Service New Brunswick Minister Mary Wilson said she wasn’t given details of travel nurse contracts before signing a pair of ministerial exemptions allowing the Department of Social Development to skip the tendering process and enter into two agreements with travel nurse agencies.
“Service New Brunswick isn’t responsible to work on the contract, review the contract. Our job is just to exercise that exemption by not having it put out to tender,” she said in an interview.
Wilson signed both exemptions in early 2022, allowing the contracts to be signed to provide nurses in long-term care facilities. The Department of Social Development ultimately paid $3 million, the bulk of which went to Canadian Health Labs (CHL), which later signed a lucrative, ongoing deal with Vitalité.
The contracts have been criticized by the auditor general, who found that the two contracts were written by the companies and did not reflect “best practices or provide value for money.”
Last week Wilson faced criticism from her caucus colleague Ross Wetmore, who said he would have asked for more details before signing the exemptions had he been in Wilson’s position.
“When funding came across my desk, I asked questions,” Wetmore, who previously served as agriculture minister, told reporters last week.
“If something was a million dollars and they asked for a minister’s exemption, I’d be asking questions.”
Wilson said she couldn’t think of any other examples where she had signed exemptions during the pandemic, but said the emergency situation expressed to her by the department meant the exemption was warranted.
“There was an emergency situation with Social Development and of course I heard from the department and the minister requesting that we do look at that exemption instead of having to send it to the normal procurement process, which of course takes more time,” she said.
Later in 2022, both regional health authorities would sign deals with travel nurse agencies. The auditor general found major contract management and invoice verification issues and the deals have cost taxpayers at least $173 million.
Following three days of hearings involving department heads and the two health authorities last week, the public accounts committee passed a motion urging the government to call a public inquiry to study the issue further.
Only cabinet has the power to call appoint a commissioner and launch an inquiry. Wilson wouldn’t say if she felt an inquiry was needed or if she had any outstanding questions following the AG investigation and public accounts hearings.
“Difficult for me to comment,” she said.
“I will say that we do appreciate the comments from the auditor general and the recommendations and we do always strive to be better.”
Premier Blaine Higgs refused an interview request to talk about the contracts and his feelings about an inquiry. A spokesperson for the province emailed back saying “there’s nothing further to add on this issue.”
Speaking with reporters earlier this week, Health Minister Bruce Fitch questioned the need for an inquiry.
“I look at the amount of effort that’s been put in by the AG with public accounts and I’m just wondering, again, where we’re trying to focus on patient outcomes, positive patient things, would it be a worthwhile effort,” he said on Monday.
Public accounts committee member and Liberal MLA Benoit Bourque said he and his colleagues feel an inquiry is needed to compel private companies like CHL to testify, along with the former health authority trustees and any other public servants who may have knowledge about how the deals were signed.
He says the committee feels it “only scratched the surface” and since it’s limited to calling the heads of Crown corporations or government departments, there’s not much more work it can do.
Bourque notes that no cabinet minister has yet to speak favourably of an inquiry.
“It seems that they might not want the whole truth to come out,” he said.
Green Leader David Coon said he supports an inquiry, having been left questioning how the protections broke down to allow the contracts to be signed.
“The contract for me is the issue. Why was such a poor contract signed off on?” he said.
“There are all kinds of processes in government to make sure that taxpayers aren’t taken to the cleaners and in this contract it seems it somehow failed to be subject to those normal processes.”
Comments