Stop Billy Bishop Airport Expansion
The Issue
IF YOU LIVE IN OR AROUND TORONTO, YOU HAVE THE 7 MINUTES IT TAKES TO READ THIS
The Government of Ontario has torn up its agreement with the Government of Canada and the City of Toronto, and has stifled debate in the legislature by adjourning early and returning late in an attempt to ram through the unwarranted development of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport —including the lengthening of its runway— refusing to consult with the City, its affected residents, or presenting any arguments, details or data to support its contention that an expansion is needed.
Passenger travel at Toronto Pearson has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels, with 50.5 million travellers using the airport in 2019, versus 47.3 in 2025. Despite this, Pearson is already future-proofing its infrastructure.
In May at Toronto’s Empire Club, Pearson CEO and president Deborah Flint delivered the keynote presentation entitled "State of the Airport: Positioned to Grow — Toronto Pearson Enters a New Era.” This presentation announced a $3 billion investment for Pearson LIFT (Long-term Investment in Facilities and Terminals), and is the first of a number of projects to be announced in 2026 aimed at expanding and improving passenger and air traffic at Pearson Airport, outlined in its strategy completed two years ago. Pearson LIFT puts in motion a plan for the airport to handle 65 million passengers per year by the early 2030s, with projections forecasting up to 100 million annual travellers by 2037.
With this investment and development already underway, there is no business case to likewise expand Billy Bishop to handle Pearson’s overflow. For context, Billy Bishop Airport handled 2.77 million passengers in 2019, and 1.75 million in 2025; after six years, Billy Bishop has only managed a 63.17% recovery. Even without Pearson’s colossal expansion presently in effect, it could absorb Billy Bishop’s entire peak annual passenger load —a figure to which it will take the island airport years to return.
It has been suggested that an airport expansion at Billy Bishop Airport would require $4–5 billion. To raise these funds, it has been proposed doubling or tripling the $29 Airport Improvement Fee (AIP), which makes up more than 90% of the airport’s total annual revenue, which in 2025 was $58 million. But even tripling the AIP would only generate $180 million total per year, leaving a 3–4 billion, eight hundred and twenty million dollar shortfall. That figure also presupposes that passenger volumes at Billy Bishop increase by 12.5% next year, when they actually declined by that amount in 2025.
Further, the island airport's projected 10 million annual travellers outstrips the volume of passengers moving through the airports in Edmonton, Ottawa or Winnipeg— the last two combined. In itself, this defies credulity, but to suggest that volume of air travel is expected at Toronto’s Billy Bishop airport alongside the number of passengers also travelling through Toronto Pearson is utterly implausible.
Since 2019, J.P. Morgan Asset Management has owned the terminal at Billy Bishop Airport. J.P. Morgan Asset Management is a wholly-owned, American subsidiary of New York City’s J.P. Morgan Chase which had to pay more than $35 billion in record-setting penalties and settlements for its role in the 2008 financial crisis, which included charges of fraud; conflict of interest; wrongful home foreclosures, among others. As part of its restitution, it was forced to pay a $13 billion civil settlement, the largest in US history. While J.P. Morgan Asset Management has a legal right to own and control the terminal at Billy Bishop Airport, it is not the job, nor in the interest of Canadians or their various representatives to facilitate functions which are designed to enrich American interests. Further, to assist American companies at the expense of Canadians’ health, environment, parkland, economy or voice is not only dangerous, but defies the very role of those in all levels of our government.
If the argument being presented to the Government of Ontario by J.P. Morgan Asset Management is that an expansion will make it easier for the ultra-rich to land their private jets close to downtown, there are two cases against it. First, it is not up to the citizens of Toronto to furnish the wealthy with amenities. Second, there are six existing FBOs at Pearson which already handle private jets and their clients, distinct from the general population of the main terminal building. FBOs (Fixed-Base Operators) are mini terminals which process corporate, charter and private aircraft, and facilitate customs clearances, and are exclusive of commercial aircraft or their passengers. If the true purpose of expanding the island airport is for the use of private jets and an increase of FBOs to manage and process their wealthy passengers, the proposal needs to be struck down immediately. The citizens of Toronto must not, and will not be impacted for the convenience of the world’s most affluent.
There is no business case to be made for expanding Billy Bishop Airport. But worse would be the increase in ultrafine particles (UFPs) which are a byproduct of combustion engines as found on airplanes. UFPs are linked to chronic lung disease, dementia and more. It has been proved by studies led by McGill and McMaster universities, as well as other independent and government bodies, that because UFPs are smaller than 100 nanometers, they bypass the body’s respiratory defences, lodging deep in lung tissue, or, alternately, traveling through the bloodstream to enter the brain causing inflammation and oxidative stress leading to cellular damage.
The World Health Organization considers 20,000 particles per cubic centimetre (p/cu. cm) the maximum allowable level of UFPs. During Billy Bishop’s operating hours, the air surrounding the airport contains upwards of 100,000 p/cu. cm: five times the advised maximum. Adding jet aircraft traffic will only aggravate health concerns for residents.
Finally, Toronto’s traffic —particularly downtown— has become an international punchline. To exacerbate this by introducing a nearly-fivefold increase in passenger traffic at Billy Bishop makes no sense whatsoever. Likewise, the expansion of Billy Bishop Airport had never been raised prior to 10 March of this year. Less than two weeks later, the Province announced its intent to declare the island airport a special economic zone, so that it may wrest power from the City and act on its behalf, usurping its ability to vote on the matter, and shattering the agreement the province previously held with the civic and federal governments. How can the island airport’s expansion be of such dire urgency if the provincial government had never spoken of it previously? This is an issue conjured out of falsehoods and imagination and does not bear the urgency, nor the very real action or continued growth of Toronto Pearson.
Below are questions asked by the federal government in its recent survey about the proposed airport expansion. Significantly, the question not asked is whether I support the expansion of Billy Bishop Airport or whether the expansion should go ahead. I submit, emphatically, that it should not.
- 7. What environmental factors should be considered in future airport planning?
The increase of UFPs which already outstrip the WHO's advised maximum by 500%.
The irreplaceable loss of habitat for animals and public green space. Once this land is commercialized and commodified, it will never return to public green space. - 8. What mitigations would help address environmental impacts related to airport growth?
Amending legislation allowing for infill expansion of Toronto Islands green space. For every square meter of land expropriated by the provincial government, it must create 1.5 square meters of new parkland, contiguous with any of the existing Toronto Islands. - 9. What noise-related factors should be considered in future airport planning?
Curfews need to be maintained and fines enforced for flights landing outside the allotted scope. - 10. What approaches could help mitigate or manage noise impacts for surrounding communities?
Topographical landscaping to absorb sound, as can be found in the Buitenschot Land Art Park surrounding Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam is recommended, but requires more terrain than even exists on the Toronto Islands or downtown. - 11. What land-use planning factors (such as housing or commercial development, public spaces, etc.) should be considered?
For many, the Toronto Islands are one of the few options for summer relaxation, exercise or amusement. The majority of city residents do not have access to cottage retreats, but they also shouldn't need one with the island parks so close by.
What residents do deserve is safe, clean green spaces where they can access beaches, pathways and areas to congregate with family and friends.
Further, Toronto and the Province both need to honour their commitments to develop low income, and general housing, and ought to be doing so through densification, which, in a city as congested as Toronto, can only mean building vertically. Introducing jets to Billy Bishop will crater the City’s ability to capitalize on adequate densification as new structures are hobbled by safety thresholds, preemptively stunting desperately needed accommodation for a rapidly growing Toronto. - 12. Do you have any other comments to add?
Don't build the socially, environmentally and financially indefensible, particularly when residents oppose it, and when a larger, more capable, currently expanding airport already exists to which the necessary infrastructure is already tied.
Torontonians are being asked what noise mitigation or environmental impacts should be addressed in consideration of an airport expansion. It is not the job of Toronto’s citizenry to provide solutions to these issues; it is the job of elected officials. Additionally, no one should be asked leading questions about approaches to best minimize impacts before a plebiscite has been conducted as to whether the airport expansion should even go ahead. It is disingenuous to suggest Torontonians’ best interests are at heart if a discussion opens with the supposition that expansion is a fait accompli.
No plausible business case has been made for expanding Billy Bishop Airport and no details of any proposal have been shared publicly. There is no supporting evidence for the projections offered, and, in fact, the island airport’s air traffic is currently declining. Meanwhile, Toronto Pearson Airport continues to grow and has just invested 3 billion dollars as the first of many instalments for a plan which has been in the works for years and has now been implemented. To suggest both airports can expand concurrently, with Pearson —a major international hub— forecasting growth of 37%, while Billy Bishop expects growth at a staggering 470% is preposterous. The absurdity of this position is only magnified considering the longer runway at Billy Bishop would accommodate smaller jets, not wide-body aircraft which carry the bulk of passengers.
As the representative of the constituents in your ward, it is incumbent upon you to speak out, and vote against any proposal to expand Billy Bishop Airport; a facility whose passenger terminal is owned and controlled by US-based J.P. Morgan Asset Management which is lobbying for the airport’s expansion. If Billy Bishop Airport were to grow at anywhere near the rate proposed, that would necessarily mean siphoning revenue and jobs from Toronto Pearson, which is Canadian.
Do not allow this to happen.
124
The Issue
IF YOU LIVE IN OR AROUND TORONTO, YOU HAVE THE 7 MINUTES IT TAKES TO READ THIS
The Government of Ontario has torn up its agreement with the Government of Canada and the City of Toronto, and has stifled debate in the legislature by adjourning early and returning late in an attempt to ram through the unwarranted development of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport —including the lengthening of its runway— refusing to consult with the City, its affected residents, or presenting any arguments, details or data to support its contention that an expansion is needed.
Passenger travel at Toronto Pearson has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels, with 50.5 million travellers using the airport in 2019, versus 47.3 in 2025. Despite this, Pearson is already future-proofing its infrastructure.
In May at Toronto’s Empire Club, Pearson CEO and president Deborah Flint delivered the keynote presentation entitled "State of the Airport: Positioned to Grow — Toronto Pearson Enters a New Era.” This presentation announced a $3 billion investment for Pearson LIFT (Long-term Investment in Facilities and Terminals), and is the first of a number of projects to be announced in 2026 aimed at expanding and improving passenger and air traffic at Pearson Airport, outlined in its strategy completed two years ago. Pearson LIFT puts in motion a plan for the airport to handle 65 million passengers per year by the early 2030s, with projections forecasting up to 100 million annual travellers by 2037.
With this investment and development already underway, there is no business case to likewise expand Billy Bishop to handle Pearson’s overflow. For context, Billy Bishop Airport handled 2.77 million passengers in 2019, and 1.75 million in 2025; after six years, Billy Bishop has only managed a 63.17% recovery. Even without Pearson’s colossal expansion presently in effect, it could absorb Billy Bishop’s entire peak annual passenger load —a figure to which it will take the island airport years to return.
It has been suggested that an airport expansion at Billy Bishop Airport would require $4–5 billion. To raise these funds, it has been proposed doubling or tripling the $29 Airport Improvement Fee (AIP), which makes up more than 90% of the airport’s total annual revenue, which in 2025 was $58 million. But even tripling the AIP would only generate $180 million total per year, leaving a 3–4 billion, eight hundred and twenty million dollar shortfall. That figure also presupposes that passenger volumes at Billy Bishop increase by 12.5% next year, when they actually declined by that amount in 2025.
Further, the island airport's projected 10 million annual travellers outstrips the volume of passengers moving through the airports in Edmonton, Ottawa or Winnipeg— the last two combined. In itself, this defies credulity, but to suggest that volume of air travel is expected at Toronto’s Billy Bishop airport alongside the number of passengers also travelling through Toronto Pearson is utterly implausible.
Since 2019, J.P. Morgan Asset Management has owned the terminal at Billy Bishop Airport. J.P. Morgan Asset Management is a wholly-owned, American subsidiary of New York City’s J.P. Morgan Chase which had to pay more than $35 billion in record-setting penalties and settlements for its role in the 2008 financial crisis, which included charges of fraud; conflict of interest; wrongful home foreclosures, among others. As part of its restitution, it was forced to pay a $13 billion civil settlement, the largest in US history. While J.P. Morgan Asset Management has a legal right to own and control the terminal at Billy Bishop Airport, it is not the job, nor in the interest of Canadians or their various representatives to facilitate functions which are designed to enrich American interests. Further, to assist American companies at the expense of Canadians’ health, environment, parkland, economy or voice is not only dangerous, but defies the very role of those in all levels of our government.
If the argument being presented to the Government of Ontario by J.P. Morgan Asset Management is that an expansion will make it easier for the ultra-rich to land their private jets close to downtown, there are two cases against it. First, it is not up to the citizens of Toronto to furnish the wealthy with amenities. Second, there are six existing FBOs at Pearson which already handle private jets and their clients, distinct from the general population of the main terminal building. FBOs (Fixed-Base Operators) are mini terminals which process corporate, charter and private aircraft, and facilitate customs clearances, and are exclusive of commercial aircraft or their passengers. If the true purpose of expanding the island airport is for the use of private jets and an increase of FBOs to manage and process their wealthy passengers, the proposal needs to be struck down immediately. The citizens of Toronto must not, and will not be impacted for the convenience of the world’s most affluent.
There is no business case to be made for expanding Billy Bishop Airport. But worse would be the increase in ultrafine particles (UFPs) which are a byproduct of combustion engines as found on airplanes. UFPs are linked to chronic lung disease, dementia and more. It has been proved by studies led by McGill and McMaster universities, as well as other independent and government bodies, that because UFPs are smaller than 100 nanometers, they bypass the body’s respiratory defences, lodging deep in lung tissue, or, alternately, traveling through the bloodstream to enter the brain causing inflammation and oxidative stress leading to cellular damage.
The World Health Organization considers 20,000 particles per cubic centimetre (p/cu. cm) the maximum allowable level of UFPs. During Billy Bishop’s operating hours, the air surrounding the airport contains upwards of 100,000 p/cu. cm: five times the advised maximum. Adding jet aircraft traffic will only aggravate health concerns for residents.
Finally, Toronto’s traffic —particularly downtown— has become an international punchline. To exacerbate this by introducing a nearly-fivefold increase in passenger traffic at Billy Bishop makes no sense whatsoever. Likewise, the expansion of Billy Bishop Airport had never been raised prior to 10 March of this year. Less than two weeks later, the Province announced its intent to declare the island airport a special economic zone, so that it may wrest power from the City and act on its behalf, usurping its ability to vote on the matter, and shattering the agreement the province previously held with the civic and federal governments. How can the island airport’s expansion be of such dire urgency if the provincial government had never spoken of it previously? This is an issue conjured out of falsehoods and imagination and does not bear the urgency, nor the very real action or continued growth of Toronto Pearson.
Below are questions asked by the federal government in its recent survey about the proposed airport expansion. Significantly, the question not asked is whether I support the expansion of Billy Bishop Airport or whether the expansion should go ahead. I submit, emphatically, that it should not.
- 7. What environmental factors should be considered in future airport planning?
The increase of UFPs which already outstrip the WHO's advised maximum by 500%.
The irreplaceable loss of habitat for animals and public green space. Once this land is commercialized and commodified, it will never return to public green space. - 8. What mitigations would help address environmental impacts related to airport growth?
Amending legislation allowing for infill expansion of Toronto Islands green space. For every square meter of land expropriated by the provincial government, it must create 1.5 square meters of new parkland, contiguous with any of the existing Toronto Islands. - 9. What noise-related factors should be considered in future airport planning?
Curfews need to be maintained and fines enforced for flights landing outside the allotted scope. - 10. What approaches could help mitigate or manage noise impacts for surrounding communities?
Topographical landscaping to absorb sound, as can be found in the Buitenschot Land Art Park surrounding Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam is recommended, but requires more terrain than even exists on the Toronto Islands or downtown. - 11. What land-use planning factors (such as housing or commercial development, public spaces, etc.) should be considered?
For many, the Toronto Islands are one of the few options for summer relaxation, exercise or amusement. The majority of city residents do not have access to cottage retreats, but they also shouldn't need one with the island parks so close by.
What residents do deserve is safe, clean green spaces where they can access beaches, pathways and areas to congregate with family and friends.
Further, Toronto and the Province both need to honour their commitments to develop low income, and general housing, and ought to be doing so through densification, which, in a city as congested as Toronto, can only mean building vertically. Introducing jets to Billy Bishop will crater the City’s ability to capitalize on adequate densification as new structures are hobbled by safety thresholds, preemptively stunting desperately needed accommodation for a rapidly growing Toronto. - 12. Do you have any other comments to add?
Don't build the socially, environmentally and financially indefensible, particularly when residents oppose it, and when a larger, more capable, currently expanding airport already exists to which the necessary infrastructure is already tied.
Torontonians are being asked what noise mitigation or environmental impacts should be addressed in consideration of an airport expansion. It is not the job of Toronto’s citizenry to provide solutions to these issues; it is the job of elected officials. Additionally, no one should be asked leading questions about approaches to best minimize impacts before a plebiscite has been conducted as to whether the airport expansion should even go ahead. It is disingenuous to suggest Torontonians’ best interests are at heart if a discussion opens with the supposition that expansion is a fait accompli.
No plausible business case has been made for expanding Billy Bishop Airport and no details of any proposal have been shared publicly. There is no supporting evidence for the projections offered, and, in fact, the island airport’s air traffic is currently declining. Meanwhile, Toronto Pearson Airport continues to grow and has just invested 3 billion dollars as the first of many instalments for a plan which has been in the works for years and has now been implemented. To suggest both airports can expand concurrently, with Pearson —a major international hub— forecasting growth of 37%, while Billy Bishop expects growth at a staggering 470% is preposterous. The absurdity of this position is only magnified considering the longer runway at Billy Bishop would accommodate smaller jets, not wide-body aircraft which carry the bulk of passengers.
As the representative of the constituents in your ward, it is incumbent upon you to speak out, and vote against any proposal to expand Billy Bishop Airport; a facility whose passenger terminal is owned and controlled by US-based J.P. Morgan Asset Management which is lobbying for the airport’s expansion. If Billy Bishop Airport were to grow at anywhere near the rate proposed, that would necessarily mean siphoning revenue and jobs from Toronto Pearson, which is Canadian.
Do not allow this to happen.
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on June 16, 2026