Two events this week make clear where the federal bureaucracy stands on the question of expanding Billy Bishop Airport (BBA). The first is the public consultation about the future of BBA, in particular the online survey, initiated this week and the second is the Toronto Port Authority’s (TPA) annual general meeting held on June 11.

Never Put a Date and a Number in the Same Sentence

The online survey, which will be available until July 24, presents one vague option – “changes to BBA” – and asks whether you support or oppose it. The changes are described as “changes to runways, allowing for different aircraft types, generating economic development and job creation, improving connectivity, increasing passenger flow, etc.” If any of components of package, even the etc., appeal to you, you might support it. Echoing the political adage to “never put a date and a number in the same sentence,” the survey does not present a plan with dates, facilities, and expenditures. Nor does it present alternatives to “changes to BBA,” such as keeping it at its current configuration and traffic level and accommodating increased air traffic at Pearson, or closing BBA, converting the site to recreational use, and accommodating current BBA traffic at Pearson.

The survey asks respondents about “mitigations [to] help address environmental impacts related to airport growth” and “approaches [to] help mitigate or manage noise impacts for surrounding communities.” In other words, the survey anticipates airport growth, and deleterious environmental and noise impacts can only be mitigated. It does not envisage respondents being so strongly concerned about environmental and noise impacts as to oppose the growth of BBA.

The Critics have their Say

The TPA’s annual general meeting, which I attended online, was ostensibly to discuss its annual report for 2025. However, in the question-and-answer period, almost every question dealt with the expansion of BBA, and all these questions were asked by opponents of expansion. I thought the most clever question was posed by Phil Pothen, counsel for Environmental Defence, who wondered what level of opposition in the public consultation would be sufficient to induce the TPA to reject expansion of BBA. R.J. Steenstra, CEO of the TPA, said that the consultation process was an “injection into the planning process” and only one of multiple inputs. In other words, even if the consultation process indicated near-unanimous public opposition to expanding BBA, it wouldn’t be sufficient to derail it.

Another participant asked whether TPA would consider the opportunity costs of lost ecosystems, housing, and recreational amenity in its airport expansion plan. Steenstra simply replied that “the airport is here to stay.” In other words, no. And he repeated the TPA’s mantra that BBA is a “massive economic engine” for the GTA’s economy. I repeat my argument that, if BBA closed, its traffic would simply move to Pearson, as would its economic activity, and the overall size of the GTA’s economy would be unchanged. I could quote more of the exchanges, but these two are sufficient to make the point that TPA is firmly focused on expanding BBA and will not plan for any alternative vision.

Strategy Going Forward

We must remember that while Steenstra is the CEO of the TPA, in the overall scheme of things he is a mid-level public servant, answerable through the Minister of Transport to the Carney Government. Similarly, the public consultation about the future of Billy Bishop is being conducted by mid-level public servants in Transport Canada. They designed the biased online survey, and I strongly doubt whether Prime Minister Carney, or even their Minister, edited it.

I completed the online survey. Of course, I indicated that I was opposed to “changes at BBA.” I answered the questions about the mitigation of environmental impacts and noise by saying the best way to mitigate these factors would be to close BBA. And I criticized the survey itself for not including alternatives to growth at BBA, such as locating growth at Pearson and closing BBA. Though the survey is anonymous, it records the electronic device that was used. So, for good measure, I answered it on both my laptop and my phone. I encourage opponents of the TPA’s stance, backed by the Ford Government, to complete the online survey.

The public consultation also includes an email address (airportspolicy-politiquedesaeroports@tc.ca) and I will send a longer submission based on my many blog posts about BBA.

I am confident that, despite the wishes of Transport Canada public servants and the Ford Government, if there is strong public opposition to expanding BBA the Carney Government will decide to kill the plan to expand BBA. The GTA is an area of strong support for the Liberal Party of Canada, and Carney is politically astute enough not to override his supporters on a local issue. Maybe the Carney Government will also question whether an airport is the best use for that unique and irreplaceable parcel of land on Toronto Island.