What a strange, though predictable response from Olivia Chow, Adam Vaughan and David Miller's office to news that the federal government is considering funding a tunnel to Toronto's island airport.
The line that jumped out at me from Mr. Vaughan was: "It's a bunch of money to move a few very privileged people, not taxpayers." His tag team partner Ms. Chow made her preference for the money known as well: "If the Minister of Transportation is serious about assisting airline passengers, he should focus on funding electric high speed trains linking Union Station to Pearson International Airport."
Which makes me wonder, are airports really about benefiting the "privileged few?" How is Pearson somehow a more egalitarian transportation hub than the island airport? In other words, do Miller, Vaughan and Chow believe that flying to destinations like Thunder Bay, St. John's and Ottawa is a bourgeois activity, while jetting off to Europe and other transcontinental hotspots serves the needs of more "ordinary" Torontonians? And if Porter can make a go at it flying business people to New York and Chicago, are they somehow lesser taxpayers than those who choose to take their kids to Disney from Pearson?
It continues: "NDP MP Olivia Chow said she is 'outraged' the city's port authority would try to use public money to prop-up a private airline." That would of course be outrageous. Public money should never, ever, ever go to a private airline. Ever. Outrageous!
Well there is at least one person who sees no problem with public money going to a private airline; NDP president Peggy Nash wrote an op-ed less than a month ago where she specifically advocated using public money to prop-up a private airline. Her airline of choice is Air Canada.
Which, as I wrote at the time, I do find outrageous. Sadly for Chow, that isn't what is being proposed here.
What the feds are proposing is an investment in a publicly owned piece of infrastructure. David Miller's argument that this is all about helping "one private business" misses the point. While I like Porter, I don't think THEY deserve help; as a passenger of Porter, this is all about making my life and the lives of the thousands of people who have come to rely on Porter's experience better. If Porter also benefits through more customers then so be it.
Furthermore, implicit in the argument that a tunnel to the island airport would "help Porter" is an acknowledgement that people - you know, citizens, taxpayers, voters - want Porter operating out of the island and more people will fly out of the island if access improves. If the impact of the tunnel meant no new people would fly on Porter then while the money would be wasted, it surely wouldn't be "helping" Porter. Doesn't that logically mean that this is an investment that will help the "masses" rather than a select few?
For David Miller it's all about doling out public money to his chosen people; unionized garbage collectors are good, travelling business people trying to save a couple of hours while being treating like a human being by an airline that understands customer service are bad.
