In the week after the Ford Government’s surprise announcement of the closing of the Ontario Science Centre building, there has been an even more surprising amount of blowback. In addition to members of the local community and policy wonks like me, the architectural and IT communities and Toronto City Council have voiced strident opposition. I contributed my share, with interviews on Metro Morning, CTV/CP24, and Radio-Canada.

A reasonable question for this week is whether the Ford Government will reverse course. I was recently at a presentation about Ontario politics where Kory Teneycke, manager of Doug Ford’s two winning provincial election campaigns, commented that Ford’s greatest political strength is his ability to flip-flop without losing support. So far, Ford has shown no signs of flip-flopping on this decision, but if the polls tell him that this decision is a political liability beyond Toronto, he might.

What are the Trustees’ Responsibilities?

When a government makes a controversial decision, it is reasonable to ask why and how it made it. Our concern is whether the decision was carefully thought out and made for legitimate rather than corrupt reasons. Kinga Sirma, Minister of Infrastructure, and the politician explaining the decision said, “it was the board, the science centre board, that made that very sad and difficult decision but we as the government stand by that decision.” Had the Legislature been sitting, we might have heard more from her and Premier Ford about the decision, but I will work with what she said.

The question in my mind is whether the OSC’s Board of Trustees was the decision-making body with actual authority, or whether it was a figurehead, comparable to a Lieutenant-Governor who signs laws but never makes laws. This question took me to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Chair of the OSC and the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (now called the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Gaming), the Minister through whom the OSC reports to the Legislature. The key clause in the agreement defining the Board of Trustees’ role is this (italics mine):

“The board of trustees is accountable, through the Chair, to the Minister for the oversight and governance of the Agency, setting goals, objectives, and strategic direction for the Agency within its mandate; and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to it by the Act, this MOU, and applicable Treasury Board of Cabinet, Public Service Commission, and other Government directives.”

Reading further in the MOU, one of the Minister’s responsibilities is “informing the Chair [of the Board of Trustees] of the Government’s priorities and broad policy directions for the Agency.” Conversely, the Chair’s responsibility is “seeking strategic policy direction for the Agency from the Minister.” A second responsibility of the Minister is “consulting, as appropriate, with the Chair (and others) on significant new directions or when the Government is considering regulatory or legislative changes for the Agency.” A complimentary responsibility for the Chair is “consulting with the Minister in advance regarding any activity which may have an impact on the Government and Ministry’s policy, directives or procedures …” The Board’s responsibilities include “providing advice to the Minister, through the Chair, on issues within or affecting the Agency’s mandate and operations.”

It appears to me that for key issues, the Minister may issue directives to the OSC Board. The Board’s role is to be consulted in advance by, and to advise, the Minister. If this reading is correct, then despite what Sirma said, it was the Government’s prerogative to decide about closing the building.

Which Minister?

The OSC normally reports to the Minister of Culture, Tourism, and Gaming, which is a relatively junior portfolio. In fact, while the consultants were studying the problems with the OSC.s roof, there were two ministers, Neil Lumsden until the cabinet shuffle on June 6, and Stanley Cho afterwards. But the consultants were reporting to the Minister of Infrastructure Kinga Sirma. Infrastructure is a key ministry because it is the lead ministry for the Ford Government’s “Get it Done” program and because the minister is a well-known Ford loyalist (what some analysts would refer to as a member of the Premier’s praetorian guard). Because this was not the OSC’s normal reporting relationship, one could then ask how much advance consultation about closing the building went on between the Minister of Infrastructure and the Chair and Board of Trustees.

Who are the Trustees Anyway?

I next had a look at the OSC website to find out who the trustees are. There are 20. The chair is of the Board of Trustees is John Carmichael, a businessman who represented Don Valley West federally as a Conservative from 2011-2015. The CEO of the OSC, and also a trustee, is Paul Kortenaar, whose background is in teaching science and science museums. The other eighteen board members are identified by their current positions but, unlike many other public sector boards I have seen, biographical sketches are not provided. There are quite a few lawyers, executives in the technology and financial sectors, and consultants. Other than the CEO, there appears to be only one other science educator. John Carmichael appears to be the only community representative in the limited sense that he served as an MP for Don Valley West, which borders Don Valley East, the riding in which the OSC is located. But he is not demographically representative of the immediately adjacent Thorncliffe Park neighbourhood.

The decision to move the OSC to Ontario Place was made in 2023. That these trustees are serving now means they must be supportive of that decision. So, for them, the issue would have been whether to close the current building now and find a temporary location for the OSC or to keep the building operating until the new site at Ontario Place opens in 2028. Whether they were actually making that decision, as Sirma maintains, or whether they were advising the Government on that decision, as I think was more likely, the critical question is what they considered. Were they briefed on the consultants’ work from the time they began last fall and as they reported on the inspection of the roof panels between last December and March? If they were briefed, did they have robust and evidence-based discussions about whether to keep the building open while repairing damaged roof panels or whether to close the building? Or were told of the results of the consultants’ report when the executive summary was delivered on June 18 and asked for their advice, or in this case assent would be more appropriate, at an emergency meeting on June 20? These of course are polar cases, but the emergency meeting hypothesis depicts a government pushing through its agenda with very little internal consultation. And that is a very dysfunctional and fundamentally undemocratic management style.

Will we Ever Know?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have made an inquiry under Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act to find out more about the process by which this decision was made. Investigative journalists should also be looking for answers. Perhaps Ontario’s Auditor General, who reported last fall on the decision to move the OSC to Ontario Place will launch another inquiry. The more the public knows, the better able we will be to judge this particular decision and to judge the Ford Government’s overall record when it seeks another mandate.