Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard from the Premier a clear and repentant statement of regret and acceptance of responsibility. Why did it take so long to get it out?
I am afraid that with his response on Friday, he did not win me over and he certainly did not win any friends or most of my constituents. In fact, his comments on Friday probably led to more phone calls from constituents than I otherwise would have gotten. People were incensed by his comments on Friday. I know I heard from a lot of people, by e-mail, by phone, at the hockey rink -- even while waiting for a flu shot on Saturday. I called a number of people, too. Overwhelmingly, I was encouraged to support both committee motions.
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that something the Premier said in his comments on Friday may have set a standard for interpreting contract language among deputy ministers with this government. I am concerned about what is on the public record now.
On page 2694 of unedited Hansard, the Premier is quoted as saying:
On the years of service, for instance, that is the understanding that every deputy minister in this government has, that they will get one month for every year of service. Not the number of years they were a deputy minister, but the total number of years they served this government.
Mr. Chairman, one of the considerations and reasons that we have been given for the additional payment to Ms. Sorensen is we were trying to avoid any legal liability, should she decide to sue the government regarding her dismissal. Yet the Auditor General says in her report that both Ms. Sorensen and Mr. Bayly were employed under written contracts that stated that they were at pleasure employees, that they could be terminated for any reason and without cause, and that on termination, certain severance was to be paid.
I had thought, Mr. Chairman, that contracts were in place, employment contracts were in place to protect both the employee and the employer. So why put this kind of clause in if it does not have any effect?
We were told by the Premier that in spite of this language, I am assuming that all employment contracts have this kind of language, that we have had to give these large settlements. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, of our Law Clerk. If this is the kind of language that is in all other contracts for deputy ministers, is there a substantial risk to the government if this is the same language? I mean, is the language the same as what is found in, apparently, Ms. Sorensen's and Mr. Bayly's as reported by the Auditor General? If that is similar language to what is found in our deputy minister contracts right now, is there substantial risk to the government of having to pay more to our employees than what is stipulated in their contracts? Does the Law Clerk agree that the interpretation of the Auditor General is correct?