Is Canada a unified nation or a collection of isolated cities and provinces? This is the significant question that Canada’s House of Commons recently addressed. Their response was to pass Bill C-5 with the support of the major parties, aimed at constructing new national infrastructure to facilitate free trade, labour mobility, and economic independence. However, the effectiveness of this initiative remains uncertain, as does its impact on the Greater Toronto Area’s (GTA) need for new aviation infrastructure.
The objective of Bill C5, “The One Canadian Economy Act”, is to harness the economic potential of our nation. This initiative aims to foster a prosperous, resilient, and self-reliant Canadian economy. It seeks to safeguard our peaceful nation from any attempts at economic coercion by foreign entities, including other countries, presidents, or tyrants. The question remains:
Can we unify Canada into a single national economy with a significant global presence?
IATA statistics indicate that a third of global trade by value is currently transported by air, and air travel is expected to double by 2050. Independent studies highlight that Canada requires new airport infrastructure to manage this growth. The GTA is particularly at risk, relying solely on Toronto Pearson as the only major passenger jet airport. Other regional airports face expansion limitations due to deliberately planned urban encroachment or are too distant. These challenges underscore Canada’s infrastructure planning and governance issues. While the GTA needs new aviation infrastructure, its construction remains uncertain.
Can we build a national airport infrastructure for the 2nd largest country in the world, or will we remain reliant on American airport hubs for economic prosperity?
One of the better analyses of Canada’s governance problem that I have come across in recent months was this analysis from John Michael McGrath at TVO on both the federal Bill C-5 and its provincial twin. He describes the bureaucratic nightmare created to support local over national interests. McGrath diagnosed the problem as a newly onerous systems of regulation and consultation that make itself, and self-inviting local interest groups, the point. This enables a hijacking of national goals and public assets. It creates a dramatic slowdown in any approvals process that scares away private investment. It enables the grafting of national assets by local business interests, invites corruption and amplifies opposition to the project as somehow more important than the project itself.
Bill C-5 can help overcome the obstructions and attempts to cancel the Pickering Airport project. This project highlights Canada’s economic and governance challenges.
The opposition to Pickering airport culminated in a promise, made just before the last federal election by then Minister of Transport Anita Anand, to cancel the airport project. So far, this promise remains unfulfilled, as no bill has been introduced in parliament to revoke the federal zoning for the airport or reimburse the region of Durham the $100 million already invested. While the PASZR (Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations) remains in effect, the threat of cancellation is sufficient to deter investor interest. It is expected that housing developers will be interested in the billions of federal land assets originally designated for the new airport.
By all measures, constructing a new airport for Toronto in Pickering is a sensible decision. It is a shovel-ready project that fulfills the criteria established by the federal government for nation-building projects. The new airport can be quickly built thanks to years of planning. The land has been allocated, zoning approvals are in place, and the project can be developed with private funding. Alternatively, airport projects such as Pickering meet the inclusion criteria as counting towards Canada’s new 5% GDP defence spending goal.
The new airport and the associated Airport Economic Zone (AEZ) will create a new economic engine driving local growth for future generations. It will generate 60,000 permanent jobs, 16,000 directly at the airport the rest in the manufacturing and services sector. It will create $12 billion in economic activity annually and hundreds of millions in new tax revenue. Plus, the thousands of work years of construction needed to build the airport will employ thousands.
The airport will establish new connections to national and global trade networks, reducing our current reliance on major US hubs. Furthermore, it will facilitate the development of low-emission logistics technologies such as cargo drones and new zero-emission fuels, including all-electric aviation.
And yet during the last election, local politicians and a member of the current liberal cabinet unexpectedly promised to cancel it. It was an announcement full of political theatre but short on “what now” details. An event with only local opposition and business groups set to profit from the cancellation got invited. No prior notice was given to the volunteers at the Friends of Pickering Airport or other interests in the aviation community. No explanation was given on how or where the missing aviation capacity would now be built if Pickering Airport is cancelled.
This announcement took place despite every independent report commissioned by Transport Canada in the last 20 years stating that new airport capacity is needed in the GTA. The last, called the ASA (Aviation Sector Analysis) report, stated that Pickering Airport could only be postponed until 2036 if new capacity were added at existing airports over and above current plans. That substantial “new” ASA-recommended capacity at Hamilton and Waterloo is not in those airports’ plans – It is not happening! A freedom of information request uncovered that a follow-up report was mysteriously cancelled without explanation.
Is the land needed for something more important than our future prosperity? We have only vague statements that some of the land will be added to an already existing national park. In 2016, an independent advisor hired by Transport Canada (Gary Polonsky’s Jets and Jobs report) stated that both can be achieved. That the vision of the Rouge National Park and the economic development created by the new airport could both be realized, thanks to the considerable size of the parcel of land the feds initially acquired.
The politicking around Pickering Airport is a failure in governance, but will Bill C-5 fix the issues? The idea that consensus must be achieved is at the heart of this blocked development. There will always be strong opposition from business and local groups to any major project. Existing competing business interests at other airports are incentivized to oppose new infrastructure investments to maximize their own profits. Local homeowner groups can always be counted on to oppose development. Promoting bureaucratic and procedural bloat is a way for these interests to discourage new investment.
In the case of national projects, the opposition to a project can often be instigated and funded from hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away. In the case of Pickering Airport, opposition can be found in Montreal (home to a booming aviation manufacturing sector), New York State, and even Calgary. Why? Because they want to see the new manufacturing and service jobs created in their hometown, not in Ontario. The inefficiencies, congestion, extra emissions, and costs resulting from the lack of airport capacity in Ontario are not their problem.
This “me first” provincial attitude can be found across Canada in every industry from energy to aviation. A parochial provincial attitude that will undermine any national economic strategy from a federal government, especially one lacking vision. As of this moment, Canada does not even have a national airport strategy. A national vision that only the federal government and the federal Minister of Transport can provide.
The Toronto area’s rapid growth has swallowed airports that were once part of a national vision. Soaring land values have led to the redevelopment of Downsview and Buttonville airports in recent years. No federal guidance has been given on replacing this capacity. Local city councils’ planning efforts have also limited the potential of remaining airports like Oshawa and Kitchener/Waterloo. The increase in aviation traffic at these airports as well as at Pearson airport could now impact the quality of life for many residents. 
Figure 3: A view of the city of Oshawa in the Durham region, just east of Toronto. Oshawa airport is in the upper right, surrounded by homes. Photo by Mark Brooks, May 2025.
Pickering Airport is intended to reduce noise issues at existing airport as well as replace the capacity lost with the closing of Buttonville and Downsview. It will reduce peak time congestion at Pearson airport and provide room for future growth. Without new aviation capacity, economic growth across the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) will be stunted.
NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) is another serious challenge to Canada’s economic future. To some, transforming our economy must mean powering down, not powering up. Many older Canadians wish to protect their existing wealth and lifestyles even at the expense of future abundance for a younger generation. They seek a path of managed decline, not economic growth. A future that has no place for new airports or other nation-building infrastructure.
Can Bill C5 put Canada back on a path of economic prosperity and growth? How can the new federal government and the newly elected Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, handle these issues? Will Canada return to its roots as a nation of economic growth and prosperity for all? One nation linked by air, road, pipeline and rail transportation infrastructure. Or will the tyranny of logistics win the day, leaving the existence of Canada to the mercy of Trump style threats? Bill C-5 has set the stage; it is time to build Pickering Airport.
Related posts:
Southern Ontario Airport Capacity Study has Vanished! – Friends of Pickering Airport
New Canadian Airport Strategy can Beat Trump Tariffs – Friends of Pickering Airport
The Goals and tactics of NIMBYism – Friends of Pickering Airport
References:
Joint ACI World-ICAO Passenger Traffic Report, Trends, and Outlook | ACI World
Interesting.
Great photo, lots of open space to the north of the airport. Eh?
Re Pickering airport dream.. and private enterprise..and Gary Polonsky..
To quote..love that turn of phrase..
“Don’t think, that if you build it they will come, they won’t.”
The false..
Pickering is and was a Bs conservative gov. boondoggle.
Any good con has elements of truth.
The truth…
National airport policy/ system is a failure… for all the reasons you give. Good work.
GTAA is your best example. The pigs have inherited the farm, and they don’t know from the north end of a southbound cow.
Oshawa airport is another good example..the pigs were gifted. Dapper Dan and co…talk about dopes.
Transport Canada is even worse and totally corrupted & demoralized from what I hear.
Aviation must be run by those who aviat.
Rumour.
Debora Flint is applying for coach and GM of the Leafs.
Excellent objective report. Pickering airport equates to prosperity, Canadian’s deserve this after 10 years of zero growth. Another fundamental, the Carney government has run out of revenue growth. New taxes seem to be the only Liberal solution. Digital tax is now cancelled, Capital gains tax on unrealized gains is still in mix (investment, residential housing). Could airport expansion be an answer to new revenue?
Liberals building anything is an oxymoron. Climate change ideology is their religion, which demands the exact opposite of building – heck, green Jesus Steven Gaudreault even proclaimed no new roads shall be built (let alone airports).