Flights or Farms?

Foreword When I started working as the Pickering municipal reporter in 2011, I was confused when I attended a council meeting and heard the term “airport lands” several times.

Were they talking about Pearson? Oshawa? Was there a flight school some-where in the city I didn’t know about?

But then I received an e-mail from Gabrielle Untermann, secretary of Land over Landings, introducing herself and the group, and opening my eyes to the on-going airport issue in northern Pickering.

When I first drove the lands, I was in awe of the beautiful old heritage homes but saddened by their deteriorated state. I wondered why no one had bought and fixed up the buildings, given their close proximity to Pickering and other urban areas paired with the appealing rural location. Wouldn’t they be an easy sell?

It wasn’t until after some in-depth research, several discussions with council-lors and members of Land over Landings and a visit to the Pickering Public Li-brary’s local history room that I gained a true understanding of the history of the lands, their current state and the part they play in the ongoing story of the City of Pickering.

The federal lands represent a unique opportunity that exists nowhere else in the GTA, but what is to be made of that opportunity has remained a mystery for more than 40 years.

The lands are obviously an asset for the government: 18,600 acres of prime, undeveloped farmland hiding on the fringes of the urban GTA. But to the City they’re an obstacle to fulsome planning and growth, and to the residents who live on them, they represent at the same time hope for the future of food security in the GTA and the sad uncertainty these residents face on a daily basis in their own lives.

To live, for 40 years, raising a family, building and defining your home, all the time not knowing when it might be ripped out from under you, is something I couldn’t imagine. But the residents of the federal lands face it daily with not only joy and friendship, but an optimism and hope for the future that is inspiring.

If the class 1 farmlands end up being preserved for agricultural production, it will no doubt be thanks to the non-stop advocacy of these dedicated residents. And if an airport does prevail, their stories still represent an important piece of Picker-ing history, and a fascinating lesson in prolonged protest.

Flights or Farms?

3

1 Announcement brings new life to Pickering airport opposition When word leaked out that the provincial and federal governments would be holding a joint announcement regarding the Pickering federal lands on June 11, 2013 residents were immediately wary, but optimistic.

Many believed the announcement would be about the new Rouge Na-tional Urban Park, and were hopeful that some of the federal lands would be pre-served as parkland in perpetuity.

But some long-term residents recognized the parallels between another an-nouncement, held more than 40 years ago, when the federal government an-nounced it would be expropriating 18,600 acres in north Pickering and Markham to make way for a new international airport.

“Last time the feds and the Province got together to make a joint announce-ment about north Pickering it was March 2, 1972,” Mary Delaney, vice-chairwoman of Land Over Landings (LOL,) posted to the group’s Facebook page June 10.

LOL, a group of residents and concerned citizens, advocates for the lands to be converted to an agricultural land trust and protected as foodland in perpetuity.

“Fingers crossed it’s about the Rouge Park,” Ms. Delaney continued. “On ten-derhooks, ear to the ground, fingers crossed and breath held until then. Scary.”

That dismay turned out to be well-founded.

On June 11 the government announced it would be donating 5,000 acres to the new Rouge Park, but also renewed its commitment to build an airport on the site by dedicating a parcel in the southwest corner of the lands to be preserved for the future aviation facility.

Jim Flaherty, federal finance minister, pointed to a needs assessment study released in 2011 that called for an airport as early as 2027 to meet growing aviation demands in the area.

“It takes at least 10 years to build an airport,” he said. “That’s why we’re moving ahead to accommodate our future aviation needs now.”

Mr. Flaherty called the development good news for the region.

“Many are aware of the history of the these lands,” he explained.

“It was expropriated for an airport that never got off the ground, and that’s cre-

Flights or Farms?

4

ated some uncertainty in Durham Region and beyond. We are here to confirm that uncertainty ends today. We are moving forward with a responsible and balanced plan for the development of the lands.”

In addition to the 5,000 acres of parkland and the dedicated airport parcel, Mr. Flaherty announced the rest of the lands would be dedicated to “economic develop-ment.

“One of our goals here is to use the Pickering lands to ensure jobs for the people of Durham Region, and good paying jobs.”

When questioned as to the timeline for a future airport, Mr. Flaherty was less certain, but did say industrial development on the adjoining lands could come on-stream earlier.

“The needs assessment study said we would need an airport by 2027, so that would be the goal, but in 2013 we’ll do more planning and consultations and get on with it,” he said, noting with Buttonville airport closing a replacement would be needed, which could be an option for Pickering.

“This is not a science. We may need an airport earlier or later, but the key is to get on with it so we can continue to have economic development and growth east of Toronto. It’s our turn.”

Area officials were enthusiastic about the news.

“We’re talking about a bright and exciting future for Pickering,” said Pickering-Ajax MP Chris Alexander.

“We’re taking action to move forward on the planning and management of the lands.”

Roger Anderson, regional chairman, said he was happy to see a plan for the lands.

“After 42 years of waiting it’s nice there’s a plan in place,” he said.

“This is about more than just an airport. This is about growth in the east GTA and it’s an ideal situation for urban Pickering.”

Mayor David Ryan echoed the sentiment.

“It does resolve the uncertainty we’ve experienced here for the past 40 years,” he said. “This will be an economic stimulus for the area and will have a direct im-pact on congestion across the GTA.”

For residents of the lands, however, the news was not welcomed.

Flights or Farms?

5

Many residents arrived at the announcement event, held at the Pickering Site Office in Claremont, to hear about the developments only to find themselves rel-egated to a side lawn behind a set of barricades, unable to hear the news as it was being announced in a tented area behind the building.

“It’s criminal where they’ve put us, stuck out here,” said Gord McGregor, chair-man of Land Over Landings.

“This is a democracy, at least one of us should have been invited. These are our homes, our community. What this is going to do is start a whole new process of politicizing this. We are coming together and will make a plan to fight all this again. It’s always been a battle, now we have to become more diligent.”

At a meeting the next week, the group welcomed a slew of new members, in-cluding former residents of the lands now living elsewhere, who had contacted the group since the announcement to lend their support and expertise.

“We’re here tonight to fight for the greater good,” Ms. Delaney told a packed crowd at Brougham Community Hall.

“Tonight is a call to action. We’re up against the federal government. This is the big time, we must focus. LOL has held this fort for 40 years and I’m proud to say we kept the feds nervous. We made sure the opposition never wavered over a decade, we are the reason there were barricades at the site office.”

After more than a decade, the battle seems primed to rage on with renewed dedication.

“We’ve been fighting an enemy that was missing in action for the last 38 years,” said Claremont resident and LOL member Pat Valentine. “It’s hard to maintain a battle when you have no enemy to battle with. Now we do.”

Flights or Farms?

6

2 Finding the forgotten lands of northern PickeringThe day the government took the farms: 1968 through 1975

For residents of Brougham, the morning of March 2, 1972 began like any other.

They woke up, tended to chores on the farm or left home for work, not know-ing that, come evening, those homes and those farms would no longer belong to them.

That evening, the Government of Canada announced the expropriation of 18,600 acres encompassing Brougham and a large swath of northern Pickering, as well as land in Markham and Uxbridge, which would be the site of a planned inter-national airport.

In 1968, when the federal government began investigating possible sites for new international airports in both Montreal and Toronto, in order to transfer the burden of the rapidly growing international aviation industry from the existing Montreal and Malton airports, the people of Pickering had little to fear.

As study after study was completed, Pickering was deemed unsuitable, with a 1971 study concluding the site would present “major conflict,” wiping out two towns and violating a provincial reserve for agricultural and recreation. (The Air-port Study – a Revised Approach, Massey Godfrey, 1972.)

Pickering disappeared from the discussion altogether as the list of possible sites was narrowed to four favoured locations -- Sutton, Port Perry, Guelph and Orangeville.

Having kept a close eye on the ongoing studies, residents of Brougham and the surrounding area got a rude awakening when they turned on their televisions on March 2 to hear that Pickering had indeed been selected as the final site.

Plans for the airport included one runway, an accompanying passenger ter-minal and related facilities. The cost was estimated at $94 million for land and $110 million for construction. Shortly afterward, the Province expropriated a further 25,000 acres in the area for a planned community of 250,000.

The residents received government letters the next week, informing them their homes were to become government property. Owners could either choose to sell outright or remain on the properties as tenants of Transport Canada. Many resi-dents, however, rejected both options, choosing instead to fight the decision.

Flights or Farms?

7

During a meeting at the expropriated Melody Farms the night after the an-nouncement, expropriated residents and concerned neighbours banded together to create the protest group People over Planes. The group brought together neighbours from all walks of life -- from farmers to artists to lawyers and advertising profes-sionals, everyone had something unique to contribute to the cause.

POP set to work by attacking both the need for an airport and the business case, citing ever-changing government passenger forecasts. One such forecast esti-mated 29 million passengers using Toronto Pearson International Airport by 1990 and 50 million by 2000. In 2011, 33.4 million passengers flew out of Pearson, ac-cording to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

For the most part, however, POP became known for elaborately staged events aimed at raising awareness, including a mock funeral procession for Mother Nature at Queen’s Park, hanging effigies of politicians in Brougham and an unapproved hang-gliding flight around the Peace Tower at Parliament Hill.

Behind closed doors, POP was also busily negotiating with all levels of govern-ment, presenting its side of the story by highlighting the inconsistencies in passen-ger forecasts, the realities of a dismal aviation outlook at Montreal’s new Mirabel International Airport and the loss of thousands of acres of Class A farmland and agricultural production.

During the 1972 Swackhammer Hearings, a one-man federal inquiry that heard objections to the Pickering airport plan, Kenneth Fallis, associate direc-tor of the soils and crops branch of the Ontario Department of Agriculture, noted the new airport and satellite city would eliminate the communities of Altona, Brougham and Green River and put an end to the production of four million quarts of milk per year, 375,000 pounds of pork and poultry, 200,000 dozen eggs, 45,000 bushels of winter wheat, 30,000 broiler chickens, $2.25 million worth of beef cattle and a “profitable acreage” of cauliflower.

Flights or Farms?

8

Brenda Davies, Ann Howe and Frances Moore stand in front of the Bentley-Carruthers house during their occupation to save the historic farmhouse. September 1975 (Submitted photo)

In 1975 construction crews began knocking down area homes to make way for the planned runway, stirring the ire of residents who felt the airport was not a done decision. The ongoing demolitions culminated in a face-off with POP members Ann Howes, Brenda Davies and Frances Moore, who barricaded themselves inside the historic Bentley-Carruthers house on Sept. 15, 1975 in an effort to save it from bulldozers.

The standoff ended nine days later when the provincial government an-nounced it was withdrawing support for off-site services for the airport such as roads, water and sewer services. The announcement was a death knell for the pro-ject, prompting the federal government to shelve the airport plan due to the pro-hibitive infrastructure costs that would now be required.

Area residents were elated at the turn of events and gathered at the spared Carruthers home to toast their victory with a raucous party. They had no way of knowing that 40 years later the airport question would remain unresolved.

What follows are the personal stories of several residents who were involved in the fight and helped convince the provincial government to withdraw support.

Flights or Farms?

9

The invitation for the party that served as cover for People or Planes members Brenda Davies, Ann Howe and Frances Moore to move into the Carruthers home for their defiant last stand to save the home from destruction.

Flights or Farms?

10

3 Gord and Myrna McGregorHeard it through the grapevine

In 1972, Brougham residents Gord and Myrna McGregor couldn’t fathom that the home they had spent months renovating would no longer be theirs, espe-cially since they first heard about the expropriation from their daughter, who was in Grade 1 at Valley View Public School at the time.

“She came home crying, saying the kids at school told her they were going to take our house and we would have to move away,” recalls Ms. McGregor.

“We reassured her, saying ‘no no, that’s not true.’ But later that night we got a call from our neighbour saying ‘have you heard?’ The official news broke a few days later. We never found out how she knew.”

The McGregors got together with a few neighbours to hire an expropriation lawyer and ensure a fair rate for their beloved home.

“It was devastating because no one really knew what expropriation meant, and we didn’t get the full picture until much later,” Ms. McGregor said. “It hit us really hard because we had just finished the addition.”

“A lot of people took the money and ran, except the farmers,” Mr. McGregor added.

“Our kids were going to school here, a great school, and we didn’t want to move because we had just moved down from a farm in Little Britain, so we decided to stay.”

Area residents organized immediately, forming the activist group People Over Planes and setting to work staging protests and taking their concerns to any gov-ernment official who would listen.

“We had a lot of people who had influence on government and they were ne-gotiating all the time,” Mr. McGregor said.

“That’s what saved us, was all those back-room talks, because the provincial government finally said no and refused to put in the infrastructure required for an airport. That was sort of the death knell, it was really a combination and culmina-tion of a lot of hard work by everybody at all levels.”

Despite the seeming victory, the federal government never abandoned the idea of building an airport on the site, dashing any hopes of homeowners regaining their land.

Flights or Farms?

11

“It was hard to see all the neighbours move away, and the fabric of the com-munity destroyed. It’s very quiet here now,” Mr. McGregor said.

In the years since expropriation, Brougham has seen an exodus of long-term residents, many replaced by short-term tenants of the remaining homes, which were demolished as they fell into disrepair.

The McGregors continue to fight for the preservation of the lands, with Mr. McGregor acting as chairman of Land Over Landings, a non-profit group that ad-vocates for the lands to be converted to a land trust in order to preserve the Class 1 farmland for agriculture in perpetuity.

“We’re always more or less fighting the airport, we’re trying to keep this in the public eye,” he said.

“Inadvertently the government really saved this land. We’re trying to do the right thing and keep it from being developed. We want to convince people from To-ronto what a tremendous opportunity for food security we have here, to really get a groundswell of support. We want people to be aware of what this land is all about, because we need to save it.”

Despite the struggles, the McGregors remain positive about the land they call home, even though they can’t predict what the future will bring.

“Even though we’re sitting here in limbo, it is the better of all other evils,” Mr. McGregor said.

“When we first finished the expropriation, things were in limbo because the house wasn’t ours,” Ms. McGregor added.

“We didn’t know at that point how long it was going to last, there was always a feeling you couldn’t do the things you wanted to do.”

“Eventually we did them anyway and said to hell with it,” Mr. McGregor inter-jected.

“This land is our land, not the federal government’s or the provincial govern-ment’s, it belongs to the people and the people should have a say in what happens to it, and the government should listen. We’re going to keep fighting and eventually convince the powers that be that saving this land is the way to go.”

Flights or Farms?

12

Dr. Charles Godfrey, the original chairman of People or Planes, took part in an event organised by Land Over Landings March 2, 2012, marking the 40th anniversary of the expropriation of the airport lands March 2. The event took place at the Brougham Community Hall and included a walk down Brock Road to Bentley House. (Ryan Pfeiffer, Metroland)

Flights or Farms?

13

4 Pat HorneOn the front lines

What Pickering resident Pat Horne remembers most about March 2, 1972, is the shock she felt at discovering the homes of her friends and neighbours were to be expropriated.

“It was a great shock when we saw it on TV, it was very much a surprise be-cause we were not one of the 30 sites that had been publicized as being involved in the studies. Immediately most people felt it wasn’t appropriate, and certainly it had a devastating impact on agriculture in the area, which was terrible because we had award-winning farms out here.”

Pat Horne (in cloak driving cart) grins as members of POP make their way to a staged public hanging of effigies of politicians that supported the Pickering airport,1973. (Supplied photo)

Although her property was not included in the expropriation, Ms. Horne joined her neighbours at Melody Farms the next day to discuss options for putting an end to the expropriation.

“It really drew people of all walks together for a common cause, we had farm-ers, doctors, lawyers, housewives, everyone.”

Flights or Farms?

14

Not everyone was against the idea of an airport, however, which created con-flict among neighbours and contributed to the deteriorating social fabric of the area.

“It was a terrible blow to the community and social environment because it pitted family against family. There were people who wanted it and thought they could benefit against people who didn’t want it and didn’t like the idea of an airport. Most people were simply angry that 18,600 acres of the best farmland in the coun-try was going to be taken out of the hands of farmers and paved over for an air-port.”

Residents set about making sure that wouldn’t happen, staging elaborate pro-tests that included a funeral march on Queen’s Park, a bulldozer tea, hanging effi-gies of politicians and the occupation of homes slated for demolition. Ms. Horne grins as she recalls driving the turnip cart that transported the effigies to their de-mise.

“We probably couldn’t get away with that today, but the anger of the commun-ity was pretty devastating, people who would never dream of doing such things got involved. A lot of the things we did were dreamed up by artistic people and those are the things that really got us attention and kept the issue going. That was the amazing thing about POP, we had doctors, lawyers, farmers and artists. People of all walks of life who never would have crossed paths all coming together for this one cause.”

That didn’t stop the federal government from moving ahead with its plans by demolishing expropriated homes that stood in the path of the future runway.

“First they took down the barns; they would go in and chainsaw the beams then dynamite the buildings. You would hear a big kaboom and down it would go. In 10 minutes they had destroyed what had taken 100 years to build.”

The looming threat of an airport took its toll on the community’s residents, fostering an environment that could be cynical and negative.

“You spent a lot of time in a negative frame of mind, it was tough on marriages and tough on families because it was all-consuming. It probably contributed to the end of my own marriage. The social uproar was very significant, there was a lot of friends losing friends.”

The one bright light that remained was the land: 18,600 acres of prime farm-land sitting idle under government ownership also meant that the land was safe from the rapid urban sprawl that claimed a large portion of surrounding farmland in Markham and throughout Durham.

Flights or Farms?

15

“That was the one upside in the whole thing and that’s our priority now, to save these lands. “

While Ms. Horne concedes future generations might need more access to transportation, she points to rail as a more feasible alternative to air travel, which has seen a decline since the 2009 financial crisis.

“Short haul flights are better served by trains than flights anyway, and there’s room at Pearson for any increased international air travel needs. This is a great op-portunity to develop local farming. People need to realize there’s not a lot of high-quality farmland left. If food was fresher and cheaper it would be healthier for all of us and could create a tremendous amount of jobs.”

With 40 years already under her belt, Ms. Horne is content to continue the battle, making sure people know of the airport spectre and the fertility of the land that would be lost.

“A lot of new people to the area are not aware of the airport fight, or they haven’t heard about it for so long they think it’s been resolved. I’m like an old record playing, but you have to fight for what you believe in, you can’t just go through life not doing that.”

Flights or Farms?

16

Connor Horne, 6, and her father Greg Horne showed their support during a March 2, 2012 event organised by Land Over Landings marking the 40th anniversary of the expropriation of the airport lands. The event took place at the Brougham Community Hall and included a walk down Brock Road to Bentley House. (Ryan Pfeiffer, Metroland)

Flights or Farms?

17

5 Michael RobertsonFight and flight

It took one moment, and a friendly bird, to convince Pickering resident Mi-chael Robertson that he wasn’t fighting in vain, that the lands recently expropriated by the government for a future airport could in fact be saved.

Michael Robertson and Bill Lishman formed the First Pickerign Fusiliers in response to airport plans, performing protests such as barring people from entering the local Transport Canada of-fices. (Supplied photo)

On September 24, 1975, after the provincial government announced it would be withdrawing support for off-site services for an airport, area residents, including

Flights or Farms?

18

Mr. Robertson, celebrated the announcement as a victory. Unfortunately, he would quickly learn the fight was far from over. “The next day I heard heavy equip-ment and I knew exactly what it was. I didn’t even saddle my horse, I just jumped on his back and galloped away towards the sound and when I got there a worker had the claw of a front-end loader poised over the roof of a vacant house. I jumped off the horse, ran up the stairs and sat down. I said ‘you’re crazy, this thing is over, why are you still tearing down homes?’”

Although the bulldozer operator backed off, the stand-off eventually ended as workers pulled the house down around him. Afterwards, as he surveyed the wreck-age, Mr. Robertson experienced a moment of extreme clarity.

“I’m sitting in the window on the second storey with my dog and there’s no house beneath me anymore, it’s all been knocked away. Then suddenly a sparrow flew in the window, landed right on my shoulder and started singing to me. It was one of the most magical things that happened and it made me believe this airport was meant to not happen. I thought, ‘OK, we got this.’”

It was not the last time Mr. Robertson would feel a greater force at work in the struggle. A hang-glider by trade, Mr. Robertson decided to put his skills to use by staging a protest flight over Parliament after hearing rumours the government was going to adopt a work plan for the future airport despite the cancellation of infra-structure support.

Unfortunately, after driving through the night to reach Ottawa in time, Mr. Robertson arrived to a snowstorm that nixed any idea of gliding.

“I’m assembling the glider on Parliament Hill and it’s still snowing and I’m thinking there’s no way we’re going to be able to do this. Then all of a sudden it magically cleared, they towed me down the road and away I flew around the Peace Tower. The only law we broke was running a stop sign.”

To this day the memory still fills him with amazement.

“It never should have happened. That it was able to happen, that we got that small window, was magical. It just made me think the airport was gone, they just don’t know it yet in Ottawa.”

Mr. Robertson remains on the lands, living in the same home and operating his hang-gliding business, High Perspectives, down the street on Hwy. 7, offering gliders pristine views of the lands in jeopardy.

“What an amazing opportunity we have for the government to fund food se-curity for Toronto. We can grow healthy stuff that’s local and nutritious and it will

Flights or Farms?

19

be delivered in very little time with little oil use. This is our lifeblood, the land and water.”

Mr. Robertson remains confident that there will be no airport on the lands in the future, despite the government releasing several studies over the years that out-line the continuing need for a future airport. An eternal optimist, he believes the lands will end up being used for the best, citing the seven generations philosophy, which calls on current generations to care for and respect the land to preserve it for the enjoyment of the seven following generations.

“This fight, to me, has always been an affirmative action. We are all on the same side. We all want what’s best for the country, for our children, and for our grandchildren.”

Michael Robertson and Bill Lishman patrol the skies as the First Pickering Fusiliers. (Supplied photo)

Flights or Farms?

20

6 Lorne AlmackChampion of conservation

Lorne Almack, a member of Land Over Landings, has been advocating for the Pickering fed-eral lands to be turned into an agricultural trust. His own land in Claremont has been converted to a trust to ensure no future development. September 20, 2012 (Sabrina Byrnes, Metroland)

Now nearing 90, Lorne Almack has lost none of the fire that helped him con-vince then-premier Bill Davis to back out of the Pickering airport deal nearly 40 years ago, which nixed construction of the planned international airport.

“It’s healthy to question government, that was always built into our western democratic philosophy. That’s the way I was brought up, to believe in democracy and people’s rights. I guess that’s my cross to bear.”

As an engineering consultant for Price Waterhouse Cooper, Mr. Almack was ideally suited to argue against the airport. Named head of People Over Planes’ technical committee, he set about learning everything he could about the aviation industry by talking to experts, subscribing to periodicals and researching past pro-jects similar to the Pickering proposal.

He quickly discovered that some of the data used to justify the Pickering pro-posal was flawed.

Flights or Farms?

21

“This was the 1960s, so everyone was gung ho. The country was on a roll, the whole world was on a roll. My God, people were walking on the moon. At the time aviation was growing at seven per cent a year, and that would continue for some time, but the studies assumed it would continue indefinitely.”

Other problems included a standard load factor of 20 per cent, which meant the calculations on how many planes would be required for future international air travel were based on an assumption that every plane would be only 20 per cent full.

“The forecast was ludicrous. New technology does not grow exponentially, it can’t. They were wrong and we found out they were wrong, but they would never admit they were wrong, which was a terrible thing.”

Mr. Almack’s anger at the federal government was so palpable that he gave up on his strong Liberal roots and joined the Conservative party in a tangible display of his displeasure with then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

The residents’ group’s relationship with the Ontario government was much better. During a presentation to Ontario’s Development Resources Committee, POP members detailed the inconsistencies in the feds’ data.

“The committee was so impressed, but the premier had missed it so they asked us to do it again with Bill Davis present. When we went back we showed them a pamphlet from the Vancouver airport that contradicted everything here. He really thought that was funny.”

Mr. Almack ran into Mr. Davis later at a party for then MPP Bill Newman, which Mr. Almack was attending in his new capacity as chairman of the local Con-servative riding association.

“I went and talked to him and said ‘the airport is a tragic thing, can’t you use your influence to do something about it?’ And he said he’d been thinking about it and ‘I can, I can renege on the agreement that the Province will provide the infra-structure.’ Sure enough, a few weeks later it was announced that it had been can-celled.”

As he was fighting the overall expropriation, Mr. Almack also successfully lob-bied to have his own home spared. The boundary line, which had split the property in half, taking the house but leaving the barn, was amended in 1973 to leave out his property entirely.

“I was no longer directly affected but all my friends were, and by this time I’d become so incensed by the issue there was no way I could walk away.”

Instead, Mr. Almack set to work crafting a solution that would make all parties

Flights or Farms?

22

happy. The result was A Prospectus for the Management of Federal Lands at Picker-ing, which laid out a process for the conversion of the lands to a trust.

“It would dispose of the lands over a 30-year time frame without hardship to anyone, without evicting anyone. The goal is to build a community because the ex-propriation destroyed communities.”

The prospectus calls for the enhancement of agricultural capability on the lands in order to provide food security for the GTA, the creation of a vibrant farm-ing community, the preservation of natural areas such as valley lands and woodlots and access to the lands for urban neighbours, farmers’ markets and hiking and bik-ing trails.

Mr. Almack’s dedication to conservation is evident at his own 34-acre Clare-mont property, which he has protected from future development with a conserva-tion easement to the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

“It’s become more evident that this is necessary, there’s a huge movement go-ing on now recognizing foodland as a non-renewable resource. If we pave it all, we’re not going to be able to feed ourselves.”

At the forefront of the fight for more than 40 years, Mr. Almack isn’t ready to give up, but is hopeful that younger people will take up the cause.

“I’ve been tilting at windmills for 40 or 50 years of my life. This experience changed my life, I became a radical environmentalist. The airport issue has cost me thousands of dollars and really affected my professional career. It was a very ex-pensive endeavour but the nice thing is I have a lot of young friends, they keep me young and keep the issue alive. I’m getting a little long in the tooth and I don’t have much fight left but I’ll do my best.”

Mr. Almack is looking to government to hear the pleas of area residents.

“A government should realize when citizens rise up and are annoyed by some-thing that there’s a reason. They shouldn’t just ignore it and say ‘oh, they’re just a bunch of professional shit-disturbers.’ Look at Justin Trudeau, maybe he will get in and I can tell him ‘look, this little thing your father did has been annoying people for 40 years, why not just clear it up?’”

Flights or Farms?

23

7 Living in limbo1975-2012

On the federal lands, living in the moment isn’t a philosophy, it’s a necessity.

Residents of Brougham and the surrounding area have grown accustomed to living life day to day, eschewing the long-term planning residents in other areas might enjoy. Whether it’s home renovations, maintenance or agricultural infra-structure, residential and agricultural tenants are loathe to invest in their properties since they have no idea, and little say, in when they might be asked to leave.

Since the lands were expropriated for a new Toronto-area international airport in 1972, residents who stayed have been renting their homes from Transport Can-ada, while vacated homes were leased out with little regard for safe-keeping, includ-ing little to no tenant screening.

Residents who stayed complained of poor maintenance and upkeep by their new landlord, and several were shocked to receive eviction notices for issues that could be resolved through simple maintenance or repairs, such as black mould.

In 2006 Public Works Canada was relieved of landlord duties after a court tri-bunal examining tenant complaints found it failing, replacing it with a private land management agency. Although residents emphasize that things got better after the switch, homes have continued to deteriorate and many are boarded up once ten-ants move on, leaving them ripe for vandalism and arson, and prime candidates for demolition.

“Transport Canada must consider various factors in determining if residential properties are economically viable to re-tenant,” said James Kelly, media relations advisor for Transport Canada.

“These include an analysis between the rental rate of the property and the cost of ongoing maintenance. Transport Canada must also factor in the management of its financial resources to ensure it is in the best interest of the Canadian taxpayer.”

Transport Canada demolished 31 homes in 2011 and 11 homes have burned down since 2006. From April 2012 to March 2013, 56 homes were demolished, with two more planned for 2013 and close to 50 included on a list for future demolitions.

The planned demolitions would leave about 50 homes on the lands, out of 700 before expropriation.

“Demolition of vacant structures is the single most effective way to ensure that

Flights or Farms?

24

health, safety and liability risks are mitigated to protect individuals who venture into or near them, whether authorized or trespassing,” Mr. Kelly said.

“Vacant homes are otherwise decommissioned, boarded, patrolled by security, identified with no-trespassing signage, and driveway access restrictions are installed where appropriate.”

Throughout all the destruction, residents watched as the Mirabel airport, which was announced at the same time as Pickering, faltered and eventually closed.

When it opened in 1975, behind schedule and at double the budget, Mirabel was the largest airport ever envisioned, with a planned surface area of nearly 400 square kilometres and the capacity to serve 50 million passengers. It closed to pas-senger traffic in 2004.

Today the airport site houses a racetrack and some industry, including a Bom-bardier facility, while cargo and medical flights still operate. More than 81,000 acres of the 98,000 acres originally expropriated for Mirabel have been sold back to owners.

Montreal’s Dorval airport, meanwhile, was renamed the Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport, after the prime minister who championed Mirabel, and was expanded between 2000 and 2005, at a cost of more than $700 million, to accom-modate 20 million passengers.

Although no definitive plans for a Pickering airport have come forward since expropriation, the government recently renewed its commitment to a future avi-ation facility on the lands. On June 11, 2013 Finance Minister Jim Flaherty an-nounced that a parcel in the southwest corner of the lands would be preserved as an airport site.

The announcement made it clear that the idea of a Pickering airport remains viable at the government level, despite the failure of Mirabel.

Over the years the government has taken similar steps to preserve the lands for an airport.

In 2001 the government made a move to secure its right to put an airport on the Pickering land by declaring it an airport site under the Aeronautics Act. In 2004 the controversial Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations were passed, which imposed restrictions on landowners adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lands, including limiting the height of buildings, prohibiting electronic signal interference and prohibiting land use activities that attract birds.

That same year a report by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which runs

Flights or Farms?

25

Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, recommended a regional reliever airport be built on the lands, to be operational in 2012. The airport was proposed to cover about 18 hectares and host relocated aircraft from Hamilton, Buttonville, Oshawa, Markham and Toronto’s Island Airport. Residents voiced their displeasure with the idea and eventually it fell by the wayside.

For residents and farmers living with year-to-year leases on the lands, the wait for a resolution continues. These are their stories.

Flights or Farms?

26

8 The Tapscott FamilyFarming an uncertain future

After farming the north Pickering lands since 1955, the Tapscotts were dev-astated when their home and farm were lost to expropriation. Although they pur-chased land elsewhere, the family never truly left the community, staying on at the home as tenants and renting parcels of the fertile farmland back from the govern-ment.

“We had just finished putting the new shed up when we heard about the air-port and I thought, ‘well, there goes that.’ Little did I know we would still be here today,” said Margaret Tapscott.

The years of not knowing when they might be evicted to make way for an air-port haven’t always been easy.

“We’ve been ready to move about three times. I still don’t know, maybe we should have moved right away. But we were able to get a lot of land to rent, and as farmers that’s the one thing that kept us here.”

Although the Tapscotts were lucky to obtain farm leases, the expropriation changed the entire model of the family business. After expropriation made finding workers difficult, the family’s dairy operation was eventually transformed to crops.

“Back then Dad had dairy cows here. But after the airport was announced, he told the hired men he didn’t know what our plans were and if they got the chance of another job to take it. Then he couldn’t farm himself so he had to change oper-ations,” said Ms. Tapscott’s son Keith, who now helps his brother Ron on the family farm.

Although the family purchased land in Markham to replace the parcel lost to expropriation, the land couldn’t compare and they held on to as much Pickering land as possible.

“A lot of young farmers realized they needed more than 100 acres to make a living, so a lot of the young ones were happy to go, and a lot of the old ones were eager to retire. We were kind of right in the middle,” Ms. Tapscott said of the deci-sion.

Ron Tapscott now farms about 1,000 acres throughout the federal lands, and another 500 outside the boundaries. He says farmers have been fair stewards of the land, although some routine improvements, such as new outbuildings or tile drain-age systems, generally aren’t found on the lands.

Flights or Farms?

27

“I don’t think we’ve hurt the land, I think farmers are doing a better job of taking care of it and rotating crops. We’re out to make a living. Maybe at one time people thought they would only be here for a year but hopefully they realize an-other generation might be here so we would like to take care of the land. In the crop business you need at least 1,000 acres to make a living, land is a pretty valuable re-source.”

Dr. Charles Godfrey, chairman of People or Planes, in front a sign protesting the planned Pick-ering airport. (Supplied photo_

The short-term, year-to-year leases create a cloud of uncertainty that makes it difficult to run or grow a business.

“It’s hard to run a business, because how many businesses operate year to year?” said Keith Tapscott.

“All the buildings on the property are original, nothing new has been built because it’s not your land. There are questions we’ve never really approached, like if the airport comes tomorrow what would you do for a business? You can’t plan.”

It’s not just business that has suffered on the lands, according to the Tapscotts. The sense of community they enjoyed before expropriation has been lost.

“You look back at class pictures and see all your best friends are gone,” Keith

Flights or Farms?

28

continued.

“Over a couple of years after expropriation, the neighbourhood and the schools started to empty and our friends left. Now, 40 years on there’s not many people on the lands we knew then.”

“Our little community has disappeared,” Ms. Tapscott added.

Looking forward, the Tapscotts ideally would like to see the land given back to residents, but they know it might be impossible.

“It would be nice to own some of the land but we can’t afford it. It would be worth so much to buy back now I think the government would have a hard time figuring out how much,” Ron said. “I want the best of both worlds, I’d like to be able to buy a couple hundred acres back and lease the rest long-term.”

In the meantime, the main hope is that the lands will remain unpaved.

“Every time there’s an announcement, it makes you upset for a week or two, but nothing’s come of it yet. In the long run I think even greenland is better than an airport, but I’d like to see food grown on this land,” Ron said.

The uncertainty is a constant stress on the remaining residents of the land.

“It’s scary but we’ve been lucky, we’ve had our fingers crossed so many times,” Ms. Tapscott explained.

“It’s our own fault, we decided to stay here so you have to take the lumps as they come.”

“As the years go by sometimes you wish you had bought more land somewhere else,” Keith adds. “Other days you’re glad you stayed and wish you could buy it back, but there’s always the uncertainty.”

Flights or Farms?

29

9 Jim MillerLooking back

Jim Miller posed for a photo at his home on Thistle Ha’ Farm. The farm is a national historic site that was originally expropriated for the Pickering airport but the Miller family successfully fought to keep it. February 6, 2012. (Ryan Pfeiffer, Metroland)

Members of the Miller family had been living at Pickering’s Thistle Ha’ farm for more than 100 years when it was marked for expropriation in 1972.

Located on the edge of the airport lands, the house and barn were included in the expropriated parcel, with 60 acres of scrubland left to the Millers at the north end of the property.

Jim Miller, who was living and studying at the University of Toronto at the time, moved back to the family home at Thistle Ha’ in 2011.

“My parents’ reaction was mixed. It was a big shock to them because the family had been here for generations and to lose all this was something that wasn’t on their radar. Things changed day-to-day because they were seriously looking at moving and buying another farm, which a lot of people were forced to do.”

Flights or Farms?

30

In the end it was Mr. Miller’s mother who made the decision, after compar-ing the price they would get to what it would cost to start a new farm somewhere else. Given that the Millers were then in their 60s, and Thistle Ha’ was right on the edge of the airport boundary, they decided to take their chances and try to save the property. In 1976 a court ruled in their favour, allowing the Millers to reclaim their home.

“We were lucky, but you put your life on hold somewhat when you’re in a court case for your livelihood. There was still a farm to run and business to oper-ate and that was probably what kept everyone sane. Nonetheless for that time they didn’t know if they had a future or not. You had to look forward but some days were pretty hard.”

The home was later designated as a national historic site, protecting it from de-velopers and future urban sprawl in perpetuity.

Upon moving back to the area, Mr. Miller found a drastically different com-munity than the one he left in his youth.

“The gradual disintegration of the social fabric is obvious. Community organ-izations, women’s groups, lodges, all that community activity gradually disintegrat-ed as people were forced to move away. That fabric becomes so fragile and eventu-ally it’s lost. Coming back there’s still a few people from way back in my youth, but the community has obviously changed.”

Mr. Miller sees that emptiness reflected in the physical appearance of the lands.

“You can see the difference in the neighbourhood. If you head east into Whit-by the farms look well-kept and prosperous, but as you go west, there are slum con-ditions. As renters there’s only so much you can do to keep up the property; some people have done a lot on their own, but some of the homes have really deterior-ated.”

With the federal lands still in limbo, any revival of the area is virtually impos-sible.

“Finding local businesses to support farms is a major challenge. One challenge I face is no repair shop for farming equipment. There are not enough businesses left, and farmers who rent the land are often absentee and live in other commun-ities.”

Now a member of Land Over Landings, Mr. Miller supports the idea of turn-ing the land into an agricultural trust, noting any attempts to sell the land back to

Flights or Farms?

31

owners could be quite complicated.

“To undo what they’ve done under the expropriation law would be difficult. You can’t give the land back because somebody would be out money, either the farmers who can’t afford it or the people of Canada who have accrued a lot of profit just to have it sold at a discount to farmers. The only thing that makes sense to me is some kind of agricultural trust, that’s about the only way you can get out of this mess.”

The idea of preserving the land for agriculture in perpetuity is one that appeals to Mr. Miller especially, as he learned his own love and respect for the land from his father, who died in 2000.

“Later in life people used to wonder at their rationale for staying here, but Dad always talked about stewardship in the biblical sense of looking after something that belonged to someone else. The land and the sea are resources that can be used and stewarded so they’re maintained and kept productive for future generations. Most people don’t understand, they think you’re nuts, but there was always a notion of ‘am I better steward of this land than the federal government?’ And in my Dad’s mind, the answer was obvious.”

Flights or Farms?

32

10 Mary DelaneyHome sweet home

When Mary Delaney moved into her house on Hwy. 7 in 1980, it wasn’t exact-ly much of a home.

“The house should have been condemned. The former tenant had hacksawed through the plumbing so we were basically camping out in our own home.”

Although they were renting from the owner, Ms. Delaney and her husband had no idea he was negotiating the expropriation of the home at the same time. So it was a rude awakening when two men in suits showed up on her doorstep wanting to know what she was doing there.

“I thought they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. We were just in the process of mak-ing it barely livable, we had no idea any of that was going on.”

After negotiation to stay in the house, they continued their work, clearing the land outside and repairing the damage inside. Eventually the property became a home, with working plumbing and electricity, surrounded by trees and gardens.

“We’ve cherished this land and property and the house. For most of our 32 years here we did the repairs and the maintenance ourselves to make sure it was kept in good condition.”

Over the years the couple became more involved with the airport issue. They’ve gone from being virtually unaware when they moved to the area to their current status as active members of Land Over Landings, fighting to save the land from future development of any kind.

“When we first arrived the airport was stopped, mothballed, there wasn’t a lot going on here. But there were always rumours. At first you would go up and down with them and get really emotional, but people who had been here for longer would always say ‘oh, don’t worry about it.’”

While the airport spectre seemed far off at that time, there were other issues going on closer to home. Tenants had long complained of a lack of proper home maintenance, but in 2005 residents’ ire skyrocketed when neighbours began receiv-ing eviction notices for homes that could easily be repaired.

“Public Works didn’t do anything for years and years, and then they tried to just kick people out. No landlord in Canada would be allowed to get away with that.”

Flights or Farms?

33

And indeed, Public Works was replaced by private land management agency SNC-Lavalin in 2006 after a court tribunal examining residents’ complaints found the government failing in its duties as a landlord. But the damage, by both land-lords and tenants, was done.

“For awhile it became a rural slum. You had people living in fine houses who weren’t sure how long they were staying and didn’t care about the house. SNC-Lavalin is really good, they actually behave as landlords should. So we’ve won that battle in the sense that people who are in houses are able to maintain them.”

But the victory was short-lived for area residents, who had to watch as vacant buildings were torn down or torched. Since 2006, 11 homes on the lands have been lost to fires.

“We lost certain battles. The communities are gone, but the land is still here, and that’s the fight going forward. We’ve lost so many heritage structures and that’s a crime and a sin against the future because you can’t get that back. But we have to shake it off, we can’t allow ourselves the luxury of giving up because the land is still here and it needs to be protected.”

A new policy by Transport Canada that allows only commercial tenants in vacant properties on the lands hits close to home for Ms. Delaney, who says she was considering moving to a smaller home but is reluctant to leave, knowing the house won’t be made available to another family.

“Something many of us live with is the attachment to a home like this and the sense of responsibility to other generations. I feel the history in these walls and in ways the past is more real to me than the future. It’s very emotional for everyone in our family, it’s hard to talk or even conceive of this house being boarded up.”

Despite the battles lost, Ms. Delaney is confident that residents can win the war, and she remains committed to saving the lands. When asked what the con-struction of an airport would mean for the area, she can’t even entertain the possi-bility.

“I’m the wrong person to ask because I simply cannot envision that. What I see is something akin to what used to be on the land, small acreages for agricultural production and long-term leases for farmers. Everybody’s got to eat no matter who you are or what your beliefs are. We all have to breathe this air and drink this water and eat, that’s what saving this land is all about and we can’t lose sight of that.”

Flights or Farms?

34

Land Over Landings organised an event March 2, 2012 marking the 40th anniversary of the expropriation of the airport lands. The event took place at the Brougham Community Hall and included a walk down Brock Road to Bentley House. (Ryan Pfeiffer, Metroland)

Flights or Farms?

35

11 Pat ValentineDying for an airport

When Pat Valentine moved to Claremont in 2007, she was looking forward to a quiet retirement in the country. But as she drove the lands surrounding the idyllic rural community she was shocked to find dilapidated century homes and blocked-off roads, and immediately wanted to learn more.

“I couldn’t believe what I was seeing, just dilapidation, junk and destruction. It took my breath away. I thought ‘is this Canada?’”

When she looked into the matter, Ms. Valentine discovered Land Over Land-ings, and got a crash course in the history of the Pickering airport proposal and the federal lands.

“I had heard about it in the 1970s but I never thought about it again, I thought it was done. I come out here to retire and suddenly there’s this terrible thing going on right on the doorstep of Claremont. I couldn’t sleep for nights, I was so upset.”

In an effort to preserve the memory of the homes she saw falling into dis-repair, Ms. Valentine began documenting them with her camera, an undertaking that eventually transformed into her book, Dying for an Airport.

“I wanted to take these photos of the lands before they go, but once I started telling the story I couldn’t stop. These houses had no hope of a future. Brougham was particularly bad because all the houses are side by side with eavestroughs hang-ing off and in disrepair. I couldn’t help but think of the people who had lived there, side by side.”

The book, which was published just before the 40th anniversary of the expro-priation in March 2012, juxtaposes photos of the homes in their current state with historical photos of the homes when they were occupied.

“The pictures on their own are depressing enough but I felt I had to explain this. With the 40th anniversary we were looking for things to do to raise attention and a book seemed like a natural fit. We’re trying to get the word out that this has been going on for a long time, it’s been shockingly unfair and awful for many of the families and there’s no end to it.”

Comparing the situation to Mirabel, Ms. Valentine says she believes the land should be returned to the community.

“With Mirabel the majority of lands expropriated have been returned, com-

Flights or Farms?

36

pared with here where nothing has been done, nothing has been built, it’s just been put in limbo. That’s what struck me the most when I came was this sense of limbo. There’s always an undercurrent, some report or study or something going on. It’s like an airport by stealth because they’re emptying out the lands.”

Ms. Valentine is an avid supporter of Land over Landings in its fight to have the lands converted to a land trust for agricultural use.

“I’d like to see what was here before. I know it can’t be turned back but there’s a lot of land there, good, important land that can be used to produce food and re-generate the community. We are sitting on a priceless treasure here, we need to treat it with the respect it deserves and an airport doesn’t fit that bill.”

Pat Valentine wrote a book about the airport lands that details the degradation of homes over the past 40 years. February 22, 2012 (Jason Liebregts, Metroland)

Flights or Farms?

37

12 The wait continues2013 and beyond

Visitors to north Pickering could be forgiven for thinking they had driven back in time.

The lands, filled with rural farmscapes and quaint century homes, remain vir-tually unchanged from the day they were expropriated for a planned international airport more than 40 years ago.

“Where else can you drive where nothing has changed?” asked Margaret Tap-scott, whose family remained in their home near Brougham after expropriation. “Buildings get knocked down but nothing has changed compared to places like Markham -- they’re unrecognizable from 40 years ago.”

Residents who stayed on the lands have been living year to year, waiting for a final decision on the lands from the government.

Many of them are advocating for the lands to be preserved in perpetuity as an agricultural trust, given the scarcity of similar class 1 farmland in Ontario, which signifies soil rich enough to present no constraints to crop production.

According to the Ontario Farmland Trust, only 0.5 per cent of Canada’s land area is class 1, with 50 per cent of that located in southern Ontario. Over the past 30 years, more than two million acres of Ontario farmland has been lost to non-farm development such as urban expansion and mineral aggregate extraction, with more than 100 acres, or one farm, continuing to be lost daily.

In the GTA alone, more than 2,000 farms and 150,000 acres of farmland were lost to production between 1976 and 1996, making the federal lands a unique op-portunity.

“We have a really unique scenario here where we have land that’s been held by the government for so many years without any of the development pressure you see in other parts of the GTA,” said Matt Setzkorn, policy co-ordinator for the OFT. “Removing that pressure creates a really unique opportunity with a large amount of land so close to an urban area. It’s really exciting.”

A non-profit organization based at the University of Guelph, OFT works to protect and preserve farmland by working directly with landowners who want to see their farms permanently protected for agricultural use.

Residents of the federal lands would like to see a trust established, with farm-

Flights or Farms?

38

ers granted long-term leases to work the land within its boundaries. A similar model is being proposed for agricultural lands located within the boundaries of the nearby Rouge National Urban Park, something the OFT supports.

“Month-to-month leases don’t allow farmers any security in their land, they can’t make investments such as tile drainage or other infrastructure components,” Mr. Setzkorn said.

“The long-term leasing idea really hasn’t been done before in Ontario. We see that as really exciting because it’s not only protecting a significant amount of land but also supporting the farmers and investing in relationships that will allow farm-ing to exist alongside the protection of natural areas,” he continued.

“It seems the reality of the federal lands would be that not necessarily the en-tire site would be needed for an airport, and that’s very valuable agricultural land. We think a lot can be learned from the national park model and potentially long-term leasing could be applied in other areas as well.”

The idea of an agricultural trust has yet to catch on at the government level. In July 2011, Transport Canada released a new Needs Assessment Study that called for an airport to be built on the lands by as early as 2027.

The study, which was launched in 2007 and completed in March 2010, con-cluded that aviation constraints based on increasing commercial passenger traffic would necessitate additional aviation capacity in the GTA by 2027, with Pickering declared a “prime location” for a new airport.

The study also considered the possibility of increased capacity at Toronto Pear-son International Airport, and Hamilton and Waterloo airports. With increased or “enhanced” capacity at all airports and “pessimistic” commercial passenger growth, it said the need for a new airport could be pushed back as far as 2041.

“Even though an additional airport will not be needed within the Greater Golden Horseshoe before 2027 at the earliest, the study concludes that the Picker-ing lands should be kept and protected for future aviation needs,” reads a summary of the study.

“This is based on a number of factors such as the site size, proximity to a large potential market, accessibility to Highways 401 and 407 and a relatively low popula-tion in the immediate vicinity of the lands. The study also notes that it is inconceiv-able that a large parcel of land comparable in size to the Pickering Lands could be amassed again in the future.”

Government officials go back and forth on the best use for the lands, but all

Flights or Farms?

39

agree a decision is needed.

“Our government’s commitment is to resolve that uncertainty and return the land to uses everyone knows,” said Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander. “Economic development will be part of that, and some people will still want an airport, but other uses deserve to be considered.”

Chris Alexander, a Member of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering, posed for a photo at Bentley House at the corner of Highway 7 and Brock Road February 25. February 25, 2012. (Ryan Pfeiffer/Metroland)

The lands have long posed a unique challenge to the City of Pickering, which finds itself unable to plan within its own borders.

“It’s been an awful long time that the City of Pickering has been left with a big question mark on what is the actual geographic centre of our city,” Pickering Mayor David Ryan explained, noting both the federal lands and nearby Seaton lands, ex-propriated simultaneously by the provincial government for a satellite city, remain out of the municipality’s control.

“The expropriation left us with a 40-year legacy of uncertainty and an inabil-ity to plan a total community because up to 70 per cent of our municipality is con-trolled by other governments,” he continued. “We’ve lost much of our cultural herit-age and we’ve lost the social and economic benefit of Brougham, which has been subjected to more than 40 years of benign neglect.”

Flights or Farms?

40

While he admits an airport would bring tangible economic benefits, Mayor Ryan says he would also like to see some form of agriculture continue on the lands.

“We need to ensure the lands around an airport would be used to the best advantage of the municipality,” he said, noting greenhouse technology could be used to intensify agriculture and provide a longer growing season while potentially stimulating agri-industry such as food processing.

“An airport is probably the single largest economic driver no matter where it resides, but we also know there’s more land there than would ever be required for an airport,” he continued.

“The economic benefits of an airport are obvious, but we need to be part of the process. We need a plan made in conjunction with the City of Pickering, not im-posed on us.”

The 18,600 acres expropriated for the airport far exceed the 4,500 acres that currently house Pearson airport. Some of the land has already been designated Greenbelt, and 5,000 acres were recently preserved as part of the new Rouge Na-tional Urban Park.

“Our plan is to propose a way of using the land that would include both eco-nomic development and environmental uses,” Mr. Alexander said.

“These lands will play a role in the transportation infrastructure of Picker-ing and Durham Region, there’s no question,” he said, noting other uses such as trails, agriculture and recreation also have to be considered, as well as an airport, although what type of airport, or how large, remains to be seen.

“No one has yet made a business case for a major, large international airport in Toronto, to me anyway,” Mr. Alexander continued, noting the financial crisis changed the trajectory of the aviation industry by stalling and in some cases revers-ing the growth of passenger rates.

“We already have a very large, modern airport at Pearson, in which we’ve in-vested a lot of money recently, so we have to be conscious of the existing infrastruc-ture.”

Residents and officials are still awaiting a land use and management strategy that was due to be released in the spring of 2012, and which should provide more details on a possible airport or other uses for the lands.

“Transport Canada is developing a land use and management strategy with respect to the Pickering lands that will consider all options for potential uses of the land and its long-term management,” said James Kelly, media relations advisor for

Flights or Farms?

41

Transport Canada, on the 40th anniversary of expropriation.

“This will focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of future land use decisions as well as property management while exercising fiscal restraint. The first step in this process will be to define the footprint for a potential future airport at the Pick-ering lands.”

Currently there is no firm estimate for when the report may be available, leav-ing the fate of the lands once again up in the air.

“The consultations have been quite intense over recent months so I hope it will be available soon,” Mr. Alexander said.

“I think we need to focus on the here and now and how to use those lands for our community in economic terms and environmental terms, and if we do that the future will take care of itself.”

Flights or Farms?

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all of the residents of Pickering’s federal lands who shared their time and stories with me for this e-book, graciously reliving a difficult time in their lives.

Special thanks to Mary Delaney, Gabrielle Untermann and Pat Valentine, of Land Over Landings, for their quick assistance with names, phone numbers, dates and historical photos whenever needed. And thank you to all members for allowing me to sit in on meetings and observe them at work.

Also a big thank you to Becky George, historian at the Pickering Public Li-brary, for all of her help tracking down documents, reports and photos relating to the airport saga over the years.

-- Moya Dillon

Flights or Farms?

43

About the author

Moya Dillon is the Pickering municipal reporter for Metroland Media Group Ltd.’s Durham Region Division, covering news, events and social issues within the com-munity.

Her previous work covering the 40th anniversary of the expropriation of the Pick-ering federal lands, Pickering recalls ‘devastating’ news of 40 years ago, earned her a Best Feature Series third-place award by the Local Media Association.

She grew up in Durham Region and lives in Bowmanville with her husband.

Flights or Farms?

Copyright Notice

© Metroland Media Group Ltd.

Durham Region division.

All rights reserved

865 Farewell St.,

Oshawa, ON

L1H 6N8

Publisher: Tim Whittaker

Editor-in-Chief: Joanne Burghardt

Managing Editor: Mike Johnston

Author: Moya Dillon

Photographers: Sabrina Byrnes, Jason Liebregts, Ryan Pfeiffer

Flights or Farms? Pickering’s Big Question Mark

ISBN:

ePub 978-1-927696-17-0

Mobi 978-1-927696-19-4

PDF 978-1-927696-17-0

Look for future e-reports at durhamregion.com