Igor: Sed-a...
Inga: Sed-a...
Igor: Dirty word! He said a dirty word!
The normally straightforward innovation minister looked a bit like a character out of Young Frankenstein this past week.
Dr. Fronkensteen, being strangled by his creation, tries to tell his assistants what to do to quiet the monster, but without actually saying the words.
He played charades.
Making odd gestures, tugging his ear and flashing various fingers in the air and on his forearm are about the only things Trevor Taylor didn't do this week to avoid answering a simple question.
Opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons asked Taylor for the names of three companies named recently in the Auditor General's annual report. The companies were identified as Company A, Company B and Company C in the report.
Taylor refused to say the three names out loud. Taylor said they weren't named by the Auditor General because "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."
Taylor offered to pass them on to Parsons privately, adding that public disclosure of the names and the consequences for the companies would then fall on Parsons' head.
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.
He tried to deflect, by stating - incorrectly - that the Auditor General had found nothing wrong in his audit of the programs.
Taylor claimed that he couldn't say the names publicly since that might jeopardize the financial health of the companies and their ability to secure private sector financing.
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.
The only problem for Taylor is that his arguments don't hold up.
For starters, the Auditor General didn't identify the companies since, for his purposes, the companies are irrelevant. The AG was concerned with the government's administration of the program for handing out cash to private sector companies, to wit:
We are of the opinion that there is no explicit authority under the Financial Administration Act
for the Department to make direct investments in companies. During 2005-06, the Department made three such investments totalling $1,050,000 to three companies. Furthermore, there are no documented procedures for approving, disbursing and monitoring such unique investments and, as a result, these investments were not subject to the same due diligence required for investments under the SME Fund. As a result, there were deficiencies. For example:- none of the three companies were required to repay the investment contingent on either income earned or a maximum seven year period;
- one company was not required to submit documentation to support specific expenditures;
- shareholders for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company A) who received $500,000 were not required to make new equity investments as part of their contribution to the project; instead,
previous investments were accepted;- shareholders for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company B) who received $500,000 were not required to provide personal net worth statements; and
- Department officials were not entitled to attend any company meetings for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company B) even though the company was provided with funding totalling $500,000.
Then there's the issue of financial consequences. In answering questions about SAC manufacturing, earlier this year, Taylor that government expected 65% of the companies it invested in to go under. He then released the names of nine other companies like SAC which his department had funded.
Apparently having the minister brand those companies as high risk investments - such that even government expected to see two thirds go under - didn't bother him the slightest.
And if all that wasn't true, there's still the question of the names of the three companies.
If the Auditor General had concerns about damaging the financial viability of the companies, as Taylor claims, he went about hiding them in an odd way. The Auditor General's report gives a general description of the companies, but then describes in precise detail the financial transactions, the number of shares and so forth such that any reasonably savvy person - like say an investment officer or private investor - could match the report and the Public Accounts and come up with the names.
Nope.
There's some other reason why Taylor ducked and dodged wildly this past week about these three companies. The reasons he offered were not so much the stuff of Fonkensteen's game-playing ability as Eyegor's abysmal success at guessing from clues. Maybe we'll get the reasons when the House opens again this week for a brief few days before closing down for Easter.
Perhaps we'll get more of the game:
Two words.
First word.
A little word.
A? The? At? In.
Second word.
Sounds like "bird".
Curd? Herd? Nerd?
Ahhhhh.
It's the acronym for the department.
Again.
The only real question would be: "Why?"
-srbp-
