Ontario’s Official Opposition Leader called the Ford government “corrupt” as she pressed Labour Minister David Piccini — the Northumberland–Peterborough South MPP — over his office’s role in approving low-scoring Skills Development Fund applications.
Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles took to Queen’s Park last week with sharp criticism of the minister’s Skills Development Fund.
“He has stood in this chamber and justified hand-picking low-scoring applicants because they aligned with his government’s so-called priorities,” she said, calling it “it is the endless grift of an anti-democratic — and yes, corrupt — government.”
Stiles was ejected from chambers shortly after making these comments.
Piccini has received backlash after Ontario’s auditor general released a report about the SDF, which concluded more than half of the projects approved for funding through the first five rounds were rated below the program’s own standards. While all applications met provincial eligibility rules, 54 per cent were scored “poor,” “low” or “medium” against program objectives, yet still received about $742 million — roughly 56 per cent of total funding awarded.
During her Friday afternoon community table in Peterborough, Stiles gave her thoughts to NorthumberlandDaily.ca.
Similar programs in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador do not involve a Minister’s Office in selecting individual projects for funding. In Ontario, several other ministry programs — including the Ontario Labour Market Partnerships Program — also rely on staff evaluations without Minister’s Office involvement in choosing which applications are approved.
Stiles says that’s where the problem lies.
Premier Doug Ford has rejected calls to dismiss Piccini amid the funding controversy, while Stiles says locals should have politicians that are accountable.
The Labour Minister’s office has since agreed to all four recommendations offered by the auditor general’s office, which include, but aren’t limited to: compiling applications funded by the SDF for assessment, establishing a process to implement changes to subsequent rounds based on the results of the analysis and selecting highest-scoring applicants while providing clarification to ministry staff in exceptional cases.
(Written by: Noah Lorusso)