A signature Ford government training program was “not fair, transparent or accountable” in how it handed out hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, according to the auditor general, who found some low-scoring projects were funded over higher-scoring applications.
A scathing investigation of the Skills Development Fund tabled by auditor general Shelley Spence on Wednesday revealed low-scoring applications, which hired lobbyists to assist them, received government funding through decisions from the minister’s office, sometimes without any written reasons.
The way the fund had been handled, and the funding received by low-scoring applications with lobbyists, “can create an appearance of real or potential preferential treatment by the minister’s office,” the auditor cautioned.
A spokesperson for Labour Minister David Piccini defended the fund and said it had helped boost the number of workers in skilled trades, manufacturing, construction and health care.
“We have already begun implementing the Auditor General’s recommendations through more rigorous tracking of clients, and ongoing evaluation criteria updates as a part of our efforts to improve this life-changing program that is training workers in every corner of the province,” they wrote in a statement.
Opposition politicians, however, said the auditor general’s investigation revealed damning issues with the program and who benefited from it, suggesting it was similar to the Greenbelt investigation, which forced two ministers to resign.
“You know what it feels like and smells like? Not just the Greenbelt, it’s like a racquet,” Ontario Liberal MPP John Fraser said. “If you know somebody, you’re okay, you’re connected, you get it. That’s a racquet.”
Ontario NDP Leader Marit Stiles claimed the findings “looked like corruption.”
She said she felt the fund had merit, but was concerned about how it was run.
“The fact that we know now that political staff… are fudging the recommendations, are manipulating — maybe, even — the recommendations of the experts at what should be funded,” she said.
“Once you get those political fingers involved in those decisions, it is a recipe for corruption. And that is what this looks like.”
Speaking ahead of the release of the auditor general’s report, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said the skills development fund was “one of the greatest programs that we’ve ever created.”
Fund launched after pandemic
The Skills Development Fund was created by the Ford government after the COVID-19 pandemic to increase employment and boost the skilled trades.
Get breaking National news
Over the four years that followed, it handed out hundreds of millions of dollars to programs that promised to offer training and create job opportunities. Recently, the government has presented it as a key part of its plan to battle against U.S. tariffs.
The auditor general’s special report, however, described a fund where the minister’s office had unilateral power to approve applications.
Some decisions went against official advice, while in some cases the ministry failed to accurately monitor whether projects were delivering on their promises. It also rejected high-scoring applications in favour of less developed ideas, a number of which were helped by lobbyists.
Over the course of the program, the report found the majority of applications selected for funding ranked as medium or poor on internal scorecards, with only 46 per cent of those selected ranked as high. A total of 670 applications which received a score marked as high got no funding at all, while 281 applications with a low score were selected.
One application rated as poor by staff was also selected.
Concerns about applications selected by minister’s office
In one unnamed example from the auditor general, an application to train young people in marketing and management was selected for funding, despite civil servants giving it a score of 47 per cent.
Bureaucrats assessing the application raised concerns the organization had only existed for three years, had no governing board, and had “presented an inflated budget” in its application.
In another case, staff scored an application at 41 per cent, pointing out it was only meant to provide training to one person — the person who had submitted the application. “The ministry evaluator noted a conflict of interest,” the auditor general wrote.
The ministry opted to fund the application, which achieved its objective of training one person, the AG wrote.
The auditor general also found that 64 of the low and medium-ranked applications that received funding hired lobbyists. Those applications received $126 million in total funding. Meanwhile, 39 high-ranked applications hired lobbyists and received $58 million in funding.
“Given that the Minister’s Office selects the applicants for funding and does not select only the applicants that have the highest overall score, this can create an appearance of real or potential preferential treatment by the Minister’s Office in its selection of applicants to fund,” the auditor general wrote.
“It is also not fair, transparent or accountable to those applying for funding or to the public.”
A table included in the report showed high-ranked applications resulted in 68 of those taking part being employed. The number for low-ranked applications is 51 per cent.
Ontario was unique in allowing the minister’s office to make the decision over which applications to fund, the auditor general noted. Similar programs in Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador are assessed and approved by civil servants.
Lack of documents to justify decisions
Other concerns raised by the auditor included multiple situations where few or no records were kept by the minister’s office.
Over the first two rounds of applications, 15 recipients did not submit final reports to the ministry.
“The Ministry informed us that it will not follow up on the missing reports for 15 applicant projects funded in Rounds 1 or 2, as the Ministry no longer has a connection with these organizations,” the auditor general wrote.
In another case, the auditor general found the minister’s office justified selecting five applications by saying they had scored highly. They had, in fact, been ranked either low or medium.
When the minister’s office did not select some highly ranked applications, it did not always explain why, the auditor general said.
Questions have been swirling around the skills development fund in recent weeks, including from post-secondary sector unions, who have alleged it has resulted in less funding for colleges.
“This is money that should be going to support reliable, and accountable training, in places like union-run skilled trades training, or reputable public colleges,” OPSEU/SEFPO president JP Hornick said in the run-up to the AG’s report being released.
Comments