The proposed jet expansion at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport would fundamentally conflict with Toronto's waterfront revitalization goals, as the expansion would require a 900-meter runway extension (taller than the Burj Khalifa), massive blast walls, and lower flight paths that would significantly impact housing development in the Portlands, reduce water circulation in the inner harbor, and potentially displace communities. The airport's primary market (Ottawa-Montreal corridor) is already being threatened by the Alto high-speed rail project, making the expansion economically questionable. The federal government has the authority to intervene, and public opinion shifts when people understand the full consequences beyond the initial appeal of weekend flights.
2026-05-06 Josh Matlow and Mark Wilson - Parks and Housing or Jets?Added:
Welcome. Welcome to our 23rd speaker series. We are we're pleased to welcome councelor Josh Matlo and Mark Wilson, former chair of Waterfront Toronto. We will also have some additional speakers from the Waterfront for All family. Move to our land acknowledgement.
We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional territory of many nations including the Missosagas of the Credit, the Anashabag, the Chipoa, the Haron and the Wendat peoples and it is we are now home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Miy people. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by treaty 13 with the Mi Missagas of the Credit First Nation and we are grateful for the stewardship of all our indigenous people.
Okay. So before I I once again I just like to do a call out. If your mic is on, please um silence it. Thank you so much. And it's my pleasure to welcome this evening uh for the first time to a waterfront for all event um our uh special guest councelor Josh Malow.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh thank you very much Edward and uh it is an absolute pleasure to to join all of you and uh a pleasure to join this very esteemed panel. Um, and I'm really grateful uh for all of you uh participating in uh both being engaged in this discussion but uh even more importantly moving that engagement toward activism um and fighting back and fighting for our waterfront, fighting for the autonomy of our city. Uh and most importantly together, not just fighting against something, meaning not just fighting against Doug Ford and his decree unilaterally of what he wants to do with our waterfront, but together fighting for a vision for our city's waterfront that has been decades in the making of thoughtful evidence-based processes of many people, including experts in communities. is working together to revitalize our waterfront with new parks uh and livable communities.
That should be our goal, I would submit to you all. Now, you know as well as I do that we live in a world where Toronto is not yet a city charter city, which many of us are advocating for.
But well, thank you, Mark. But until that day, while we still are the creature of our provincial government, we uh continue to wake up every day wondering uh what Doug Ford is going to do next. And um while there were certainly uh there's been a pattern of meddling in the city of Toronto since Doug Ford was elected 8 years ago. um what he has announced now by removing the city of Toronto from the tripartite agreement uh governing the island airport at Billy Bishop and moving forward with the legislation to expropriate to grab our city's land on the Toronto Islands and in the Bathski neighborhood including Little Norway Park is without a doubt an unprecedented attack on Toronto.
We've never experienced this before.
And while Doug Ford and Minister Sarcaria is trying to reassure the media that Little Norway Park will remain, they have not said exactly what percentage will remain.
I was just playing softball with a group uh at the downtown softball league uh last Sunday and very well we could lose the baseball diamond. We could lose the playground closest to the water. Uh, who knows what it'll be. Will it be a road?
Will it be a parking lot? Certainly, if you're expecting millions of more passengers to Billy Bishop, there will have to be a way to accommodate transportation getting there and then being there.
So, what's the plan? Well, Doug Ford has made an announcement that he wants to increase uh the use of Billy Bishop. He wants to expand the runway. Uh he wants to have longhaul flights and he wants to introduce jets.
What he has not done is actually proposed any plan that any one has been able to review, at least not that we're aware of.
There are no answers yet in the public realm as to exactly how long the runway will be. Although the port authority itself has suggested that it would be an extension of another 900 m, which as I wrote the other day uh would be uh in in length the same it would be in height uh uh uh taller than the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the entire world in Dubai.
We still don't know what the plans will be for the giant blast wall that would have to be built. We don't know if there's a transportation plan, as I was alluding to earlier, to accommodate all the new cars and traffic on Lakeshore, which already is congested and difficult to deal with. We do not know exactly what the impact will be on the province and federal government's housing targets along the waterfront and in particular in the Portlands, but we do know that it will be sizable literally meaning that there will be an impact because they will have to NAVCAN will prescribe that the that the flight path will have to be lower for this for safety for the jets.
It will impact the number of units massively that can be built in the new Aquaman mining neighborhood um in the Portland's area and that will mean that will also most likely impact any scheme to provide as much affordable housing units as we would like to see as well.
dug forward by making a unilateral announcement, just pushing ahead with this this need to bring jets to the island airport has not given any thought or maybe he just doesn't care to the massive consequences for making such a consequential decision.
And so that's why when this was first announced, not only did the mayor and council act literally the day that it was formally announced, that the legislation was going to move forward uh to oppose uh what Doug Ford is doing, but also make it very clear that there needs to be a thoughtful process. This needs to be guided by facts.
Um I believe that our audience is not Doug Ford.
Doug Ford is uh acting hostile toward Toronto and the people of Toronto.
And I would add this should come as no surprise to anybody.
He's behaved the same way with respect to Ontario Place, the Science Center, road safety, planning, and so many other ways he's been hostile to the people of Toronto.
And as Doug Ford has said about Donald Trump, you can't roll over to bullies.
You need to fight back. And Doug Ford is no exception to that rule. So we have to fight back.
We have to push back hard and we have to take a very clear stand that this isn't about governments fighting or parties fighting or left-wing and right-wingers fighting or any of that. This is about having a waterfront for all. If you were to stand at the playground as I did just two days ago at Little Norway Park, you will see a small regional airport across the gap that a lot of people actually love. And some of you may, you know, not even want the airport there, but I must say a lot of people enjoy it because it's a small regional airport that's easy to deal with. They don't want a Pearson by the lake. They enjoy it because of what it is today.
And it lives in balance with a playground, a baseball diamond, a vibrant park, a beautiful neighborhood full of beautiful people, schools, a community center, and a community that's going to grow, and a community that wants to welcome more people and more affordable places to live. That's the balance. That's the equilibrium that we're trying to work toward.
Through Waterfront Toronto, there's been a many decade effort to bring new parks, more green spaces, more livable communities, and finding that balance.
In fact, Waterfront Toronto's mandate is to have no one use of our waterfront usurp or override or neglect any other purpose. It all needs to work together.
Doug Ford wants his runway to take over everything else, and that's not acceptable. It's not good public policy and it's not good for Toronto.
It's not even good for economic development. What a bunk argument. All the construction, all the all the all the work that can go into doing all this remarkable, you know, visionary work on our waterfront will be neglected and even broken if he gets his way. And there's other work being done, too. You know, we just announced this, I think, really exciting vision for exhibition place. And by the way, Doug Ford has also moved legislation that he can take exhibition place lands if he wants to.
So, we're keeping an eye on that. But there's a new vision for exhibition place to redevelop it into a 365 day a year uh event space that can be animated and exciting and bring people there more than just a couple weeks at the end of August.
There are so many things happening. Bad Asa Gay Park in the Portlands, the new neighborhood. What a world-class effort that new park is. It's it I've often complained that Toronto has sought the height of mediocrity when it comes to designing public space.
But that park is a worldclass park.
And tomorrow at planning committee, which I'm a member of, we're going to be discussing the new Aquaman Mining neighborhood with a beautiful pedestrianized street, great neighborhoods, great quality of life, and with more units to address the housing crisis that we're in to bring more supply and that can then pay for true affordable housing projects.
There is a plan that we need to fight for. A wellthoughtout, decadesl long, thoughtful, evidence-based plan that finally after so many decades is actually coming through to fruition.
We're seeing it come out of the ground.
It's exciting.
Unfortunately, it's not something that many Torononians really know about. Too many Torononians on the north side of the gardener are unaware sometimes that they even live along a lake. So we need to remind them of that and we need to engage them in this vision. We need to encourage them to bring forward their ideas with purpose, with intention, with excitement, and with an aspirational goal to make sure that our waterfront is a place for economic development, a place for housing, a place for parks, a place for boers, a place for kayakers, a place for swimmers, a place for walkers, and yes, a place that you can drive along lakes shore and not have crazy congestion the way the Doug Ford will create.
And most importantly, it's a place for people and a place for everyone.
So, who is our audience? It's not Doug Ford. It's not Minister Sarcaria, even though I did invite him to play softball with me the other day.
The idea is that if you saw how wonderful the park was, he might want to protect it.
Our audience is the federal government.
The federal government has the ability and the power to not only put a stop to this, but put a start to the vision that I described, the one that I believe all of you share.
And even though the province does have the constitutional ability to remove Toronto from the tripartite agreement, the federal government, Transport Canada, will still be there. And they have the ability, not only because of their role, but also because of their their their power, frankly, over the water and the air that and funding that will have to go into anything that moves forward. They have the ability to steer this in the right direction.
and land this plane safely.
We do know that Prime Minister Carney has already said that he's open to Doug Ford's vision, to paraphrase him.
And I do know that there are many members of the 416 Liberal Caucus that are enthusiastic about the idea of expanding the airport. Not all of them, though. It's an active discussion.
But I also believe that Prime Minister Carney is a grown-up and wants to behave like one. And I believe that if we can demonstrate enough evidence that even a vision that he might be open to may not be exactly the best uh deal around, he could come around.
The government of Canada has significant housing targets that they want to achieve to help be part of the solution with the affordability crisis. We need to demonstrate to them and that's why I moved a motion at council to collect evidence on exactly what the impact will be on those housing targets in the Portlands if the Jets plan moves forward. We need to demonstrate to the federal government that it actually conflicts with their interests and their priorities.
Prime Minister Carney has also said that he wants to build big, which I I support. I think it's exciting that we want to we want to put Canadians to work. We want to invest in the Canadian economy. We want to build big things and we've got wonderful big build big things to build. We we should be having the federal government invest in the Scar Bro East LRT, formerly the Egllington East LRT. We should continue investing in our waterfront plan into revitalizing institutions. I would submit even the old Ontario Science Center. There's wonderful projects that the federal government should be a partner in and be able to cut a ribbon for. And we need to make the case to the federal government that both politically and altruistically in the interests of the people of Toronto, Ontario, and Canada, in the interests of economic development, livability, housing affordability, and so much more that we should be supporting the regional airport that we have that can live in balance with the rest of the waterfront plan. And I know that that will be controversial amongst some of you because some of you may not want the airport at all. But that's not what the that's not what the public is open to today.
And I also believe that along with convincing the federal government, and I for one, and I know a few of you have been on the phone with with uh I won't go through the list because those are conversations that uh that that I that I honor and respect, but I but I'm on the phone talking to as many friends as possible in Ottawa.
But our other audience is of course the public. You know, polls have shown, and by the way, ironically, Doug Ford first announced this by saying that he was influenced by a poll without consulting with anybody on the ground. But polls have shown that it's it's it's it's a split. Uh some people support jets, some people don't. But if you dig into the polls and you ask people people the next question about the details, like if you just ask, hey, do you think it would be really cool to be able to fly to like Vienna for the weekend uh from uh downtown Toronto? That sounds cool. Why not? That sounds fun, you know? Hey, maybe take a quick beach vacation.
Sounds cool. Love it. But then if you ask them the next question, what if this impacts housing affordability? What if this increases congestion downtown? What if this has the most massive runway you can you could ever dream of or nightmare of covering up our lake? Uh what if this leads to displacement of people in the waterfront area, including the Toronto Islands? What if this actually screws up our waterfront? I think a lot of people then go, "Okay, well, may maybe that wasn't as wonderful as as advertised."
And frankly, most most of my conversations go that way. uh from people who initially are really excited about the idea and then go, "Oh, wait a sec. There's other things to think about. If only Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario, would actually think of the next thought, it would be helpful."
Because again, consequential decisions have serious consequences.
I'd also remind us that even the conven the convenience argument for a lot of people unless you actually live near Little Norway Park, it's actually not as easy to get to Billy Bishop airport for a lot of people who live in Midtown, the north part of the city, Scar Bro and beyond. Um, it's not as easy to get to Billy Bishop off and then hopping in a in a cab and getting over to Pearson on the 401 depending on the hour of the day or night or taking the UP Express.
In other words, the way that this has been advertised is a lot of false advertising.
It sounds exciting and cool until you consider the details.
And ultimately, and I'll conclude on this, I know that there's a lot of um and some of you may feel this way too, there's a lot of a feeling of of exasperation and defeatism uh amongst people who care about our city because uh Doug Ford keeps flooding the zone and like every day, sometimes several times a day, there's another announcement about something that's going to hurt people, whether it be impacting, you know, education, health care, uh rural communities um and Toronto.
Toronto seems to be a um there's there's a trending pattern of announcements about Toronto. He's he seems to have something uh something against Toronto.
I digress again, but there have been times when the public has stood up and pushed back that the Ford government has capitulated. the green belt he capitulated there are number of time the his own private jet he capitulated and I'll conclude by saying that if we push back fight back convince the public of a thoughtful and exciting vision for the waterfront talk about what's wrong with his plan that again it's not a plan it's an announcement but then sell and discuss the plan that we actually have I believe we're going to be successful and we're going to be successful because of your efforts and I'm proud to be part of you.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Josh. Much appreciated. Thank you.
It's a pleasure to have you here. Um, I'm now going to ask our next speaker.
Oh, sorry. I should say too, shouldn't I, that uh as a busy city councelor serving uh the people of Toronto and his constituents, um he may right have to dash off, but Josh has said he's going to hang around uh for as long as he can.
Um but he may have to leave. So, we're going to move to our >> I'm gonna jump I'm gonna jump in.
>> Oh, jump in. You want to ask a question?
>> If I may. Yeah. Thank you first of all very much, Josh, for your attention to this problem. I think you've kind of taken the lead on city council and uh I'm thrilled that you're doing it. Uh a couple of questions. I guess uh I'm I'm interested in your thoughts about what the city's role is and will continue to be. It would seem to me that uh regardless of the effects of the province to sort of kick the city out of it and say to sit down and shut up or whatever it is exactly that they're saying that the city has deep responsibilities in particular to sort of inquire as to the effects and you brought a motion of course as you mentioned uh with respect to the housing which passed in the planning committee. Um there was a sort of a companion motion I think which was by uh believe Paula Fletcher uh and Osmo Malik it had to do with transportation effects as well. Um and uh there are a lot of other areas that need to be looked into and all of these areas require a lot of expert scrutiny.
Uh there's just all kinds of things transportation, parking, there's the water quality which might be affected by the drift. There's just all kinds of stuff. Uh it's not simple. Uh it requires expert input all of it. And the city I would submit has to play a very important factf finding role and has to advise council and council in the end has to take a position. And it would seem to me that in the end the federal government can either sort of adopt city the city council's position or they could say we're overruling it. The second thing seems kind of unlikely to me. Anyway, I just sort of wanted to get your thoughts on what it is, what what are the responsibilities of the city right now in the situation that we're in on this.
>> Oh, you have to you're you're you have to unmute yourself.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I wasn't I wasn't able to do it until you gave me permission. So, >> okay.
>> Yeah. Thank you. See, whether it be the province or you, we can't do it on our own.
>> Sorry about that. It's in section 92. I know it is.
>> That's right.
Um yeah, no happy to answer that. So I mean I believe um and you know I I mentioned the science center, I mentioned I mentioned Ontario Place um uh as well and uh you know I moved a motion for the city of Toronto to intervene in the Supreme Court hearing regarding Ontario Place to support the Ontario Place protectors. Uh, and I've been working with uh with with uh with activists and residents uh and architects on the sign center uh because I believe the city of Toronto um has a moral uh and and frankly just integral role in advocating for our city. That's the point. That's why we're there. Uh that's why we're elected. Um that's what we promised to do or some of us did. And uh and I also believe that when citizens are willing to take a stand then city hall should have their back um actively uh with all the resources that we can bring to bear. So um so I just say that it's a principled statement that we have a responsibility regardless of what the province does to continue fighting. Um I as I mentioned earlier um I do believe that our audience is both the prime minister and the foreman six caucus along with uh the public and that's why uh we need to make the case. Uh the premier has just said it'll be awesome and wonderful and let's do this but he has not actually presented a formal plan as to what this looks like and what the impacts will be etc. So that's why while we are and I know I see Paul Bedford there and uh people like Ken Greenberg and others these you know great Torononians uh are you know all we're all working together on bringing forward visions so that we are not just fighting something but we're bringing something forward which is critical um be propositional rather than just oppositional. Uh I also think that we need to the best way to combat it is not just with anger but with facts and that's why I have been moving motions along with some of my colleagues to uh use the city resources and our staff to our great professional staff to to show like this this is what will happen if you do A this is what will happen if you do B. uh demonstrate to the prime minister, demonstrate to the reasonable, thoughtful public that that even if you like the idea again of a longhaul flight from the island, this is the consequence. This is the price to pay, are you willing to pay that? And many people once they see the facts will will will reconsider perhaps their their initial uh excitement. Uh and that's been that's certainly what I've been experiencing. Um I also believe that part of the ask of the federal government and I have been and I want to you know acknowledge uh the 416 Liberals while you know there is criticism of them that they haven't taken like an unequivocal stand uh yet um what I've read from them and I want to you know I want to take this at face value that they respect uh uh that Toronto needs to still play a role at the table. So even though yes, they can't tell Doug Ford what Doug Ford is going to do, as long as they're still a player, what I'm asking them to do is still ensure that Toronto is treated as a partner, not just a stakeholder, but as a partner through this discussion, even if it's a bilateral conversation with the federal government if the province doesn't want to uh take part in that directly with us. Um because uh the government has been saying consistently that they respect cities and so let's take them at their word. If they respect cities then let's continue that respectful relationship. That's the way it should.
That's what people want out of government. They want people they want governments to be respectful and work as partners. So until the answer is no, let's work toward yes. Um and then ultimately um as wherever we find points of leverage uh whether it be whether it be the courts whether it be um you know any of the studies or assessments that will have to come forward and by the way just to give you something that I've heard from the feds they don't expect this to be a quick process they expect this to be a long discussion so we also have time to collect a lot of that data a lot of those facts and I expect that wherever we just have a have a place where we can play a role, whether it be a court, whether it be at the table with the feds, whether it be engaging the public about a a vision that they should get behind. That's our role.
>> I I just thought I'd thank you for that.
I just thought I'd say one more thing. I have the book here. I have Ken's uh book. Maybe it doesn't show up uh very well on thing, but it's Saving Toronto, edited by Ken Greenberg. Ken, if you're here, it's fantastic. Uh I love it. Anna and Anne Golden Josh has written a chapter making local government work which I strongly recommend uh and I recommend the whole book to anybody who's interested in the city at all. And may I say just out of important courtesy uh before I I sign off, uh I also just want to acknowledge that you said very kind words about me and I'm like I believe I'm doing my job and it's my passion both as a counselor but as a Tronian who regularly kayaks to the waterfront, loves the islands, loves like I I personally I would be just so sad if it was ever destroyed. Um that's why my whole body, mind, and passion are into this. But uh I'm not alone and I just want to acknowledge that uh that the mayor um the local counselor, councelor Osma Malik, uh councelor Fletcher and many others across the city feel the same way. And there are many of us who are going to work as a team uh uh to uh to um to paraphrase Doug Ford, to protect Toronto. We're going to do that.
>> Well, we're very grateful for that. Um, uh, Josh, and I I mean I and I'm sure you've you have these conversations at city hall. Uh, what right now it's obvious that the major critical impacts happen in the immediate central waterfront. Uh, but there will be impacts of jet traffic, you know, across the entire waterfront from a typical creek to, you know, Rouge depending on flight paths because of course, you know, if you're uh, if you are, as I am, I live on top of the Scar Bro Bluffs.
I'm in Scar Bro Southwest.
>> Yeah. Um, you know, the jets I see are, you know, 20,000 feet up because they're circling to land northwest of me at Pearson. Uh, you know, but I do we, you know, we do see Porter flights coming in, you know, and they, you can sometimes even hear them. They're still, they're moderately high up, you know, at if you're at Birch Mount Road, they're still moderately high up, >> but yeah, the jet traffic will impact the entire, you know, >> Edward, there's a there's a there's a bi-election coming up in Scarbor Southwest.
I I've heard a rumor about it.
>> And you're absolutely right. You're you're you're absolutely right. This is not um you know, a lot some people like characterizing every debate as sort of a downtown versus suburb kind of fight or leftwing versus rightwing.
Our waterfront, our whole our whole lake shore belongs to all of us. And it's it's there to increase our quality of life and our livability and our opportunities, economic development, housing, pleasure, recreation. Um it gives it just it's it's a beautiful part of our life. We're so lucky to live along a lake. Not every city can boast about that. So you're right. Whether you live in Scar Bro at Tobico downtown or if you live in North York and you also value the fact that you have a lake to go to, um it's something worth fighting for together.
Right. Well, thank you so much. And uh I do really wish these things weren't as left oddly left coded and rightc coated in Toronto because I mean, >> you know, I think of like uh you know, Red Ken Linston and Boris Johnson, two very different mayors of London and yet strangely on things like bike lane policies and congestion charges, they had the same policy.
I mean, we're getting we're veering off into sort of a TED talk about the the condition of politics these days, but I can just answer very quickly. I think a lot of these debates are artificially uh uh created into these sort of ideological or right or left or whatever. Um there's good public policy, right? There's there's there's there and there's coexisting truths, but there aren't alternative facts and we can have debates over different issues, but we should be looking at actually what works. And um you know whether you like the idea of Jets on the island or not, the facts remain that Doug Ford has not put forward a plan to actually argue his case. That's not how you create public policy. And it's absolutely reasonable to push back and go, we'll go through a thoughtful process to consider whatever you want to say. But you don't get just to to make an announcement, shove Toronto out of the picture, steal other people's lands, and say, "I'm going to do something." Like, you wouldn't do that for anything. And and and frankly, if a if a if a if a progressive premier did that, I would expect Doug Ford to stand up and say, "That's that's that's crazy, right?" So, >> yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, thank you. Great.
>> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it immensely.
>> Thank you.
>> And thank you. Yes. the the the the lad the handsome lad who's who just jumped in there for those of you who don't know who's our esteemed chair of Waterfront for All Ed wave head and uh he'll be he'll be popping in again no doubt and we we're grateful for that. I'd like to also shout out to Ron Jenkins who's also on our our speaker series committee who's with us this evening and uh may I think we may be having a word or two as we have a f we jump in again for a bit of an impromptu panel after our next speaker. So I am going to move on to introduce our next speaker um Mark Wilson. Now, many of you may know that Mark was uh at one time a chair of Waterfront Toronto uh and did an excellent job as chair of the board there and we're pleased to have him with us. Um so over to you, sir.
>> Is that visible?
>> Yes, it is. Thank you.
>> Yeah. So um I've been giving some thought to uh um not necessarily all the consequences but what are the motivations? Why is this suddenly emerged as a topic that uh you know Doug Ford is championing that that suddenly the board of trade is championing? Where does this come from?
Why are we having this now? And um I I have a hypothesis that says regardless of what um the supposed benefits that are being touted without any evidence whatsoever, I think this is a rescue mission. I think we have a failing airport and that's going to be gutted by the Alto highspeed rail project and this is a rescue mission from the investors in the airport terminals, Newport Aviation. And I think once once we get our heads around that, I think that will also help us with our strategy. So let me take you through some analysis that I've done uh to attempt to quantify what this actually means. And first of all um I want to thank Ron Jenkins for a set of charts that he presented at the last um uh session of of Waterfront for All. And it they're very important because they lay out what's actually happening in the airport. And this was what was proposed and viewed as what uh the base case for the airport was. And so way way back we had 2.43 million people and we had a view that that would continue to grow and with jets it would just take off.
What actually happened? Well, it did follow that line for a little while and then this little thing called CO happened. Um and of course it just catastrophically dropped. But the news is it has not recovered to its previous heights. And in fact the curve is bending downwards uh as of last year. So we're actually at a level which is way back to 2011 in terms of what's happening to the airport, the actual traffic at Billy Bishop. And so what's what's all that about? Well, there's a few things that have happened. First of all, Porter Airlines has gone to Pearson and and I think they may be even the second or third largest carrier after Air Canada out of Pearson. Um, and they started in 2023 and their flights from Billy Bishop have in fact dropped quite dramatically uh because they're flying to all destinations from uh from Pearson.
in order to try and counter this and and put some growth back in um pre-clarance to the US um at Billy Bishop just started this year, March 10th, 2026. Um and Air Canada added some new destinations um as a result of that. So that's an attempt to juice and and grow that in fact uh declining usage that's happening at Billy Bishop.
I think the other thing to understand is that Billy Bishop as a regional airport really services primarily Ottawa and Montreal. And I asked uh Gemini AI to do a little analysis for me and this is what it produced. And it said basically 55 to 60% of the airport's total daily commercial scheduled operations are Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto.
So, just let that sink in for a minute.
This is an airport that's primarily servicing the commute um to Ottawa and the commute to to Montreal from Toronto.
Um that's basically the the core of this airport. And what's happening to that in fact transportation in that corridor?
Well, we have the Alto highspeed rail network which is pressing ahead. Um it's difficult to avoid their advertisements whether they're on paper or digital. Um and this is a huge big project that's going to connect Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Laval, Torvier, and Quebec. Um and this is a project that's going ahead. uh the con the contract with in fact the consortium it's going to build was signed in March 2025 and the first construction segment is going to expected to commence 29 to 30 which is actually within the term of the current federal government. Um and off the Alto website these are the highspeed rail travel times that they're suggesting at the moment. uh two hours Toronto Ottawa, three hours Toronto Montreal, 1 hour Ottawa Montreal, an hour and a half Montreal to Quebec City.
Um and that's at around the current technology of 300 320 km an hour that highspeed rail tends to travel. Um but there are um I mean we'll see by the time this actually goes up um there definitely that technology continues to evolve and if anything those times will shrink. they won't get longer um as the technology for highspeed rail uh becomes evolves. Um and I think importantly um Josh talked a lot about the engagement of the federal government. This particular project is a big priority of the federal government. Um and it's a priority of the prime minister himself.
It's a cornerstone of his national economic agenda. Um I mean he's been challenged because there's been some questions about particularly in the rural areas about uh displacement expropriation, the kinds of things that you get with a major new transportation corridor. And he's defended the project.
He's defended strongly the project to the extent that there's $3 billion allocated in the 2025 budget to support the project. So this is there's real cash behind this. It's not uh it's not just a pipe dream. And um you know to further en enhance that um it has been assigned as a transformative project to the major project office and you'll notice the date on that September 11th 2025.
So you know you get that trigger and what happens if you're in fact sitting in Billy Bishop airport looking at the fact there's going to be highspeed rail that's going to take on your market.
So this is um some work that um also uh we can draw on which is what happens when to to air traffic when in fact you get highspeed rail and these are three different case studies out of Europe.
Paris Leon, Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Naples um all at different uh uh durations. So Paris Leon takes about 2 hours. Madrid, Barcelona takes about three hours. Rome, Naples is an hour.
And and if you look at it, within a year of the Paris Leon operating, domestic airline traffic dropped by 60%.
And and Madrid, Barcelona, before the high-speed line opened, it was the world's busiest passenger route. 971 scheduled flights per week. By 2017, 63% of that was on highspeed rail. And if you look at the the even uh shorter duration Rome Naples, it's gone. There's no there's no airline traffic whatsoever happening in uh in Rome Naples. So this experience says that when the as it says the heading when the train journey time equals air journey time, rail takes it all over. And if it's one to two hours, you still got 50% market share. So I think this is really the the existential question that Billy Bishop Airport and in particular Newport Aviation are trying to deal with. So if you take you know take those numbers from the Europe experience and you take the 60% loss against the numbers that there are today there's at least a one-third re reduction that will happen in flights at Billy Bishop airport. At least one/ird.
Um and you know all all of this is is my amateur work. Um as as Ed has said we need some real experts to look at these things. Um but I think directionally this is right. It's at least at least a third could easily be 40% or more that in fact um uh reduces the flights at Billy Bishop airport. So that's that's in fact what Newport Aviation and Billy Bishop are dealing with. So, what we have is, and if you're not familiar with Newport Aviation, they're the people who actually bought the terminal from from Porter Airlines um a decade or so ago.
Um and they paid uh substantial money for it, and there's been some reorganizations the ownership since then, but basically, they're the ones who've been driving the lobbying. Um Matt Elliot um did a interesting analysis today uh of their lobbying efforts at the federal government um which in fact commenced guess what back in November of 2025 right after this uh major major project was assigned as a transformation project to the major projects office. So it's really a rescue mission for Newport Aviation's investment in the terminal. Um, that's how I would view this. And as uh as Josh has pointed out, it really is the federal government that has the ability to shut this down. Um, either through Transport Canada and its application diligently of its own regulations um or in fact its uh its view around housing or its view around quality of life or or many other issues that are there. So I think the you know that to to to emphasize again that is where we need to focus our efforts is in fact raising our voices to the federal government MPs to in fact the ministers in Ottawa and letting them know our concerns about this particular uh venture. Um, and and you know, I think it's it's not it's not out of the question to basically say if this decision goes down as a u positive in terms of expanding the airport, there will be electoral consequences in downtown Toronto for the Liberal Party.
Um, you know, the polls basically are interesting. Um, if you look at the downtown area, you get a very strong negative reaction to the airport. The farther away you get from downtown, the more that people, you know, sort of like that initial dream that uh that councelor Matlo talked about until they get better information. Uh, but I think there could be very very real electoral consequences. Um, already um the new NDP leader has said that his mission is to revive the NDP in downtown Toronto. Um and uh you know I think um I think we may we may see we've already seen the provincial NDP come out very strongly against uh what's happening at at the at the airport. So I think um it's not out of the question to basically raise the electoral consequences um with uh with the federal liberals. Anyway, that's um that's my very uh short analysis of what I think is motivating it and what we should what we should do about it.
Thank you very much, Mark. Um, if you There we are. Thank you.
So, >> I'm gonna Can I jump in again?
>> Yeah, you want to jump in and um I'll just pin you to our screen and appreciate that, Ed. And uh Ron, did you want to jump in for a sec?
Just uh raise your hand if you do. Go ahead, Ed.
>> I just thought I'd say that's great.
What a That's a great analysis, Mark.
Thank you so much. Um the other thing I have heard um and the other danger that I think the airport faces um is that Porter um actually leaves as a tenant. So then the principal tenant no longer there. So um I think Porter has done a quite a smart thing since 2022 which is that there had been litigation as you know between them and the and Newport and so on and had to do really with who pays who takes the risk for the drop in traffic um during the COVID epidemic. But they said, "Well, it costs us three times as much to operate here and uh we're probably going to leave because our gate fees are too high." Uh, and then they didn't sort of do it. Presumably, they negotiated down a little bit or something. We know this from some public letters that came out of their litigation. But what's interesting is they put the money where the mouth is and they started buying jets starting Embraers starting about 2022.
And now their fleet, I don't have the exact numbers with me, but it's something approaching twothirds I think of their fleet is now jets, which they seem to be enjoying good success, uh, flying out of Pearson, as you mentioned. Uh, they also started recently flying out of Hamilton and I think they've been expanding in Hamilton. Uh, they've reduced uh, their routes. There's at least one route I think Sudbury to Toronto where they said, "Well, we're just not going to fly that one anymore. We'll fly it to Ottawa.
So they're kind of uh not and if we were to ask them I don't know what they would say but I think it would be fair to say that their emphasis is clearly on Pearson and they've discovered they can make money there and maybe we don't know they can make more money there than they can at Billy Bishop. So that um and also they've got this somewhat aging fleet um uh and those could be uh you know they don't seem to be replaced them. and they say, "Well, they're not made anymore."
Well, they probably could be made if there was a demand for them. You make a big order for, you know, 50 of them. I'm sure they'd be happy to uh you know, uh get the assembly lines up and running for that, but they don't obviously want to do that. So, it would appear that the writing is on the wall. Uh their largest by far tenant might leave or is at least diminishing its operations there. So in addition to the drop in traffic that you've so uh clearly uh shown us uh there's that problem kind of hanging over them and I think that might be another aspect of what is happening and do you have any comment on that or if you heard anything you know way more people than I do you hear way more things do you have any sense of that at all?
>> Uh do you mean me?
>> Yes you Mr. Wilson we need >> I I I don't have any sense of that other than um I mean the only comment I would make is there are uh other turborop manufacturers in the world.
>> No.
>> So if you wanted to continue it, you don't have to continue it with the same the same planes. Um you could continue to have the airport. Um yeah, somebody just put in the chat there's a ATR 72600. I mean turbo props are manufactured elsewhere. So, so you could continue service at a reduced scale um with turbo props out of the island airport sort of in the manner of this >> cozy regional airport um that uh uh that Josh described. Um but in terms of Porter's intentions, I I really don't know. Um I mean, the only thing I've seen is the the lobbying that Newport's doing um extensively at the federal um and uh also at the city level, obviously. But that started um late last winter right after the Alto project got declared as a as a major transformation project.
>> Right. One of the odd ironies given um you know uh the leader the Ontario leader of the opposition Meritt Styles you know uh stated positions on this issue. One of the odd ironies and I suppose this is a thing about lobbying and and you know is that Kim Wright is leading the charge for Newport and Kim Wright is a wellestablished New Democrat who's very close to uh leader of the opposition and her and her team just ironically in this case she is leading the charge for Newport on jet expansion at uh Billy Bishop and it is a matter of public record. I'm not speaking out of turn uh you can look you can look it up as they say. Um, yeah, there's definitely a strong effort and uh you know uh I know our I know uh Norm Norm, you're here, aren't you somewhere? Norm Norm's here from Noath. Norm, shout out to Norm. Hi, Norm. I'm gonna um turn on your screen, man. I'm going to add you. Do you want to say hi?
You're clapping. That's That's cool.
Well, let's see if if Norm wants to say hi and turn on his mic and his screen, but I'm just giving you I'm giving your your black square with your name a place of honor. So, um just so some people know, many of the folks who are who went on to form Waterfront for All, um Ed ad Ron Jenkins, and Jim Panu, who we're going to hear from in a in a few minutes, uh were part of the successful campaign to to oppose Jets um almost, you know, 10 12 years ago. uh when that victory was won and Norm was part of that and Norm has revived um no Jets Toronto as you know and has has been really leading efforts on that on that side our our you could say our cousins or our you know uh siblings um and we all hope that we're successful and that Norm can once again put no jets in to in a a well-deserved retirement but uh yeah so please uh please check out there. I'm sure some of you have already engaged with No Jets. Um, we welcome your your your focus on that.
And um, oh, something just happened.
We lost a couple of people.
Um, so I think Mark, what would your best advice be to people in terms of uh, you know, engaging as citizens on this issue?
Well, the first thing they need to do, particularly uh um if they live in the 416 area and have a Liberal MP, is uh write to them and express their concerns. Um so that's that's kind of step one. Um, I think what we haven't yet done as as a collective, um, whether that's No Jets or Waterfront for All or or councilors like Josh Matllo, um, or or others is really organized a process and a set of events that people can participate in. Um, and and I think that's the next step that we uh we owe the 300 people who have joined this this uh this session. uh this this is clearly something that people are very passionate about and and we need to uh we need to create something that they can participate in. There there are numerous partition petitions as well that have been raised um by counselors um and by others that uh people can sign on to. So all of that should happen as well. Um but I think we need to uh we need to organize a process that that people can engage in and express their will. Um, you know, kind of kind of like the no kings celebrations in some ways.
Uh, the the no jets celebrations need to start to happen.
>> Excellent. Okay, great. Um, thanks so much for that. Um, Ron, did you have any comment at this time?
>> Not at this time. I'd like to see Nor's flythroughs, though. He I'm waiting for those.
>> You're waiting for that? I think I I I feel like I'm waiting for those as well.
So let's let's just go to that and I will get that introduce uh Jim. So Jim Panu for was part of the original no jets successful no jets uh campaign. He's a waterfront for all no jets veteran and we're pleased to have Jim with us this evening. Jim, I'm just going to um put you in a spotlight there >> and uh please uh tell us about what you're going to show us and and show it to us. Okay, let me just start with uh sharing my uh Google Earth Pro window.
Just let me know if uh that comes up on your screen.
Is it there?
>> Yes, it is.
So back in 2013 when we were fighting the uh the battle against porter plans, we thought what what what should we do to kind of learn about airports and uh worked with uh uh transport action Ontario and we basically built an airport meaning that we built all the airspace that's associated with the airport. First thing that we learn is what regulates the airport and what are the implications in terms of airspace.
Back in 1983, the Toronto Island zoning regulations were created, you know, after an aeronautical survey by Transport Canada.
So, what you're looking at over there on the, you know, fanning away from the uh center of the airport to the east and to the west are known as obstacle limitation surfaces.
So the blue one over here and the one going that way. The one heading east go basically starts at the airport and fans out climbing at a rate of 1 to 20. So for every one foot sorry for every 20t out one foot uh one foot up.
So that's considered a very steep slope on airport at airports. The opposite side uh is I believe a 1 to 50.
And if you look over there, it's basically goes above the Hearn stack. It was the Hearn stack that that dictated that that one had to be high. So that air airspace has to be clear for airplanes to be able to land. No buildings are allowed to penetrate into that space.
And that has pretty much held until this until today. But Toronto Island zoning regulations still dictate uh the heights of buildings.
Now, if we're to put jets in there, that's going to change. It's going to change really significantly with jets. That may seem like a smaller uh you know, a smaller distance that it's covering, but the but the angles are really are really quite steep.
Sorry, quite quite shallow.
Now, if you notice at the far end, the Hearn stack goes right past it. So, if if jets are allowed, Transport Canada will re-evaluate this airspace under the Transport Canada standards known as TP312 Edition 5.
So, you can see it's significantly lower. I'm just going to turn the other one on just so you can kind of see compare the differences.
You can see that red area is is quite a bit lower. So what does that mean for the portlands?
Now this the okamin I'm sorry can somebody pronounce it for me? I haven't I haven't committed that to memory yet >> mining.
>> Yeah. So, so that that particular precinct, city of Toronto planning, they basically have established the heights of buildings that can be there. These are not where you know what what what's going to be there. Right now, what I've mapped out is the maximum height allowed into that area and the relationship with the obstacle limitation surface. So, in this area, it does not seem to affect it. And it's all based on where the runway is placed. So, we've placed the runway where we think it should be. I'll we'll come to that a little bit later.
But I've also put these hypothetical buildings, you know, I found some uh models of buildings that are believe 40 stories and just place them at various spots in the Pollson area.
And anything above the red is not going to be allowed.
the buildings will have to be substantially low, you know, lower than they are right now. But you can see where the planes are coming in, lining up for a landing, they're awfully close to those buildings. You know, is that a good idea? You know, it it may be le uh you know, it may be allowable, but is it a good idea?
Now the planes here are landing uh you know entering the 3° slope which is what airplanes like to land on. The higher one is 4.8 which is what it used to be in the past. Um that changed since the last battle that we have. So that's lowered from from up there down to a much lower one.
If we look at the runway configuration, I'm just going to turn off this top layer. Now, the runway has been built to the information that we've managed to get from uh from the Port Authority in the Globe article and the Star article, the length about 900 ft. So, these were built to that width. They're built to the Transport Canada specifications, meaning that you need a parallel uh a parallel taxi way. There has to be a certain amount of separation, 422, sorry, 122 m from the center to here.
So, this is what we anticipate that it's going to look like. They say that they're not going to it's not going to be have much of an effect on the eastern part. Uh let me just turn that on and off.
So, we're going to go from there to there.
We've added the Rhysa area, the 150 mters that uh is going to be at either end.
And then we believe that there's going to be runway approach lights. I believe it was mentioned in the Oliver Wayman report that uh that that that we will need them. Uh looking at all the airports across the country, uh the ma major airports, Billy Bishop is the only one that does not have runway approach lights and they basically make it a lot safer for landing during foggy uh weather. It allows them to confirm that they are on the right path heading into the uh heading into the runway.
Now that move out to the uh west is really going to be significant in terms of closing that you know closing that western gap substantially. Um you know there's there's implications of that which Ron I think might be able to speak to. Uh the Empire Sandy going through there will be awfully close to the to the protective airspace.
Now there's talk of jet blast barriers.
So in red you can see the jet blast barrier.
There's also a noise barrier which we can see in the yellow. So those are those are done to the sizes that were in the EA that was uh made in 2017 that we got our hands on recently. So that's basically going to be a substantial wall that's going to block that off. If you're going to Coronation Park or Trillium Park, the view is not going to be that wonderful.
Likewise on the on the island side.
So it's not a small airport anymore. it becomes a really dominant part of both the harbor and the um in the west.
Now this is a race also if uh if the Portland lands the Pulson area if building started going up right now to the allowable height with the previous zoning regulations they would have primacy but if jets are allowed transport Canada re-evaluates this airspace all of a sudden the island has sorry the uh the airport has primacy over any development over here.
So it's rather existential.
>> So Jim, I know that uh recently, you know, Jason Thorne, the uh chief planner for Toronto uh noted that the zoning um and height limitations that that have been set while there no you know um specific development proposals for Oakman because they're still working on the public realm and the sewers and you know all that all that work and the park build out as well. He noted that the current plans for Oakman mining are vi completely viable with current Billy Bishop airport operations. Yes, let me uh >> but he did he offered no view on what the you know what impact jets might have simply because of course you know a familiar refrain there is no concrete proposal as you noted.
>> Yeah. So if if if everything stays the same if the Toronto Island zoning regulations are in place. So you're basically looking at that you know that that's completely missing that area plus it's a much higher much higher slope. So the protective surface and even those 41story buildings, they can actually grow go taller.
But as soon as you apply the new standards under TP312 version five, they're grabbing all that airspace basically above that becomes that becomes the airports all through this area. anywhere that you see in red, even, you know, even land that Ports Toronto owns that potentially could uh, you know, could be a development down the road, that's going to be affected.
But again, is the question I I still have to ask is, you know, even though you can over here, is it a good idea?
And Jim, there's something called a one engine inoperative scenario.
>> Yeah, that one.
>> What that is? Is that something you've modeled or or not? That's something in addition to this, right?
>> I I Yeah, I have it. Uh I haven't touched it in in a in a dozen years.
>> Let's assume that an airplane take takes off. I just want to turn off the glide slopes.
So, >> so if the air one more, >> so my understanding would be that if in the new regulations the fifth edition, you have uh a requirement that uh a plane that that loses an engine on takeoff and therefore can't climb as fast and is perhaps less controllable uh won't hit anything. So that that's a kind of an additional requirement is you got to have an open space.
>> Yeah. Basically >> kind of lower level to accommodate that.
Have I got that right?
>> Yeah. You have you have to basically have an you know an exit out. So they actually have a procedure if it if they take off and then all of a sudden they lose one engine. Again planes are heading in the wrong direction here for this. But let's let's assume that it takes off. uh you know, while the wheel uh wheels are still down and the airplane hasn't established, you know, hasn't climbed, they're going to, you know, their intent is to basically turn south. But if you've got lost control, uh they can't climb that, you know, that quickly just because you can climb a certain rate with two engines. Uh one engine isn't just going to be half that.
It's substantially lower than that. And what you're going to have basically is you're gonna have buildings in there that are going to be very much in the way of a one engine climb.
>> So something's got to give there, I guess.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um, Ron and I have started discussing uh o over the weekend uh just the the amount of movement of water in and out of the uh of the you know of of the harbor of the inner harbor. Uh Ron, did you want to touch on any of that while I can?
>> Um so um I hope you can hear me. Um this view is actually a good view to start with. um looking at the western gap and um and the intrusion of the runway fill into that western gap.
The um the thing that is new to me and probably new to most people is that the inner harbor of Toronto is not actually fed very much at all by the Dawn River.
It's fed almost entirely by water flow through the western gap into the inner harbor.
And the other sources of inflow into the inner harbor are the Dawn River and sewers.
And those are both sources of pollution.
uh the environmental assessment that we have recently got hold of that looks at the porter proposal a 200 meter extension at the west end that 200 meter extension would would cut the um yeah you may be able to show it um >> yeah I don't have it handy but never mind here >> okay this is the current airport and um If you put the proposed extension for Porter 200 m, it would reduce the cross-sectional entrance way through the western cap by 50%.
And that would that would leave the inner harbor with very stagnant water.
The water in the inner harbor now all exits through the eastern gap and um it's turnover in the in the harbor is 6 uh 6.7 days.
But if you were to build the porter proposal of 200 m that residence of water would then increase to 12.3 days.
um which is effectively doubling how long water sits in the inner harbor.
Uh what the terminology is is flushing.
And um you know I think most of us make a point of flushing after we've um used our toilets. But what we have here is um Doug Ford kind of breaking into the house and and wrecking our plumbing. Um so so the harbor would not flush um effectively at all. Uh we're looking at four instead of 200 mters we're looking at 900 m. So that really makes a huge difference to how much water can move through the inner harbor in a given period of time. Obviously, if you get uh the period of time between harbor flushings being longer than the time period between heavy storms, then um it doesn't flush before the next surge of polluted water comes through the storm sewers and the combined sewers and the Dawn River. So, the the inner harbor would become progressively more polluted.
um not having its natural mechanism for uh for hydraulic change and if I can grab the uh the screen for just a second on the screen sharing.
>> So sorry. Okay, let me stop.
>> Yeah, you'll just have to stop for a moment for me to come in. Um where's my screen sharing?
Here it is.
What I'd like to show people is just the portion of this environmental assessment that relates to what I'm talking about.
It's the summary to appendix C6.
And um I'll read from about here.
Hydraulic residence time is the time required to replace or flush the total volume of water in the harbor and is used as an indicator of water quality.
The proposed west end extension runway 08 that is the harbor uh taking off or landing from the west will reduce the cross-sectional flow area and average inflow through the western gap by approximately 50%. Now remember we're talking about the 200 meter expansion and will double the average residence time of water in the inner harbor from 6.7 to 12.3 days. Sources of pollution in the inner harbor include Dawn River discharges, storm sewer outfalls, and combined sewer overflows. The expected increase in residence time has a high potential of intensifying water quality problems in the inner harbor through reduced dilution and flushing of these pollutants from the harbor.
So the east end extension also has a problem in terms of circulation in the harbor, but it's not as significant I think as as the west.
But what this really says is the porter proposal, the 200 meters at the at the west end was bad for water quality in the inner harbor. And we can easily infer that if you extend that 200 m four times or 4 and 1/2 times farther, you're going to have even less uh water transiting through the western gap, even less uh uh turnover in the in the inner harbor. And um it's I think a serious environmental uh problem.
That was kind of what I wanted to get across.
I can end my screen sharing.
Thank you. Thank you, Ron.
>> I just thought I'd jump in and say that uh >> please jump in. Let me let me just let me pin you so we can see you. There you are. Hi.
>> Here I am. Hello. Yeah, Ed is known to jump in, but not into the harbor these days, maybe. Right.
>> Well, actually, there are Yes, but you don't swim like our friend Steve Man does.
>> I tend to do it over towards the side, but I if once the jets are there, I guess I won't be doing that anymore. But anyway, >> uh there are uh all of that should be kept in mind with the fact that there's been enormous investment in trying to clean up the harbor. We've got the uh the wet weather flow master plan project that we've talked about uh in past waterfront for all events. This is a massive sewer project that attempts to reduce uh discharge and csos into the harbor and so on. Uh and the budget I believe as far as I know it's around 4.3 billion for that.
>> Right. And I think the initial piece we had yeah alluded to Geronimo had Yeah, we had a great talk and we'd like to get him back I think talk about that is a this ongoing thing that's taking 30 years or something uh kind of slowly grinds along and it's really in a lot of ways one of the most important uh programs. It's a little bit below the radar because it's not a beautiful park or trees or anything and sewers are not that glamorous but it's an enormously important enormously expensive thing that uh is being done. There's also a Toronto and region remedial action plan to improve water quality. So, we have invested a lot and will continue to do so into water quality in our harbor and around uh the island and the Toronto waterfront in general. So, uh obviously there should be very careful scrutiny on what the effect uh on all of those very expensive investments would be uh if this proposal were to go forward. Uh if if I may, I just so uh in the background and we haven't I I warn you all that we haven't really had a time to pass it around for what you might call our own version of peer review and input and editing, but we uh we're working on a draft, very rough draft admittedly report at the moment on looking at the economic cost benefits of like the continued revitalization of the portlands of our waterfront, its economic impact visav V oddly a 10 million passenger a year jet airport and I shared it in the chat but let me just read one little paragraph from the jet from from from it using a costbenefit lens that incorporates peer-reviewed parameters for noise health climate and ecosystem service valuation the evidence indicates that a full buildout of the port lands and adjacent revitalization areas paired with protection and enhancement of Toronto Island Park delivers more durable and diversified economic value than converting YTZ into a 10 million passenger jet airport there. Um, so we look forward to sharing that report uh when we've had when we've had more chance to uh flesh it out, edit it, and maybe put some pretty graphics in it. Um, that's something we we we intend to release in the not so very distant future. And also we will also of course share that with our our dear friends at uh No Jetsto. Uh fortunately Norm who is leading the charge at the at what I call no jetsto0 2.0 is is uh preoccupied with with life at the moment. So he's I think he's listening to us but he's unable to uh talk to us at the moment. Uh but we just just know he's in there in the background. And we welcome we we cheer him on and and encourage you to uh follow them and support them uh as well.
Jim, did you have anything else you wanted to say or add?
>> Um, not not right now. There's a a lot of this is like really the minutia that that you know that that I think we'll probably take a written report the way we did with uh transport action back in the past, but an updated version uh where we dig a lot deeper into it. So, yeah. I have a question I guess for Mark. Is that are are you on top of the facts in terms of the the Pearson expansion that I understand is breaking ground next week or something? Uh it's a >> No, I I uh um No, I mean I just know what's on their website. Um and they're they're they're going in multiple phases and and yeah, the first phase is moving ahead quickly. Yeah.
>> Right. So at any rate I guess the u >> but their plan I think is to add capacity for another 20 million.
>> I think it's in that area or even higher.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh so in other words uh uh the federal government in its infinite wisdom has decided that that may be the best place for aviation dollars uh to be spent. Uh one of the things that we've discussed on past uh uh in our last session was that uh the costs of uh the bill abyss expansion according to the Air Canada consultants we talked about last time were estimated 10 years ago at a billion and uh that seems probably conservative because it doesn't include any of the ground side the the you know the city side improvements in transit and everything else that would be uh required. So, uh, where it's in in addition to being somewhat intrusive, uh, uh, the costs are clearly very high.
Uh, maybe we'll get some information out of Toronto Port Authority, uh, one of these days as to the details and as to how much it will cost and we'll look forward to that. Um but it does seem fair to say that uh uh even if you put it in the number of people that it might benefit would be perhaps pretty small particularly if Porter leaves or people start taking the high-speed train. Uh there may be a lot of better uses for those buildings uh than expanding down there uh at Ontario Place or near Ontario Place. And just to add to support what you're saying too and and we've we've mentioned this before, but I think it it's worth continuing to mention it and mention it again and again, we are building uh you know the extension of the cross town uh west which will connect to Renfruit, Renforth Drive and then go from there to the airport. Missaga has is you know building out a rapid transit busway that will lead to Pearson among other destinations. And that busway is being built so it can be upgraded to light metro or LRT uh you know at some point.
And as part of their long-term plans uh you know the Pearson is also pitching a multimodal transit hub a sort of nor you know Union Station Northwest. Um so and at some point uh UP Express is supposed to be electrified. So these are all things that are in the works in various stages of some are funded, some are planned, some are actually under construction in the case of the cross town and the missaga busway. So, you know, all and I mean, if you think of the roughly 7.5 million people in the GTA and the almost 10 million people in the Golden Horseshoe, you have, as has been noted already, and Mark noticed that, you know, Pearson is a lot more clo closer to most of those people. And Hamilton airport is also there just waiting for an upgrade and a, you know, a GO train spur line or a light metro spur line. So again, none of that's free, but it's there and the infrastructure is there and it doesn't, you know, and I also point to people who will say things like, you know, Lond, oh, London City Airport, well, Lond London City Airport, uh, which by the way is not universally loved, and there have been campaigns in London to consider closing it down or phasing it out. But London City Airport is 11 kilometers from the city of London, from the financial center of of London, right? It's a which is like I'm 11 kilometers right now from you know Young Street where where I'm speaking to you from at the top of the Scarbor Bluffs at Birch Mountain and Kingston Road. So you know that and uh you know Midway is like Downs View, right? Midway Chicago is like Downs View. Um same with Orle. It's even slightly farther. And of course, Newark and LaGuardia, depending on where you are in Manhattan, are any, you know, somewhere between 15 to 25 kilometers from, you know, Wall Street. So, even cities that have what people consider to be, you say, inner city or urban airports, they aren't they aren't right in front of us. And Chicago, you know, a city that our premier has often said he loves and admires, of course, famously closed its waterfront airport and turned the massive parking uh lot that, you know, that used to exist just uh west of Michigan Avenue into Millennium Park.
So, >> we we've got uh Did I hear that Ken was Ken Greenberg was here? I haven't heard from Ken in a long time. I'm just wondering if Ken >> I don't think Ken >> Yeah, he's No, Ken's not in the room.
>> Okay, Paul, how about Paul Bedford? He's uh I think >> Paul Bedford. Paul, hi Paul, >> do you want to unmute yourself?
>> I think you should be There you go.
>> There you go. Hi.
>> He's always an interesting guy to hear from.
>> Yeah. No, >> a great uh session with Josh and Mark and all you guys. I congratulate you and uh I guess the only thing I'd add uh this is a long long process and we're building and collecting a lot of valuable information and I think um Ken can speak for himself but Ken myself and Golden and a few other people are putting together something that I think is really important. And I think we're going to call it a reality check and it really going to ask a lot of questions and uh uh we're working on that now.
It'll probably be uh you know available in the coming weeks and we'll put it out to everybody and uh we'll basically ask uh all of the kinds of questions that many of we've already heard so far and others we haven't heard. And one of the one of the things I think in addition to you know um uh that the waterfront is really for everybody and the airport should never dominated and what all the things we've accomplished with waterfront Toronto uh environment health landside wateride all these kinds of things. I think one of the things that's really important, I think Ed, you've referred to it, is there doesn't appear to be a business case at all to do this.
Uh, and we're going to ask a lot of those questions. Um you made reference to the report that was done what 10 years ago or so that estimated roughly a billion dollars would be the cost of actually uh equipping an airport to accommodate this increased passenger volume. And that may be true. It may be more than that. But when you start to think about it, if you're going to attempt to accommodate so many more passengers, you need a much bigger terminal, you need a lot more gates. You need a lot more space to park the planes because the the the land area uh that is there now is far too small to to to achieve that. And then as you rightly said, uh all the landside improvements would be needed in terms of you know the um uh uh uh transportation considerations both for parking for transit. Uh the great uh unknown question about Little Norway Park. Uh we've heard that it won't be touched and then we've heard that a third of it will be gone and then who knows what else. So all those kinds of questions need answers and we want to make sure that uh we push the case and make sure we get all those. Um, I guess the only last thing I'll say is the the the map that was released as part of the the legislation that showed the entire islands um, you know, shown on a map for potential acquisition or expropriation.
obviously has expressed enormous concern among u not only the residents of the city who use the islands but the people who live there and all of the boating community. Um uh there are an awful lot of people who use the islands um you know uh throughout the entire entire summer months and it's a unique unique asset that obviously nobody wants to lose. So there there's a million questions and we're going to try and group them into everyday language and lo logical uh you know uh uh documentation and uh get it out there and we'll add it to the mix. So, I guess that's where we are right now. And uh I I I think the the point can't be can't can't be emphasized enough that uh the federal MPs are key to this. And uh so I've certainly contacted my new MP, Daniel Martin, and be seeing her next week. And uh everyone else needs to contact their MP because with with uh the leader of the opposition Pierre Polyv coming out strongly in favor of the airport um I think the Liberals really need to think very very hard about uh the process they're going to enter into and what the ultimate decision will be. So, I could go on and on, but uh that's sort of where we are.
And uh it'll be an addition to everything else that people have already uh already done.
>> Well, and Paul, you know, I I think you've hinted at it is that, you know, the feds the feds to their credit have put billions into the Portland's waterfront transit and they are trying to spend billions on housing, uh which of course is has an ideal location in the Portland. So it would seem to me there may be merit in in posing to our federal friends that you know that Jets at Billy Bishop is counter to that and puts at risk their the investments they they are they have made and are making.
>> Absolutely. I mean you mean I I I think again you know if you look at our waterfront it is a wonderful collection of a variety of diverse uses and activities and it's not dominated by any one of them. If this airport were to grow to the extent that it's proposed it would become the dominant use and it would totally I'll almost quote what the environmental assessment said. Uh, one of the greatest findings I found was significant from that EA of 2017 is that it would totally change the look and feel of the entire waterfront. That's almost a quote from the EA that was done in 2017.
And I'm just posting I've posted it before, but I'm posting a link to that EA again so people can have that and we we have >> So yeah. All right. Well, thanks. Thank you, Paul.
>> Okay. Appreciate that.
>> Keep up the good work and we'll uh all of us will continue to do our respective thing and keep at it.
>> Well, great. Thank you. Um Tony, did you have a question? You have to unmute yourself.
>> Yeah. Well, yeah.
Are you can you hear me?
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I mean, there's so many questions. I'll just be brief because I know there's a lot of people but just um is we've always wanted to know whether the airport was viable and I know Brian like he's also on the line he's been very much involved Brian Eer and that's been very difficult to ascertain but are not this discussion more or less in and the proponents sort of demonstrating at the airport is not viable so that for those people that are saying that they would rather have a small regional airport does seem that this is proof that they that it's not viable and they can't. And so are we at a a one of those points where it's either close the airport or expand like that that they're in their death throws like the airport's finished. Uh is that not this is how I'm reading what's going on. It's much like if you're looking at the numbers the decline I mean a business that's not growing it's declining. uh they've raised the rates the the uh the you know Newfield Porter Partney left because they were getting cheap rates before and then they sold the terminal and had to pay fees like three times as high. So is is do we know it just seems to me that there isn't an option for it to stay as a small regional that it really is not it's broke and I I think we've been struggling for a long time to really understand its finances. That's one question because it has an impact right like it seems to me that maybe I'm wrong but maybe we can is somebody can has have we learned any more and my other a big worry also is if Ford loses the battle about the airport but he seizes the land can he not do other things with it so is this this could be a backup strategy where Newfield gets ba bailed out because uh they'll they'll they'll be the government will pay them out so one way or other it it may not just be a battle over the airport but the battle over the province taking control of all of that area. I mean maybe I'm wrong but board's always connected to developers and it's so >> Tony just remember the the the feds control 80% of it more or less >> of the airport lands but not the island as a whole. Yeah.
>> I don't I think Tony's Tony, are you trying to tell us you don't want a retirement job as a crew at the Toronto Island Casino?
>> Is that what you're saying?
>> No. Uh thank thanks. And the last thing just related to economics, can we when you're Bedford was making some good points, can we look at the economic loss of an airport expansion because I don't know whether we can fight numbers with numbers, but I'm the the island is the number one of the number one draws as a tourist draw >> 1.5 million.
>> It will decline the whole business will decline. So is there some way to in you know break looking into questions to demonstrate the economic loss that an expansion I mean there's the loss of you're we're talking about losing affordable housing but there'll be other economic losses and maybe uh I don't know they seems to be numbers seem to matter anyway I I don't want to tie up too much time there's so many issues >> that's good thank you Tony and thanks for your patience and waiting uh Brian I've I've pinned you I you're I believe you're unmuted to speak to me, Brian.
>> There you are.
>> I am. I want to jump in and say that Tony, your your question and your observation is absolutely right. Mark is absolutely right. Newport is in serious financial trouble. They borrowed 7 $650 million from the Bank of Nova Scotia.
There's a mortgage against the terminal.
Um, with Porter declining in terms of its business at the island airport and moving a lot of it to Pearson, Newport's revenue is shrinking desperately. And they are, as Mark noted, they are lobbying at the provincial level.
They're lobbying federally. They're desperate to find a solution. And their solution is jets. We know that. And we know the island airport is not going to survive if it doesn't get jets. It will it will be gone. as as Porter abandons it and as Newport finally throws in the towel and says this isn't viable. So that's that's the first point I wanted to make. And the second point is that when you look at the their claimed economic benefits and the studies they use to to support that jets will provide economic benefit. None of the studies look at the alternative. What if the if the business from the Allen airport moves to Pearson? And I think the answer is clear that there's no net economic benefit from having the Allen airport with in existence. That that business, the economic benefit that the Allen airport provides all goes to Pearson and our economy stays as solid as it is. So, those are the two points I thought I would make tonight.
>> If I could just add to that, some of that business will go to Alto, not to Pearson. Um, >> Exactly. Exactly.
>> And the um, you know, if you want to look for an airline that maybe has some foresight, Air Canada is part of the consortium that's building Alto um, which, uh, you know, is is kind of an interesting interesting play on their part.
And they have express I there now it wasn't a big formal statement but there has been you know apparently as far as I understand an expression from Air Canada that they're not too thrilled about this idea and they weren't thrilled about it hence their commission of the Oliver Wyman study which we shared uh earlier in the chat. they weren't too thrilled about it, you know, a decade, um, 12 years ago either, you know, um, so and I mean, one of the great ironies is that Robert Doo, you know, CEO of Porter, Brian, you know this, right, has said that, oh, it's cheaper for us to fly out of Pearson.
>> I I think that's changed. I I think as was noted earlier in the lawsuit between Newport and Porter, uh Newport won and got a judgment of $131 million against uh against Porter, but it was appealed and and settled. So, we think the settlement involved reducing the the charges that Newport charges Porter.
>> Um somewhere in there, Newport um had to had to give way, but it was it was a stunner that Newport actually won that.
And uh uh so but what what that lawsuit gave us was insight into what's going on in Porter and in their letters back and forth that were disclosed in the litigation. Porter admitted that it was losing money at the Allen airport in serious serious amounts. One year before COVID, one year was $40 million, another was $39 million. It's it's a lot of money. They're not doing they were not doing well and they're doing far better at Pearson.
>> Um yes, I know. My my youngest just flew back from visiting his girlfriend um on Porter and landed at Pearson which which was you know so uh Tony made another excellent point and um you know and that is something I think I referred to it earlier. I know that and I know Paul Bedford's referred to it um but I think it is important for us to uh you know develop me messaging and reports u that highlight the importance uh economic importance of ongoing revitalization on the economic value of Toronto Island Park as Tony was right to which and I I know I just popped in there and said it's so it 2025 approximately 1.5 million visitors to the island. Uh it's sort of, you know, zooming back up towards um and on track potentially if we get those new electric fairies uh to exceed uh precoid levels, right? Um so it is a huge draw. Uh and and of course that's the other thing too when people I know several people in the chat have mentioned the need to talk to people and I know councelor Matlo mentioned it as well beyond the central waterfront and the immediate downtown core. But you know, if we take a look at who goes to Toronto Island Park, it's people from all over the city and beyond. It is in fact just as sunny side was you know in prehistoric times. Uh the you know the Mskoka for those who are working people who don't afford can't afford to go to Mskoka. Toronto Island Park is is that for me for for for many many many people. Uh >> and Ed, Ed Ed, I would add that if airport we're successful and um the airport ceases to operate and that becomes park that adds a whole onethird to the Allen park in terms of area. It's it's a massive expansion of of the island park which will be wonderful. The same way Chicago did with Meg's field and Edmonton is doing with its downtown airport, Santa Monica is doing with its airport. Lots of cities have done that.
Berlin. Exactly. Yeah.
>> Uh, interestingly enough, and actually we may invite I mean, you know, from a nonpartisan perspective is an interesting idea. But you remember that we did have uh those folks from the architects to previous speaker series.
If you go to waterfront forall.ca, you can find recordings of our all our previous I think almost all our previous speaker series uh was you know um which is you know dare we imagine the island without a park. And there, you know, we there were those lovely drawings of what you could do with canals and parkland and and some additional recreational facilities, you know, re reppurposing some of the existing buildings at the airport and someone know I think u it may be a long shot perhaps might be a long shot bit of an outsider candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party's leadership race, but a gentleman named Eric Lombardi who was the founder of more neighbors Toronto, a pro- housing advisy group and Eric has spoken at a previous uh as a panelist at a previous uh speaker series about the importance of maximizing housing and affordable housing and how that ties together at Oakman Muning. Uh he has embraced the idea of of of you know going beyond the airport uh as part of the his talking points in his his leadership campaign for the Inter Liberal Party. So I just thought I'd throw that out there. So, it's nice to see, you know, it's like the every everyone's welcome to join join the conversation and it's interesting to see people, especially younger people, people under 40 taking up these ideas. Ed, did you want to say something? I wanted to um get into um you know I I've spoken to many politicians about it of course and and uh we've always found that if you talk about closing the island airport um they stop listening it's it's people are negative about that um I've to spoken to Chi and she will make several speeches in in a single meeting saying the airport is very important so on so forth and so you learn pretty quickly that you should just concentrate on the jets. Don't talk about the ultimate issue the the ultimate uh you know well-being of the airport. And that was certainly the case when city council was looking at whether to extend RISA. Uh at that time, this is in October of 2024.
Uh it's good to remember that city staff, there were two things really before city council. One was shall we build these runway and safety areas which were mandated by f federal regulations. So there wasn't a lot of choice. They really had to be kind of built and they had to be built fast because there was a deadline coming up in 2027 to do it. The other thing that was that uh Porter was saying or not Porter but the Toronto Port Authority was saying well we want an extension on the lease from 2033 to 2045 which they ultimately were successful in getting but the city staff report uh quite a long thoughtful thing uh dated uh I believe October or maybe it was November of 2024 said well that's really a separate issue we should look at that you know whether we should extend the lease should be something we should have a a holistic review. We'll look at that another time.
And before we do that, we should do studies on the airport, whether it's good, whether it's bad, who likes it, who uses it, and just think about it for kind of the in the context of thinking about the next 50 years. And that um was, I think, a really well-considered recommendation of city staff, but it was rejected quite soundly by city council.
Um and uh um now it's interesting which is which was unfortunate but that's the way they voted. They've been heavily lobbied and as I say it's kind of it's the third rail it seems. You can't say we should close down the airport or nobody will take you seriously. It's it's it's a kind of a idea that it's it's you know it's it's you just simply are not allowed to say it. However, it is worthwhile remembering that the EA uh was delayed. It only came out in March of this year after nine years almost. It had been completed years before and it was only actually when Brian there put in an FOI request and waited for quite a while and eventually it just suddenly appeared one day. Um and it said a bunch of interesting things. So remember that when city council was deciding should we do a holistic review of the airport councilors as far as I know did not have the benefit of that EA and the kinds of things that it said. It said a lot of things that were quite interesting. One of the things that it said about the public health effects remember this is the Toronto Port Authorities's own experts saying this. It said the the EA said that the public health effects of the airport either with jets or without it included and I'm quoting here sound levels could result in hypertension and hashemic health disease.
Quote increased risks of respiratory illness quote increased risk of cardopulmonary and lung cancer. quote, "Increased risk of developing lesions in the upper airways and nasal lesions." Quote, "Increased risk of developing a respiratory tract tumors."
I was a litigator uh in the courts for 30 years. This is the most devastating document I've ever seen emerge. It was suppressed for that vote of city council. What would the counselors, how might they have voted had they been aware of this information, which they weren't?
It's something to think about. Uh, we're dealing with an entity on our waterfront that I would submit is KG, shall we say? It's it's modest with the truth. That's a quote from Churchill.
>> Um, >> oh, sorry, just >> and so I'll just leave that thought there. uh is that there are there there there's a I I'll just leave my my comment there I think.
>> Okay, great. Pam, hi everyone. Pam Maza, I'm just going to introduce you a bit.
So Pam uh is well known to Toronto Island residents and Pam is uh on the board of Waterfront for All. So hi Pam.
>> Thank you. Um I I'm finding this need to have the final plan in place before any decisions can ma be made.
Curious in 2015 nobody needed the final plan. It was the idea. Nobody had actually done any of the research that has been done by many of us here. Um, and yet, uh, everybody's waiting. And I I'm trying to figure out why anybody who's thinking about this, who has even a moderate amount of information, would support jets at the airport? And why is everybody why is the federal government not just realizing that it would be ridiculous?
and end it like Mark Garno did in 2015 with a tweet. So I I can't figure that out. I do know that aside from Newport, I suspect the port authority themselves are really lobbying for this because Brian and Iser will also remember that back then it was the port authority who got Porter going on the airport because the port was failing and they could not continue uh with a failing airport because they were in the red. the only financially successful part of the port is the uh harbor um outer harbor marina.
So that's how Porter and the jets and all of this got started. So I guess it's so obvious. I mean, she's heard from all of us about the horrible things that will happen to this waterfront.
Why any politician would accept this in Toronto is totally beyond me. So, I don't know.
Does anybody Mark, I don't know if you have some ideas about this uh or Paul? I I don't have any deep insights, but if if I mean the difference maybe here is that Doug Ford has come out so strongly in support of it. So if you're sitting in the federal government and you shut this down, you've just picked a big fight with Doug Ford. Um and if you're looking at it and you're saying this thing is ridiculous, it'll probably collapse of its own weight. There's no reason to go out early and annoy Doug Ford. Um, you know, let let the process come out. Um, let the public uh rage come out. Um, let there be the technical studies. Um, and eventually, um, uh, that kind of rationality will will prevail. Um, but if you come out right now, you're picking a fight with Doug.
Um, and what's the upside of that?
>> Well, and I want to point out to everyone, it's so damn annoying, but you know, as someone as an undergraduate political science student was made to read the Constitution backwards and forwards and review key constitutional cases for their political impact. I remind everyone that we are a federal system. And why would the federal government want to do business with Doug Ford? Because without Doug Ford there's no cooperation. There's no national child care program in Ontario. There's no expansion of pharmarmacare. There's no you know there's the list goes on on housing which is entirely a pro constitutionally a provin except for the weird thing about CHC and some financing rules. It is constitutionally a provincial responsibility and our provinces are sovereign with within most of their constitutional responsibilities. So if you want to get stuff done, you need a cooperation of the premers if you're the federal government, not on everything, but on most things. And so yes, I think that Mark is actually I think Mark's insight is has it's annoying. It's frustrating as hell, but I think it has a great deal of merit. You sort of have to balance they have to balance things out. And I think they you know remember Mark Carney said that Trump was a transformative president. Well he is, isn't he? Perhaps not in the way one would wish, right? Uh Carney has a way of speaking when he says things. Oh, that sounds interesting.
You know, uh I don't think it necessarily means what people think it means, but I understand why everyone's frustrated. I I get it completely. I'm frustrated. I wish they'd just say, "Forget it." But I think Mark is is is on to it. And there's no getting around the way this country works. You can't handwave away the Constitution. We tried that a couple of times with Meech Lake and, you know, Charlotte Town, some of you may remember, and it didn't go so well. It is what it is. It's it there's no getting around it. And uh they have multiple, you know, the the federal government has massive amounts of things they want to get done. Some of which we may agree with, some of which some of us may not. But I think, you know, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be going out and telling our MPs what we think and what we feel and what we know and what good information is out there. And no, don't assume they've read the e the ACOM EA from 2015. Don't assume they've read or 2017. Don't assume they've read the 2015 uh Oliver Wyman study. Don't assume that they could they're conversant with with the TP, you know, the with the Transport Canada uh fifth edition regulations. I mean, most of us actually aren't. I'm sure none of us could like site well, some of us probably could, but only a very few of us could site them, you know, verbatim.
So, I think, you know, part of it is education, advocacy, persistence.
um you know and yeah it's frustrating but uh but I I think we should be positive about the long-term ability to make the case and no it won't happen overnight. I mean Ford can yes Ford could do horrible things and those of you who who who because again provinces have absolute total authority over their municipalities in the final instance and I mean and you know that's just again that's section 92. Now, there are some exemptions. Brian and Ed can probably talk from a legal standpoint. There are some ways to try to work around that and there are some appeals and there are some ways that even the Supreme Court has at least, you know, kind of considered. But basically, you know, going in, you should assume that if the if a if a provincial government, any provincial government wants to radically reshape its cities and towns, it pretty much can.
again because they didn't think cities and towns were important in 1867.
>> Yeah, just to to add to that, I mean, I've seen a number of comments in the in the chat about Ontario Place and the Science Center and there are two key differences here. Um, one is the federal ownership of land in the airport and the other is one of the areas where the Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted federal authority is over aviation. Um, so the feds do have complete authority over over uh aviation. Uh, Transport Canada um uh can overrule Doug Ford. Um, uh, that's one of the areas where the feds have power.
Can >> I jump in and make another point?
>> Please, Brian.
>> Um, the what whatever happens with jets, it's going to cost a fortune. We know at 1 billion 2 billion there's not going to be that's not easily sourced from the private sector. No one's going to invest that kind of money in the airport when as Marcus has talked about it's a failing business. So the money is going to have to come from the government. And we do know that the port authority was set up back in the late 1990s with a view to port authorities generally being financially autonomous and independent.
And if you look at the debates around the Canada Marine Act back at that time, every politician says, well, this means we no longer have to subsidize um port authorities whether this operation of ports or operation of an airport in the case of Toronto. Um we we need to go back to those debates and establish that principle as a principle here that no public money should be spent on this airport.
>> Right. Yeah. Yes.
I think that's >> if there's after all if there were a business case for it.
>> Exactly.
>> Okay. Well, look everyone, thank you very much. I'm I'm going to point out that it's nine o'clock. Um I appreciate it. I also want to thank all of you who are who are here. I I probably should have done this at the outset. I apologize for that. If I miss someone, I'll I um I want to thank everyone who's who's made a contribution uh to Waterfront for All. We exist, you know, on um volunteer labor and uh I'm happy to say that our budget is not tremendously high, but we do have, you know, it costs us a a few hundred bucks every month to keep nation our nation builder website and our, you know, communication system up and running. And we also look forward to having some in-person events which inevitably cost more even if we get a great deal or even sort of free on venue rentals. So we look forward to that. Uh we are going to be doing uh more of these. Um we are going to announce very soon something I think we're thinking of about a month from now early June. Uh we have many more topics to explore and you know as we know our dear friend Norm and the no jets to team are obviously solely focused as they ought to be on opposing jets of Billy Bishop. Um some of you may know that waterfront for all doesn't always take a specific advocacy position because we think part of our mandate is encouragement of accessibility, sustainability and you know positive revitalization of our waterfront. But we do in this case take exception as you've gathered the jets at the airport because we feel it puts everything we support at risk and everything we agree with at risk you know a clean accessible enjoyable and revitalized waterfront and we hope I think you all I hope most of you if not everyone shares that we look forward to your ongoing support visit us at waterfrontforall.ca A we are back on X. I wish to say it weren't true. We we we did experiment and and we may pop back up again on the blue sky social app, but unfortunately despite all its myriad evils and problems, uh the X, formerly known as Twitter, is still where the balance of discourse happens to be in that particular type of social uh media platform. And so we we we've come back with a new uh a new handle there called Waterfront All. And uh we join our friends no jetsto and others and parks not planes there. And um we welcome your you to come follow us and come back and see us again soon. We'll be reaching out and announcing our next speaker series in June. And we also hope to do some walks again which we've did we did we've done successfully. So uh look forward to that. Thank you all.
Good night.
Keep the faith. Bye.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
