In terms of how airport authorities work with local municipalities, airport authorities are required to consult with local communities whenever they want to develop on the land or if there's going to be some impact on the surrounding community.
They will receive input. I think the challenge there is that they don't necessarily coordinate fully together as partners. I think a good example right now is that the City of Richmond is in a dispute with the Vancouver International Airport Authority over a proposed third runway. It may not be developed for years down the road, but the negotiations between the city and the airport authority have broken down. The airport authority went directly to Transport Canada, unilaterally moving forward on this proposed airport rezoning regulation, angering the city because it's going to have an impact on development near the airport.
The City of Richmond wants to develop the city centre. They need more residential. We have members who live in the City of Richmond who want to live closer to work. If there isn't coordination, meaningful coordination, then input and consultation doesn't go far enough. Again, that's not the only example.
I think an interesting contrast is looking at the Victoria Airport Authority. There is this development, Sidney crossing, which is raising objections from the community. I think what's interesting is that the airport authority is going through the hoops of running it through the local city council to get development approval, even though they don't need to.
That suggests a path I think for the future on how airport authorities can work more closely with our communities and get buy-in on projects that have an impact in terms of traffic, the environment, and what that means for development in our communities. That would be a smarter path, as would changing the regulations to basically require our port authorities to go through local hoops.