Yukon North Of Ordinary

Banks can’t be trusted: Fentie

Calling Canadian banks "untrustworthy," Premier Dennis Fentie is standing behind his Department of Finance and its failed investments of last summer.

Calling Canadian banks “untrustworthy,” Premier Dennis Fentie is standing behind his Department of Finance and its failed investments of last summer.

The Finance department, Fentie insisted in an interview Thursday, did not break any investment laws, as is stated by the Auditor

General of Canada in her report delivered yesterday.

Fentie, who doubles as the Finance minister, said his department followed normal procedures when it invested $36.5 million in asset-backed commercial paper, procedures which are grounded in 18 years of common practice.

The only difference now is that the Canadian banks promised to guarantee those types of investments if there was any disruption to the market have not honoured their word, he said.

“Of course it is a fairly powerful statement,” Fentie acknowledged, “the guarantee of liquidity, it was the banks that provided that.”

He said the government did not change its investment policy last month because of concern with the legality of its investment strategies, but rather it wanted to avoid any more broken promises by the banks.

Previous Yukon governments, Fentie said, have all made identical investments, going all the way back to the first such investment in 1990 under former NDP premier Tony Penikett.

The Yukon Party government, under the late John Ostashek, employed the same practice, as did the NDP government under former government leader Piers McDonald, as well as the short-lived Liberal government of former premier Pat Duncan, the premier pointed out.

It has become an issue now, Fentie said, because the “banks failed to meet their obligations to provide liquidity.”

The auditor general, he said, has her opinion and he and the Yukon government have theirs.

Rather than enter into a debate of who is right or wrong, the government is working through the ongoing nationwide process to see how $33 billion in affected investments can be restructured, he said.

The premier also pointed out that each and every year the auditor general reviews the territory’s books, and up until now, has not raised any red flags regarding its investment policies.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser, who was in Whitehorse to deliver her report Thursday, said there was never any cause to conduct a forensic audit of the investment policy, because there were never any problems.

Finance staff assured the auditor general’s staff that investment legislation was being adhered to, and with balanced books and no reason to suspect otherwise, there was no need to look any deeper, she said.

It was only after Liberal Opposition Leader Arthur Mitchell brought the matter to the attention of her office that Fraser agreed to conduct an audit. Normally, she said, her office would not involve itself in matters at the request of an Opposition party.

Fraser said since it was an urgent matter, since her office would be doing the audit in any case for year-end work, and since she and her staff were scheduled to be in Whitehorse this month to deliver their financial report, she decided to look at the failed investment and deliver both reports at the same time.

Fraser told reporters during a briefing Thursday the Yukon investments were made in good faith at the department level, without any involvement by Fentie or any other cabinet ministers.

Although made in good faith by personnel believing they were doing nothing wrong, in the end, the investments breached the territory’s Financial Administration Act because they were not guaranteed, her report states.

“We found that the government’s investment in summer 2007 in two asset-backed commercial paper trusts that were set up by non-banks (total value: $36.5 million) did not meet the requirements of the act,” reads Fraser’s report.

“When this report was written, the government had not yet received any payment of principal and interest from these two trusts, and

it has not determined the financial impact this may have.”

While Fentie and senior Finance officials insist last summer’s investments were indeed guaranteed, and disagree with the auditor general’s findings, staff with the auditor general’s office simply ask: then where’s the money?

The report by the auditor general also says, however, that the Yukon government is in a healthy financial position.

“It has reported an annual surplus for five consecutive years,” the report notes of the government’s financial position.
The auditor general told reporters it’s too early to say if the Yukon will recover all of its investments, and if not, what percentage of the $36.5 million it can expect to lose.

Some publicly-traded companies, which are legally required to make financial reports available every three months, have already written off 10 to 20 per cent of the money they have tied up in the asset-backed commercial paper investments, Fraser pointed out.

In light of Fraser’s report, the Liberal Opposition leader is renewing calls for Fentie’s resignation, maintaining the Minister of Finance is ultimately responsible for management of the Finance department.

“The Finance minister was asleep at the switch,” Mitchell said in an interview after the territory’s elected representatives received their own briefing from Fraser and her staff.

Fentie, with a sarcastic response to Mitchell’s call for his resignation, said he would not resign, for fear that someday the territory’s finances may be in Mitchell’s hands.

Mitchell, the premier said, can’t even sort out his own involvement in the decision to give elected officials a pay raise just a couple of months ago.

Both Mitchell and NDP Leader Todd Hardy have pushed for new policies on investment strategies in the wake of the ABCP fiasco that was first raised in the legislative assembly in early November.

Hardy said yesterday the decision to make the specific investments last summer was reckless and the premier must take responsibility, though he would only expect him to resign if the Yukon loses money.

While the Yukon has $36.5 million tied up in situation, there is a total of $33 billion in limbo across the country, including short-term investments made by other provinces and territories, federal Crown corporations and trade unions.

Investors and banks are currently trying to work out a restructuring deal to make up for losses.

David Hrycan, the Yukon’s deputy minister of Finance, told reporters Thursday the details of the restructuring agreement are expected later this month. It’s expected the money will be locked into some longer-term investment arrangement to maximize returns, but whether the Yukon will lose money or not, Hrycan was unable to say.

Hrycan said his department respects the findings of the auditor general’s office, but like the premier, noted his department has its own belief, backed by a legal opinion, suggesting the Yukon has a case to go after the banks, if need be.

Last summer’s investments, he said, were indeed covered by a liquidity agreement – a guarantee – from the bank.

Hrycan and assistant deputy minister Clarke LaPrairie held a briefing of their own, right after briefing hosted by Fraser and her staff.

Under territorial legislation, they acknowledged, the Yukon government can only invest under certain conditions, one of them being where there are liquidity agreements with banks that guarantee investments if the market goes sour.

Brokered by the Bank of Montreal, last summer’s two short-term, 30-day investments, which would have returned well under $100,000 each, were made with trust companies that held asset-backed commercial papers, like house mortgages and car loans, Hrycan pointed out.

Under federal law, LaPrairie emphasized, banks must provide guarantees – the liquidity agreements – on investment products they sell. While investors are not privileged to the specific details of the liquidity agreements between the banks and trust companies, both investments were backed by liquidity agreements, LaPrairie pointed out.

LaPrairie said the problem seems to lie with the definition whereby the banks must make good on their guarantees if there is a “disruption in the market.”

When the market went sour in August, and asset-backed commercial paper investments collapsed, the banks scooped up and protected their direct interests, arguing stability and subsequently dismissing any notion of a market disruption or need to fulfill liquidity agreements, LaPrairie suggested.

“We have been told we have legal grounds,” Hrycan said of the possibility of recouping Yukon losses through the courts.

The deputy minister said before they consider anything as involved as a lawsuit against Canadian banks, they’ll wait to see what comes of the restructuring process.

Since the Yukon government made its first investment into asset-backed commercial paper back in February 1990, it has made more than 200 individual investments involving $1.7 billion, Hrycan pointed out.

He said those investment have generated $19 million in returns for the territory.

CommentsAdd a comment

LW

Feb 8, 2008 at 4:23 pm

“untrustworthy”

That must be Fenties middle name. Instead of being a man, or even a leader, and taking the responsibily for his own goverments actions, he plays the immature tune of blaming others. Mr Fentie, did the banks threaten you if you didn’t sign on the dotted line? No. Your goverment made the descion, end of story.

In light of these childish actions I call on you for your immediate resignation.

Before your casino causes more finanicial losses for Yukon tax payers. And also to stop you from turning the Yukon into an open pit mine.

John

Feb 9, 2008 at 8:01 am

When it suits him, the auditor general is the Yukon’s best friend. When she says things he doesn’t like, he disregards her words. This is the type of opportunistic way of thinking I expect from someone who has no problem moving from one end of the political spectrum to the other when it feeds his ambitions.

John

Feb 9, 2008 at 8:33 am

You couldn’t get away with this in too many other provinces. The politicians up there are free to do whatever they want. They run the territory’s finances like it’s there own lunch money. Unfortunately for the Yukoners, all politicians from the North appear to be acting the same.

Yukon Taxpayer

Feb 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm

What is with Sheila Fraser and the Auditor General’s system?  She’s either right or wrong.  If she’s right, then someone has to be held accountable, just like every other unfavourable audit she’s conducted.  If she’s wrong, she must resign.  Why don’t we get a second opinion based on these conditions.  If the Department of Finance can afford a legal opinion, surely it can afford a third party financial opinion from someone they and Ms. Fraser agree to.  Lets get this settled.

Whitehorse taxpayer

Feb 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I agree with “Yukon Taxpayer” but would add one comment.  Sheila Fraser is an auditor, so why can’t the Yukon Government get another opinion from another auditor? They can’t just sit there and say they disagree with Sheila Fraser.....that obviously never cut it in the past, so why would they think it should cut it now.  YTG does not possess status, jurisdiction or mandate to thumb their nose at the Auditor General for Canada and simply disagree with her.

Doesn’t YTG have auditors like KPMG or Deloitte on retainer to do their books anyway?  Surely it isn’t a big issue to get another opinion from another auditor, FOCUSSED on this matter. 

With this second opinion in hand, somebody will at least be clearly accountable, and CLEARLY, somebody MUST answer for this situation.  It involves millions of taxpayers dollars.

Sheila Fraser is either right or wrong. If she’s right, there are steps that need to follow.  If she’s wrong there are OTHER steps that need to follow, and it sounds like those OTHER steps, besides her resignation, might include pursuit of the NON-BANKS involved.

So lets get on with it, get the second opinion from another auditor, and get the ball rolling.  This mess needs to be cleaned up.

And frankly, it doesn’t matter if this ABCP type investing has been going on for 20 years.  Luckily for us taxpayers, there hasn’t been a catastrophe like this one before.  Getting away with something like this for the last 20 years doesn’t make it the right thing to do, but I digress. 

Lets get a second opinion from another auditor before we jump to the next steps.

Another Yukon taxpayer

Feb 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I think this is more of a legal question than a financial one. The amount of money or where it went is not in dispute. The question is, was the law followed?

The Financial Administration Act requires that such an investment be “of or guaranteed by a bank.” These investments were not issued by a bank nor, according to the AG’s report, were they guaranteed by one.

Mr. Fentie and the Department of Finance are taking a different view, namely that the “liquidity agreement” constituted a guarantee by the bank that is not being honoured. 

Seems like it would take the courts to figure out if the bank had issued a guarantee or not. If they had, that would mean that the act was followed and, more importantly, we should get our money back (less legal fees, of course).

If not…

LW

Feb 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm

To the above 2 TAXPAYERS. Second opinion? Why? Is having a second opinion going to bring back the money? No. The premier can’t even take responsibility for his own departments actions.

“With this second opinion in hand, somebody will at least be clearly accountable, and CLEARLY, somebody MUST answer for this situation.  It involves millions of taxpayers dollars.”

I’m not even wasting my time discussing this lack of accountibility, because in your guys opinions, nothing wrong has occured. And you are no better than Fentie himself, because in so many words you are looking for someone else to blame.

peter

Feb 19, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Yukon Taxpayer to LW and Another Yukon Taxpayer:

Its great to see we have a debate going here because that’s what’s needed.  Otherwise this just gets swept under the rug.

LW, of course I think someone did something wrong.  My view has shifted to that of “Another Yukon Taxpayer”.  Maybe a class action lawsuit is needed to solve this.  Lets go find a lawyer willing to take this on.

B

Feb 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm

A Yukoners Class Action suit is a great idea!  If we leave it up to any of the politicians it will only be used as a game between them.  I am sick of party politics and the way they bend the rules to suit their own needs.  Let Yukoners unite and start a class action suit for breaking our Financial Accountability Act.  The whole reason it is there is to protect our interests… and it is obvious who we need to protect them from!

Whitehorse taxpayer

Feb 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Hooray B,

So who can organize this?  Is there someone out there who can take action on all our behalf?  The calculation of damages would be easy.....something like 25% of $38 million or $9.5 million dollars.  Of course, the political parties would go broke under such a strain if they were sued, and so would the incompetent people going back how many years in the department of finance.  The suit should be a nominal amount, after it identifies who is responsible.  Say $10,000 per person identified, to make the point that taxpayers won’t tolerate such shenanigans

George

Feb 23, 2008 at 6:38 pm

It can’t be that difficult to launch such a suit.  It should be focused on all people who made these investments, not just the most recent ones.  The money should go into an account that should be used for future class actions for irresponsible government acts.

John B Lome

Feb 25, 2008 at 10:31 am

This sure isn’t the first time some banks, especially in the Yukon, scoop the money and run. Probably changes in the bank act would help as would active enforcement of the criminal code.

Norm

Feb 25, 2008 at 12:26 pm

This discussion has been interesting to read.  It does appear there will be no accountability for these investments.  I’m not sure how one can consider that the banks would guarantee something they didn’t sell in the first place.  Perhaps I am missing part of the puzzle?

Prior to the last election each party was asked to be prepared to create recall legislation should the electorate believe someone needed to be removed as their elected official.  All declined to add this as part of their platform.

The case currently in question is a prime example of a time when the constituents of an elected official may decide it is time to replace them.  Perhaps they would decide not, but recall legislation would at least provide that option and let the MLA know they can be held accountable.

What d’ya think?

peter

Feb 26, 2008 at 5:06 am

Class action seems to be the only way to send a message from the people of the Yukon to the government and its bureaucrats.  Otherwise, this thing will just sit and nothing will happen.

It is clear the law was broken; the evidence and the Auditor General for Canada say so in volumes.  The money involved is our money and the amount is enormous.  Those conducting petty malfeasance or negligent behaviour would experience significant sanctions compared to what is happening here.

Lets do something about this now.  How can we organize the services of a lawyer?  There would be huge fees attached to something like this.  Can someone bring this to the attention of a lawyer outside the Yukon who would be interested?

Norm Hamilton

Feb 28, 2008 at 10:04 am

I am curious Peter, why do you want a lawyer from outside the Yukon? 

I assume you have a rationale that will be of interest and an opportunity for me to learn something.

peter

Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23 am

A lawyer from inside Yukon would work too, but I’ve never heard of class actions in Yukon.....where would the law firms experience come from?  Do you have a firm to suggest?  It would also be hard on a Yukon law firm to pursue the government.....they would naturally worry about future government business, but maybe that’s an inaccurate assumption.

No name

Feb 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Peter et al.

I agree that you would want to retain an outside lawyer. You would likely also want to retain one that would take the case on contingency (and media appeal). Perhaps you should ask the infamous class action lawyer, Tony Merchant, if he is looking for some interesting work. Good luck and you have my support.

P.S. There are Public Interest Advocacy Organizations out east you may want to contact.

peter

Mar 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

If anyone is watching, the class action lawyers down east are chaffing at the bit to take these files on.  If the holders of these ABCP papers don’t all play nice and agree to a very big hit to take money out now, or alternatively, to leave the money parked for at least a decade with no real guarantees, the whole thing is going to unravel, and the ABCP investments will crash.  We should never have been led into this mess.  Sheila Fraser’s report makes it clear that the law was broken, and now the markets make it clear that we will be taken to the cleaners.  What is it going to take to start class action on this thing?

Add a comment

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your full name and email address are required before your comment will be posted.

Sorry, comments are disabled 10 days after the publication date.



Comment preview