Lots of comments deploring the Onxpress situation. In my view this is effectively ML grinding to a halt as an institution. It's the same level of failure as the Ornge scandal, the shutdown of the Pickering generating station back around 1998, the controversy around Hockey Canada and its condoning bad behaviour.
All of these were "turnaround situations" where the problem was beyond fixing a single project, and the whole organization needed to be restructured.
If I were in power, here's the legislative change I would make. Probably unrealistic, Consider this a fantasy map at the level of provincial governance.
Changes to the Metrolinx Act to impose:
- Define a direct fiduciary responsibility between Metrolinx and the taxpayers of Ontario. In effect, declare that the public (and not solely the Minister) are the shareholders in a manner analogous to the fiduciary relationship between private sector investors and a publicly traded company. The Minister is a partner - but not the sole shareholder - with the public as shareholders
- Establish a "material change" responsibility again analogous to that existing in publicly traded companies, requiring immediate and full disclosure of events that represent a material change in ML's position. Examples of material changes would be cost or schedule variances beyond threshold values, changes to scope that reflects a major reduction in planned and committed capacity, cancellation of funding for previously committed and funded projects, major changes to timing or tcd for committed and funded work
- Establish a publicly accessible scope control process that documents the approved scope and objectives for each project and each service or route, including minutes of all changes to scope which are made during the course of a project
- Establish a publicly accessible financial disclosure process that documenta which projects have had funding released (as opposed to projects which have been announced but are awaiting funding)
- Require the Minister and any other government officials to exercise control solely through formal Shareholder directives which are in writing and discoverable without resort to FOI processes. The only exception would be matters which are commercially sensitive, personnel related, or matters subject to litigation - with the expectation that such confidentiality will not be abused and will be subject to FOI review.
- Impose a mandate on ML to maintain a direct process of communication and disclosure to the public which is not influenced or restricted by Ministerial direction. Prohibit the Minister from suppressing or modifying ML public statements. The Minister can direct ML to initiate communication on a topic but cannot prevent disclosure or timing of announcements considered desirable by ML.
- Require the ML Board.to conduct meetings in open session with the exception of normal in-camera matters, e.g. negotiations, litigation, personnell - again with an expectation of only as necessary and not to be abused
Lastly, it's time to fire the current ML Board. Either they are just putting in time, or their loyalty to the government exceeds their loyalty to the public. And clearly they do not speak truth to power (if they have, and have been disregarded, then one would have expected them to have resigned by now, in the same ethical spirit as Ms Freeland's recent resignation.)
- Paul
