1

PART 1
You are deputy minister of the Ministry of Social Services in the Ontario government. The
governing party is in the last few months of its mandate, with an election expected to be called
within the next three months. The polls show that the opposition party will win a landslide
victory.
The minister has just called you into her office. She represents a downtown Toronto riding within
which is located a large (32 full-time staff, 15 part-time and several dozen volunteers)
community agency, Skills First. This agency provides job and language training and related
services for the unemployed and recent immigrants, especially for women and single parents.
Skills First is widely acknowledged to be a well-run organization that has garnered a number of
national and international awards for its work.
On several occasions over the past four years, Skills First has approached the Ministry of Social
Services with a request for $7 million to allow it to purchase the building and land that is
currently occupies.
In your meeting with the minister you again stress that it is long standing ministry policy not to
provide capital funding to community agencies (and review the reasons for this and the danger
of setting a precedent). You also indicate that the optics surrounding granting the $7 million are
particularly extremely problematic for the ministry, the government and the minister given
that the agency is in the ministers constituency (riding). Lastly, you have point out that even if a
new government was to dramatically decrease funding for community agencies, Skills First is
not at risk of closure. As with many community agencies, it also receives funds for the federal
and municipal governments and thus would continue to operate without the current level of
provincial funding, albeit with fewer staff and services.
Nevertheless, the minister is convinced that providing the $7 million is the right thing to do,
especially in light of the election platform of the opposition party and the widely acknowledged
excellence of the agency. The minister agrees that even with a change in government Skills First
will not be forced to close, but its services would likely be curtailed. The minister is determined
that Skills First be placed in a long-term stable financial position by allowing it to own the
building and land. Furthermore, Skills First has convinced the minister that the opportunity to
buy its own building may not arise again. Notwithstanding your comments, the meeting with the
minister concludes with her telling you to ensure that Skills First is able to acquire its building
within the mandate of my government.
What do you do? Why so?
 2

Part 1
As the deputy minister, I would make the choice to obtain the $7 million for Skills First to secure
the agencys financial stability in the long-term and to avoid curtaining services to a widely
recognized and successful organization that may not have this opportunity arise again.
It is noted by Adam Moscoe, that there are several stakeholders that come together in the
decision-making process with their own interests. In more detail, Donald Savoie highlights that
the expectations of public servants entail managing loyalties and stakeholders that are complex
and contradictory as well as ensuring public interest remains paramount. Although Skills First
will not be at risk of closure, the provision of the capital funds is placing a valuable community
agency in a position of financial stability for the long-term to fully maintain their services and
staff. Moreover, the community itself will continue to benefit from the maximum this resource
can offer, whilst assisting in the Minister of Social Services popularity among voters.
While this decision will set a precedent, it is predicated only on the grounds that the allocation of
these funds will allow for the continued success of this organization, without fear of curtailed
services now or in the long run. Adam Moscoe specifically details the importance of careful
consideration of the needs of stakeholders the public, the agency and the Minister not only
for decisions that may seem attractive in the short run, but more significantly, for the long-term.
As the current fiscal year will end in three months on March 31, the best option for the
obtainment of the $7 million will be to include the request in the supplementary estimates to be
tabled during the third supply period. Riccardo Mussari elucidates that, as a tenet of democratic
ideals, Parliament must approve the use of tax payers dollars. This is a more appropriate
acquisition than if the funds were to be re-allocated from the preliminarily approved budget. If
Parliament were to approve, it would substantiate the validity of the request.
There are problems with this decision that must be addressed. The most important issue is that
this allocation of money would set a precedent against the stringent policy that prohibits the
government from funding capital costs, despite the few exceptions over the years. Furthermore,
Skills First is located within the Ministers constituency. This is problematic because it may be
construed as favourtism, especially seeing as Skills First would not be at risk of closure with a
new government. In addition, the decision to add the request to the supplementary estimates will
likely incite scrutiny from both the opposition and the media.
Despite the issues with this decision, it is important to emphasize the value of this agency within
the community and how its utmost long-term success and stability is a benefit to the public. The
controversial allocation of these funds has not been arbitrarily decided, but rather carefully
evaluated and will be democratically approved by Parliament. It will be ensured that this policy
exception has only been permitted in the best interest of the public, the most important
stakeholder.
 3

PART 2
All aspects of case study #1 remain unchanged. However, the request to the minister by Skills
First is for a loan guarantee to purchase its building. As such, the minister has asked you to
ensure that the ministry co-sign a loan with a commercial bank for $7 million. In other words,
the ministry will be the guarantor for the $7 million mortgage that Skills First will assume. The
ministry has never in the past undertaken such an arrangement.
In the short term (the next year) there would be no money required from the ministry. However,
in the longer-term, given the variability of the agencys budget, it may well be the case that the
ministry will need to provide some funds to make the mortgage payments.
What do you do? Why so?

Part 2
As the deputy minister, I would make the choice to resign because I cannot justifiably co-sign the
loan for Skills First. This request would set a dangerous precedent as an arrangement never
before undertaken by the Ministry, and moreover, the Ministry would assume too much risk as a
potential liability.
If the agency were to require future financial assistance, the Ministry cannot justify re-allocating
funds from the preliminarily approved budget or adding it to the supplementary estimates. In
conjunction with the already unprecedented decision to sign as a guarantor, adding it to the
budget would be scrutinized by the opposition and the media. While this option may be an
attractive solution for several stakeholders including the agency, the community and the Minister
in the short-term, the long-term effects need to be carefully considered, as Adam Moscoe
cautions.
Problematically, the accredited community agency will not be in a stable long-term position and
the Minister may not be re-elected. However, this request is too high-risk for the Ministry to take
on because this is not a responsibility that has been assumed by the government before and
contentiously, leaves the Ministry financially liable. Consequently, there is an increased
opportunity for scrutiny and the accusation of favouritism.
My resignation follows careful and well-informed deliberation of a request that I consider
untenable.