Open this photo in gallery:
Ontario Minister of Labour David Piccini defended his funding decisions last week, saying it was his prerogative to hand out cash to applicants he felt were deserving, despite low-scoring evaluations.Sammy Kogan/The Canadian Press
Ottawa says it will “undertake full due diligence” and seek unspecified “mitigation measures” to ensure the approximately $1-billion a year it sends to Ontario for training programs is used effectively, after an audit said the Ford government’s Skills Development Fund was not fair, transparent or accountable.
In a statement on Monday, the office of Patty Hajdu, the federal Minister of Jobs and Families, said Employment and Social Development Canada was reviewing a report from the provincial Auditor-General released last week. The audit examined the $1.3-billion that Ontario has handed out since 2021 from its heavily promoted Skills Development Fund to companies, unions and non-profits.
The audit showed that political staff in the office of Ontario’s Labour Minister had overridden evaluations made by professional civil servants more than half the time in order to dole out $742-million to applicants that had ranked “poor,” “low” or “medium” on the program’s criteria – while passing over hundreds of better-scoring organizations. Ontario NDP Leader Marit Stiles told reporters last week it “looked like corruption,” while Liberal MPP John Fraser likened the program to a “racket.”
The Ontario government has not provided The Globe and Mail with a comprehensive single list of recipients, the amounts handed out and the scores each applicant was awarded – despite a request last Thursday morning for the information. On Monday afternoon, Michel Figueredo, a spokesman for Ontario Labour Minister David Piccini, forwarded web links to lists containing only the names of organizations who received funding up until 2023, but no amounts or evaluation scores.
The federal government’s annual cheque for Ontario’s spending on labour skills training – $923-million this year, down from $1.18-billion in 2022-23 – comes with elaborate agreements between Queen’s Park and Ottawa that govern how the money is supposed to be used. (Other provinces also have similar deals.)
Ontario A-G says grant selection process for skills training program ‘not fair, transparent’
However, Ontario has already said its next round of Skills Development Fund grants will not be funded through its labour market deals with Ottawa, and will instead be supported solely by Ontario taxpayers. Premier Doug Ford’s government has pledged to hand out another $805-million in these grants over the next three years.
Monday’s statement from Ms. Hajdu’s office noted that workforce development is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the provinces and territories. It was sent in response to queries from The Globe and Mail about the Ontario Auditor-General’s findings.
“We will also be engaging with the Government of Ontario on this matter, to undertake full due diligence and seek mitigation measures to ensure funding is used effectively and transparently for our labour market agreements,” said the e-mailed statement from spokeswoman Aïssatou Diop. “We will continue to monitor the situation, and new developments will be communicated in due course.”
Ms. Hajdu’s press secretary, Jennifer Kozelj, did not answer an e-mailed question about what was meant by “mitigation measures,” saying only that the federal government is reviewing the matter.
Mr. Figueredo, Mr. Piccini’s spokesperson, said in an e-mail that Ontario had “met every federal reporting requirement, including annual outcome reports and audited financial statements.” He also said Ontario had “implemented strong evaluation methods, new selection criteria and modern technology to better track outcomes.”
“The changes we’ve made, combined with the Auditor General’s feedback, are improving this critical program,” the statement said.
OPSEU calls for greater accountability on Ontario’s work-force training fund
Minutes after The Globe and Mail forwarded part of the federal statement to Mr. Figueredo seeking comment, Ms. Diop phoned a Globe reporter, saying Ontario officials had contacted her ministry and were “concerned.”
She said Ottawa is “not going to engage with Ontario on the Auditor-General’s report.” But she said the federal government would still “do our due diligence to make sure that the money is used for what it’s intended to be used for.”
Ms. Diop went on to say that her ministry needs “to preserve also our relationship with the province of Ontario, because we are working well together. This is not us going to them and just asking them to explain themselves, based on the Auditor-General full report.”
Speaking to reporters last week, Mr. Piccini defended his funding decisions, saying it was his prerogative to hand out cash to applicants he felt were deserving, despite low-scoring evaluations.
The Auditor-General’s report said high-scoring applicants tended to do better in terms of hitting the program’s targets, including metrics such as the percentage of unemployed people who found work within 60 days of completing their training.
The report also noted that in several other provinces with similar programs, minsters’ offices were not involved in the final decisions on who received funding.
The audit showed that many applicants for Ontario’s fund hired professional lobbyists, and 64 low- and medium-ranked applicants who had lobbied the minister’s office ended up with $126-million in funding. The audit said 39 higher-ranked applicants had also hired lobbyists and received about $58-million in funding.
Having the Labour Minister’s office pick applicants, while not always choosing those with the highest scores, “can create an appearance of real or potential preferential treatment,” the report said.
Ontario’s Ministry of Labour had said it has accepted all of the audit’s recommendations for tightening the program. But Mr. Piccini insisted last week that he would still have the final say on who was awarded the grants – even though the Auditor-General had recommended that the highest-scoring applications should be chosen in the future.
The report also said that the Minister’s office should be required to justify its decisions when, in “exceptional cases,” it approves lower-scoring applicants.
