It appeared to unfold like a script straight out of a Netflix movie: a lavish wedding at Four Seasons George V in Paris, influential lobbyists, and millions of dollars in funding. But here’s the thing: this isn’t a work of fiction; it’s a real story about a program that genuinely supports workers and communities—though perhaps a bit too recklessly.
Decisions are often influenced by political considerations. However, that doesn’t automatically mean there’s corruption or a hidden agenda for personal gain. It is the responsibility of political operatives to manage perceptions and avoid any appearance of conflict. Occasionally, they may fall short, requiring a course correction, but that doesn’t warrant tossing an entire program.
Throughout my political career, I have almost always identified as a partisan Liberal—though I firmly believe in setting hyperpartisanship aside. I am unafraid to call out poor ideas when I see them, especially when those ideas reflect a bad political strategy, even if it’s my party doing it. After three consecutive majority governments from the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, one would think we Liberals gained a clearer understanding of the crucial distinction between effective opposition and mere obstruction.
Instead, too many voices are chasing the dopamine hit of a headline over the harder work of fixing what’s broken and defending what works. The Skills Development Fund (SDF) has flaws—serious ones—but it’s also getting people better jobs in the very communities Ontario Liberals keep losing: Brampton, Peel, the 905, immigrant neighbourhoods, and among women and frontline workers.
It might sound crass to say that supporting SDF projects in key Ontario Liberal constituencies is good politics. But it is. Pretending otherwise just keeps us in the political wilderness for a few more election cycles.
Yes, the Auditor General hammered the SDF’s selection process—and she was right. Her special report says the minister’s office chose lower-ranked applications 54% of the time—$742 million across the first five rounds—with weak or missing rationales. She called the selection “not fair, transparent or accountable.” That’s a governance failure, and it’s on the government to fix. But read the rest: the audit also says the ministry had sound processes for evaluating applications and monitoring recipients, and the ministry agreed to all four recommendations. The answer is to bring sunlight to the selection process—not to torch a program that trains workers and supports organizations in need.
Do donors appear in the recipient pool? Yes. Are “insiders” and lobbyists involved? Absolutely, though our job as lobbyists is to connect the dots and help organizations understand government process. Are the optics concerning? Without a doubt. But let’s take a breather.
An analysis of SDF Round 5 revealed that nearly two-thirds of the funding went to organizations led by PC donors. This represents a self-inflicted wound for the government. However, if the only narrative we share is that "donors received the money," we risk misleading people about who truly benefits. Consider the government’s own Round 4 list: Unifor, Unite Here Local 75, WoodGreen Community Services, YMCA of Simcoe/Muskoka, and Youth Employment Services—these are precisely the unions and community organizations that Liberals typically champion. They represent real projects for real workers, not just PC-aligned groups. Both realities can coexist, and if we can convey this nuance, voters will be able to understand it.
It also matters where the money lands and who it helps. Peel and the 905 are ground zero for the Ontario Liberal comeback, and SDF dollars are funding programs tailored to those voters. Achēv—a Peel‑based nonprofit—runs “Workforce Pathways in Seniors Healthcare for Women,” designed to move immigrant and racialized women into stable, in‑demand jobs. Windmill Microlending—a charity focused on skilled immigrants—received support to help newcomers bridge into their professions. Those are Ontario Liberal constituencies if we choose to show up for them.
Let’s focus on Brampton. This city has been a political heartbreaker for the Ontario Liberals, and we won’t be able to win Ontario without it. Through the SDF, the province has invested over $500,000 in two projects aimed at training more than 1,200 internationally-trained job seekers, collaborating with partners like the Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre and Dynacare. This isn’t just a talking point for a press release; it represents a genuine pathway to employment for newcomer families who are vital to the 905. If we spend our time dismissing this assistance as a “slush fund,” we’re effectively telling these families that their opportunities don’t matter because we failed to support them.
And for anyone still insisting this is just a PC patronage machine, open the Round 4 recipient list again. Alongside the unions and community agencies above, you’ll find Newcomer Women’s Services Toronto (leadership training for women), Matthew House Refugee Services (newcomer employment), and The Career Foundation (equity for women in trades). The map of recipients looks a lot like the map of ridings we need to earn back.
There’s another inconvenient truth for the purists: even Liberal MPPs have been advocating for local SDF bids. Reports indicate that two of them wrote to the Labour Minister in support of projects in their ridings—one to ensure a late application was considered, and another for a donor-linked proposal. You may label it hypocrisy, but I see it as reality. When a program proves popular and beneficial to constituents, politicians from all parties strive to secure support for their communities. Ignoring this fact only makes us appear disingenuous.
The federal Liberals understand the importance of collaboration. With Secretary of State John Zerucelli, they are working closely with organizations like SEIU — the same union that has partnered on SDF projects in Ontario to expand training opportunities and support frontline workers. In contrast, the Ontario Liberals are opposing the very type of program they once championed. This represents a puzzling reversal: while the federal party embraces the politics of delivery, the provincial wing risks appearing resistant to achieving tangible results.
Let’s take a step back. The SDF is a $2.5 billion initiative designed to help people enter the workforce quickly. It needs guardrails, not grenades. We should maintain a broad scope—welcoming unions, employers, colleges, and nonprofits—and ensure transparency by publishing scoring rubrics, explanations for any ministerial variances, and conflict-of-interest safeguards. Additionally, we need to demonstrate our outcomes: release project-level results every quarter, including enrollment figures, completion rates, job placements, and wage increases—and hold providers accountable by benching those who miss their targets twice. Above all, we must ensure that decisions are transparent, merit-based, and withstand scrutiny.
I’m tired of losing elections and pretending that snarky hyperpartisanship is an effective strategy. When properly managed, the SDF empowers workers, immigrants, and women in Brampton, Peel, and the 905—the very communities we Liberals claim to champion and the areas we must win to escape the political wilderness. If we regard every training dollar as inherently corrupt, we’ll inevitably continue to lose. We need to fix the process, take responsibility for the outcomes, and engage with the people utilizing this fund to secure better pay and improved lives. That’s how the Ontario Liberals can earn a second look.
The Four Seasons George V wasn’t named for a hero or a revolutionary — it honours a monarch who understood that endurance, not outrage, is what keeps institutions going for generations.
Liberals could learn something from that: less theatrics, more results. Less gimmicks, more substance. King George V didn’t chase an easy win; he steadied the ship. If we want to win back Ontario, we need to do the same.