What is the question? The question is how can the Ford Government be persuaded to reverse course on closing the Ontario Science Centre and developing Ontario Place with the Therme Spa and a new, smaller, science centre. Even though Ford has often changed course over his six years as premier, this does not appear to be the case for these two inter-related issues.

The Government’s opponents have been trying to use litigation and investigation to try to get it to change course. An Ontario Superior Court decision rendered last Friday and a communication I received the same day make clear the limits of these approaches.

No Protection

Ontario Place Protectors, a citizen’s group, filed a court challenge to the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act (ROPA), alleging that ROPA violates the section of the constitution empowering Superior Courts and that ROPA’s exemptions for the Government from the Environmental Assessment Act and the Heritage Act, the City of Toronto’s noise regulations, and judicial scrutiny constituted a “breach of public trust.” A hearing was held on July 19 and the Court released its decision on July 26, siding with the Government. Elsa Lam, of Canadian Architect magazine, provides an excellent overview of the arguments made in court. Here is a link to the decision by Justice Lisa Brownstone.

Assuming this decision stands – and as I write I don’t know if Ontario Place Protectors will appeal – it creates a dangerous precedent. By allowing the Government to bypass laws that could affect one project, it could do likewise for laws that could affect other projects, such as highways or Greenbelt development. The Ford Government has already succeeded in limiting environmental review for Highway 413. The laws the Ford Government seems most intent on exempting itself from concern environmental review and heritage protection. If the Government exempts itself from environmental review and heritage protection, it is setting an example for firms, organizations, and individuals. I suppose that what the Ford Government really would like to do is repeal the Environmental Assessment Act and the Heritage Act, but that would likely trigger too much opposition. Their alternative is to nullify these acts case by case and one by one to greenlight projects and activities that damage our environment and destroy our heritage.

Delayed Disclosure

A few days after the Ford Government closed the Science Centre I filed a freedom of information request asking for the contract with the consultants who studied the Science Centre roof and for communications between the Government and the consultant and within the Government about closing the Science Centre. Because the consultant’s report was, at most, equivocal on whether a full-scale closure was necessary to remediate the roof, I thought that there were other factors at play in the decision to close the Science Centre, and I was using an FoI request to discover what was happening. Three weeks after the announcement, the Government released a Powerpoint deck that presented a more thorough justification for the closing. Both Elsa Lam and I have argued that that justification is flawed. The deck presents the Government’s case, but my FoI request might unearth documents that undercut it.

FoI requests must receive a response within 30 days. Last Friday I received my response. Infrastructure Ontario is asking for an additional three months to complete my request, which would extend to October 25. This is because I’ve asked for a widespread search and the government will have to consultant the third party (i.e. the consultants who examined the roof). Maybe the wait will be worthwhile. But my experience shows the difficulty in using FoI requests to hold government accountable.

My conclusion is simple. If we want the Government of Ontario to put a higher priority on the environment and on our heritage, the only way for this to occur is to replace the Ford Government.