You might have heard the many heated discussions over the proposed expansion of Billy Bishop Airport by the Ontario government. On the one hand, there is the Province which has advanced legislation to repatriate land in order to expand the airport. And on the other hand, there are the City of Toronto, social interest groups and political opposition parties which have vehemently opposed everything that the Province is proposing. Beyond that are the unhelpful accusations against the Province of greed and disrespect of the community. At the centre of this debate is the designation of the airport and the area around it as a “special economic zone (SEZ)” – a term that came into use in 2025 when Bill 5 was passed to expedite approvals for “nation-building projects” as a result of the US tariffs and related economic threats. In the case of Billy Bishop, environmental assessments and community consultation were “streamlined” (a polite term to say that they were rushed or ignored) because of the exigent need to relieve Pearson International Airport from the overwhelming traffic of commercial jets. It turns out that the runway at Billy Bishop is only 900 metres short of making it eligible for commercial jet traffic, but every metre represents a fierce battle between Province and the people who oppose it.
So loud and disagreeable are the arguments that we don’t know where to turn for an informed opinion. The Ontario government believes in the priority of improving commercial air flights into Toronto, relieving the congestion of Pearson airport, preventing economic slowdown and averting an air traffic disaster. The opposing voices believe that consultation is necessary, even if it takes time; and that the environmental impact and the negative effect of the airport on the aesthetics of Toronto’s shoreline would be irreversible. And besides, who likes one’s land bought from under one’s feet by an act of legislation? That alternate priority has driven the voices against the project. So who is right? Whose side do you lean towards? Well, it depends on the priorities you hold, for the Billy Bishop project, they’re arguable in either direction!
It is at times like these that I wish our politicians, interest groups and citizenry at large could grasp what the Bible says about disagreements. The church at Galatia was torn by them and even respected leaders like Peter were hit by the divisive opinionating. Believers were confusing theology with tradition. This is where God blesses us with clear minded thinkers like Paul (and later, like James, the brother of Jesus). “You were called to freedom,” Paul says, “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Do you hear the voice of reason? There is nothing wrong with having very different opinions. After all, we’re created with a brain stem. But it doesn’t give us license to spew out hurtful, hateful, ugly words and accusations. Now listen to Paul’s cryptic warning: “But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.” The issue of what to do with Billy Bishop will be heard by many sides, and the more the voices, the louder the noise (like asking the Federal government to join the debate). Why don’t we all calm down and ask what the priorities of the present are? Why don’t we stop devouring and biting each other, and figure out how to love and respect each other as we carve a way forward? And, dear believer, is it too much to ask that we be the calm voice of reason in the tempest of differing opinions?
