress when the time cameo.
Marchaal's announcement also met with immediate criticism
again from MTARC, who renewed their struggle with the federal
government by publishing a book criticizing the Pickering minimum
airport_ In their book, the MTARC claimed that the decision for
the minimum airport had been another makeshift political
compromise. The book also argued that with only one runway, the
Pickering airport would not provide noise relief from Malton, as it
would only divert approximately 103 of the total aircraft. The
MTARC further accused the Ministry of Transport of exaggerating
noise forecasts at Milton and the book also projected a huge
decline in air travel by 1975 due to increasing airline costa and
the present worldwide economic slowdown.
The MTARC's book claimed that the failure of the regional
airport concept had already been proven with the disaster of other
similar airports. The MARC claimed that the Charles de Gaulle
airport should serve as an example of the consequences of building
61Over 2000 signatures were gathered at Bulldozer Tea.
M
a remote second airport before it is needed. The Charles de Gaulle
airport, which had opened in March 1974, had become a disaster,
recording estimated losses of $8.4 million in its first year of
operation. Air Prance also claimed that they had lost an
additional $6 million in business in the past year as a result.
The MTANC predicted that once built, Pickering would compete with
the Mirabel airport presently under construction just outside of
Montreal for North America's most inaccessible and inconvenient
airport. The WART was right about Mirabel, which after opening on
November 3t, 1975, recorded losses of $115 million for its first
two years.
Despite the the warnings and the protests, bulldozers began
knocking down houses at the Pickering site on August 13, 1975.
Fearing that progress on the airport might be impeded by
protestors, Marchand lied to the public saying on August 21 that
construction would be halted, and instead he had fences and
barricades erected to keep protestors off of the airport site and
then announced that construction would continue. On September 15,
three angry female POP members snuck through the barriers and
boarded themselves up in the next house to be bulldozed. The
protestors refused to leave until the results of the provincial
elections were completed, in which the chairman of POP, Charles
Godfrey, was running for the Durham west riding and it was felt
that if he won he could halt the airport.
Godfrey wan the election on September 18, 1975 which might
have played a significant part in Ontario Premier Bill Davis'
39
decision to finally take a firm stand against the Pickering
airport, an issue which he had previously been neutral about. Also
a public poll taken in March 1975 might have influenced Davis, as
It showed that in Metro Toronto as a whole, 54t opposed the
Pickering airport while only 343 were in favour". The provincial
government had been getting increasingly bad press for their actual
role in the choice of the Pickering site, and Davie must have
sensed this, and fearing a loss of support for his government, he
began to question the need for an airport.
There bad been signs of a struggle between the federal and
provincial governments over the airport by this time, probably
because local opposition was now increasingly being directed
towards the government of Ontario. Also Premier Davis was becoming
concerned about his government's promise to build an infrastructure
around the airport which would cost upwards of $400 million. With
provincial elections approaching, Davis felt it was in his best
interest to stall the Pickering airport_ The struggle was finally
ended when Ontario Premier Bill Davie refused to let the Provincial
Treasury pay for the airport's infrastructure, and for this reason
the Ministry of Transport and the Federal government were forced to
shelve the project on September 25. The angered Marchand stormed
out of the Federal Cabinet and announced that due to Ontario's
failure to cooperate, the airport would have to be suspended for at
least two to three years and for this reason he claimed that
"Public opinion poll taken by Elliot Research Limited, in
March, 1975.
40
"Ontario will be 10 years behind Montreal..".
Although the airport in Pickering has been shelved, the issue
still frequently arises in newspapers from time to time. In
October of 1988, the Pickering alternative was revived when the
owner of the Buttonville airport in Scarborough said that due to
losses incurred, he wanted the government of Ontario to buy the
airport from him, or else he would have to close it down. However,
the Minister of Transport, Benolt Bouchard, said that an even
better solution than to buy Buttonville would be to invest money
into developing a much larger and better regional airport on the
lands which they already own in Pickering. After some heated
debate, the Pickering airport was rejected for a second time, and
the government would eventually choose to purchase Buttonville
airport in 1992. In addition to this, the government decided to
renovate Pearson airport's two existing terminals in the 1980's, as
well as to build a third terminal, which was completed in 1991.
Local politicians in Pickering continue to strongly oppose the
Pickering airport saying that it would be a waste of both time and
money. Although Charles Godfrey had claimed in 1989 that the
Pickering site was "dead and buried" because the "the Conservatives
were not going to pick up the tab on any airport as airports were
losing money--", who is to say that future governments will not
change their minds. In fact Federal and Provincial politicians are
63Stewart, W., 1979, page 151.
64Toronto Star, -Ottawa Takes Second Look at Airport in
Pickering", January 22, 1989.
41
still discussing possible uses for the land in Pickering, which has
since been proposed for the site of a jet airport", and most
recently, in 1993-1994, it has been proposed for a new garbage
disposal site.
This latest recommendation for a garbage disposal site brought
renewed criticism on the competence of federal and provincial
planning. This was because the proposed dump was to be located on
the same land which the Provincial government had been reserving
for a new urban centre. Pickering Mayor Wayne Arthurs was angered
to find out that Bob Rae and the Ontario government had paid high-
priced planners over $18.6 million to simultaneously develop both
a 'model community" and a "mega -dump" on the same locations. So
although many feel that the airport issue has been abandoned,
perhaps the real problem lies with the politics of regional
planning. The issue in Pickering is actually far from being solved
as the federal government continues to possess a large amount of
land in Pickering which they will likely want to develop.
The government's recent proposals might lead opponents to
accuse the government of 'land -banking', or for fabricating a false
need for a second airport for Toronto so that they could
expropriate residents from a large portion of land which they could
then use for an undesignated government project at a future date.
It is realistic to believe that while this probably was not the
government's initial intention, it could very likely have become an
"Jet airport in Pickering was proposed in early 1971.
"Pickering News Advertiser, November 23, 1994.
42
option when opposition to the airport became too great. Government
planners might have decided to temporarily shelve the plans for the
Pickering land until a later time. This move could benefit the
government after twenty, thirty or even more years when the direct
opposition to using the land would had long since dissipated, as
the land will have been vacant for many years and the newer
generation may be less affected or concerned about it. The and
result would be that the federal government would in the future
have a large and invaluable piece of land at their disposal, in
which they could now use however they wished.
Whatever the reasons for the governments decision, the
Pickering airport issue was, and remains to be, a complicated and
confusing problem. The politicians involved in the planning of the
airport used deceit and manipulated and suppress facts in order to
achieve a hidden agenda. It would appear that it had been the
Ontario government leaders, and not the federal government's
experts, which had rejected the 1990 proposal to expand Walton.
Despite the fact that the provincial government denied playing any
significant role in the choosing Of the airport site, "there is no
doubt that the choice of Pickering was largely prompted by Ontario.
The federal government as late as 1991 had favoured a western site,
whereas the province had always preferred an eastern site"61.
While the construction of a second airport would result in an
economic and financial benefit for the Ministry of Transport, the
airport's location was only of secondary importance to them. On
"Godfrey, Massey, 1972, page 61.
43
the other hand, an airport in Pickering would satisfy the Ontario
government's regional development plan, which called for growth
east of Toronto, and would also work to stimulate the province's
economy. Godfrey had stated this previously when he said, we
conclude that the Federal Government is trying to satisfy its need
for additional capacity by helping the Provincial government
satisfy its desire to establish a new urban community east of Metro
Toronto"".
Another possible reason why the choosing of the Pickering site
might benefit the Ontario government was due to an alliance between
the government and big -business, which can be deduced after
investigating land ownership in the site area. It appears that
there was a lot of speculation activity going on in Pickering
previous to the announcement of the airport. It is discovered that
a great deal of the land was in fact awned by a group of West
German developers, which had done a lot for the provincial
government already, and by building an airport on the Pickering
land it might have been a way for the Ontario government to pay
them back. For this reason it seems very plausible that the
Provincial Government and the Ministry of Transportation were able
to agree on a mutually beneficial deal, which was completely
separate from the need for a second airport and had nothing at all
to do with the suitability of the Pickering site.
During the Pickering airport issue, the government appeared to
have forgotten their obligations under the democratic system, the
"Godfrey, Massey, 1973, page 106.
44
government bad attempted to deny local citizens of their inherent
right to protest government decisions. Government officials
involved in the issue had temporarily abandoned democratic
principles which state that the actions of politicians are subject
to the scrutiny of the public, or else we would be living under an
authoritarian or totalitarian system of government. It would
appear that the whole airport problem had been the consequence of
a few powerful and contemptuous politicians attempting to force
their prerogative onto a helpless majority, which when able to
express their opinions, successfully destroyed the proposed
Pickering airport.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES:
Sources obtained from the Town of Pickering Central Library
Archives, Community History Room, Pickering, Ontario:
Braes, John and Winfred, R.R.2, Claremont, Ontario. Concession 7:
Daily mail sent to them by the federal government as well as
letters of personal correspondence, 1972 to 1975.
Kinsale Women's Institute, JEggdamuir Ii5torv, For Rome and
Country Kinsale and Greenwood, 1972.
Markham Economist and Sun, Selected issues from February 24,
1972 to March 20, 1972.
Markham Economist and Sun, "Our Second Airport: PM Says 'Just
Living Up to the Gooses'", March 16, 1972.
Massey, Godfrey,
Site For Toronto'n Second Airport (Toronto: The Copp e
Publishing Co., October 1, 1972).
Ministry of Transportation, letter of expropriation sent to all
Pickering residents affected, March 3, 1972.
Metro Toronto Airport Review Committee, Pickering Minimum
Airport, Why?, Toronto, July 1975.
North Pickering Community Development Team, Ministry of
Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, "North
Pickering Community Development Project, Discussion No. 1:
Initial Aseumptions and Issues", September 1973.
People or Planes, First Newsletter, March 29, 1972.
People or Planes, Did You Know? (Fact sheet), April 1, 1972.
Pickerina News Advertiser, "Pickering Airport Meeting Takes Wing"
October 14, 1994.
RiCkering News Advertiser, "Planning Dump, Seaton a Waste:
Arthurs", November 23, 1999.
Pickering News Advertiser, ^Seaton Building May Start By Year
200011, December 14, 1994.
Swackhamer, J.W., Public Hearing Report, Q.C. Hearing Officer,
submitted to Sean-Eudes Dube, P.C. Minister of Public Works,
House Of Common: "Site for Toronto II Airport", December 29,
1972.
Transport Canada Inc., Eggronse to SOnIpplis Report of the
Hearing officer. New Toronto Airport, February 10, 1974.
Selected newspaper articles obtained from York University,
Scott Library Microfiche section:
Globe and Mail, "Build Airport in Pickering, Ottawa Urged". January
23, 1989.
Globe and Mail, "Pickexing Airport Plan Still an Option for
Ottawa", January 24, 1989.
Globe and Mail, "Pickering Promoted For Jet Airport Plan", January
7, 1991.
Globe and Mail, "Pickering Land Goes on Block", August 26, 1993.
Globe and Mail, "Decision to Sell Airport Land Angers Pickering
Residents", August 20, 1993.
Toronto Star, 'Airport Proposal Stirs Pickering Hornet's
Nest", March 3, 1972.
Toronto Star, Selected issues from February 24, 1972 to March
20, 1972.
Toronto Star, "The 400 Million Airport Question: Do we Really
Need Two Terminals?", March 20, 1972.
Toronto Star, "The Proposed Pickering Airport--, January 10,
1974.
Toronto Star, "Buttonville Airport ROSS Rekindles Pickering
Dispute", October 18, 1968.
Toronto Star, "Ottawa Takes Second Look at Airport in Pickering",
January 22, 1989.
Toronto Scar, "Pickering Airport Foes Set to Fight Again", January
23, 1909.
Toronto Star, 'New Airport Would Help Boost Area economy,
Councillor Says", January, 24, 1989.
Toronto Star, "Ottawa Asked to Turn Over Airport Land", July
21, 1991.
"Sources obtained from York University, Government Documents
Library:
"Report of the Airport Inquiry Commission", appointed by Order o
October 5, 1973, chairman Hugh F. Gibson, the 'Gibson Report,
presented to Federal Cabinet January 31, 1975.
Ministry of Transportation, "Preliminary Report on The
Aggregate Materials in the Area of the New Toronto Airport
Site", November 1973.
Ministry of Transportation, "New Toronto International Airport
Preliminary Drainage Study", March 1973.
Urban Noise Consultants Inc., published for the Toronto Area
Airports Project, Department of Transport, A Background Noise
Study In the Vicinity f the Prorosed New Toronto Ai ,
December 1973.
William Trow Associates Ltd., prepared for the Ministry of
Transport, "Subsoil survey and Settlement Studies on New
Toronto Airport Site, Pickering Ontario", Toronto, February
8, 1973.
LGL Limited, Environmental Research Associates, prepared for
the Ministry of Transport "Executive Report on Bird
Populations and Movements: Associated with the Proposed Site
of the New Toronto International Airport', Toronto, March
1974.
SECONDARY SOURCES:
Budden E. and Ernst, - The Movable Airport. the Politics of
Government Planning (Toronto, Halbert, 1973).
Conway, M., Airmort Cities 21, the New nF
the Twenty-first Century (Conway Data Inc.: Atlanta, 1993).
Fieldman, Milch, The Politics of Airtort
Federalism (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1983).
Gouslin, L., From Pathe
(Published by the author at Claremont, Ontario, December,
1974).
Stewart, W., Paper Juggernaut Big Government Gone Mad
(Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979).
�� �sx*rps�-;.
( �.`r