A spirited exchange of emails between Community Air Chair Brian Iler and TPA director Mark McQueen:

Mr. Iler

Thank you for copying me on this message.  Much has been written of late about your organizations desire for “civility” from the Toronto Port Authority.  My understanding is that TPA management, staff and external advisors have conducted themselves appropriately at all of the recent meetings in question.

At the meeting before last, one of the 30 CAIR supporters in attendance called a TPA consultant “Porky Pig” throughout the evening.  I note that you’ve referred to TPA representatives as “goons” in this correspondence.  On a recent occasion, you also told one of my board colleagues that I was “vindictive”, and yet provided no evidence of any conduct on my part that would give rise to such a slur.

Given your organizations’ alleged interest in civilized proceedings on TPA matters, I can’t help but reflect on the irony of today’s complaint in light of your own conduct and that of some of your colleagues.  I understand that you seek to close the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.  You are welcome to this view, and are free to use whatever legal means you see fit to achieve your ends.  Under the Tripartite Agreement, the TPA has the obligation to manage the BBTCA.  There is a stark difference in our mandates.

The environmental assessment review process underway is following the appropriate course.  I hope that you and other Torontonians will continue to participate in the process, and will do your best to refrain from name calling and similar behaviour that is inconsistent with the promulgated expectations of someone in your profession.  


Mark McQueen


Mark – did you inquire as to the facts cited by the writer of the account of what happened last night? He was there. You were not. We did wonder why no TPA director bothered to show up.

Who was the gentleman hired by the TPA who stood out in the hall all alone all night and attempted to prevent the chairs from being brought into the meeting room? Another person who spoke with him last night described him as “antagonistic, nasty, and distasteful”. He certainly gave the impression that he was there to physically impede attendees who wanted to actually hold a proper meeting.

Fortunately unsuccessfully.

That, and the offensive treatment of HCC staff, as  described by the attendee, were clear attempts at intimidation by representatives of the TPA. That’s conduct unbecoming your organization. And accurately described as “goon squad”.

Is this what the TPA is down to?

My earlier private discussion with a TPA board member was noting how unproductive my encounters with you had been, with a view to finding ways around that clear impediment. You have said  nasty, sneering things about me in the past. And you have had your lawyer write to me to threaten a lawsuit when the facts supported the statement you complained of. That board member asked for no particulars, and appeared to understand why I might feel that way, in fact. It was a recognition of that reality. Nothing more.

I was at the front of the room last night, and heard no such “Porky Pig” statement made by anyone. Your report of that is second-hand, and wrong, to my knowledge. If I had heard it, I would have requested that it cease. In fact, we were pleased that the meeting proceeded, when it was ultimately properly organized, n a most civil and productive way, notwithstanding the looming presence of your man in the hall.

 The room was packed, with standing room only – at least 80 people, attending out of real concern for their communities. Watch the CTV coverage, which confirms that there were far more than 30 attendees.

To disparage them by discounting them as “CAIR supporters” is, again, so wrong.

Brian


Mr. Iler

At the outset, I note that you haven’t addressed my questions; I believe you should be as accountable as you expect the TPA to be.  The “porky pig” epithet was repeatedly used at the meeting before last, as is clear from my correspondence.  As was my reference to 30 attendees; it was in reference to the meeting before last.  You again are attempting to twist my words; it is unbecoming and I would be grateful if you would kindly desist.  Your profession requires this of you, in fact.  These transparent tactics does not improve the credibility of your arguments, even if it does confirm an ongoing pattern.

Whether or not you heard something derisive hurled at one of our consultants at the Jacobs session in no way serves as the sole validation of the fact of its repeated occurrence.  This is similar to the time that you didn’t hear, as described in my formal remarks at the 2009 TPA annual general meeting, that the TPA Board had asked unilaterally NAV CAN to increase the overflight ceiling over the Toronto Islands to 2500 ft.  And the August 19, 2009 circumstance where we formally requested that the Department of National Defence not conduct A310 training exercises along the Toronto Waterfront unless for reasons of specific operational necessity; a request that the Minister accepted.

You may appreciate why, it light of this ongoing trend, some may conclude that you ignore anything and everything that doesn’t suit the promotion of your agenda.

As for our own interaction, I have never “said nasty” things to you.  As the last two annual meetings demonstrated, I treat your questions with the care and attention that is expected of me.  It is true that you will occasionally receive cautions when you and CAIR publish defamatory statements.  As your organization has already had to formally retract defamatory statements about the TPA and its officers to avoid legal sanction in prior years, I see this as an appropriate and, sadly, necessary thing to do.

Since you’ve raised the CTV news coverage, I can’t help but notice that it does not support your complaint to Minister Baird about disrespectful behaviour on the part of TPA officials.  Perhaps the news media, which included print reporters, didn’t find this alleged conduct newsworthy?  It is hard to believe.

As this is an Environmental Assessment, the TPA engaged outside specialists to conduct the process to the spirit and letter of the law.  It doesn’t seem appropriate for members of the TPA board to attend these sessions and interfere in the work of the outside professionals.  You would just complain if we did, just as you are complaining that we aren’t in attendance.  The simple fact that we attend NMAG sessions, not to mention all of the other positive steps we’ve taken of late, is a clear demonstration of our intense interest in working with the community to mitigate the ambient noise generated by the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport on its neighbours.

Again, I’d be very grateful if you and members of your organization would do your best to avoid using epithets and bullying phrases such as “good squad” and “porky pig” as we go about this important consultative process.  It is not lost on me that Toronto’s public school board would dismiss you from class for such behaviour, on the basis that such childish and aggressive conduct creates an inappropriately hostile environment.


Mark McQueen


Mark – your note below is nasty in tone and content. It is not in any way written to constructively engage. Hence the problem.

I see no questions asked. You’re right  - the meeting before last was the one you referred to . My error. I did ask, and was told that someone was saying “Porky Pig”. I didn’t hear it. What an insignificant issue to dwell on, surely.

You ascribe responsibility to me for the statements of others, as if somehow I, or CommunityAIR, have control over what every member of the communities affected might do. We do what we can, but are not all-powerful.

You are well aware that the lawsuit brought against the eight of us was without merit on 39 of the 40 grounds complained of. Had the 40th been the only one raised, we would have apologized immediately. We care greatly about our credibility. Enough grinding of that axe, surely.

CTV arrived after the meeting was finally properly constituted. Check your facts.

“Goon squad” does describe the unacceptable behaviour witnessed by me and others by your people (not Ken, but others) on Wednesday. Here’s the picture of the gentleman Mike Riehl was seen paying off at the end of the night. Why was he hired? What exactly was your goal? If it was to intimidate, it failed miserably. What’s next?

Brian


Mr. Iler

We continue to work tirelessly to have a positive impact on the broader community.

Part of that effort takes the form of constant efforts to mitigate the impact that the various lines of business have on our neighbours.  Airports, like so many other public entities, have an impact.  I realize that you aren’t going to pat us on the back for these things, such as mocking our Earth Hour effort even though the TPA is the first Federal agency to utilize 100% green electricity.  You want to engage, but it seems so insincere; as I’ve pointed out countless times.  You continue to give no credit for the multiple positive steps we’ve taken over the past few years.  Your idea of engagement is merely to interface with me in an effort to discern new information which can then be twisted for your PR advantage; just as you tried to do below in several instances, and undertake on a weekly basis on your website.  The run-up noise maintenance structure is another example: you were advised at the NMAG session that it would direct sound over Lake Ontario, and yet you tell your colleagues at the IYC that it’ll be directed at them.  You were advised that it would be paid for by passenger levies, and yet you tell the media that it is coming from tax dollars.  On and on it goes.

Send me some constructive ideas, and we’ll definitely embrace them.  Send me hate mail with epithets, and it is tough to understand how that telegraphs as constructive engagement on your part.  That being said, we value all constructive contributions to our mandate and improving the role of the TPA as it fulfills its legal mandate and requirements.


Mark McQueen


Mark – I wish we’d seen substantive efforts from the TPA. All we’ve seen are token, not real, efforts to address significant community concerns. And strenuous TPA efforts to sabotage the communities’ expression of those concerns, as occurred last Wednesday and on February 17.

And please read your email –you casually include nasty phrases, like “insincere” and “twisting words”, and “hate mail” [what, on earth, was in that category?] in an apparent effort to demean me, and our efforts. That’s not in any way constructive. Stick with the arguments, provide the facts [just where is that 212-slots report that was promised to us?], and avoid the personal attacks, and we will communicate far more effectively.

All we know about the proposed noise barriers is that there are two, and they are U-shaped: one with the open end pointing at IYC and the other pointing at Hanlan’s Point Beach – probably the most popular beach in all of Toronto. That’s what we saw on a board at the February 17 meeting. Both are extremely sensitive locations. We have no further  information about their design or their effectiveness. No one from the TPA has bothered to provide any such information.

No one has told us how they would be paid for, to my knowledge.

To say that airport improvement fees will pay for them, and therefore the taxpayer is not on the hook, is entirely misleading.

The TPA will use its public assets to secure a loan to pay for them, or its cash, which is a public asset.

Payback of the cost from improvement fees assumes that Porter or another commercial carrier continues with successful operation at that airport. There are risks that could challenge that assumption:

    * another economic crisis, deeper than the 2008 one, such as the one that put City Express out of business,
    * Porter expanding too aggressively, and imploding – or opting to move more of its operations to Pearson to try to fill those 50% of its seats it cannot fill out of your airport (not for lack of impressive trying),
    * the kind of mismatch between fossil fuel demand and supply that Jeff Rubin, and many others, persuasively write about that could well mean the end of most aviation.

All of these are real risks, and if any one materializes, there will be no fees to reimburse the public purse. What you are doing is devoting public assets for the benefit of a private business. If anybody should be paying, it should be Porter, not a public agency. Ditto for the proposed tunnel.

Here’s a report from a waterfront resident today on his recent experience with run-ups:

"Three or four weeks ago, we went through hell, noise wise. There were engine run-ups all night
every night. We got 4-5 hours sleep every night for two weeks. The wife was seriously exhausted.
I'm telling you, living near an airport is not all glamour and waterfront parties.
And then, after two weeks of this misery, the all night noise stopped, and we're sleeping again."

Run-ups certainly should not occur at night – or on weekends when people are entitled to some peace and quiet. There’s no place at the Island Airport that run-ups should be allowed to happen - with or without your proposed noise barriers: they cannot conceivably prevent ALL noise, and run-ups are notoriously loud.

Run-ups aren’t compatible with any of the other established uses of our waterfront.

Run-ups belong at Pearson, or some other location that is not cheek-by-jowl with our City’s major recreational jewel, and the residences of thousands of people.

In some ways I am surprised that you haven’t at least insisted on that. That would be a significant indication that the TPA does take its responsibilities to the surrounding communities seriously. But even that has not happened. Perhaps you will now do so, to achieve some “positive impact on the broader community” and save the megabucks indicated for the noise barrier construction.

Bottom line, the TPA is clearly hell-bent on an expansion of this airport to double its current level of operation.

Given our experience with current levels of noise and pollution, that expansion scares me and many more. Please tell me how that can possibly be spun as a “positive impact”?

Brian


Mr. Iler

The NMAG is substantive and genuine; we are acting on the recommendations.  That’s the proof point.

The Tunnel EA process is also genuine and following the spirit and letter of the law.

I’m surprised that you’re unaware of how the noise barriers are going to be financed.  Our January 2010 infrastructure and environmental press release carefully described how the noise barriers would be financed.  It was discussed on your website, so I assume CAIR is aware of it.  With 500,000 plus outbound passengers this year, all of the 2010 improvements will be paid by passenger AIF fees that will be collected in 2010 (to the tune of $8 - $10 million); you need only worry that Porter carry those passengers for the next few months for 100% of the 2010 airport capex budget.  The noise barriers are already “paid for” by AIF fees that have been collected to date in 2010.  I think you should stop pretending there’s some malfeasance with public funds at work here.  As for the proposed tunnel, you don’t want passengers to pay for it by a PPP model, but airlines themselves?  With new carriers pending at the BBTCA, how would we divvy up the cost of the proposed project between the various commercial carriers under your suggestion?  More importantly, do you know of an airport today where the airlines pay for passenger access to the facility?  Under the Tripartite Agreement, the proposed tunnel and similar access infrastructure planning is the TPA’s responsibility and no one else.     

The Tripartite Agreement permits maintenance of aircraft as you know.  I’d thought the NMAG accepted the consultants’ advice that the noise barriers were a useful enterprise.  If the community is actually against their construction, why didn’t that come up at the NMAG last year?  I appreciate that you’d like to move Porter (and Air Canada et al) off the BBTCA, but if that’s the only way to mitigate ambient noise at the airport, it leaves us with little to work with – which may of course be the point.  Create circumstances where you can claim we are not doing anything to deal with community concerns, just as you have done below.  According to the data I’ve seen, the runups take between 3 and 7 minutes; that may be long in some eyes, but maintenance is necessary on any passenger aircraft.    

I’ve made no personal attacks against you.  Just assessing your approach, and that of some supporters in your organization.  I appreciate that being held accountable for your actions has been unusual for you these past 2 and a half years, but you should live up to the same rules you apply to the rest of us.  I raised the “porky pig” slur, which you immediately said hadn’t happened and that I was “wrong” (and then recanted), to remind you that you do not hold the moral highground when it comes to decorum or the treatment of others.

On the finalization of the slot figures, we continue to work toward releasing our next bulletin regarding the allocation of slots and the appointment of an independent slot coordinator.  As you know, this is not an expansion of the airport but a utilization that precisely tracks the requirements and allowances of the Tripartite Agreement.  The NEF guides their work, just as it has for the past number of years.  Please acknowledge that there are a variety of inputs that generate different scenarios: type of equipment used, number of night operations (6:45 am – 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. – 11 p.m.) versus daytime operations, angle of approach, etc.  It will not surprise you that a 2010-era commercial turboprop aircraft has a more modest impact in the NEF analysis (ie. quieter) than one produced in the 1970s, and was still flying in 1983.  As well, a night ops slot is dramatically more impactful in the NEF than a daytime one.   

As for referring to the 30 people who attended the NMAG Open House, each of whom seemed to want to close the airport, as being “CAIR supporters”, is there some doubt about CAIR’s mandate?  There’s nothing demeaning in acknowledging what those in attendance were advocating.  We are having these meetings and regular interfaces in the hopes we can get constructive ideas and useful feedback; it’s a simple truth.

That’s also the very reason I responded, as I regularly do, to your email below.  However, I am a volunteer board member with a day job, a family, and other responsibilities, all of which I must now return to.  Thank you for taking my observations into consideration.   

 
Mark McQueen


Mark – you continue to ignore the frustrated nature of the Noise Management Advisory Group’s work.

I was at its two meetings. You were not.

The report from Jacobs was always described as preliminary. And it was only partially presented at the last meeting, on July 14.

To assist your memory, here’s what we said in response to your attempt at “myth-busting”:

                        Its first meeting took place on February 18, 2009.

                        The second was on July 14, 2009.

                        Notwithstanding promises to call another to complete the presentation of the Jacobs report to the Group, and thereby obtain community input, the TPA failed to do so.

There has been no opportunity for the NMAG to comment on the run-up noise barriers. The information in the “report” was skimpy and unhelpful. So was the information available at the February 17 event. For you to continue to argue that effective consultation occurred in the face of those facts is hardly constructive.

There is nothing in the tripartite agreement about who pays for access to the airport – that’s between the TPA and Porter. You do need to read that document. Just as there’s nothing in the tripartite agreement that states, as the TPA did in it “myth-busting” letter:

“Fact: Non-STOL aircraft can use the BBTCA, according to amendment of the Tripartite Agreement in 1985, provided they are approved by Transport Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Bombardier Q400 used by Porter Airlines at BBTCA is a Non-STOL aircraft and has received such approvals.”

If that’s the best argument you can come up with for permitting the Q400 to use that airport, then you are on very weak ground indeed.

As was noted at the meeting last week, WaterfronTORONTO has conducted consultations about the Queen’s Quay revamp that were engaging, and in which the communities affected felt understood and found that their views were reflected in the final recommendations. That is effective consultation.

There is a vast divide between the approach of WaterfronTORONTO and the TPA, which consistently  communicates to the communities that its conclusions are pre-ordained, their opinions will have no effect on the results, and the consultation process is one of form only, not substance. That is certainly the experience of each member of the Noise Management Advisory Group, and of the last two public “meetings”.

I do not necessarily receive your press releases. They are not distributed to me, or anyone in the communities affected, as far as I know.

I am surprised you rely on a poorly distributed press release as your only means of communicating the financing of the proposed noise barriers. Surely, your communications consultants can advise you on how to be much more effective in communicating what the TPA is up to – poor community relations, made worse by the TPA’s shabby treatment of community members at the recent public “meetings”, has always been a critical concern.

Even M. Tasse recognized that, in his report’s recommendation at page 99, to date not implemented by the TPA:

…The TPA must take a more proactive and progressive  approach to its community consultations. It must reach out to the organizations that have raised concerns about its operations and build closer relationships, wherever relationships can be built and reasonable discussions enjoined. The TPA must also reach out to the broader Toronto community to engender an understanding of its operations, and to develop an understanding of what measures can be taken to further integrate the port and the TCCA into a revitalized city and waterfront

I note that you have ignored questions asked in prior emails:

    * “Just where is that 212-slots report that was promised” on February 17 by the TPA - to be delivered in a month?
    * “Here’s the picture of the gentleman Mike Riehl was seen paying off at the end of the night. Why was he hired? What exactly was your goal?”

May we have your answers?

And what information do you have that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed noise barriers, sufficient to warrant the significant expense?

I’m afraid we’ll have to continue to disagree on the use of public resources for private benefit. A major problem with the TPA in general is that its revenue, while public in nature, is spent by the TPA in accordance with its very restricted view of public priorities – there are so many other ways in which its public funds could better be spent - for public benefit, not private. Further subsidizing a private enterprise is, surely, one of the lower priorities for the spending of public funds.

This stems from the structural failure of the TPA – by design, it does not entrench much accountability to the people of Toronto for its decisions as to how to allocate its financial resources – currently those decisions are made primarily by small group of hand-picked Conservatives, appointed by Harper’s government. That structural lack of accountability is made worse, by the Harper government’s ignoring what the law clearly requires: significant representation from port user groups. There is none, other than Porter and the aviation industry. And you operate in secret to boot. Where’s the legitimacy in that?

Brian