Over twelve million dollars in public funds vanished into the pockets of companies that would later fail, a recent inquiry reveals. The National Research Council quietly documented $12.7 million in subsidies given to businesses now declared insolvent, raising serious questions about oversight and accountability.
These weren’t investments in promising ventures, but rather grants intended to “support research, development, adoption or innovation.” Yet, the funds were distributed without any scrutiny from Parliament, operating in a shadow of bureaucratic discretion. The scale of the issue is startling, with taxpayer money flowing freely into ventures with questionable viability.
The recipients paint a peculiar picture of risk. An Alberta shrimp hatchery received $63,000, while a brewery on Prince Edward Island was granted $45,695. These aren’t high-tech startups poised for disruption, but seemingly ordinary businesses that ultimately couldn’t survive, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.
Official documents state that “contribution agreements” were in place, outlining conditions for funding. However, the sheer number of grants, and the subsequent failures, suggest these agreements were either inadequate or unenforced. The question lingers: what due diligence was performed before these millions were dispersed?
The revelations came to light after a Conservative MP demanded a full accounting of grants given to companies that subsequently went bankrupt. The request uncovered a troubling pattern of financial risk and a lack of transparency in how public money was allocated.
Adding another layer of complexity, much of this spending occurred during the pandemic. The Research Council cited an overwhelming workload as a contributing factor, claiming the pressure of approving applications took a toll on staff. They reported challenges to employee mental health and work-life balance.
The program’s structure allowed companies to “stack” subsidies, combining federal aid to cover up to 100% of their payroll. While intended to provide a lifeline during a crisis, this system created an environment ripe for abuse and potentially incentivized unsustainable practices.
Auditors confirmed the immense strain on staff, noting an “unprecedented volume of work” and widespread overtime. The sheer number of cheques authorized created a logistical nightmare, pushing employees to their limits and raising concerns about the quality of review.
The situation highlights a critical flaw: a rush to distribute funds, coupled with insufficient oversight, resulted in millions being lost to failing businesses. The story isn’t just about the money, but about the erosion of public trust and the need for greater accountability in government spending.
