QUESTION PERIOD AT THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE AND OTHER ISSUES!!! < Mercredi >

STF_0114, originally uploaded by Oldmaison.

ORAL QUESTIONS 19 QUESTIONS ORALES
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 1/9
017 11:15
Land Development
Mr. Murphy: Yesterday, some concern was expressed in this House with regard to environmental
protection for certain lands in Cap-Brûlé and around this province. We feel that, given the evasive
answers by the Premier, more appropriate answers and more direct responses should be made by the
Premier to the people of this province.
There are questions with regard to the power of the political operatives, or, more precisely, the
Premier’s Executive Assistant in Moncton. We would like to know from the Premier: What are the
duties of his Executive Assistant in Moncton? Is that Executive Assistant, who is not a government
employee, empowered to direct government policy or to issue directives to ignore government stopwork
orders?
018 11:20
Hon. Mr. Lord: If the member for Moncton North or any other member of the opposition party
wants a course in how government functions, we would be happy to provide that. It is very clear this
morning that there are no pressing issues for the opposition. There are no issues regarding health
care for the opposition. There are no issues regarding education. Maybe the first lesson that the
member for Moncton North needs is not on the role of an EA, but on the purpose of question period.
Mr. Murphy: One pressing issue before the people of the province is the integrity of government
and whether there is political interference in decisions made by the civil service. I would like to
know whether it is the normal functioning of this government to allow nongovernmental personnel,
political operatives, to be involved in the decisions in these files and give directives under
legislation.
Hon. Mr. Lord: As the member for Moncton North should know, the final responsibility for the
decision is with the government, with the elected officials. The same people come into this House
and ask us to be responsible for decisions that are made, at times, by other officials of the
government, and we are responsible. When we decide to act, they say: Oh, no, maybe you should
not act.
Let us learn the facts of this case. In this case, the people who are laying the claim did not get what
they wanted through the political process. That is the integrity of the government. They did not get
what they asked for.
Mr. Murphy: They did not get what they asked for, but it was not for lack of trying on the part of
the political operatives under the control of the people on the other side of the House. What I would
ORAL QUESTIONS 19 QUESTIONS ORALES
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 2/9
like to know is this. If that political operative, Mr. Donaghy, advised an individual to disregard the
law, and he works for the Premier, will this Premier fire that political operative?
Hon. Mr. Lord: We see the tactics of the Liberals every day. They come into this House and do not
want to debate issues of substance when it comes to education or health care. They want to smear
the characters of people who work for the government of New Brunswick. That is the tactic of the
Liberals. We see that they are on a power grab. The Liberals want to grab more power. They believe
that the result of the 2003 election gave them a majority, gave them the right to block legislation and
block the budget of this House, and it did not. Now, they are trying to grab more power. The way
they want to do that is by insulting and smearing more people and attacking the characters and
reputations of people who work very hard for a living.
Mr. Murphy: That response is almost verbatim what he said with regard to the Minister of the
Environment and Local Government, and we know what happened to her. I want to know if this
Premier has changed any directives to Mr. Donaghy since the allegations of Gilles LeBlanc have
been made public in a public document. Has he changed any directives to that EA?
Hon. Mr. Lord: The directives given to the EAs are very clear. They are there to support the
ministers, to support the government, and to ensure that we respond to requests coming from
individuals. That is the work of the EA. If the member for Moncton North is not sure what an EA
does, he could ask his leader, because his leader was the EA to his dad when his dad was a member
on this side of the House. I know that maybe he was not a good EA, but he was a likeable guy.
Mr. Murphy: We know what an EA should do. Our concern is what the EAs may have been doing
here. I want to know from this Premier whether he has been made aware, by any employees of the
Department of the Environment and Local Government during the past four years, of any alleged
political involvement or interference by the political operatives on the other side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Lord: If the member for Moncton North wants to make accusations and claims, he can
do it. However, just throwing out accusations without foundation and without facts is not a proper
debate in this House. It shows what the Liberals are up to. All they want to do is attack the
characters of other people.
019 11:25
This is the same party that brought us the sponsorship scandal, and now it wants to attack the
character of the hardworking people who work for the government of New Brunswick. We will not
make apologies for having employees who are willing to meet people. I will not make apologies for
having an EA who is willing to meet with people. In the end, the decisions are made by myself and
by the government, and we are responsible for those decisions. In this case, the decision was made,
and it is very clear what the decision was.
ORAL QUESTIONS 19 QUESTIONS ORALES
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 3/9
Mr. Murphy: The Premier is talking about people who work for the government. We are talking
about people who work for the Progressive Conservative Party or are political operatives. I would
like to know, because he talked about facts, if the Premier has ever been advised, in the last year or
so, as to audio tapes of conversations with his political personnel, staff, and ministers, that have been
made during the course of conversations and meetings involving these individuals in Cap-Pele and
the people I just mentioned. Is he aware of audio conversations that have been recorded?
Hon. Mr. Lord: The first question of the member for Moncton North was with regard to the role
of an EA. EAs are employees of the government of New Brunswick and are paid by the government
of New Brunswick. There are people who do work for political parties. They work for the Liberal
Party or they work for the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick, and they are not
employees of the government. I am sure that they meet people in the course of their work. I am sure
that members who work for the Liberal Party of New Brunswick, who are paid by the Liberal Party
of New Brunswick, talk to people in New Brunswick. Do you know what? That is okay. That is part
of their job. In the same way, there are people who work for the Progressive Conservative Party of
New Brunswick who talk to people in New Brunswick.
I do not know what the member for Moncton North is alleging with regard to recordings. I do not
know if the member for Grand Lake was part of those conversations and he taped them, or is the
member talking about somebody else? Be clear in your questions. Use question period for the
purpose for which it is intended. Question period is here, not to fight legal cases of former Liberal
members of this House, but to debate issues of importance and of emergency to the people of New
Brunswick: health care, education, roads, taxes, and balanced budgets.
Mr. Murphy: It is important to know whether there is political interference that would allow the
gutting of the Clean Water Act. It is important to know whether this Premier has been advised
whether audio recordings have been taken of conversations between the LeBlancs and one of his
ministers, his political operatives, his executive assistant, and the PC executive director. Is he aware
that such audio recordings have been taken, if, in fact, that is the case?
Hon. Mr. Lord: Maybe the member for Moncton North would want to tell us who has taken these
audio tapings. Is he suggesting that someone from the government taped, or is he suggesting that
the LeBlancs taped? Make it clear.
The real issue here today is the fact that the member for Moncton North is replacing the Leader of
the Opposition, really, to give another purpose to this House. I know that the member for Moncton
North is a good lawyer, but this is not a courtroom. This is not where we replace the courts of the
province. This is where there is debate on issues of importance for the people of New Brunswick.
The Leblancs, like everybody else, have access to the courts. If they think that something was done
that they do not like, there are laws in this province and in this country. When the member for
Moncton North talks about the gutting of the Clean Water Act, the fact is that the LeBlancs are in
court because they did not get what they asked for, because there was no political interference.
HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 4/9
Mr. Murphy: One of the public allegations is that the executive director to the Premier ordered Mr.
LeBlanc to conduct about $300 000 in work in order to acquire a permit. I am asking the Premier
whether his executive assistant in Moncton is authorized to direct individuals as to spending money
on projects so that they can acquire a government permit.
Hon. Mr. Lord: I will not get into the details of this case, because I do not have the direct personal
information of the facts alleged by the member for Moncton North. Maybe the member for Moncton
North should tell us today if he is working as the lawyer for the LeBlancs or working for the people
of New Brunswick, as the member for Moncton North.
020 11:30
Mr. Murphy: The former lawyer for the LeBlancs is his former law partner.
Without dealing with the particulars of this case, did the Premier ever view plans, diagrams, or any
such documentation produced by the LeBlancs? The public allegation is that he met with them on
at least three occasions and asked them directly for further documentation.
Hon. Mr. Lord: Yes, I met with the LeBlancs, as I meet with a lot of people who want to talk to the
Premier of New Brunswick. I will not stay in my office and not talk to the people of New Brunswick
because the Liberals want to bring these silly allegations to this House. On a daily basis, I meet with
New Brunswickers. Our ministers meet with New Brunswickers. Our MLAs meet with New
Brunswickers. Our staff people meet with New Brunswickers. It is our job to meet with the people.
When people come to us and when they have a problem with government, of course, they sometimes
bring documentation. Yes, we sometimes suggest to them that they should bring more. It is part of
the dialogue process.
Maybe the member for Moncton North should spend more time in his office as an MLA and less
time as a lawyer, because I know that in my riding . . . The member likes to criticize. We get a lot
of calls from the people in Moncton North because they cannot get access to their MLA.
Mr. Murphy: Maybe the Premier would like to talk to Mr. Collins, whom he promised to contact
in two weeks—three years ago. The Premier mentioned all the various individuals who are involved
in government decisions. I am just wondering where the local PC executive would fit into that
structure, because there is a public allegation out there that the LeBlancs went to the local PC
executive asking for government action, and that they were promised government action.
Hon. Mr. Lord: Let us go to the substance of the allegation made by the member for Moncton
North. He is suggesting that they went to some members of the PC Party, but, in the end, they did
not get what they asked for. How bad is the political interference? It is laughable. The worst of all
of this is that the Liberals are choosing to spend a whole question period on this, just to try to create
HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 5/9
some innuendo, just to try to create this perception that maybe, perhaps, possibly, there could have
been something wrong. In fact, there is nothing wrong.
Is the member suggesting that all the members on his side and the people who work for them do not
meet with anybody in New Brunswick? We have a letter from one of their own members, writing
to one of our ministers, asking the minister to give a permit to someone who was found guilty of
drunk driving. Is that the type of innuendo, the type of standard that the Liberals want? I will be
happy to table this letter today; it is from one of the members of the opposition, asking a minister
to intervene in a case where someone was found guilty of drunk driving.
Mr. Murphy: There are many questions surrounding this, and we have a cast of characters, many
of whom do not work for the government. In order for the Premier to dispel all the rumours out
there, all the so-called evidence that is there, I would like the Premier to confirm this, without
talking about the substance or merits of the case. The application date is May 26. Will the Premier
confirm that his government’s legal representatives will attend that hearing on May 26, that there
will be no settlement between now and then, and that there will be no settlement with a gag order?
Hon. Mr. Lord: I am amazed that I would get this question from a practicing lawyer who would
suggest that discussion between parties in a court case should not happen before a court date. I an
sure that that is not how the member for Moncton North gets money from insurance companies for
his clients. I am sure he negotiates settlements with the parties on the other side once in a while.
Again, what the member for Moncton North is asking me to do is to interfere in the day-to-day
operations of a legal case that is handled by lawyers of the government. On the one hand, he is
trying to criticize us for interfering. On the other hand, he is asking me to interfere and to tell the
lawyers not to do their work. Come on, make up your mind.
021 11:35
Mr. Murphy: The Premier is going to be back in Moncton practicing law soon enough, so we will
get a chance to exchange this. What the Premier knows, though, having practiced across the street
from me, is that they have to file an affidavit in response to this four days before the application. I
want confirmation from this Premier that they will file an affidavit in response to these allegations,
and of course, it will be public at that time. Just tell us that an affidavit will be filed in response,
because we have information and reason to believe that Rodney Weston and Brian Donaghy will
not deny the allegations in the affidavit.
Hon. Mr. Lord: I am not the lawyer for the case. Maybe the member for Moncton North is the
lawyer for the LeBlancs. He has not answered that question. Is he working for the LeBlancs today,
or is he working for the people of Moncton North? Clearly, what he is fighting here is a case for the
LeBlancs. I have not instructed the lawyers on how to handle this case. I trust that the lawyers who
HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 6/9
are handling the case to handle it in the best interest of the people of New Brunswick, and that is
what they will do.
Mr. Murphy: The lawyer for the LeBlancs is the cousin of the Minister of Wellness, Culture and
Sport, Eugene Mockler. It is someone a little different. What I would like to know is whether the
Premier will direct Mr. Donaghy, Rodney Weston, Terry Andow, and anybody else mentioned in
that affidavit to swear out an affidavit in response to this application.
Hon. Mr. Lord: This is an interesting witch hunt that the member for Moncton North has decided
to go on. We know that that is the reason why he is leading question period today. The strategy of
the Liberal Party members is that they do not want to debate the elimination of the HST. In fact, they
want to obstruct it. They do not want to debate the reduction of class sizes. In fact, they want to
obstruct it. They do not want to debate the additional, record funding for health care. They want to
obstruct it. They do not want to debate the protection of seniors’ homes in New Brunswick. In fact,
they want to obstruct it. They do not want to debate reductions in income taxes for low-income New
Brunswickers. They want to obstruct it. Instead, they give the mandate to one of the lawyers on the
other side to pretend that the Legislative Assembly is a courthouse and do his best. Well, his best
is not good enough for the people of New Brunswick. What the people of New Brunswick want is
this House to deal with education, health care, jobs, taxes, balanced budgets, and relief for working
families, instead of silly innuendos, accusations, and smear-and-fear campaigns.
M. V. Boudreau : Mes questions s’adressent aussi au premier ministre. C’est une question
importante pour les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick, parce qu’elle touche à l’intégrité de ce
gouvernement, de ce parti et de ce premier ministre. La déclaration écrite sous serment et signée par
Gilles LeBlanc date du 5 janvier 2005. La poursuite judiciaire a seulement été déposée en cour le
30 janvier 2005. Durant les 25 jours entre ces deux dates, un représentant de la famille LeBlanc a
rencontré Rodney Weston, le chef de cabinet du premier ministre, et Brian Donaghy, l’adjoint de
circonscription du premier ministre. MM. Weston et Donaghy ont tous deux indiqué qu’ils n’étaient
pas en désaccord avec le contenu de la déclaration écrite sous serment et qu’ils ne la contesteraient
pas. Le premier ministre peut-il nous confirmer si cette réunion a bel et bien eu lieu entre les
représentants de la famille LeBlanc et ses adjoints politiques?
L’hon. M. Lord : J’apprécie la question du député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé, qui est lui-même un
ancien adjoint politique. Peut-être il pourrait informer le député de Moncton-Nord du rôle d’un
adjoint politique. Peut-être que le député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé, qui était un adjoint politique,
pourrait nous parler de son rôle en ce qui a trait à certains projets. Entre autres, quel était son rôle
quand un projet a été construit à la plage Parlee contre l’avis du district d’aménagement Beaubassin?
Quel était le rôle du député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé comme adjoint à ce moment-là?
HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 7/9
022 11:40
On voit que c’est une campagne de « salissage » que fait le Parti libéral ; le parti qui est coupable
sous le Programme des commandites, et, maintenant, il veut salir les autres.
La réalité, c’est que nous avons un gouvernement qui est propre et qui agit dans l’intérêt des gens
du Nouveau-Brunswick, et j’aimerais que le Parti libéral s’attarde à des questions plus importantes.
Mais on voit ce que les parlementaires du côté de l’opposition font à la Chambre : ils soulèvent des
questions pour tenter de salir les autres, tandis que, par écrit, ils envoient des lettres comme l’a fait
la députée de Baie-de Miramichi au ministre des Transports, lui demandant d’intervenir dans un cas
où quelqu’un avait été trouvé coupable de conduite en état d’ébriété. Cela, c’est la réalité. Au lieu
de faire du « salissage », les parlementaires du côté de l’opposition devraient faire leur travail.
M. V. Boudreau : Le premier ministre a refusé de répondre à la question et a commencé à parler
de différents sujets qui n’ont pas rapport du tout avec le dossier que nous discutons. Nous parlons
de l’intégrité de ce gouvernement, et cela n’a rien à faire avec les autres dossiers que le premier
ministre a soulevés. Nous avons ici deux personnes, Rodney Weston et Brian Donaghy qui ont fait
toutes sortes de promesses. C’est tout documenté dans la déclaration écrite sous serment, et ils ont
dit aux représentants de la province qu’ils acceptent ce qui est dans celle-ci. Le premier ministre
peut-il nous dire si cela veut dire qu’il se range derrière ces employés et accepte la parole de ces
employés, telle que décrite dans la déclaration écrite sous serment présentée par M. LeBlanc?
L’hon. M. Lord : Je sais que les Libéraux veulent s’acharner à faire du « salissage » encore ce
matin. Il faut vraiment aller au fond de cette situation. Il nous accuse d’une façon ou d’une autre de
peut-être avoir fait de l’ingérence, et, en bout de ligne, les LeBlanc n’ont pas eu ce qu’ils
demandaient, et c’est pour cela qu’ils sont en cour. Les décisions ne sont pas prises, et la
responsabilité des décisions ne sont prises par les adjoints politiques et ne sont pas prises par les
conseillers, mais par les ministres. Moi, comme premier ministre, par le Conseil de gestion, par le
Comité des priorités et par le Conseil des ministres, nous sommes responsables des décisions et, en
bout de ligne, dans cette cause, les LeBlanc n’ont pas eu ce qu’ils demandaient. Donc, il n’y a pas
de controverse, sauf celle qu’ils veulent faire. La situation était sans doute différente lorsque le
député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé était l’adjoint du ministre à l’époque. Quel était son rôle dans le projet
de la plage Parlee? Quel était son rôle lorsque ça été construit sans les permis adéquat? Qu’a-t-il
promis en retour aux gens qui ont contribué à la campagne électorale de son patron à l’époque?
M. V. Boudreau : Je maintiens aujourd’hui que mes questions traitent de l’intégrité de ce
gouvernement — rien d’autre. Nous avons mentionné Donaghy et Weston, mais j’aimerais nommer
pour le compte rendu les personnes associées à ce gouvernement et au Parti conservateur qui sont
mentionnées dans cette déclaration écrite sous serment : Terry Andow, Keith Ashfield, Odette
Babineau, Roland Collette, Brian Donaghy, Brenda Fowley, Idee Inyangudor, Kim Jardine, Bernard
Lord, Percy Mockler, Ray Vaughan, Rodney Weston et Hermel Vienneau. Ceci c’est plusieurs
personnes qui sont impliquées dans cette affaire.
HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 8/9
Si les faits tels que dévoilés…
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, The member has the floor.
M. V. Boudreau : Le premier ministre est prêt-il à nous confirmer aujourd’hui que, si les faits
mentionnés par n’importe lequel de ces individus, tels que décrit dans la déclaration écrite sous
serment, sont prouvés en cour devant un juge, il prendra des sanctions contre ces personnes?
L’hon. M. Lord : Les questions sont tellement absurdes que c’est difficile de savoir où commencer.
Mais si le député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé veut parler d’intégrité et tenter de salir l’intégrité d’autres
personnes, il est mieux de regarder dans son propre passé avant de commencer à le faire. Quel était
son rôle dans le dossier du projet à la plage Parlee? Si le Parti libéral veut commencer à salir la
réputation d’autres personnes, il est mieux de regarder dans son propre caucus aussi. Cela, c’est la
réalité.
023 11:45
Le Parti libéral est un parti de « salissage » et non un parti…
(Exclamations.)
L’hon. M. Lord : Il pose des questions, il veut nous salir, mais il ne veut pas entendre les réponses.
C’est un parti de « salissage » et non un parti d’idées. C’est le parti qui a été trouvé coupable par le
juge Gomery du Programme des commandites. C’est le même monde. C’est la même stratégie, c’est
la même philosophie. Sa stratégie est toujours de salir les autres. Nous respectons les institutions.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
L’hon. M. Lord : Nous respectons les institutions et le processus juridique qui existent au Nouveau-
Brunswick. Si les gens veulent aller en cour, ils peuvent le faire. La réalité dans cette cause-ci, c’est
que Gilles LeBlanc, le fils d’un ancien député libéral, de Shediac, n’a pas eu ce qu’il demandait,
même après avoir rencontré toutes ces personnes.
Poverty
Mr. Doherty: Today, I had the opportunity to address government on two issues which I think are
emergencies, which have to do with people living in poverty and with the problems they are having
with government. I thank you for the opportunity to do this. The first issue I addressed, as you well
know, was an extension of the home heating oil benefit. Once again, I plead with the government
that this should be done.
HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
April 26, 2006 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 26 avril 2006
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\25 2006-04-26 BL\25 2006-04-26 BL.wpd 9/9
My question is directed to the Minister of Family and Community Services. It appears that, once
again, the Harper proposal for child care will not work for the poorest and that it is, in fact, the
poorest who will suffer. In a report that was released today by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy,
it was announced that the Canada Child Tax Benefit will be eliminated in Tuesday’s budget, under
the Harper government. Allow me to brief the House on this benefit, which currently pays $20 per
month to parents who do not claim child care expenses for their preschool children. This, in fact,
is going to be eliminated on Tuesday. The elimination of this program will directly affect . . .
Mr. Speaker: State the question.
Mr. Doherty: The question I have is: Will the Minister of Family and Community Services lobby
to prevent the elimination of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, to put $200 back in the hands of the
poor?
L’hon. Mme Dubé : Cela me fait plaisir de recevoir la question, surtout lorsqu’on parle des services
que nous offrons aux enfants et de l’aide pour les familles dans le besoin. Je pense que le
gouvernement actuel a fait et continue de faire beaucoup, jour après jour. Il continue de venir en aide
à ces familles par divers programmes et de différentes façons. On évalue cas par cas. Le député d’en
face parle d’un programme fédéral. On regardera ce qu’on peut faire dans nos régions, dans notre
province, avec l’ensemble de nos programmes, pour améliorer les services. Si on n’aide pas d’une
façon, on le fait de l’autre, toujours pour améliorer la qualité de vie des familles et pour aider les
enfants.
Mr. Doherty: As I previously stated, Madam Minister, the families with a combined salary of
$30 000, with both parents working, will receive only about $200, according to the Harper plan.
Madam Minister, we all know that what these families really need is quality, affordable, accessible
child care spaces. Under the Harper plan, this will not take place. What plans does your department
have to meet the needs of parents who must work to feed their children?
L’hon. Mme Dubé : Le député d’en face fait allusion aux services de garderie et des places qui y sont
disponibles. Je l’ai déjà dit à la Chambre, et cela me fait plaisir de le répéter. Je remercie le député
d’en face de me donner l’occasion de répéter tout ce que nous faisons au niveau des services de
garde pour aider nos enfants et assurer leur plein développement. Je peux redire à la Chambre que
nous avons, depuis 1999 et depuis 2000 — depuis les investissements que nous faisons — 3 000
places supplémentaires dans les services de garderie — 3 000 places supplémentaires. Nous
investissons de plus en plus dans notre réseau de garderies. Ici, je parle au niveau provincial. Nous
avons investi 65 millions au cours des six dernières années. Avec le budget dont on parle ici, on est
rendu à 96 millions. Je suis fier de le comparer au 1 million que les parlementaires libéraux avaient
investi à un moment donné. Ils ont même eu le culot de l’enlever.


MLA Frank Branch says he was framed
Last updated Apr 26 2006 04:11 PM ADT
CBC News
Independent MLA Frank Branch says a criminal investigation into financial irregularities at his former place of employment was prompted by a conspiracy to ruin his life.

In a dramatic, 10-minute address to the New Brunswick legislature Wednesday morning, Branch gave his side of an investigation that began last year, when he was removed from his job as manager of the North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board.

MLA Frank Branch (file)

MLA Frank Branch (file)
The Nepisiguit MLA and 11 board members were all suspended last October following allegations of misconduct.

Branch had served as manager of the board for 10 years, and was fired from the job last month.

* FROM MARCH 23, 2006: MLA fired from forest products marketing board

The RCMP commercial crime unit is continuing an investigation into financial irregularities at the board. No criminal charges have been laid in connection with the case.

Branch, the longest serving MLA in the legislature and a Liberal until last January, told the house that he's been framed.

He said an employee of the marketing board came to him and said he'd doctored Branch's expense receipts to create the perception of improprieties.

Branch said the employee – whom he would not name – gave him a deadline to resign, or be ruined publicly. "He said you shall be destroyed politically, if not completely eliminated."

Branch said the employee wanted his job as manager of the marketing board, and said that unless Branch resigned and recommended him as a replacement, the doctored receipts would become public.

The MLA said the employee claimed to have the support of former Tory leader Bernard Valcourt and Premier Bernard Lord.

Valcourt now holds the job of overseeing all regional wood marketing boards as chairman of the New Brunswick Forest Product Commission.

Reached at his office in Edmundston, Valcourt told CBC News he never discussed the investigation with Lord and that the probe was conducted by independent investigators and auditors.

He also pointed out that by making the comments in the legislature, Branch can't be sued for defamation.

House leader Bev Harrison said Branch's allegations are ludicrous. "He's in dangerous water there. You can't accuse members of doing some things when you have no proof of that. That's not the style of this premier. That's not how he operates."

Branch's allegations are just the latest in a series of dramatic incidents at the provincial legislature.

The Lord government is hanging on to power by just one seat, and was reduced to a minority in February when Miramichi MLA Michael (Tanker) Malley crossed the floor to sit as an Independent.

Malley was quickly named Speaker, and a week after casting the deciding vote in support of the Lord government's budget, rejoined the Progressive Conservative party.

It was the first time a sitting Speaker has ever crossed back to a political party, and the Liberal opposition still refuses to recognize the government's one-seat majority.

As an independent, Branch holds the swing vote in the legislature, and can force the Speaker to vote on every issue. Branch voted against the budget, forcing the Speaker to cast the deciding ballot, preserving Lord's then-minority government.

Branch recently accepted a free trip to Montreal, accompanying Lord to a first minister's conference, so the government could not be defeated in Lord's absence.