Ontario's Skills Development Fund Faces Scrutiny Over Funding Practices

Ontario's Skills Development Fund is under fire following a report from the province's Auditor General, Shelley Spence. The report highlights troubling patterns of favoritism in the approval process for funding applications, echoing past controversies surrounding the government's handling of Greenbelt development.

The Auditor General's findings reveal that many applications that scored highly based on objective criteria were not approved by the Ministry of Labour. Instead, over half of the applications that received funding were rated as poor, low, or medium in merit. These lower-ranked applications accounted for $742 million, or 56 percent, of the total funding distributed in the program's first five rounds.

Lobbyists played a significant role in this process. The report indicates that 64 low- and medium-ranked applications received a total of $126 million after engaging lobbyists to communicate with Labour Minister David Piccini or his staff. Additionally, 39 high-ranked applicants also hired lobbyists and secured $58 million in funding. The Auditor General concluded that not selecting only the highest-ranked applicants “can create an appearance of real or potential preferential treatment by the minister’s office.”

While some may view this as standard practice in the intersection of politics and funding, similar programs in other provinces, such as Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador, do not involve political decision-making in their selection processes.

The effectiveness of the Skills Development Fund is also in question. In the first four rounds, 679,000 individuals enrolled in government-funded training programs, but only 486,000 completed the training, indicating a significant dropout rate. Of those who completed the training, about 101,000 unemployed participants found work within 60 days. Critics argue that the funds could have been better spent on the province's underfunded public college system rather than creating a parallel training system run by businesses, unions, and community groups.

Transparency issues further complicate the situation. Although the government has released a list of recipients of the funding, it has not disclosed how much each group received, the outcomes of the training, or how each proposal was evaluated by ministry staff. This lack of transparency contrasts sharply with the government's push for private sector employers to provide detailed records of their hiring processes.

In January, Bill 149 will take effect, requiring companies with 25 or more employees to maintain extensive records of their hiring interactions, disclose any use of artificial intelligence in hiring, and respond to applicants within 45 days. Veteran employment lawyer Howard Levitt described this legislation as a “seismic shift” in employer practices, warning that deviations from the new rules could lead to lawsuits or fines.

While the Ford government presents these new regulations as protections for workers, critics question the necessity of such measures. They argue that unsuccessful job candidates will still face the same outcomes, and the new regulations may create additional burdens for employers in a province already grappling with high unemployment rates. Critics contend that the government, which often touts its efforts to reduce red tape, is instead imposing new complexities that could hinder businesses without providing tangible benefits to job seekers.