Speaking Candidly on the Airport Issue

Recently, I made an independent motion that Council place a question on the civic election ballot regarding the future of the ECCA (Edmonton City Center Airport) which failed. I made this motion because I believe the sale of public assets the scale of Capital Power or ECCA should occur only with a clear mandate from citizens.

I believe Council did not seek direction on either decision, and I believe citizens will pay a price, through higher fees (to pay for power from a private third party) or through higher taxes to cover costs and lost revenues.

At the July 2009 hearing on the ECCA, I voted no to closure and yes to a Council approved plebiscite. I felt strongly that the original analysis and reports prepared for Council's consideration, were one-sided and only offered a perspective that supported closing the airport. I did not feel that Council was provided with a complete picture by City Administration, and I was left with unanswered concerns.

My first concern is around the financials associated with closure. Edmonton's municipal airport has historically been one of the most profitable airports in Canada; and the city has shared in its profits. In 1992 and 1995 there were plebiscites that approved the consolidation of scheduled air service at The International, while regional air service would continue at the municipal. Long term leases were signed—some for 52 years. Tenants invested in building and expanding hangers—all which become our liability and cost if closure occurs.

Another serious problem as I see it, is the issue of medevacs. At the time that the decision to close the ECCA was made, Administration committed to achieving a transition plan for medevacs before closure was initiated. This plan has never been provided to Council, and Runway 16-34 was closed in August despite this fact.

I strongly believe that a good democracy must be transparent in decision-making, and further to that, we must be supported by a bureaucracy that provides thoughtful and objective information. This was not the case in the ECAA question. From my perspective, the analysis provided to Council was not balanced as it did not project both the opportunities and risks associated with closing the facility.

Finally, is also important to clarify that Council never voted on the Envision petition. It was declared invalid by the Clerk and dismissed. And, it is important for my constituents to understand that my perspective is my own, and that I have no involvement with Envision.