The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - The Case For and Against a Spa at Ontario Place

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

Ontario Place was once a go-to summer destination on Toronto's waterfront. It has since fallen into disrepair. The Ontario government has a controversial plan to revitalize the site including a partnership with a private spa company. To debate that plan, we hear from Adam Vaughan representing Therme Canada, and Ann Elisabeth Samson on behalf of Ontario Place for All.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More than five and a half decades ago, Ontario Premier John Robarts thought kids who didn't have cottages or couldn't afford to go to summer camp should still have a place to go for some summer fun. And so the government built Ontario Place on the waterfront of the provincial capital. It was hugely popular. But as the years went by, Ontario Place fell into disrepair. You no doubt know that the Ford government has a plan to bring it back and we'll debate that plan tonight with former Member of Parliament Adam Vaughan, who's been retained by the Thurma Group to make the case for its plan, and Anne Elizabeth Sampson, co-chair of a community group called Ontario Place for All, which opposes the Thurma Plan. And it's good of both of you to join us here at TVO tonight.

Okay, let me just get a brief answer from both of you off the top and then we'll go deeper as we go along. Adam, essentially, what do you like about the Therma Plan? Well, lots to like about it. First and foremost, Ontario Place is coming back online, all of it, not just the West Island where our facility will be placed. There's 56 acres of new parkland across the space, 16 acres on our particular island, including rooftop parks. But I think what I really like about it is Therma.

Therma builds really phenomenal facilities that are accessible, they're inexpensive. There are premium services if you want them, but when Ontario Place closed it charged about 32 bucks to get in, extra if you wanted to go to the water park. That's roughly the price you'll pay to get to Therma, but more importantly some of the biggest concerns I had was whether or not the waterfront parks would be lost behind an emission gate the way it was when it was originally opened. One of the first things to come down were the emission gates. People trying to get to the water's edge, going for a swim or a stroll or walking a dog or kayaking, will have access to 56 acres of new parkland, over 4,000 trees, all on the

water's edge, with more places to swim and facilities and maintain trails. It's a great project and a good way to move forward in Ontario, please. Okay. And Elizabeth, what don't you like about the sound of that? Quite a few things. First of all, I think that there are a number of things Adam has just said that I would disagree with. But in general, I don't like the cost of this project is enormous. And I'm not just talking about the billions of dollars the auditor general has said that our taxpayer, our tax dollars will go towards the project. But it's incredibly expensive.

It's expensive in that the project has been shepherded through by our Ontario government to the point where they've passed their very own law to eliminate all scrutiny and accountability around the project. We've also, there are a number of unknown costs that we haven't even heard about. And thanks to this protection by the government, there's very little we actually know is being built. So there's the issue of it's expensive, it's dollars expensive. I think many folks across Ontario, even if they never visit, they're paying for it.

The other thing is that I find it incredibly short-sighted. I've looked at waterfronts in great cities around the world. They tend to be open access, really visionary and really planned, co-created with community, which this one is not, and also iconic. I think you were talking about the original vision for Ontario Place and I think that one of the really exciting things about it back then is that it was built for Ontarians by Ontarians with this Ontario kind of heritage idea of what did it mean to be Ontarian. This project is kind of a cookie cutter attraction that's being plopped down on Ontario Place and as far as I understand the company hopes to build them across North America.

Okay, let's hold there. Adam, have you heard some of the criticisms? Come on back. Well, I mean, I think the notion of co-creation is important. It's one of the reasons we have a strong partnership with the Mississaugas of the Credit. The indigenous footprint of Ontario Place was never pronounced pronounced even by Bill Davis and the original architects. That's changing and it's going to be revealed shortly is just how deep that partnership is and it's a good thing. It's one of the things Ontario Place for All has called for and we've

built that partnership. I think the other side of it is is that one of the more important things that Ontario Place has become since it was closed down is a park that to success a trillion park shows us that free access to the waterfront is a value that needs to be sustained. That's happening. It's with a massive new park down there the size of Trinity Bellwoods. Free access to the waterfront. Yeah I mean they're replacing the gates which have been open for years since the closing of Ontario Place with an admission building that you'll have to walk around to get across. That's actually not true.

Well I would love to see the actual plans that are coming forward. Even the last iteration of the plan showed that there was access to the lake and the protected access that the community has called for. We have responded and we've actually shrunk the size of the building and grown the size of the green space. But what's more important is that you won't have to pay an admission price like you used to have to, to get down to see the water, you know, the sunset over the lake, or to go for a swim.

Is that a victory for your side? It's really hard to take. I mean, I think the other thing. The other thing Adam just said is the size of Trinity Bellwoods. And this one is really one that's been fascinating to me. Trinity Bellwoods is 36 acres. Currently, the plan that I've last seen is 16 acres of public space on the West Island. That's right. If you want to put Trinity Bellwoods on the West Island, I would be thrilled.

When you quote the price of the Auditor General's report sites, it's for the redevelopment of all of Ontario Place. And while I'm not here to explain the provincial government's plan for the rest of it, but there's the new... The Budweiser Theatre is being expanded to a year-round facility that project which the NDP opened in the 90s is being built upon the elimination of parking lots or five parking lots those parking lots are disappearing and 56 acres of new open green space a public park will be built at the water's edge free and accessible. Can we just pick up on the parking lots the original plan was to do an underwater parking lot at a cost of several hundred millions of dollars to be paid for by the people of Ontario.

What is the status of that? The city and the province are working on it. There are about 3,700 parking spots, surface parking lots in the vicinity of Ontario Place's bridges. Those are being consolidated and I'll let the province and the city explain how they're going to be consolidated. The key here though is that those are five surface parking lots, which is one of the worst urban conditions you can create in the city, especially next to the water's edge. The runoff alone is detrimental to the environment.

As they get consolidated and turned into green space, they have to reconfigure how the parking is going to work down there, because it's not just Ontario places, it's also the C&E and for the BMO field and so how that gets reconfigured is important but one last point on that is that while the province and the city are deciding how to finance and build it the revenue does not come to Therma or any of the tenants at the Ontario Place the revenue comes right back to taxpayers and so it's a business model that they're working out a shared facility between the C&E and Ontario Place. Okay Let me follow up on something you said earlier, which is you saw the original vision of Ontario Place as being sort of made in Ontario by Ontarians for Ontarians. Do you have a problem

with the fact that Therma is an international company and that's somehow inconsistent with Ontario? I think it's a shame. I think not that it's a foreign company, but that we haven't really been truly consulted as Ontarians to the project. There's been very little public consultation. That which has been done has been very limited to what the people are allowed to comment on. So for example, I attended two in-person consultations that the city put on. And then I've also attended the consultations

with the province, and we were never allowed to comment on the Therma project or the West Island. So I believe that a truly visionary society, we're a waterfront city. We should be building something that is going to last into the future and truly be iconic for our... That's what we're building.

You described our project beautifully. But you're plopping what you've built in Romania on the shore of Lake Ontario. Not at all. In fact, we've hired Dimension Architects and TLA Studios in Toronto. Yes, I'm familiar. And we're working with, you know, a number of designers and advocates. To put a glass box. No. And we're working with a number of designers and advocates. To put a glass box.

And you cut down 800 indigenous trees to put calm trees in a glass box. Let's do it one at a time. But in terms of the design, the design is unique. It's not Ontarian. The design is unique to the site and builds on the heritage that's there, the cinesphere and the pods you're seeing. And it creates a new Ontario place. That's happening. You know what, rather than have you guys describe it, why don't we take a look at some of it? Sure.

Here's some of Thurman's video of what they anticipate going forward. Sheldon, roll it if you would. The building has emerged as a public space, a roof space, which is green, which is planted, which is an active, accessible 24-7 public park space on the roof that is woven through with a campus that really create this fulsome integration of architecture and landscape. That's

accompanied by a new very large public beach the size of Sunnyside Beach, one of the largest new beaches on the whole of the waterfront. What don't you like about what you see there? I just find it very funny to see the renderings. It reminds me of Wonder Woman's airplane, the building. You can't actually see it in the renderings because it's clear. And it's hard for me to imagine that once It's built it will be clear. Well good news

We've been listening and we've heard some of the concerns and the size of the building has been edited and Fit into the new landscape and you'll see those the way we've responded to some of the concerns that have been raised And the good news is the park space is growing and continues to grow in the place It's a swim are more nuanced and the maintenance of the paths and the change facilities and the shower facilities which are 100% public and free to the anybody in the city to use all of that will be detailed as we move towards more detailed design We're listening and we love to see what you're doing It's part of the problem is that a lot of it is in secret It was but the one hand you've got these very firm objections,

and on the other hand, you say you haven't seen it. So, which is it? I'm going from what I saw in the development application, and you are talking about evolution since that plan that I've seen. I also know that the province of Ontario through the MZO and the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act has eliminated the need, and in this upcoming Bill 5 further eliminating the need for anyone to consult with the public or get feedback from the public on this project.

But we're still listening and talking. Well I've never spoken to anyone. You are the first person from Thurma that I've ever met or spoken to and our group, you know, I represent a huge number of people. If you talk to Cindy Wilkie, talk to Cindy Wilkie and Ken Greenberg and you'll know that the day we go, Ken Greenberg is a noted urban planner, an activist in the downtown core. Cindy Wilkie was one of the founders of Friends of the Dawn, was part of Waterfront for All and part of Ontario Place for All as well.

And when the project was initially awarded through a bid process to Thermae against 30 other competitors, we sent a letter and said, let's sit down, let's work together on this. And we were told, no uncertain circumstances, we don't care. It's Doug Ford's project. We don't like Doug Ford. We're not talking to you. And I think that's sad because one of the things Ken taught me as a young politician was to sit down with people and have conversations instead of arguments.

You're not a big Ford or Doug fan either. A Doug Ford either, rather. I'm working with Thurma because I think the opportunity to build 56 acres of parkland on the waterfront, new beach to swim at, new health year-round facilities, which were present at Ontario Place when it closed, like the water park. You can still see the old tower there. Making that a year-round facility, I think, has got real value for the downtown. You have to acknowledge, Ontario Place kind of was a summer thing, and during the winter

months there wasn't a lot of anything going on down there. This will change that, right? You weren't out on the site during the winter, let alone walking around swimming. Is that a fact? Well, I am a swimmer and a rower. I spend a lot of time on and around the water down there. And so I use it in many, many, many inclement times. In fact, when I look at the renderings, what I wonder about is those paths on top of the

building and whether or not they'll be open in the winter. Yes, they will. And we are being asked to trust a company that we don't know much about. We'll get to know us. We are being asked. Why start with mistrust? We are being asked to believe that this company will be able to manage what is essentially they would like to claim is public space for a 95-year lease. Now, I would like to think if you ask me what's going to last 95 years, I think the City of

Toronto will be around in 95 years. I think the City of Toronto will be around in 95 years. I think the province of Ontario will be around in 95 years. Do I think that Therma, the spa company that has not built anything like this in North America, will be around in 95 years? It's very difficult for me to believe that. I'm not going to cure you of your cynicism, but I mean 95-year leases are normal for waterfront development projects. The island homes live on a 95-year lease. It's the way in which you need to structure a lease agreement to take it to the bank to get construction financing. There's nothing more different about that.

There are terms in the contract of what happens if Therma doesn't last, and we're entirely responsible for returning the site to a natural state. All that's spelt out in the lease, but the issue is this. The issue that's really important is that the investment that's coming down there is going to transform Ontario Place into a place that everyone in Ontario can use year round. And all the things that you spoke of, the rowing, the swimming, the walking, the dog walking, all of that is part of the plan and part of

the vision for the new Ontario Place. So it doesn't ignore your concerns, in fact it addresses your concerns. So what I'm hearing from you is what you'd rather have is more detail. And we're prepared to sit down and share those details with you and have a conversation. What we're not accepting of is this sort of constant push against us that somehow what we're doing down there is not what Ontario Place was designed to do. It was entirely designed to do this. The one difference is now it's going to be year round. It's a deeply unpopular project. I think that when you respond with that the problem is not the city, now it's going to be year-round. It's a deeply unpopular project. People don't like it, yes, but if you talk to the wider province, we actually have a great deal of support. When you respond that the problem is that we don't understand, we have spent quite a lot of time

paying very close attention to any public information that is available to us. Let's take a look at some of the assertions you made. You are saying 56 acres, we're put we are gonna you say we you mean therma is going to put Trinity Bellwoods on on the water you are putting Trinity Bellwoods with demo fields smack in the middle on the waterfront with a path around the outside edge. That is a misleading narrative. No because none of it's true and none of it's what we said. You ascribe the cost of the whole project all to THRMA.

That's all of your language on your way. I'm following the Auditor General's report, which outlines... But the Auditor General doesn't say that. But it does outline the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going toward the project. No, it doesn't. List one. The site preparation. The site preparation was the foundation for all 30 bids.

The province came to all 30 performance. The additional $28 million of shoreline service. The corporation was the foundation for all 30 bids. The province came to all 30 performance. The additional $28 million of shoreline service. The shoreline services is to fortify the artificial islands which were dumped into Lake Ontario 50 years ago, which have badly eroded and caused flooding, and to create integrity around the entire site, the East Island, the West Island, the pods in particular. In order to protect that, you've got to re-fortify the shorelines because the storms in the lake have intensified through climate change.

Redoing that has to happen with or without thermal, otherwise you end up like the beach you swam at, where you end up with a rebar and signposts and construction waste eroding into the lake. And that's a problem. It has to be addressed, but it's not our address. Okay, okay. Is there anything he can say that would make you change

or reconsider your current position? I mean, I don't know if that's what I'm being asked here. I feel a little bit like I'm being asked to debate these details. The other thing I want to- No, no, no. That's important because I want to ask Adam the same question, which is to say, if you heard something here that was in your view legitimate criticism of what you plan to do

right now, would Therma consider making changes to the plan? We are making changes. We're attempting to have conversations. One of the reasons that we want to be out here talking with people that are concerned. When people talk, for example, the combined sewer outflow, which is for almost 80 years now, been sitting on the break wall, it's fractured underneath the rowing channel, it's been leaking into the lake for the better part of 80 years. When we talk about moving that and addressing that situation, we want the best outcome for the lake possible.

We want people swimming at the public beaches as much as they want people swimming at the public beaches. What we don't want is a combined sewer outflow perched on the break wall leaking into the lake forevermore. So that has to be addressed and we're prepared to sit down and figure out the best way to address it. You know and Elizabeth that successive governments of all party stripes have taken a look at Ontario Place and not really done good by Ontario Place. So if a private company thinks it can do a better job, why not let them? I think that I believe in much grander ambitions for our waterfront.

And I find this concept extremely kind of out of date before it's even built. Let me put that to Adam then. The notion of a privately run and owned spa on public lands in the waterfront. Is there anything inconsistent with the way Toronto does business? That's the way the entire waterfront has been brought to life in the city for the better past the last century. I mean, Centerville on the Toronto Islands is a private enterprise working in a public park as are the yacht clubs.

It's not uncommon to see, especially in large green spaces along the water's edge, activation to occur that is both public and private in nature. The key is striking the right balance, giving people an opportunity to get a coffee or jump into the water or go to a facility in the middle of the winter and have a wonderful experience. That balance of public and private interest, that dynamic of co-developing parks along the water's edge, I've been doing that for 40 years in the city. I think it's a great way to build Toronto. Is that persuasive?

It feels a little insincere at this point, to be honest, because there has been a huge amount of energy and community energy. Our movement has 60,000 supporters across Ontario who are interested in this project. And it feels that that energy is being dismissed instead of embraced. It's entirely embraced. But the province literally passed a law. You ask for more swimming, you get more swimming. You ask for more park, you get more park.

How do we know? Well, have a conversation with us. Meet with us. I'm meeting with you here. Well, have a conversation with us. Meet with us. You've... Just because there's no... I'm meeting with you here. Just because there's no statutory meeting to be held doesn't mean you can't come in and say, can you show us the details?

I guess I believe in transparent governance. And I believe like, let's let the sunlight in. Like, I would like to see the entire lease. I would like to know exactly what's happening with the parking negotiations. The lease has been put out in the public record. There was a lot missing in the release. Look, at the end of the day, the question is, what kind of waterfront are we going to

have and how are we going to get there? Restoring Ontario Place has a price tag. Whether Therma is involved or not, restoring the pods in the synastere has a price tag. Restoring the bridges has a price tag. What we're doing is partnering with the public sector to deliver resources to help facilitate the restoration of those iconic parts of the Volterra place that we all love while adding to it and building on things like the success of Trillium Park, money which I helped secure when I was up in Ottawa, and dealing with it in a way that's consistent with the vision

for the waterfront, which is a clean, green waterfront for all. I hear you. Adam, let me ask you the question that I know you've received a number of times, but you know, you haven't been asked it here, so I'm going to pile on. I've heard so many people say the Adam Vaughan that I knew when he was in public life, when he was an elected politician, never would have been associated with something like this. It's not true. Not true, eh?

They came to see me before I left office, when they were first putting a bid in under the Wynn government, when they were shortlisted with their project. It was much bigger then and much different then. It's changed. And I was fascinated by how this company manages and talks and thinks about water and thought it was a great fit for the waterfront because finally you have somebody who's heavily involved in geothermal in Europe, is massively involved in reforestation projects and managing how water impacts all of our

lives. And I thought this is a good fit for the waterfront. Let's see how the project evolves. But the notion that the waterfront would only ever be green parks just isn't true. The harbourfront centre is there. We have massive new parks coming to East Portland, another project which I helped facilitate. We have Tommy Thompson Park. We have the parks cleaning the water,

not just for our beaches, but for all the beaches inside the break wall. There are so many benefits that this project brings to the conversation that it shouldn't be an argument. And when we start talking about the cost of restoring Ontario Place, we're either going to let it fall into the water.

I mean, one of the biggest costs right now is restoring the foundations of the pods. They've described that as a subsidy to our company. I can assure you we're not getting paid. That's a separate project. That's not, we don't usually approve that one. That's part of the, that's entirely part of the attorney general's $2.2 billion, which you often quote as $2.3 billion.

But it's $2.2 billion. And when you go through the list, it is not, it is not a subsidy to our company. What it is, it's a subsidy to Ontario Place to bring it back online. Restoring the Sinister, we agree with you, it should be. Restoring the pods, we agree with you, it should be. Animating the pods, we agree with you, it should be. But those aren't subsidies to us. That would happen with or without Therma. Refortifying the shoreline, getting rid of the surface parking lots, adding new park space, adding new swim platforms, putting in real paths that are maintained throughout the winter.

All of these are part of the cost. Some of which about $2 billion we bear and there's about $2 billion the public bears. It's also Live Nation and it's also the new Science Centre. We don't get the subsidy. They share in the cost. Equal time for her. Come on. Equal time for her.

Go ahead. Goodness. So much time for her. Go ahead. Goodness. So much to respond to. You know, we're following what the Auditor General found on the cost of the project. And you are right. Some of it is definitely not... Not our project. Ontario place.

Yes. So it's not all ours. It is not. You do not take all responsibility for that. That is for the province of Ontario. You should edit your website then. Okay. Goodness.

Well, you know, we're a group of volunteers. We're not paid. I'm not paid to be here. Keep calling us. But you keep telling us we're receiving a 2.2. That's the first time a Fergontero Place fall back off of that. We are doing our very best. Let's get to the rest of the list.

However, there are so many unknown costs that have yet to be determined for this project. For example, we don't know the last mile solution that the government has promised to get people from the new subway to the door of the spa project. We don't know the ultimate cost of the CSO. What CSO? Combined sewer. The city sewer that's currently leaking. We don't know the cost to the traffic and the difficulty of moving around during the construction phase.

We don't know so many things about this project. So let's look at the audit. And the government has done their very best to keep us from knowing anything. If this project is so wonderful, if it is as great as you say, I would love to be completely shared. I would love all the information. Here's another one where they ascribe the cost of the last mile as a subsidy to Therma. The cost of the last mile is a strip that gets you from the GO station, the terminus of the Ontario line. It gets you down to the waterfront in a way that doesn't have you crossing the surface parking lots

and the buildings that are closed. Which can be a half an hour walk. It can be a long walk. And so that project, which is currently I think here in the Auditor General's report forecast, I think it was at 60 million dollars, but it's a park that the city is building on the exhibition grounds in a way that doesn't interfere with the Midway. They've told us that's a subsidy to our bottom line. It's not. It's a project which the bottom line. It's not.

It's a project which the city has been trying for 25 years to build. The fact that Ontario Place is coming back online has become the catalyst to get long standing projects like fixing the combined sewer, like getting the last mile to the waterfront fixed. That's the way it's happening. Now you can argue that the province has done what they've done and is doing what they're doing. Yes, they are.

But you keep blaming us for that and we're not the province. I work for a company that's building a facility on the West Island that's going to be delivering the 60-acre park and paying for it. It costs about 200 million dollars and then for the next 95 years pay to maintain that so the public has a park to go to that isn't abandoned or ruined. That's a good deal for taxpayers, but it's a good project for the waterfront. Sorry. I find it very funny that you think that I'm here to fight the spa company. You know, I'm representing a large group of activist community members who care deeply about the waterfront.

Your concern is beyond the spa. My concern is beyond the spa. My concern is beyond the spa. The province in the dead of night. I can leave now and you're bringing somebody from the province. The province in the dead of night cut down 800 mature trees. Now you and I both know that if you live in the City of Toronto and you want to cut down a tree, you are not allowed to do that. So let's take a look at the report they quoted.

Hang on a sec, hang on a sec. Let's get focused. Let me focus on one thing. You're not here to at the report they quoted. Hang on a sec, hang on a sec. Let's get focused. Let me focus on one thing. You're not here to defend the entire Ontario Place Project. No, but when she quotes a number which is wrong, the record should be corrected. And we've spoken of that. What about Thurma itself? There were some issues around the company itself.

Yes. And whether it was a Canadian arm of an international company or whether it had some alter egos along the way that were problematic. We got a couple of minutes left here. Let's focus on that. Well, I don't know much about the company. I do know what I've read in the Auditor General's report. And then the New York Times recently

did an investigative piece about Therma. It was always a little bit unclear how many facilities they ran in Europe before they got the contract. It appears through the New York Times report that they really have only built and run one facility from its inception. You can tell me if that's incorrect.

It does seem that they have partnerships with others in Europe. So, you know, there's a lot we don't know. We don't know where the financing is coming. We don't know where the decisions are made. But you said you read the New York Times article. Yes. So at the end it talks about AHEAT being an Austrian company.

It talks about Macquarie Capital, which is one of the world's largest infrastructure investors. I believe it said for the Toronto project the funding was not yet secure. The funding for Thermos operations globally including in Canada come from those sources identified at the end of the article. They raised the question at the start of the article they answered at the end but I guess you didn't get to that part of it. But the part that I think is most interesting here is that there are all these half-truths in that article that are easily explainable. Why the New York Times didn't do their fact-checking is beyond me. But I'll give you another one.

They stand by the story. They raise it. They don't. But I'll give you one of the points that was most interesting. They said that the facility we own and operate in Erding in Munich, just outside of Munich, and the one in Bucharest somehow share the same logo. We own both of them. That's why they share the same logo.

It's a pretty easy answer to a pretty silly question. But more than that, when asked about the ones... That's why they have the same logo now. But the issue of our capacity, we have built, and we have designed, and we have operated six. The one family, which started the facility in Germany and has five other facilities across Europe, when the one family started to wind down their operation, we had already established from 2018 on

a partnership and we have absorbed most of their employees into our operations and that is our capacity to operate and that's why we've got facilities opening in Manchester and Washington and Dallas and Toronto. Hopefully. Well the building permits have gone in in Manchester. In other words, Adam, this is a good company? It's a good company. This is a solid company we It's a good company.

This is a solid company we don't need to worry about? The New York Times says we leveraged the Toronto bid to get financing for the Manchester bid. The construction documents, if you check the record, the construction documents for Manchester went in before our bid went in on Ontario. Yes, but you secured the financing after you got the Toronto bid. Well, you secure the financing, as any good developer will tell you, as the projects get realized. You don't secure the funding and then design the project. It's an iterative process and we're meeting all the milestones and we're proceeding with good intention.

I just want to address the issue on the trees. She said mature trees, 800 mature trees. Of the trees that were taken down only 229 would have been covered by the city's bylaws. That's according to the report that they quote, chapter in verse, when they when they do their assessment. The other 600 trees included the lollipop trees and concrete planters. They included weed trees, they included ornamental trees which weren't native to the area. So the notion that there was an old growth forest there that was suddenly chopped down is absurd. The island is only 50 years old, most the trees were planted in the 80s. So yes,

trees were lost but they're going to be replanted at a six to one ratio, outpacing the city's requirements and adding to the 56 acres. And in 30 or 40 years time, yes, some of those old trees, I can't put them back up. They were cleared as part of the site clearing exercise by the province, but our responsibility to re-landscape that entire 56 acre park and maintain it going forward, Therma pays for

that and will get subsidized for it. I'm a little… Are those the facts? Sure, sure. You also seem to play fast and loose with a lot of the numbers. So like in the original application we saw that the plan was to plant 700 trees to replace the ones that were taken down. That's on the West Island?

And I think I'm a little confused because you, as the THERMA spokesperson, are taking responsibility for the entire project and I thought THERMA was only dealing with the West Island. That's because the park design and the park construction is a single set of parks. It's a single park with a single maintenance budget. So while there isn't a sharp division of Thermo on one side, Ontario plays, excuse me, Park on the other side. There's a partnership there. And then these other spas that Thermo runs, are you also running public space?

Are you also managing public space for people? The province insisted on a plan to integrate the two facilities, both the public park and the private facility, and then a plan to maintain a property. And do you also have a plan for programming the space? We have an agreement. One of the things that you don't know about Therma, which I think is one of the best parts about Therma, is their incredible record of presenting and creating public art events. The largest theatre festival in Europe is the Therma project. There's an art festival in Berlin, there's the Serpentine Pavilion

in London, there's Super Blue, an immersive art experience in Miami. So when the park is being built and when the park is being thought of, much like Trillium Park is now, the idea of programming arts events into the park, that's what that part of the lease that she says she hasn't seen speaks to. And that's what we plan to do on those sites, including working very closely with Indigenous partners to make sure that ceremonial space on the city's waterfront is filing an Indigenous space that they have a way of programming into. Let me give you the last word here. And just by saying, are there any circumstances under which you could see your way to support

some or any of what is going on down there? Or is it really beyond the pale? I mean, I personally have things that I would agree to, but as a representative for a large group of people who have been following this closely, who have been really paying attention, our bigger concerns at this point are that Ontario Place is really being used as the kind of the canary in the coal mine on an assault on our democracy and a removal

of the accountability mechanisms that we as citizens have for our shared assets or shared resources. And so, as wonderful as Adam thinks this project is gonna be, the fact is that it is tainted because it has been jammed through the public. It is being shoved down our throats with very little information.

Is that a thermal problem or a Doug Ford government problem? It's a Doug Ford government problem. But in this case, thermos really benefiting. They didn't have to conduct an environmental test. But that's like saying the Eaton Center is benefiting from the Ontario line. I mean at a certain point like give us our due. We're here to talk to you. We're here to build a great waterfront park. We'd like to make it better.

We'd be happy to have the conversations. I would love to have the conversation. We'd love to have a frank conversation about what is or isn't a subsidy towards us. Because as you said today most of that $2.2 billion from the Auditor General report has nothing to do with our company so you can move off of that talking point. Although it's very low rent. It's a $2 billion project and there's substantial revenue sharing clauses in it. There's a rent clause in it and there's a maintenance clause in it and we're only one tenet out of five different projects that are happening down at Ontario Place.

They also are paying dollars into the kitty and also mitigating costs for taxpayers and also helping to deliver a great waterfront facility that knits into the golden and green waterfront that we all love in Toronto. This might be a good spot for me to jump in and say since you two have agreed to continue the conversation and listen to what each other has to say, maybe that's a good time for me to say, Anne Elizabeth Sampson and Adam Vaughan, thank you for coming into TVO and having part

of that conversation with us here tonight. Thanks for having us. Thanks for having us.