|
Oral
Questions
March 12, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, later this
afternoon we will be debating a motion regarding the
installation of sprinkler systems at government run
health care facilities. In preparation for this debate
we had arranged a meeting this morning with the fire
commissioner to clarify some of the issues relative to
this, such as getting an update on inspections, when
they were last completed, what government facilities had
been inspected and so on.
Mr. Speaker, at the last
minute I received a call this morning from the fire
commissioner canceling the meeting saying he had to go
out of town on urgent business or business anyway and I
asked him if he had been directed by the minister or
anyone in the minister’s department to not meet with
us on this particular issue and he would not confirm or
deny that that was or was not the case. So, Mr. Speaker
-
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the member to get
to her question.
MS JONES:
I will, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is more
appropriately directed to the minister. I ask him: Did
he, his deputy minister, or any officials in his
department ask the fire commissioner not to meet with
the Opposition this morning on this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer is no, I did
not. What happened is that we needed information - there
were two issues that we needed information on, one was
Bell Island and one was Whitbourne. We needed to have a
report back tomorrow for Cabinet. Cabinet is meeting
tomorrow, and the Premier stated that that would be an
issue that would be discussed. I am preparing a briefing
note, and that’s the reason why it had to be done
today, and that is the reason why the fire commissioner
had to go out of town.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand the urgency
of the fire commissioner having to complete that
business, minister, but I do not understand the urgency
of not taking half an hour to meet with the Opposition.
He could have gone at 11:00 o’clock as opposed to
10:30. I really feel that it was instigated through your
department.
Mr. Speaker, I understand
yesterday –
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I will take my direction
from you. I also understand from a media scrum yesterday
that they have been unable to get any statements from
the Fire Commissioner’s Office.
I ask the minister: Has
the fire commissioner again been asked not to speak to
the media on this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: Mr.
Speaker, absolutely not.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Significant problems have
recently been identified in our foster care system. It
has been reported that there is a 20 per cent increase
in the number of children in custody and we have fewer
foster families participating in the program. Foster
children are being housed in hotels and efficiency
units, and this combined with the lack of social workers
and the increased workload of these social workers. The
majority of the vacancies, as I understand, Mr. Speaker,
for social workers are in the Eastern and Labrador
health regions, the same regions that carry the largest
number of children in custody.
I ask the minister: Why
is government not doing more to fill those vacancies in
those positions, especially when there is a crisis been
identified in those areas?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
For those who would have
been following last year’s Budget, would remember that
this government made a major commitment last year. In
fact, $9 million annualized, I say, Mr. Speaker. We made
a commitment last year to strengthen our Child, Youth
and Family Services system by pledging, on an annual
basis, some $9 million investment. Included in that
investment was a range of initiatives that included
recruiting social workers, social worker assistants,
support staff for social workers, and a variety of other
supports that would be necessary for the people working
in the field. They all will be a part of a process to
strengthen and to improve our Regional Health
Authorities ability to be able to attract and retain the
qualified, confident and capable people that we need to
support children at risk in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Approximately 25 per cent
of children from Innu communities in Labrador are in
foster care, realizing that Aboriginal communities have
unique and special issues that require more attention
oftentimes than other regions of the Province, yet there
is a growing shortage of social workers in that area.
I ask the minister: Does
government have any plans to introduce or develop a
special remuneration plan for social workers who want to
work in Northern Aboriginal communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We are working as a
department, we are working with each of our four Health
Authorities, and moving forward with a strategy
development for Child, Youth and Family Services. A
piece of that is looking at the human resource needs of
each of our four authorities. As a part of that, human
resource strategy, obviously, compensation benefits,
working conditions, supports, all become a part of that
overall strategy piece, I say, Mr. Speaker.
So, in addition to what
we are doing in Labrador, we are doing it in all the
other three authorities. It will be a very comprehensive
approach to making sure, as I said a moment ago, that we
have the capable, competent people that we need to
support children in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I have already indicated that the caseload has
increased by 20 per cent, the number of children in
care. I am wondering if the
minister can tell me why such an increase and why so
many children are in custody today?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I think it is really important for everybody in
this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
to fully understand and appreciate that only the
children who find themselves most at risk are the
children in care. Bringing children in care is a last
resort. Social workers in the field have to make a
critical evaluation of whether or not that child is
safer in the home or safer somewhere else, and only when
that kind of detailed assessment is done that very
critical decision has to made about removing children.
So, I want to make sure
that the notion that we have an increase in the number
of children in care today versus what might be there
yesterday is one that - I think, Mr. Speaker, it is
critical for us to understand that that only happens as
a last resort. So, any increase in the number of
children in care would reflect the seriousness of things
that may be happening in our communities and in some of
the homes where these children are being removed from.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you Mr. Speaker.
Of course that is what we
were looking to know, if the department had compiled
anything that would tell us directly what some of the
contributing factors might be in recent days.
Mr. Speaker, my
next question to the minister is if he can provide me
with the statistics on the number of children that are
in custody voluntarily versus those that are there
involuntary?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: I
will be only too glad to table for the member opposite
the profile, or the status, or the data pertaining to
the number of children that are in care today. I will
get that for you and table it at a later moment.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, my final question for the minister is regarding
the voluntary portion of foster care. We have been
informed that there are families that have voluntarily
placed their children into foster care because of their
economic situation, referring to the fact that they are
on social assistance and they feel that their children
are better provided for sometimes financially under the
foster care program.
I ask
the minister if his department has done any analysis on
that and on the cost or economic implications for
families that are on assistance versus those that are
putting their children into foster care?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, as I said a moment ago, taking children into
care is a decision that is not taken lightly. It is one
that is not done unless careful consideration has been
given to the circumstance and whether or not children
are at risk or at greater risk by staying in their home
than they would be being someplace else.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain
that the families who voluntarily have their children in
care go through that same kind of critical analysis of
their circumstance and what might be in the best
interest of their children. So when families find
themselves in that circumstance in working with the
social worker who is assigned to the case, obviously,
between the two of them, they have made that
determination that the child might be much safer and
better cared for in a foster circumstance than remaining
in the home, and that is when the child would be
removed.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked a couple of
questions yesterday of the Minister of Innovation, Trade
and Rural Development concerning openness and
accountability, and I will follow up on that today.
Aside from the
Comptroller General’s mention of the company SAC,
which we dealt with yesterday and was reported in The
Telegram story back in February, aside from that,
there are other items in the Auditor General’s report
- as opposed to the Comptroller General - there are
other items in the Auditor General’s report which make
for interesting reading.
Under one heading, other
investments by the department, the Auditor General
outlines how the minister’s department, under his
leadership, invested in excess of $1 million of public
money in three different companies identified only as
Companies A, B and C. In the case of Company A, the AG
found there was no legislative authority to make the
investment of $500,000.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. member to
get to his question.
MR. PARSONS: Yes,
Mr. Speaker.
My question of the
minister is: Why is your
department spending public funds into private companies
when, according to the Auditor General, there is no
legislative authority in place permitting these
expenditures?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor
General’s report referenced investments in a number of
companies, yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we
understood that we did not have a program at the time to
invest in companies. We developed a program called the
Commercialization Program, as part of our innovation
strategy; and, Mr. Speaker, we now have a program that
is fully accessible to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the businesses of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We understand, we agree
to some extent with what the Auditor General said at the
time, and we have made appropriate changes in the
intervening period so that we could deal with it.
We also understand, Mr.
Speaker, that the investments that we made in companies
was under the same legislative authority, the Financial
Administration Act, as investments made by the former
Liberal government when the Member for Burgeo &
LaPoile was minister in the department that I am now in,
and did exactly the same type of thing, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to see that
the minister - he admitted yesterday he had a problem
with communications in his department. He has admitted
now that the Auditor General was right, that they spent
money that he had no authorization to.
The Auditor General’s
report also revealed that in June of 2005 the Department
of Trade and Rural Development, under direction from
Cabinet, dumped another $500,000 into Company B. This
money, according to the Auditor General, was again spent
by the department without legislative authority. The
files were missing important documentation, that Company
B had contravened the subordination agreement it had
signed with the department, that the firm had no
tangible assets available for security to the
department, and that there were no shareholder net worth
statements nor company credit checks performed by the
department before letting the money go.
I ask the minister: What
actions has your department taken since this disclosure,
and pointing out by the Auditor General, to ensure that
public money, in the future, will not be disbursed until
due diligence is properly done?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I did not
suggest that the Auditor General was right, that we did
not have the legislative authority. I said we proceeded
under the same legislative authority, the Financial
Administration Act, that every government has proceeded
under for, I suspect, the last thirty or forty years,
Mr. Speaker.
We believe that we have
the authority to proceed with the disbursement of funds
to companies. When we did not have a program in place,
which was the case with the three companies that I
referenced, we took the appropriate action. We did our
due diligence. We compiled a Cabinet paper. We went
through the proper channels with the Economic Policy
Committee of Treasury Board and the Cabinet process. We
sought the authority and we made the investment.
In some cases, Mr.
Speaker, yes, the paperwork may not have been absolutely
done. There were mistakes that were made. Those
mistakes, Mr. Speaker, were corrected. If he followed
on, in the Auditor General’s report, the Auditor
General said there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just
that the proper process needed to be – the process
needed to be cleaned up, was basically what he said.
There was no evidence of any wrongdoing, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Another indication of
mistakes being made in a department.
We are not concerned, or
the public is not concerned, with what the minister
thinks is right or wrong. The public is concerned about
ensuring that the department and the minister follow the
suggestions put forward by the Auditor General, and does
it right.
The Auditor General’s
report also revealed that in March, 2005, the
minister’s department, under direction from Cabinet,
approved a $100,000 investment into a company identified
as C. Again, money was transferred by a government
department into private hands without the department
having legislative authority. In that case, another
funding agency had, in November of the prior year, 2004,
already identified a multitude of problems with this
firm, including misleading technical information,
concerns with patents, understated project costs, and
overly optimistic timelines.
My question for the
minister, Mr. Speaker: What
actions has the minister taken to ensure that public
money, in future, is not disbursed before all due
diligence is done? There are problems. What have you
done to correct them?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
The hon. the Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have to
say, it is awfully interesting. Last year, about this
time, when we were in the middle of debate, negotiations
and what have you, with a company called Petro Field
Services, that we were planning on establishing out in
Port aux Basques, the hon. member was insisting that we
hurry along, we hurry along, we disburse the funds, we
support the company and what have you, Mr. Speaker. The
only reason we were holding back on moving forward with
investment in that company and supporting that company
was because we were doing our due diligence. We were
looking for the financial information that we required,
so that we didn’t get written up in the Auditor
General’s report. Now he is here today condemning us
for the very same thing, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I take it that feeble
attempt at deflection indicates that the minister again
has done nothing substantive to improve and ensure the
Auditor General and the people that something has been
done to rectify these problems.
Mr. Speaker, as critic
for the department, I sought to get more information and
details on these cases. My office submitted an Access to
Information Request to the minister’s department,
asking for the names of these three companies. Now, this
is the minister who told us yesterday that he is
absolutely open and accountable. The department, under
the direction of the minister, refused to provide us
with those names pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act.
I ask the minister: Why
are you refusing to reveal the names of these three
companies which, together, have received more than $1
million of public funding?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not divulged the
names for the same reason that the Auditor General did
not, Mr. Speaker, and for the same reason that on April
10, 2003, when I sat in the seat that he is sitting in,
and he was sitting in the seat that the Premier is now
sitting in, with his Deputy Minister, Mr. John Scott,
sitting next to him in a seat that the Deputy Premier
now sits in, and the question was asked of a couple of
companies that they had provided funding to, that had
run into some problems and were written up in the
Auditor General’s report. The Leader of the Opposition
at the time asked a question as to, if he could tell us
what the names were. He said, I understand that you may
not be able to.
Mr. Scott said - the
deputy – and, of course, the minister didn’t have
any problem with it; because, if he did, he would be
written up in Hansard right afterwards. In the case of
the Auditor General’s report on this particular
company, I would be happy to share the name of the
company with you privately, but the company is operating
so these types of reports and the Auditor General’s
statements are usually masked somewhat in the terms of
the name of the company because it would compromise
their ability to raise capital or keep business.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, deflection from
the real point here will not succeed.
Mr. Speaker, it is common
knowledge that the name of any company or other entity
which receives public funds will become public
knowledge. In fact, under every single application form
by your department, Minister, it states, and I quote:
The applicant hereby agrees that should an offer of
financing result from this application, that offer shall
include an agreement to make public the financing amount
and the name of the recipient, together with the purpose
and other information pertaining to the employment
created.
Now, that is in the
application.
I ask the minister: Why
are you refusing to release the names of the companies
when the companies themselves have already agreed to
make that information public?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the member
is being too cute by half, because he was a minister and
he was a minister in this department. He oversaw the
disbursement of funds and he oversaw press releases and
what have you and the release of information to the
public on investments in companies. He is right, we do
have the right, and we do. Every one of these three
companies, to the best of my knowledge, these three
companies - there was a press release. There was a
public announcement that went out when the funds were
disbursed to these companies, but there is a reason that
we do not deal with it in the Auditor General’s report
and we do not deal with it afterwards because some of
these companies may, and in some cases they are - in
this case - still operating. Their business has moved
along. Mr. Speaker, if we were to say the names of those
companies, the customers that they have and the customer
base that they have developed could be compromised and
our investment in the company could be compromised as
well.
Now if he wants to step
up behind the Speaker’s chair, I will tell him who
they are, but I am not doing it here in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My role here as a critic
for the department is to reveal whatever information I
can determine; not to find it out for my own personal
information, but for the public information.
Minister, although you
refuse to provide the names publicly of these three
companies - and you will recall it yesterday when I
talked about the SAC Manufacturing, I said that name was
found by the media in a schedule C of the Comptroller
General’s report.
Will
you confirm or deny that companies A, B and C that we
are referring to here now today are also contained
within that schedule C of the Comptroller General’s
report?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I understand
his role as critic because I sat over there, and he
understands my role as minister because he sat over
here. His role as critic is to try to get as much
information released to the public as possible. My role
as minister is do the best job I can to protect the
public purse and the public interests in the longer term
and that is why we are not going to release those three
names because there is money potentially at risk or
could be compromised in those companies by releasing the
names.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the
best interest of the companies, the best interest of the
public of Newfoundland and Labrador and the public purse
of Newfoundland and Labrador if those names are not, at
this time, released. If the companies go south, no
problem, they are going south just like SAC went down
and we are trying to recover our money. There is
absolutely no reason to worry about compromising our
financial ability or the finances of the Province. In
this case, Mr. Speaker, he knows that it is not
appropriate to release those names; just as the Auditor
General knew because the Auditor General did not release
them and that is why I am not, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We are talking about
companies that received government funding almost three
years ago. We are not talking about confidential, secret
trade documents and corporate information that might
destroy or negatively impact the company. We are trying
to find out which companies did you give the money to.
It is pretty straightforward. We do not want to know
their patents and their trade secrets. We want to know,
who did you give the money to?
In fact, Mr. Speaker -
maybe you can make it simple, because you do not know if
those A, B and C are within the schedule C of the
Comptroller General’s report. Maybe, since you did
mention today that you put out press releases on all
these, can you tell us what
dates you put out those press releases so that then we
can easily go find out who they are? Why are we going
through all those hoops of Freedom of Information
requests when you can simply tell us what the press
releases were? Will
you do that, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr.
Speaker, why did he not have a problem on April 10,
2003, with his deputy, Mr. Scott, sitting right there in
those chairs, who would not tell the Leader of the
Opposition what the two companies were that had not made
their payments to the government, that were out $2.2
million for, and so on and so on? He would not tell us
those names then because he figured compromising the
companies ability to carry on, undermining their market
base, undermining their ability to raise further capital
in order to carry on operations so that the Government
in Newfoundland and Labrador might at some time in the
future be able to recover its money. He did not see
anything wrong with that position then, Mr. Speaker,
because it was the right position, but he sees something
wrong with it today because it is a better political
position.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker, we started
off this questioning yesterday. I asked the minister a
simple question: Was he in tune with the openness,
accountability and transparency principles espoused by
the government? His answer was: I can absolutely confirm
that we do, in our department, adhere to those
principles, which is why every cent of money that we
approve is made public. Now that is not forty-eight
hours ago.
So, I will ask the
minister again: Why are we
having this cat-and-mouse game? Why are you being so
deflective? Why are you being so secretive about this
information? Why can’t you simply say: Yes,
we did it. This is who they were. We put out a press
release on such-and-such a date. Is
there some reason that you can’t tell us other than
the fact that you feel you might negatively impact them
commercially?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Speaker, what is the member after? I mean, obviously
the cat and mouse game that is being played here today
is his. He is playing to the press gallery. He is hoping
he might get a clip on TV this evening.
The fact of the matter
is, Mr. Speaker, I just told him that if he wants to
step up here, somewhere where I can talk to him in
confidence and tell him what the companies names are –
now, if he wants to be irresponsible and release those
names publicly and potentially compromise the companies
that we have, as he said, around $1 million in, if he
wants to do that and he wants to live with that and see
maybe one of those companies, as a result of that, lose
a customer they are after right now or, Mr. Speaker,
lose another $100,000 in financing from a private
lender, a chartered bank or something like that, then he
can go and do it. I am not going to be that
irresponsible but if he wants to he can.
|
