role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 15, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Oct-15 (PDF)

L090 - Mon 15 Oct 2012 / Lun 15 oct 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 15 October 2012 Lundi 15 octobre 2012

CORRECTION OF RECORD

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

POWER PLANTS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SKILLED TRADES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

POWER PLANTS

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

BREAST CANCER

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

VISITOR

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

D.J. KENNINGTON

WOUND CARE

SENIORS’ INFORMATION EXPO

BULLYING

EVENTS IN KITCHENER–WATERLOO

YOUTH SERVICES

NORTH GRENVILLE

DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

RUSH

SCOTIABANK TORONTO WATERFRONT MARATHON

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU DROIT À LA PARTICIPATION

AUX AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

WIRELESS SERVICE AGREEMENTS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

LONG-TERM CARE

RADIATION SAFETY

MARKDALE HOSPITAL

AIR-RAIL LINK

COMMUNITY SAFETY

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

RADIATION SAFETY

ROAD SAFETY

GASOLINE PRICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy on a point of order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I rise today on a point of order for the purpose of correcting the record. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to correct my record with respect to statements made in the House regarding the production of documents in response to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012.

On September 24, 2012, approximately 36,000 pages were delivered by the Ministry of Energy and the chief executive officer of the Ontario Power Authority to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. At the time, it was my honest belief that the documents that had been produced to the Clerk comprised all of the documents in the possession of the Minister of Energy, the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority that were responsive to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask—I’m trying to listen very carefully, and I know that the minister will get to the point at which he is going to be correcting the actual things that were said.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, as you know, I personally signed a letter to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates indicating it was my understanding that the documents provided to the clerk on September 24, 2012, constituted all responsive records. In and around the date on which the documents were produced, I made a number of statements in the House and the media to the effect that all documents that were responsive to the committee’s motion of May 16 had been produced.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m hearing phrases that I know are not acceptable in this House, and I won’t accept them. If I hear them again, I will ask individual members to withdraw.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Several days after the production of the 36,000 pages to the Clerk, it was brought to my attention by officials at the Ministry of Energy that both the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority had determined that their initial search for records may have missed records of certain inactive employees, and that some employees may not have used consistent search terms. When I was notified that the ministry and OPA would be conducting an additional search, I asked officials to ensure that they take the necessary steps to determine whether any responsive records had been missed and, if so, to produce those to the Clerk as soon as possible.

Late last week, I was notified that the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority had confirmed that a large number of additional documents had been identified and they would be produced to the Clerk of the Legislature on Friday, October 12.

At the time that I made the statements that all documents had been produced, there was no deliberate intention to provide incorrect information to this House. Any incorrect information provided to this House was provided inadvertently and unintentionally. I am very disappointed that the error was made. That said, I know officials at the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority have always conducted themselves in good faith, as I have.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. John Milloy: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader, on a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

It is my intention to move forward, and I wish to do so as calmly as possible, and I will continue to work for that.

Government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I would also like to take this opportunity to correct my record with respect to statements made in the House in relation to the production of documents by the Minister of Energy, the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order, and if I hear it again, he will receive his first and only warning.

Mr. Paul Miller: Pinocchio’s got nothing on you guys.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will now receive a warning.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: As the Minister of Energy has just noted, on September 24, 2012, approximately 36,000 documents were delivered by the Ministry of Energy and the chief executive officer of the Ontario Power Authority to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. It was my understanding at that time that all documents that were responsive to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012, had been delivered. On this basis, I made a number of statements in the House and the media to the effect that all documents that were responsive to the committee’s motion of May 16, 2012, had been produced.

Approximately two weeks ago, I was notified that officials at the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority would be undertaking a second search because they had determined that there was a possibility that some documents had been inadvertently missed in their initial search. As the minister has just informed the House, there was no political involvement in either the original or secondary searches. They were directed and executed by the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority.

Late last week, I was advised that the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority had identified and would immediately be delivering an additional package of responsive documents to the Clerk of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I shared the honest belief of all government members at the time that all documents had been produced to the Legislature on September 24, 2012. I would therefore like to correct my record and assure you that any incorrect statements that I made in this House were made inadvertently and unintentionally. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The third party government House leader, the member from Timmins–James Bay, on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I’m not so sure how that corrects the record. The facts are what they are, so I would ask that you take this for what it was: It was a statement other than what it was intended to do, and I guess my biggest question now is, is the Premier about to make a third—are we about to hear the Premier giving us a similar type of statement?

This in no way changes the facts. This in no way changes the record. This is strictly a statement on the part of the government, and quite frankly, the opposition should have been made aware when these documents were available—that were rumoured to be available. We should have been made aware.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for his point of order.

I recognized both members under the premise of correcting a record. It took a while. It got to that point. There was a comment to make regarding changing or correcting the record, and every member has that right and opportunity to do so.

The House leader for Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to echo what the House leader for the NDP has just said. Clearly those were ministerial statements and should have been done during that period of time, so we want that on the record; and clearly, now that the Minister of Energy has tried to clear the air and the government House leader has tried to clear the air, I think we’d all agree that it’s time for the Premier to get up and do the same, because he said the same statements in this House, that all the documents were delivered, and clearly all the documents were not delivered.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

I thank the member. I would also now provide an opportunity to introduce our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Paul Boulter. He’s the father of one of our new pages, James Boulter, and a great community fellow who puts lots into our community. I’d like to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, I’d like to introduce to you Merle Koven and her granddaughter Stella Koven, who are here to visit Queen’s Park from Kingston today.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I’d like to introduce the family members of Oshawa page Danielle DeWilde: Pam DeWilde; John DeWilde; Janny DeWilde; Chris DeWilde; Sharon Watkins; Don Watkins; and Phil Reinders. Welcome.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Please join me in welcoming students from St. Augustine Catholic High School from the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce to you today Cindy McCarthy, Julie Garner, Susan McGovern, Patrick McManus, Stephen Sell, Sean Reid, Greg Richardson and Don Del Vecchio, who are here today representing members of the Ontario Construction Employers Coalition—and there are some tradespeople as well.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I rise today to introduce my mother, who is in the members’ gallery, Sesh Damerla.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Tanya Fox-Swan, who’s the mother of one of our new pages, Olivia Fox.

I’d also like to welcome long-time friends of mine, and former colleagues at Quinte Broadcasting, Lorne and Jody Brooker, sitting in the west members’ gallery.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my greatest campaigner and my greatest fan, my wife, Janet MacLaren.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, in order to achieve great things, you’d set bold goals. The Ontario PC caucus has done so to make Ontario the best place in all of Canada to find a good job, the kind of job that will give you middle-class security. We put on the table bold ideas like creating 200,000 jobs in the skilled trades.

I’d ask the Premier, given that 600,000 women and men woke up this morning with no job to go to, will you accept our plan that will put 200,000 men and women to work today in the skilled trades—carpenters, welders, electricians? Will you take up our plan, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I’m delighted to see that my honourable colleague is putting forward some ideas. Unlike the NDP, at least the PCs are putting forward some ideas. They’re the wrong ideas, but they’re ideas nonetheless.

In particular, they’re built around the notion that if we cut our taxes in Ontario by $5 billion at a time when we’re running a $13-billion deficit—they somehow feel that this is progressive, positive, thoughtful, responsible and intelligent. It is none of those. We’ve seen that movie before, Speaker. Ontarians have no interest whatsoever in any kind of a sequel. They want positive, balanced, responsible planning when it comes to the economy. That’s what our plan to eliminate the deficit is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: You know if you want to balance the books, you need to do two things: First, you stop the digging; and then second, you need a growth plan, a jobs plan. I am proud of and stood with the Ontario PC deputy leader and brought forward Paths to Prosperity: An Agenda for Growth—15 bold ideas to put Ontario back to work again, to make us a leader in Canada.

I’m going to focus on one in particular here, Premier. We have with us the coalition of construction employers, representing 4,000 employers in our province and 100,000 skilled tradespeople. They have suggested, and we agree, that the College of Trades is an unnecessary bureaucracy. You have given it the right to impose a new tax on tradespeople and on small businesses, and it limits access to the workplace.

Our point of view: Stop the trades tax and abolish the College of Trades to help us create 200,000 jobs in the skilled trades. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No government has ever done more to employ construction people in the province of Ontario than this government—no government.

Speaker, our infrastructure plan at present calls for us to spend, this year alone, about $11 billion; contrast that with the federal government, which is spending about $6 billion for the country as a whole. Some $11 billion this year, Speaker; in fact, it’s $35 billion over the course of the next three years. Each and every year we’re creating over 100,000 construction jobs as a result of the investments that we make in capital projects.

If my honourable colleague wants to do something about construction jobs, he should support our plan to invest in infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Of course we do not support your plan to take us to a $30-billion deficit; that’s going to cost us jobs.

Let me give you another aspect, Premier. Again, this is supported by 4,000 employers across the province representing 100,000 skilled trades workers, and that’s to take our apprenticeship ratios out of the 1970s, out of the era of bell-bottoms, and bring them into the 21st century where they belong and move to a one-to-one journeyman-to-apprentice ratio.

Our plan is to create more jobs for people who want to be in the skilled trades: electricians, welders, plumbers, machine shop operators. We support handymen and handywomen across the province of Ontario. These are good, well-paying, middle-class jobs. If you want to create 200,000 jobs in the skilled trades like we do in Paths to Prosperity, Premier, you move to a one-to-one journeyman-to-apprentice ratio like every other province has done.

Will you take up our plan and help pave the way for more well-paying jobs in the province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are proud of the fact that we are going to be the first province in Canada with its own independent body of colleges, a college for trades. We are proud of the fact that we have doubled apprenticeship opportunities in Ontario.

If my honourable colleague is so interested in creating jobs, he needs to answer this question: When he cuts that $5 billion in taxes and when he lays off thousands and thousands of public servants, how does that contribute to employment opportunities in the province of Ontario?

We’ve got a better approach. We’re going to freeze public sector wages; we are going to protect public sector jobs; and we’re going to protect public services for Ontario families.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, when did you first learn that 20,000 documents related to the cancellation of gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville were kept hidden from members of the assembly? When, Premier, did you exactly learn that fact?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There has been much—and I fear there will be much more—innuendo coming from the opposition on this matter, but I think what we owe Ontarians are the facts.

Here are the facts: Ministry of Energy and OPA officials released documents on September 24, believing in good faith those documents fully satisfied the committee’s request. Subsequently, those same officials concluded there was a possibility that additional documents should have been released. That was brought to the minister’s attention. He expressed his strong disappointment. He instructed officials to get it right and get it done. That led to the production of the additional documents. All the documents produced were selected by ministry officials and OPA officials, not by political staff. Those are the facts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, that’s avoidance of my question, and it says something about this Premier and his attempt to continue to hide information from members of the assembly, but most importantly, from the taxpayers who are being hit with a billion-dollar bill.

I asked a very specific question, Premier. The Minister of Energy just moments ago said he found out, I believe he used the term “a few days later,” after September 24 that there were more documents to come. You, on October 2, said all the documents were here.

So, Premier, I’m going to ask you: Exactly at what point in time did you find out that there were documents that had not yet been submitted to the Clerk, to the assembly or the committee? What was the exact date that you were briefed on this?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think the facts, as distinct from innuendo and allegations and speculation, are important, Speaker. I think we should revisit the facts because those would be helpful to Ontarians, if not to my honourable colleagues opposite.

Officials, and only officials, were involved in the selection of documents to meet the committee request, Speaker. They did their very best the first time around. It came to their attention—the attention of the officials—that there may be additional documents that should have been included in the first round. When this was brought to the attention of the minister, he expressed his profound disappointment. He asked them to get it right and to get it done. The officials conducted yet another search. They came up with more documents. We’ve made those documents public, Speaker. That’s the beginning, the middle and the end; those are all the facts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, the Premier strangely continues to avoid a very simple question. We did have the Minister of Energy and the House leader stand up and say when they found out. I was surprised; I thought the Premier would stand up and apologize to Ontario families and take responsibility for his actions. He failed to do so.

This is the third time I’m asking you, Premier: When exactly were you informed that there were more documents yet to come? Let me tell you why this is important. We’re not only talking about you intentionally hiding information from members of the assembly. We’re talking about the energy sector and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s the second time I’ve heard that, and it’s tightrope walking-in an area. I want the member to be aware that I’ll be listening carefully, but I would ask him to move away from that line.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker.

Premier, this is about the energy system of the province of Ontario that requires billions of dollars of investment. It’s a prime indicator of our attractiveness for investment and for job creation, and you have turned it on its head in order to keep information that has not been made public. You refuse to answer basic questions.

This is about jobs. This is about the future of the province of Ontario. This is about trust in the basic infrastructure—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —that government is supposed to provide in the province of Ontario. Premier, why won’t you come clean? Tell us what you knew and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m more than delighted to speak to the big picture. Speaker, from 2003 to the end of our long-term energy plan, we are investing over $1 billion and rebuilding an electricity system that they neglected. Their plan, you may recall, was to put in place temporary diesel generators, Speaker. We have rebuilt capacity at Niagara Falls. We have invested in 17 new gas plants. We are refurbishing our nuclear plants. We have thousands of clean energy projects under way.

We are driving hard on energy conservation, and along the way, we’re building the most aggressive clean energy industry in all of North America, creating some 20,000 new jobs so far. That’s our full record on energy in the province of Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I’d like to remind everybody that I did get to the point where I’m going to be identifying individuals from their riding, and I am going to do that. Bring it down.

New question?

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. On Friday, the people of Ontario saw, once again, that the facts their government had given them about multi-million-dollar electricity decisions were not accurate—not even remotely accurate. Where does the Premier think responsibility should lie for this: with himself or with the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Energy has made it very, very plain that he was very disappointed in the fact that the culling the information for—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —meeting the committee’s request was less than thorough. It was less than what we all wanted it to be.

On the basis of that, we believe, Speaker—in fact, we know—that the officials acted in good faith. They went back; they provided us with more information. We’ve made that available to the public.

I think it’s important to understand that the minister, throughout this, acted in good faith. We have every reason to believe that the officials, throughout this, acted in good faith. We have made this information available at the earliest opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On September 24 the Premier said, “We provided all of the documentation in question and now the opposition intend to ride off on this for some reason unbeknownst to me.”

Does the Premier agree that he made that statement, not his minister, and that it wasn’t even remotely an accurate statement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think we can all talk about allegations and innuendo and speculation, but I think facts remain important in this House. I think they’re certainly important to the people of Ontario. Here are the facts—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew is now—second time. That means one more.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Ministry of Energy and OPA officials released documents on September 24, believing—they did, as we did—in good faith that those documents fully satisfied the committee’s request. Subsequently, those same officials concluded—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Oxford, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —there was a possibility that additional documents should have been released. When this was brought to the minister’s attention, he said, “Get it right and get it done.” That led to the production of additional documents.

I want to make it clear to my honourable colleagues opposite and to Ontarians generally that the selection of these documents is done by officials and not the political—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier claimed moving the Oakville plant would cost the public $40 million. Then, internal documents added at least another $200 million to the cost, and then an independent expert pegged the cost at about $700 million.

Is the Premier of this province prepared to take personal responsibility for any of the figures cited?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, a few things: First of all, again, I want to thank the leader of the NDP for her support when it comes to relocating these gas plants. It’s important that we bring a unanimous approach to listening to communities when they express genuine, reasoned concerns on this kind of a thing, and I’m very grateful for the support we received from the NDP.

On the matter of the cost, Speaker, it’s $40 million. But what would be helpful would be to receive the costing from the leader of the NDP as to what they estimated the cost would be, given their decision to relocate the plant as well. Ours is $40 million, Speaker; we’ve nailed that down. I’d be interested to see exactly what their costs are.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier should know by now that New Democrats don’t support any private power deals, and we certainly don’t like to ignore communities.

My next question is for the Premier. The Premier will note that I haven’t necessarily called for the resignation of the Minister of Energy today because I don’t believe that that would change one iota the poor decisions that this government keeps making when it comes to our electricity system or this government’s bad habit of putting their party ahead of what’s good for the people.

It’s clear that this mess rests clearly at the feet of the Premier. Is he ready to take some responsibility? Is he prepared to appear before the committee studying this matter and finally let all of the facts, regardless of whether it’s in his own partisan interests, come to the fore?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, we’re going to be staying focused on those things that Ontario families want us to stay focused on. I’ll let my honourable colleagues engage in whatever it is they choose to engage in, but we’ve got a job on our hands and we should be working together when it comes to strengthening our economy. That means we’ve got to eliminate the deficit, and an integral part of that is freezing public sector wages.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: So we’ve been very, very courteous to my colleagues opposite. We have yet to introduce a bill. What we’ve done is given notice to my colleagues opposite about a way that we could come together and freeze public sector wages. We have yet to receive any support in that regard, but if we were to do that together we would go a long way toward eliminating the deficit and putting the Ontario economy in a stronger position. That’s a matter that Ontario families want us to focus on, Speaker, and that’s why we’re focused on it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s clear that the Premier is focused on avoiding responsibility. It’s clear that he had a central role in this and he needs to take some responsibility.

On May 25, 2011, a senior bureaucrat wrote, referring to the Oakville plant, “The government cancelled the contract and communicated that … to TransCanada before the Minister of Energy was advised.”

The bureaucrat went on to say in this particular document that this came straight from the Premier’s office. The Premier made the decision. The Minister of Energy didn’t even know what was going on, Speaker.

Will the Premier acknowledge this mess came directly from his office, show up at committee and give the people of Ontario, who are now stuck paying the bills, some explanation and an apology?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, Speaker, in the matter of gas plants in Ontario, we’ve built 17. Two of those we did not get right. And again, I want to acknowledge the support that we’ve received from both opposition parties on the matter of those two gas plants, and their strong representations made in many quarters that we relocate those gas plants, which is in fact what we’re doing.

But if I might speak again to the big picture for a moment: We just came through our hottest summer on record. I’d ask you to compare our electricity circumstances this summer with those that we inherited back in 2003. Back then, we just nursed ourselves along; we just got by. This year, there was no question whatsoever of our ability to meet all the demand, and we did it in the cleanest way we’ve ever done it in the province of Ontario. Coal-fired generation is down by 90% in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, one thing is clear: The Premier has left a huge mess for the people who pay the electricity bills in this province. They were told that private power deals would lower bills and take the politics out of electricity. Instead, Ontario families have the most expensive electricity in the country, and the Premier let his campaign team cut private power deals without even telling the energy minister.

Leadership means taking responsibility. When will the Premier show some leadership, instruct his team to stop the delay tactics and actually let that committee get started, and make it clear that he will appear at that committee, and when he appears at that committee, he will apologize for this mess and the sorry state of our electricity system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, so we’re all clear: My honourable colleague is opposed to nuclear energy. She’s opposed to wind turbines. She’s opposed to gas plants. She’s opposed to coal. I gather she’s opposed to energy of any kind. It would be nice if we didn’t have to produce electricity in the province of Ontario, but actually we live in the real world and we’ve got to find a way to do that.

I’m proud of the way that we’ve been advancing. We are shutting down coal-fired generation in Ontario. We are enhancing the supply that comes from renewable sources. We’re expanding our capacity at Niagara Falls and another location in northern Ontario. Gas plants are in fact cleaner than coal-fired generation, and we continue to refurbish our nuclear plants. That gives us clean, emissions-free electricity, Speaker. Reliability is up, clean air is up and jobs are up as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The member from Simcoe–Grey.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Jim Wilson: Through you to the government House leader: A little more than two weeks ago, when we challenged the government on the release of its original tranche of documents, the government House leader said the following, “I have here two official documents that have been tabled with the Legislature. Those documents are signed … by the head of the Ontario Power Authority, and … the Minister of Energy, stating that every document requested has gone forward…. I come from a tradition that believes that when a member of the Legislature says something in the Legislature, that is the truth…. I ask them to stand up and furnish proof or evidence, or if not, to shut up….”

Mr. Speaker, in light of 20,000 additional documents the government shamelessly released late on Friday, can the government House leader assure us now that we have all the documents? Or can we expect another document dump next Friday?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the comments that I made in the Legislature that the honourable member quotes from—I corrected my record earlier today.

But I think the easiest way to understand the situation is to quote the letter from Colin Andersen that was sent to the committee last week on Friday: “On behalf of the Ontario Power Authority, I would like to apologize to the members of both the estimates committee and the provincial Legislature. It was always our intention to provide all responsive records and respect the ruling of the Speaker. Our initial efforts fell short….

“Our due diligence on the September 24 disclosure revealed the need to search additional terms and OPA employees’ mailboxes.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Cambridge, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: “We then moved expeditiously to notify the clerk of the estimates committee and to produce the additional records. This yielded an additional 7,570 pages. During this process we also discovered a variance in the approach used by the OPA and the Ministry of Energy in assembling the records already disclosed. A further 6,365 responsive pages were subsequently identified.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again, to the government House leader: Mr. Speaker, this government has been caught red-handed as being in direct contravention of your order and an order of this House to produce all of the documents. What we can say without reservation is that the new tranche of 20,000 documents is again missing entire chains of correspondence between political staff and ministry officials, not to mention that once again the documents tabled on Friday are heavily redacted or whited out.

While the government can scapegoat bureaucrats and throw them under the bus like they did to the energy minister, we know that this is not a bureaucratic or research mistake, and that this is deliberate and orchestrated on behalf of the government.

All of the documents have still not been released, so I ask the government House leader the following: First, to stand in his place today and apologize to this House for repeatedly saying that all documents were in fact tabled when they were not; and secondly, that he undertake to direct all staff to produce all documents—and when I say all, I mean all remaining documents—unredacted, complete and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Be seated, please.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit, I’d like to quote from the letter sent by the Deputy Minister of Energy—the ministry’s search to identify was sent last Friday to the estimates committee.

“The ministry’s search to identify—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: “—and produce all documents responsive to the May 16, 2012—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford, second time.

Hon. John Milloy: “—motion was conducted in good faith with every intention to comply with the committee’s motion. No responsive information or documents were deliberately withheld from the September 24 package. However, after tabling the documents, I became aware of potential omissions in the ministry’s original search, and I immediately initiated a review.”

I go to later in the letter: “Second, questions have also been raised about apparent redactions from certain documents in the September 24 release. In the interest of creating a complete disclosure package, early drafts of certain documents, such as slide decks, which were not yet complete and comprised of blank sections, were included in the release. The only redactions in the September 24 disclosure package and the documents attached—”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. On September 27, 2012, the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority contacted the Clerk to say there were potentially more documents that hadn’t been released. Why did it take more than two weeks to admit that there were documents that were still being hidden and then release them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I want to start by saying that I deeply regret that when the 36,000 pages were released, they did not contain all of the documents. I know there were good-faith efforts that fell short by the OPA and the ministry. When, on or the about the 27th, the chief executive officer of the OPA indicated to the Clerk that there were potentially more, my determination was that they should do whatever they had to do, get the search done, get it right and provide all the documents that responded to the motion. They did that on the 12th of October.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, the minister didn’t answer the question, so I’m going to go back to you. The Ontario Power Authority was supposed to be an independent, arm’s-length agency. It’s clear this government has treated it as yet another tool to advance its political objectives. Did the Ministry of Energy at any point, before or after the release of these thousands of additional documents, provide the Ontario Power Authority with direction on what documents should be released and when they should be disclosed?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: No, Speaker, and that is outlined in the letters by the Ontario Power Authority. Both the Ontario Power Authority and the ministry—the non-partisan public service side of the Ministry of Energy—directed their searches. They decided what documents should be disclosed. The letters speak to that very clearly. When the chief executive officer of the Ontario Power Authority realized that there were potentially more, he advised the Clerk. They conducted a very extensive search. It concluded within hours of the release of the documents on October 12—searches that were directed by the OPA and the Ministry of Energy, free of political direction.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Every day, thousands of children across Ontario travel to school on school buses. We can all agree that we have to ensure that our kids remain safe, and that means making sure all drivers know and obey the rules regarding road safety on school buses.

Today marks the start of School Bus Safety Week. Can the minister tell this House what is being done to keep our kids safe on their way to school and on their way home?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for the question. The safety of our children on their way to and from school is our top priority. I am proud that Ontario has the safest roads in North America. Every weekday, about 800,000 students travel to school by bus, and that’s why it’s so important that motorists know and follow the rules whenever they see a school bus on the road.

School Bus Safety Week is an annual event that starts today. It helps educate motorists on the importance of coming to a full stop when approaching a stopped school bus with its upper red lights flashing. We want to warn drivers of the dangers involved in passing a stopped bus.

The law is clear: Drivers and vehicle owners can be charged up to $2,000 if their vehicle illegally passes a stopped school bus. It’s the law. It’s laws like this that keep our kids safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you to the minister for the update. I’m glad to hear that we’re taking strong action when it comes to the safety of our children.

I know that road safety partners like school bus drivers and other school staff are key players in road safety as well. Minister, can you tell us about the work we do with our partners in school bus safety?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Again, our top priority is ensuring the safety of the 800,000 students who ride our buses each school day. In fact, travelling on a school bus is 16 times safer than travelling in a motor vehicle. We have that record because of the hard work of our excellent bus drivers and school staff, who work hard on over 18,000 buses to ensure that students arrive at school and get back to their homes safely.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the drivers and staff for their help in making our roads safer for students. We work closely with schools, our road safety partners, police services and school bus companies across Ontario to promote school bus safety, and we thank them for all their great work.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you assured members of this House—in a sworn, written oath, no less—that all documents related to power plant cancellations had been turned over. Yet the Premier, the House leader, you and 30 members of your caucus continued to state that every document was delivered even after you knew that they weren’t.

We put up with the smug comments, the fake moral indignation, the mocking: all to keep us from getting to the truth. You’re still going through great pains to keep us from seeing all the documents. Fess up now. No more games, no more nonsense. Tell us what you’re hiding. Salvage some semblance of dignity and order all the documents to be turned over before you tender your resignation.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It was my belief, it was the belief of the OPA and it was the belief of the Ministry of Energy that all of the documents that were released responsive to the committee’s motion were released with the original 36,000 pages. When it became clear to the OPA and to the ministry that there may be an additional search required, they did that, and all of the documents responsive to the motion that they found were released on the 12th.

I want to very clearly indicate, Speaker, that I stand by the letter and that I believe the letter I sent to the Clerk to be true. I’ve been advised by ministry staff that the documents attached to the letter comprise all documents responsive to the committee’s request, regardless of privilege or confidentiality. I want to further state this—the government House leader has spoken to his issue—none of my colleagues and no member of this House was advised by me any differently about the documents released on the original day until October 12.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Minister, we’ve been through this movie before. You tell us one thing, but the facts are completely opposite. You have all the documents—oops, here’s 20,000 more, but still no document from the Premier, his staff, the former minister or yourself, for that matter. We shouldn’t need a bloodhound and a flashlight to find these documents, Minister. It should be all there in black and white. Instead, we’re getting blackouts and whiteouts.

I ask you again, what are you hiding? Minister, no one believes you anymore. You’re through here. You’re done. There’s no credibility left for you or your government. Resign today.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My colleague’s question arises out of the release of additional documents, a release that resulted from the efforts of the OPA and the ministry to find all responsive documents to the motion. The non-political directed the search. The non-political decided what was in and what was out. The non-political have indicated in here that nothing relevant was redacted. Those decisions were made by them. The documents were released. It has always been my intention to comply with the Speaker’s ruling, and their good-faith efforts to make sure that the compliance—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Premier: The committee that’s tasked with examining the decision to cancel the gas plants and examining why the government has consistently hidden documents has a short window to complete its work. The deadline to report back to the House is November 19, a little over a month away. The members of the committee have called for an immediate meeting, but government members are using delay tactics to drag the process out. Will the Premier tell his members to stop the delay tactics and political games and let the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock.

Contrary to what some people might even think, I’ve been trying to listen very carefully on how the questions are put and how the answers are coming. We’re now starting to move into the application of what the committee’s work is, and I’m concerned that that question be put in a different way. You cannot start to talk about how the committee is going to function.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Sorry, Speaker. You want me to re-put the question?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Briefly.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Will you let the committee go forward immediately? What are you doing to hold it up?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think members of the Legislature are aware that the terms under which this committee was set up are spelled out in the standing orders. I am confident that the Chair of the committee as well as the members of the committee will work together to make sure that the hearings start within a time period outlined in the standing orders, and hold the hearings in relation to the motion that was passed by this Legislature.

But again, Mr. Speaker, to go back to several weeks ago, after having heard now over nine years the NDP going on and on and on about limiting debate, to have that member, who stood in this place and stifled debate on a motion and government efforts to have a committee seized with the important issue of how do committees balance information—I find that a little rich, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, we’ve had 20,000 more documents put on the table. November 19 is coming at us very quickly. We need to convene and we need to convene now.

You have some influence in your caucus. Can you move things forward and make sure this committee meets now?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the standing orders have not changed in the last few weeks. When the opposition moved the motion, they knew what the standing order rules were and the timeline in which the committee would sit, and the November 19 date was chosen by the opposition. So maybe the opposition should have got together and come up with a different motion to put forward.

The fact of the matter is, we debated this motion in the Legislature. We came forward with an amendment, which we filed with every member of this House, an amendment which would have asked the committee to undertake very valuable work, and that member, despite over 10 years of listening to the NDP go on about never wanting to limit debate in this Legislature, stood in his place with his colleagues and stifled debate on an important motion, an important matter for this Legislature.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I often hear from my constituents that more affordable housing is needed in Ontario, and I’m sure my colleagues are hearing the same from constituents in their communities. Ontarians want to be sure that we’re working to help families who are less fortunate and need help keeping a roof over their head.

I understand that our government made an announcement last week regarding the creation of new affordable housing in the Donlands area of Toronto. Could the minister tell us more about this announcement and how it will help ensure that more Ontarians have access to safe and affordable housing in Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Rouge River, who is an advocate for social justice. He knows how important affordable housing is to people in his constituency, across the city and across the province.

Last Thursday, I was joined by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to announce that, following the completion of the Pan/Parapan American Games in 2015, the athletes’ village will be transformed to include 253 affordable rental units and up to 100 affordable ownership units.

Along with those affordable housing units, these new buildings will provide 882 jobs in the construction sector. These buildings, these units are very important because they are one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom units. I think everyone who knows about affordable housing knows that finding those larger units is important.

I was very happy to be able to announce that these units will be owned and operated by the Fred Victor mission and Wigwamen Inc., two fantastic organizations. We’re happy to be able to work in partnership with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: It is great to hear that our government is making important investments in affordable housing projects like this one here in Toronto. I’m sure it will go far in helping to benefit both the community and the people who live in those new housing units. We know that our government has made investing in affordable housing in Ontario a key priority with this announcement.

Toronto is benefitting from additional housing units, but we need to ensure that communities all across the province also benefit. Can the minister tell this House what our government is doing to ensure that people living in communities all across the province have access to affordable housing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the NDP harping that we haven’t done enough. What I would suggest is, they should be supporting these investments. They should be supporting the $2.5 billion that we have put into affordable housing. They should support the 270,000 units of affordable housing that we have put in place for families across the province. We have worked in partnership, as I said, with Fred Victor, with Wigwamen Inc. and with Dundee Kilmer Developments to show what can happen when government works with organizations that are committed to providing housing.

Where we’re at now is we need that other partner, the federal government, to work with us. We know that the money that has been invested will—there will be no more money after 2014. We have a plan up to 2014. We need the federal government to be working with us. I call on the parties opposite to talk to their federal cousins and come to us and work with us so that we continue to make those investments that particularly the NDP should be supporting.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, I’ve been working with dozens of construction associations across Ontario this year, and they are unanimous in agreeing that your College of Trades is a huge, expensive barrier to job creation and growth.

Your communications plan around the College of Trades is a dismal failure. I, along with the Ontario Construction Employers Coalition and other key stakeholders, have had to inform thousands of men and women, because neither you nor the college has informed them, of massive taxes they are facing, and they see absolutely no benefit to the youth of our province who are desperately trying to find work. In fact, most people say that too many youth are sitting watching, playing Nintendo.

Minister, can you explain to representatives of the Ontario Construction Employers Coalition, who are here today and who represent over 4,000 Ontario companies and 100,000 employees, and other key stakeholders as well—many of them—why you continue to support the College of Trades? It’s nothing but a boondoggle and you know it is.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I don’t think it’s young people who have been playing too much Nintendo; I think it’s the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be perplexed, waiting for the apology from the party opposite for, in 60 years in government, it failed to have an apprenticeship strategy, saw the slowest growth in apprenticeships in Canada, and were smugly happy with 17,000. We are now at 30,000 apprenticeships per year, and we are ahead of schedule, exceeding the number of apprenticeships that the economy can absorb.

Mr. Speaker, what a remarkable economy it is. There are 47 office and residential towers going up in my constituency alone. It speaks to the outcomes of this government’s economic development policy, because there are jobs.

I will challenge the member opposite again: Where’s the beef? Show me the numbers for the 200,000, because they’re nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: While I wasn’t playing Nintendo, I was at 75-some meetings, and most people in Ontario have no idea who you even are. I don’t think you understand the groundswell of opposition that is growing against your College of Trades. The new trades tax is not going over well, and now thousands of businesses and employees are saying they will treat their fee invoices as another McGuinty tax. In fact, the only person I found that likes it is Pat Dillon.

Minister, you must know by now that this is nothing but another McGuinty boondoggle that has the potential to cost Ontario workers hundreds of millions of dollars a year with this College of Trades.

Minister, will you follow the advice and plan of Tim Hudak and the PC caucus, as announced in our white paper Paths to Prosperity: An Agenda for Growth, and scrap the College of Trades once and for all?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m still waiting to understand. It would cost $115 million, in the construction boom going on in this province coming out of a recession that is unprecedented, something never achieved by the party opposite in power—the party opposite, and some of your friends whom you quote, had a terrible record on two fronts: one, on apprenticeship completion. We have just had public hearings where we got submissions from all of industry, labour and educators, tabling the records of what they would like.

We actually have had four apprenticeship ratios set by the college recently. That’s four more than in the decade that they were in power. As a matter of fact, I don’t think they even ever approved a single ratio adjustment in probably 30 or 40 years. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about bell-bottoms, because that was the last time those guys looked at the apprenticeship ratios—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On Friday, 21-year-old Emilia Arthurs’s mother and her sister were here at Queen’s Park. Emilia lives in Sarnia and is a young woman with complex physical and intellectual disabilities requiring around-the-clock care.

For years, Emilia’s family has worked with local agencies and the ministry to secure care for Emilia. Now the family is in a crisis, and they are being told that their 21-year-old daughter will have to be placed in a nursing home. Is the minister going to allow this shameful episode to continue?

Hon. John Milloy: I am of course aware of the press conference that was held here at Queen’s Park. I think the member recognizes, as all members of the Legislature do, that a minister cannot comment on a specific case.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are families who are struggling with children with developmental disabilities, and I want to assure the member and assure all members that our ministry works tirelessly with the family, with community agencies to make sure that they have the care they need and to make sure we put in every effort to make sure that a child or an individual is never left in crisis.

As I say, as the minister, I am not able to comment on this specific case. But I do want to impress upon the member our commitment to work with all families in these situations to make sure that the individual in question receives the care that is most appropriate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I’m not sure if the minister means wiping his hands of the issue is working tirelessly.

Mother Wilma Arthurs described her decision to give up Emilia as the hardest decision she has ever made. What is happening to this family should not be the fate of any family in Ontario, and it’s disgraceful. Even worse, the local Community Living has the capacity to care for Emilia, but they are unable to do so because the minister has refused to do their part.

I ask the minister once again: Will he step up to the plate and work with the community and the Arthurs family to find a real solution?

Hon. John Milloy: As I say, our first priority is the needs of the client. We work very, very closely with local agencies, with the family, of course, and with the individual to make sure that in all cases, we can find a way to provide them with care and make sure that no one is left in crisis.

Despite the tough economic times, I’d remind the member that since 2003, our government has increased money in this sector by about half a billion dollars. Is there more to do? Is there more need out there? Of course there is, and we continue to work to reform the system and we continue to work on individual cases. But I remind the member again, and I think all members respect the fact that as the minister, I cannot comment on a specific case. But I can assure members that on all these cases that are brought to their attention, we work very, very diligently behind the scenes.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation. Ontario’s auto sector is a vital part of our economy, both across the province and locally in my community. In Mississauga and Brampton, Chrysler is a significant employer, and we were pleased when the CAW and Chrysler reached their agreement and work is continuing at the plant.

We are told that the auto sector is recovering well. Mr. Speaker, can the minister point to some concrete evidence that the auto sector is bouncing back?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’d like to begin by echoing my colleague’s enthusiasm that a deal, in fact, was reached with the CAW and the auto companies that is both fair to Ontario workers and competitive for the auto industry. That’s really good news for each and every one of us here in Ontario because it secures jobs and investment in our auto sector.

We’ve been North America’s leading auto producer since 2004, and production is already up. The auto sector alone supports the jobs of 485,000 hard-working Ontario workers, directly or indirectly. Since the global recession, Ontario’s auto companies have created 11,000 more direct jobs, and they’ve invested more than $2.3 billion in our auto plants.

According to the Globe and Mail, the “industry’s recovery is jumping into a higher gear.” Auto sales are up. This is good news for auto workers and good news for a growing economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Speaker, it is great to hear that the industry is going so strong across the province that production is already higher this year than last year. That is particularly good news for those of us in the House who have auto plants and parts manufacturers in their ridings.

Minister, you mentioned that the industry was jumping into a higher gear. Can you please inform this House how well the industry fared in September auto sales?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m delighted to report that last month, Canadian auto sales had their best month of September since 2000—the best in 12 years—and the second-best September on record. Mr. Speaker, that’s good news.

Overall, auto sales topped 143,143 vehicles in September 2012, an increase of 6.4% from September 2011, when sales were 134,544. So far this year, we’re up 6.6% in year-to-date sales.

The member will be happy to hear that Chrysler saw its 34th straight monthly gain, while Ford was the top vehicle maker in Canada and GM rebounded by 12% after several months of decline. Toyota and Honda are also showing outstanding sales of 22% and 16% increases respectively.

Mr. Speaker, our auto sector is going in the right direction; our economy is going in the right direction. It’s good news for Ontario workers and good news for all Ontario families.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Energy this morning. On Friday, a letter from the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority accompanied the release of 20,000 additional documents about the ongoing scandal in your ministry. In that letter, Colin Andersen states that he informed the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates on September 27 that the OPA had additional documents to disclose regarding the Oakville and Mississauga power plants.

When you clearly knew on the 27th, more than two weeks ago, that documents were still outstanding, why did it take you two weeks to do the honourable thing? Why did you allow your colleagues to bring disgrace and disrepute to this Legislature, and when will you end your tenure as the Minister of Energy, do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: On the 27th, the head of the OPA indicated to the clerk that there was the potential. That’s an important fact. The OPA and the public service side of the ministry both conducted a second very extensive search, and within hours of the release of the documents on October 12 they concluded that search.

I want to be very clear: At no point did I tell my colleagues in the caucus or the cabinet—did I tell them, apart from the House leader, who has spoken to this issue—about the additional search, and at no time did I know what the search came up with. I didn’t know the final results of the search until the documents were provided to the House, and I was advised within hours of that happening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the potential has become reality for the Minister of Energy. We don’t believe that the CEO and the OPA would inform the Legislature without first informing you, the minister responsible for this agency.

Last week, Minister—I believe it was on Friday—you spoke with the Toronto Star about ministerial responsibility. Do you remember that? And now this morning you’re throwing bureaucrats under the bus. That is unacceptable for a minister of this Legislature. You are shirking your responsibility. You can’t hide behind these bureaucrats.

You saw our energy critic, the member from Nipissing, stand here after receiving the first tranche of those documents—36,000 of them—reading from whited-out, redacted pages that clearly had cover-ups on them, and a lot of the information was not available.

We’re going to hold you responsible. That’s our job as the official opposition. On behalf of the people of Ontario, we’re going to do this. But I can’t believe that you would throw other members of your caucus and other ministers under the bus. The House minister has stood up several times—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Be seated.

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to just spend a second on this concept of ministerial responsibility and quote a very prominent expert. He had this to say:

“The minister is under no obligation to resign for something a civil servant alone has done. This was never what ministerial responsibility meant ... the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, therefore, cannot always mean that a minister must resign for everything that goes wrong in his department.”

The member may be interested: That comes from a thesis entitled Debunking Decision-Making: How Do Governments Decide When Ministers Resign? It’s by one Dr. Rob Leone, the MPP for Cambridge.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, northerners are upset, and rightfully so. It has been brought to my attention that there are MNR employees who are in the outfitters business. Working for MNR gives them the ability to influence the rules in order to restrict access to crown land.

Subsection 39(1) of the Public Lands Act says: “No person holding an office in or under the ministry and no person employed in or under the ministry shall, directly or indirectly, purchase any right, title or interest in any public lands either in the person’s own name or by the interposition of any other person or in the name of any other person in trust for the person without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Minister, are you prepared to investigate these claims and guarantee equal access to crown land for all Ontarians?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Indeed we are proud of the very open access that all Ontarians have to crown land. It’s actually quite remarkable in terms of the reality of that fact. Certainly, with the kinds of accusations I think you’re making, it would be important for you to be providing us with some information in that regard because I stand here quite proudly saying that, compared to any other jurisdiction, Ontarians’ access to their crown land is virtually unprecedented. When indeed there are any restrictions put in place, it is indeed for the betterment of Ontarians as well in terms of protecting those natural resources that we hold so dear.

But, indeed, if you have specifics, may I say to my colleague and friend, I’d be grateful if you brought them forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again, to the Minister of Natural Resources: Every year Ontarians are restricted from accessing more of our natural resources due to MNR putting up restriction signs and tearing up roads. A two-tier system has been created, and worse still, MNR staff are in the middle of this problem.

People in northern Ontario are saying that MNR staff have purchased or leased crown land. Instead of protecting our natural resources, they are benefiting from that land, and they’re setting the rules that leave local residents out and advantage others with greater means to pay.

What is your ministry prepared to do to investigate these claims?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, you’re making allegations without being specific. One thing we can say is that Ontarians are extremely fortunate to have a free-use policy where people can enjoy all sorts of family activities on our crown lands, such as hiking, biking, camping and various other things as well. When forestry access roads, for example, are built and companies are no longer accessing them, yes, it’s always difficult to maintain them all and keep them safely accessible to everyone. Crown land roads are only closed to vehicles, but they do remain open for Ontarians who want to use them for activities.

Again, if I may, this is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, this particular issue has come up in the House. Other colleagues have brought it up. If, indeed, you’re making specific allegations, I think they should be brought forward in perhaps a different fashion, but I’d be grateful to hear you talk about it.

Again, we should be proud of the access that all Ontarians have to crown land here in the province of Ontario, and we’re going to continue to work to see that’s the case.

BREAST CANCER

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on a very serious health care issue in Ontario. Too many women, and some men, are diagnosed with breast cancer every year—almost 9,000 this year alone. About 80% of women diagnosed with breast cancer are over the age of 50, but breast cancer in younger women is often aggressive and more life-threatening.

I know about this first-hand, Speaker, having been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of breast cancer in 2010, and I’m still under active treatment for that. My constituents in Pickering–Scarborough East, particularly women and families affected by breast cancer, are concerned about this deadly disease and want to make sure the government is taking strong action to combat it.

Minister, can you tell us more about what Ontario is doing to fight breast cancer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for having the courage to talk about her own particular experience with breast cancer and other cancers. It means a lot when women will stand up and talk about their experiences.

Applause.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The good news is that Ontario has one of the highest cancer survival rates in the world. We’re enormously proud of this, but we know there’s more we can do. Regular screening and early detection are key to beating this disease.

The Ontario Breast Screening Program has been providing regular breast screening for women in Ontario for over 20 years. It has screened more than 1.1 million women and it has detected over 19,000 cancers. That means 19,000 women got treatment earlier than they otherwise would have, thanks to this program.

But we’re going further. We’re expanding the program to include high-risk women beginning at age 30. This means 90,000 more screens over three years. Speaker, it means more lives will be saved. More mothers, more daughters, more grandmothers, more sisters will be alive to share life.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Newmarket–Aurora on a point of order.

Mr. Frank Klees: My point of order arises out of the proceedings today. Both the Minister of Energy and the government House leader confirmed for us that, notwithstanding the fact that they had confirmed that all of the documents had been presented further to your order, the clerk was advised on September 27 that in fact there is a strong potential for additional documents to be tabled.

This House—members of this Legislature—was not made aware of that until October 12. I would ask you, sir: For 15 days, members of this Legislature were not made aware of important information. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no committee to report to, I would have expected—we all would have expected—that you, Speaker, having delegated the responsibility to the House leaders, that at the very least, the House leaders would have been apprised of that important information. I would ask for your explanation, sir.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I noticed another point of order. Is it the same?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I actually had it in my head and I just had to get it confirmed. If the member’s concern is that the Speaker should have dealt with this under my office, the clerk of the committee is responsible for the clerk of the committee and not to report to the House. Therefore, there’s nothing out of order in that process, except to say that lately we’ve been trying to ask the House leaders to work together to provide that information. There’s nothing untoward happening, except for clarity purposes, the clerk of the committee reports, and their duty is to the committee itself. What the committee does is it reports to the House, so there’s a difference between the two.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful.

I want to hear this point of order and then I’ll come back for the purpose of clarity.

The member from Timmins–James Bay on a related point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: For the record, just a couple of things: At the last release of the documents, because there were no committees that were sitting at the time, it was understood that when the documents would be released to the clerks, the House leaders would be advised. I would have hoped that’s what would have happened in this particular situation.

The second

part is that it’s pretty clear from the comments that we got from the government House leader and others today that in fact they knew there was a possibility of documents not being released. There were documents to be released that they were aware of two weeks ago, and I think that’s a pretty serious situation. I would ask the Speaker to ponder that, because it might actually be that this government is in further contempt to what the original motion—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At this point what I want to do is to make sure that I have an understanding of this, and I’ll walk through this with you. The point that I just explained to the member from Newmarket–Aurora is just that: There would be a difference if this was directed to the Clerk of the House, and the difference between the two is that if there was that happening, then the Clerk of the House would have to immediately make that available, and my understanding is to the House leaders as well. I think there’s some minutia here that we have to make sure that we don’t go over. I will allow the member from Newmarket–Aurora a supplementary on that.

Mr. Frank Klees: I do understand that. I believe that all of us do understand this. There is a nuance here that is very important, and the nuance is this: We’re all aware that the notice was given to the clerk of the committee, but there is no committee in existence, and so the clerk of the committee has no one to report to. We do believe, however—and we stand to be corrected—that the clerk of the committee would have advised the Clerk of the House of that notification.

Once the Clerk of the House has that information, we would expect that the Clerk of the House would advise the Speaker, and because of the structure directed by the Speaker, that in fact then the House leaders would have been made aware.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank you for this, and I’m pleased with the patience everyone is showing in this. I will reserve any other further comment until I evaluate and investigate this to ensure that we’re all talking about the same thing so that no one is misunderstanding how the process works within this House and within committees, and under the circumstances that the member described.

The member from Oshawa?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I believe you answered my question. My question was that during points of privilege, when they’re brought forward to the Clerk’s desk, those points of privilege are distributed to the other parties to ensure they have the opportunity for rebuttals or understanding of what’s being discussed in the House. I believe that was answered, although I would hope you would take it into consideration when you’re looking at how this issue is resolved.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I thank the member from Oshawa.

Now I believe it’s time for the member for Parkdale–High Park.

VISITOR

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a totally different topic, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to introduce—she just got here—my friend from Salt Lake City, Vivian Dowsett. She’s visiting us today.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we lose any other people, I do have a comment to make. I’ve been saddened in the last little while by comments made, directed to individuals, and some of the hurtful comments that are being—I’m saddened by it. I think we are above that, and I would hope and remind all of us that we need to encourage each other to stay on the course of comments on policy issues and remove ourselves from personalizing this, which I’ve heard a few times, even today, from all sides.

I ask the members for your forgiveness if I sometimes react strongly on some of those issues, because I am absolutely convinced that we can do all of the things we need to do in this House without becoming personal. I offer you that challenge.

There is no further business. This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1152 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings on a point of order.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today having given notice that I intend to raise a point of privilege.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of privilege it is.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s in regard to contempt in accordance with standing order 21(c). In my written summation that I provided to you earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I provided you with a brief

summary of the situation before us and will now highlight some of the key points of that summation.

On September 24, 2012, Minister Bentley tabled an attestation to the House attached to 36,000 documents which stated, “The documents attached to this letter comprise all”—and I emphasize “all”—“documents that are responsive to the committee’s request regardless of privilege or confidentiality.”

On October 12, 2012, after being told by the Premier, countless ministers and parliamentary assistants that all the documents had been tabled, the opposition parties received an email from the government House leader’s office advising us that more documents pertaining to the committee’s request were being released.

This raises two questions, Mr. Speaker. The first issue that I draw your attention to is that it appears that multiple members of the government could have misled this Legislature. The second issue that I raise is that despite your ruling that the Legislature was entitled to all documents that it requested, documents relevant to the committee’s request were still withheld from the Legislature by the Minister of Energy, on behalf of the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority.

I’m concerned that some government members’ statements could have misled the Legislature regarding the Minister of Energy’s compliance with the Speaker’s ruling to produce all documents related to the request from the estimates committee that was made back in May.

Back here in the Legislature, parliamentary authorities are unanimous and state that the House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

Furthermore, as set out by McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, “In order to establish a prima facie finding that a breach of privilege and contempt has occurred, three elements must be present: one, it must be proven that the statements were misleading; two, it must be established that the member at the time knew the statement was incorrect; and three, in the making of the statement, the minister intended to mislead the House.” I’m extremely confident that all three elements are present in the case that I’m bringing to your attention today.

First, since September 24, 2012, when the initial set of documents had been tabled, members of the opposition were criticized heavily by government members about our assertions that all the documents had not been tabled. The comments directed at us included some very strong statements from the government House leader when he described the opposition as pursuing “vindictive, gutter politics.”

During the debate on the motion to send the issue to the finance committee, Liberal cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants insisted that there were no more documents because they’d all been tabled. However, on October 12, 2012, it became clear that these statements were incorrect when 20,000 additional documents were tabled.

Furthermore, in a letter written to the Clerk of the Legislature and attached to the second batch of documents, Colin Andersen, the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, states, “On the evening of September 27, 2012”—15 days ago—“I notified the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates that the Ontario Power Authority potentially had additional records to disclose.”

Serge Imbrogno, Deputy Minister of Energy, also wrote that “after the tabling of the documents I became aware of potential omissions in the ministry’s original search.”

Based on the statements by the deputy minister and CEO of the OPA, it’s evident that the government was made aware of the second batch of documents on September 27, and demonstrates that the comments made by the aforementioned government members after the 27th could have misled this Legislature.

I’d like to highlight two of these statements from the Liberal members. In a press conference held in the legislative precinct that was directed at every member, Premier McGuinty said on October 2, 2012, “The opposition asked for all documents, Minister Bentley released all 36,000 pages.”

Here’s another one: “The Minister of Energy has complied with the request to release the documents; 36,000 pages of documents have been tabled. That work is done; there’s a lot more work to do.” That’s from Deb Matthews, MPP, London North Centre and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, on October 1, 2012.

I highlight these quotes because they were made multiple days after the OPA and the Ministry of Energy found out that they had not tabled all of the documents to satisfy the committee’s request.

The second criterion that must be evaluated is whether the member at the time knew the statement was incorrect. All of the quotes highlighted above were said days after the Ministry of Energy and OPA realized that they did not table all the documents requested. The statements made by the deputy minister and CEO of the OPA make it abundantly clear that the government and its members became aware of these new documents on September 27, 2012.

This criterion is further satisfied by Minister Bentley’s and Minister Milloy’s statements to the Legislature this morning when they indicated that they were made aware two weeks ago that a second search was being conducted by the Ontario Power Authority and the Ministry of Energy. It’s evident that the government was aware on September 27 that all the documents were not produced. Yet, the aforementioned Liberal members continued to make statements advising the House that all the documents had been produced.

The third criterion that must be satisfied is that the member intended to mislead the House. Based on the actions of previously mentioned Liberal members, I respectfully suggest that their failure to inform the Legislature about the incomplete documents demonstrates a direct intention and could have misled this Legislature.

In criminal law, the actus reus, also known as the guilty act, includes the omission to act. Premier McGuinty and Minister Bentley, through ministerial responsibility, and the other members, through their duty to speak the truth in this Legislature, had the duty to immediately inform the Legislature that the documents tabled were not complete. Their omission to inform the Legislature about the remaining outstanding documents from the ministry and OPA demonstrates intent and, in my opinion, could constitute a breach of privilege for misleading this Legislature.

The same principles apply to this House that apply to court, and when an attestation is signed saying that all documents are provided or a member states it in the Legislature, it is expected that that be the truth.

I’m also raising concerns that a breach of privilege for contempt of the Legislature has occurred because not all documents, as per your ruling, were provided to the Legislature on September 24, 2012. In your ruling on September 13, 2012, you stated, “The right to order production of documents is fundamental to and necessary for the proper functioning of the assembly.” You went on to say, “The Standing Committee on Estimates was unquestionably entitled to request the documents sought from the Minister of Energy, and in the end the minister had an obligation to comply with the committee’s call for those documents.”

However, despite your clear ruling, the Minister of Energy still did not properly hand over all documents requested by the committee. It’s important that we stop this behaviour immediately as it shows a lack of respect to the Legislature and its members. To stop this pattern of disrespect, I would ask that you also rule on the Minister of Energy’s most recent actions and whether or not they demonstrate a further breach of privilege.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you’re the guardian of the spirit of openness, accountability and transparency in our democratic institution. Any ruling other than a prima facie case of a breach of privilege in these instances could inevitably lead to more egregious abuse in this Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member has presented the proper materials, and it is a privilege that has been presented.

I will now turn to the House leader of the third party, the member from Trinity—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Trinity–Spadina, thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The weather might be a little bit better than Timmins–James Bay today.

Speaker, not with great pride or satisfaction, I get up to speak to this, but this is a rather serious matter. You, as Speaker, have made a decision in this House that documents that are requested by committee members or are requested by this House must be released; those documents have to be made available to all. Under no circumstance is anybody allowed to withhold documents of any type.

As a result of the motion that was passed in this House, the process that we were going through, the government released some 36,000 documents to the clerks of the committees, that were eventually released to the House, the leaders of the opposition parties, saying that this was going to be all of the documents.

In fact, we have signed documents from two authorities—the OPA and the Ministry of Energy—that essentially say, “We attest that these are all the documents that exist on this particular issue.” For the better part of two or three weeks in this House, the government continued, through the period of debate on the motion and then through the process of question period thereafter, contesting that there were no more documents.

So if you’re an observer just looking at this thing from the outside, whose word are you going to take? You had the opposition saying there were more documents: “Look, there are holes in the documents, entire parts that are redacted, and emails that point to other documents that don’t exist.” The government, for the period of four weeks, kept on saying that that was all the documents. I remember the government House leader saying something along the line of, “When it’s the minister who speaks the truth, then it’s the truth. In other words, all the documents are there.”

Well, here we are. As of last Friday we found out, first of all, that in fact there were more documents that were being released to the clerk of the estimates committee, that were documents that should have been released initially and, for whatever reason, were not released and were now being released at that time.

We then came to the House this morning, and I was a bit surprised and taken aback when I listened to the government House leader make the point that he knew two weeks ago there was a possibility that there were some documents that were not released at the time of the original release. It seems to me, Speaker, that if the government House leader knew there was a possibility that more documents would be released, then cabinet knew, and if cabinet knew, for sure the Premier of this province knew.

There should have been a requirement upon them—because of your ruling—to say, “Listen, there is a possibility more documents will be released. Therefore, we’re going to advise the House, or advise the clerks, or advise the Speaker that in fact we think there might be more documents coming. Stay tuned; we’ll let you know.” That’s not what happened. The government House leader said, “I knew two weeks ago there were possibly more documents.” Not until those documents were eventually released did the government finally get up and do a mea culpa this morning and say, “Oh, my God. There were more documents. Sorry.

We didn’t know.”

It seems to me, Speaker, where we’re at is, the fact of the government knowing there was a possibility that documents existed that weren’t released should have been made public. That should not be information that the government House leader or the government should have sat on and said, “No, I’m not going to give it,” because your ruling was quite explicit—and rulings of previous speakers: Any committee in this House has a right to those documents. The fact that the government knew for two weeks there was a possibility of more documents that were there, it seems to me, says they should have made that information known. I think on that basis you should take a look at this particular—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m very glad the minister of—what’s her ministry?

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —corrections is an expert on this.

I just want to finish on this point, Speaker: The fact is, the government knew there was a possibility that more documents were to be released. The fact is, the government did not advise the clerk of the estimates committee, did not advise the clerk of the finance committee that was constituted at that point, did not advise anybody from the government side that there was a possibility of those documents. Somebody else had to do it, and then the government finally had to come clean. I think, with that, you need to take a look at this particular point of privilege and decide in fact if the scope of the current committee would have to be expanded.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the member for Prince Edward–Hastings’ point of privilege, which includes both his written statement which was filed with your office this morning and oral submissions that he just delivered in this House. I’d like to notify you and the House that the government will also be filing detailed written submissions with you and would ask that you take these into consideration as a part of your deliberations. As is the practice, they will, of course, be shared with the opposition.

I’d also like to provide a brief oral submission to you at this time. The Minister of Energy and I rose on a point of order this morning to correct our respective records with respect to a series of statements we made in the House in and around the tabling of documents on September 24, 2012, in response to a motion passed by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012.

As you know, on September 24 approximately 36,000 documents were delivered by the Ministry of Energy and the chief executive officer of the Ontario Power Authority to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. It was the government’s understanding at that time that all documents that were responsive to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012, had been delivered. This was evidenced by the content of the attestation letters from the Minister of Energy and the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority that accompanied the 36,000 documents.

On this basis I, along with the Minister of Energy and a number of other members of the government caucus, made statements in the House to the effect that all documents that were responsive to the committee’s motion of May 16, 2012, had been produced. The statements were made during the course of question period and debate on the motion moved by the member of provincial Parliament for Cambridge in relation to your ruling of September 13, 2012, and your statement in the House on the morning of September 15, 2012.

Approximately two weeks ago, the minister was notified that officials at the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority would be undertaking a second search because they had determined there was a possibility that some documents had inadvertently been missed in their initial search. I also understand that the CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, of his own volition, notified the clerk of the Standing Committee on Estimates that it was possible that an additional package of documents would be forthcoming.

From this point in time until the end of last week, officials at the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority directed and executed the secondary search. There was no political involvement in this search.

Late last week, the Minister of Energy was advised that the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority had identified, and would immediately be delivering, an additional package of responsive documents to the Clerk of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, as was stated in the House this morning, I, along with the minister and other members of the government caucus, shared the honest belief at the time the impugned statements were made that all documents had been produced to the Legislature on September 24, 2012. On this basis, the minister and I corrected our records at the earliest opportunity in advance of question period this morning.

Any of the relevant incorrect statements that were made in this House were made advertently and unintentionally by the minister, me and other members of the government caucus referenced by the member for Prince Edward–Hastings in his written statement. As the member has identified in his letter, the test you are to apply in order to find that a prima facie breach of privilege exists in relation to an alleged attempt to deliberately mislead the House sets a very high threshold indeed.

There are two key components to a point of privilege related to an allegation of misleading the House. First, the member making the statement must know at the time that the statement was incorrect. Secondly, the member must have deliberately intended to mislead the House. It is respectfully submitted that neither of these components have been made out. In your ruling of March 29 this year, you confirmed this very point when you said, “The standard of proof demanded is the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities but, given the serious nature of the allegations, proof of a very high order.”

In the absence of an admission from the member accused of the conduct, there must be clear and tangible evidence of an intention to mislead the House. In the absence of such evidence, a Speaker must assume that no honourable members would engage in such behaviour or that, at most, inconsistent statements were the result of inadvertence or an honest mistake. No admission has been made and no evidence has been presented as to any intention to mislead the House—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Hon. John Milloy: In fact, both the Minister of Energy and I stood on points of order earlier today to clarify their earlier statements.

I would respectfully submit that this is a clear indication that any earlier statements were honest mistakes. As the Speaker found in his March 26 ruling, attempts by a member to correct the record are taken into account in assessing whether the point of privilege has been made out. I would also point out that the Speaker was clear in his ruling that such attempts to correct the record are not to be taken as evidence of any strategy or intention to mislead the House.

The member for Prince Edward–Hastings included a list of other members of the governing party he alleges to have intentionally misled this House. Those individuals had no personal knowledge of these facts and were simply repeating in good faith assertions that had been made by the Minister of Energy. Again, these statements were, at most, a result of honest mistakes.

In the absence of any evidence that these members had any personal knowledge of the potential inaccuracy of those statements, and in the absence of any evidence of a clear intention to deliberately mislead the House, I would respectfully submit that no point of privilege has been made out.

As I indicated at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing with you a further written submission on this matter and, of course, as is the tradition and practice of this House, sharing it with the opposition members as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to supplement the point of privilege by the member for Prince Edward–Hastings, especially after what the government House leader has just said.

I want to draw to your attention a case of parliamentary precedent from 2002, when a former Speaker of this Legislature, the Honourable Gary Carr, set out parameters for finding a prima facie case of contempt related to a charge of misleading the House. In his ruling on June 17, Speaker Carr stated that to satisfy a charge of contempt for misleading the House, there must be “an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct independently proved.”

In this case, the tangible confirmation is the letters from the OPA CEO and the Deputy Minister of Energy, where they state very clearly that after tabling the documents, they found more documents that were not released. As such, these letters clearly demonstrate the tangible confirmation that the government knew on September 27 that all the documents were not tabled on September 24.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: I also wish to rise on the point of privilege by the honourable member for Prince Edward–Hastings. Contained within the documents are various references to one Mr. David Livingston. Mr. Livingston is the Premier’s chief of staff. However, before Mr. Livingston was the Premier’s chief of staff, he was assigned as a senior bureaucrat to the Ontario Power Authority, one of the main producers of these documents. It should be noted that in the government’s initial partial release of documents, there were countless emails from Mr. Livingston that were, in fact, missing.

What does this mean with respect to the honourable member’s point of privilege? Well, it means that Mr. Livingston, as the Premier’s most senior political adviser, his chief of staff, who no doubt signed off on the release of the original 36,000 documents, must have known, or at least ought to have known, that the documents and emails he authored while at the Ontario Power Authority were, in fact, missing.

This means that the Premier’s chief of staff, potentially unknowingly, sent the Premier out in public to his infamous crocodile-tears press conference and allowed the Premier to once again—publicly and in the House—suggest that all documents were tabled when in fact they were not. This means that the chief of staff to the Premier likely informed the Premier himself that documents he tabled were, in fact, not complete.

I’d like to add those comments to the point of privilege of my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further comment, the House leader from the third party, the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you. I get a second try because of that.

I’m not going to go very long. I just want to make the point, because I think it needs to be made, that the test is, you must knowingly make a statement that is misleading in order to be found in contempt; in other words, you have to be of knowledge.

I think the point here is that the government knew for two weeks, at the minimum, because this is what we get from the statement from the government House leader: “Approximately two weeks ago, I was notified that officials at the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority would be undertaking a second search because they had determined that there was a possibility that some documents had been inadvertently missed in their initial search.”

It raises the question that they then knew there was actually a possibility of other documents being in existence. It seems to me that your ruling was quite clear: The House and the committees are within their rights to have documents, and that includes, if there’s a possibility that documents were available, that fact should have been made known to the House so that everybody had the same knowledge. In this case, the government decided to withhold, in case maybe they could get by and not have other documents—who knows what was going on in the background?

But the point is, they knew there was a possibility of documents and did not inform this House, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is a very serious offence of parliamentary privilege.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much, Speaker. I wish to rise on another point related to this point of privilege as well.

I want to quote from volume 145,

section 133, from the third session of the 40th Parliament of Canada, and I quote from Hansard. I quote the federal Liberal member from Scarborough–Guildwood. Again, I am quoting a Liberal.

“Mr. Speaker, if I lie to you or mislead you in a personal relationship, an apology may well suffice, assuming no further harm. However, if you were a judge sitting in a court and I lied to you, there would be consequences regardless of an apology. It is called perjury. I may even go to jail because we have the highest expectations that truth be told in court; so also in Parliament and before a parliamentary committee.”

Speaker, while I cannot say some of these words in this House, the Liberal member from Scarborough had a point. When he was speaking on a point of privilege to a matter of a federal minister misleading the House, these words ring true. Interestingly, if you have numerous members of caucus and numerous members of the cabinet speaking and all saying clearly, in an orchestrated manner, and all suggesting that all documents have been tabled, clearly it is a major problem. It is not only a major problem with respect to the facts; it is a major problem with respect to how information is communicated to this House.

All members are considered honourable, and while this debacle has been blamed on bureaucratic mistakes, it is clear that these matters are orchestrated. If something is orchestrated, Speaker, it is deliberate. If the Premier’s chief of staff knew about this information, it necessarily follows that the Premier himself knew. That means if the Premier knew, so did his cabinet. If the cabinet knew, then so did the entire Liberal caucus.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: There can be no other conclusion that this House is being misled, and I call on you to find a prima facie breach—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. While I’m asking for some patience and some quiet during this particular and serious issue, it’s going both ways. So let’s all just tone it down.

Before I do continue, there has been some language used that is inadvertently there, simply because of the very nature of this particular request. I would also say that it does not allow other comments being made that I’m starting to hear and I will deal with immediately. So keep the heckling down; keep the language proper.

The member will continue.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Thank you, Speaker. I am just going to conclude.

There can be no other conclusion that this House has been misled, and I call on you to find a prima facie breach of privilege, Speaker, in this case. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the same issue, the member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who has gone through even the original 36,000 documents would realize, as we pointed out time and time again in this House—and we presented blank documents, whited-out documents, blank pages, blank charts; hundreds and hundreds of pages. Anybody since the time the original documents were dumped, all 36,000—anybody looking at them—it would be self-evident that we didn’t get all the documents.

Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in every case, whether it be a parliamentary assistant or a minister, in this House when they said they had presented all the documents, they were misleading this House, because it was quite evident, if you looked at the original pile—emails ended halfway through emails; charts were missing; no correspondence from any politicians in the original batch whatsoever; nothing from the Premier’s office; no senior political aides in the original batch.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the second batch, a tranche of 20,000 documents, is worse. They’ve clearly gone through those with even more of a fine-tooth comb, and rather than taking out entire paragraphs, they sneakily go along and you find that every fifth word is missing in some of these emails or selected words are whited out in these emails.

So, right from the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, everyone who spoke on that side of the House, on the government side of the House, who said to us that we had all the documents, was misleading this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The same issue?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The same issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. When we now look at the date that the House leader has told us that they first became aware of the documents—let me read directly from Hansard some comments made after the date was disclosed that they knew more documents were coming. The Minister of Labour: “The documents in their entirety have been provided to this Legislature.” The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: “The documents have been tabled.

That work has been done.” The member from Don Valley East: “We have complied with the Speaker’s orders and we’ve handed over over 36,000 pages of documents....” The member from Windsor West: “They ask for documents; they receive documents.... Details are in the large number of documents that have been released.” The member from Ottawa–Orléans: “You have your documents....

He has met the requirements as established by the Speaker....” The member from Ajax–Pickering: “We believe in accountability to those we serve and we take full responsibility for decisions we make.” I’ll go to the member from York Centre: “The opposition received all 36,000 pages of documents that complied with their request.... The request of this committee for these documents has been satisfied; the matter should be over.” The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: “We sent 36,000 pages of documents—so they have it....” The member from York West: “Having provided all the documentation....

We have delivered—the minister has delivered—what they were looking for.” The member from Mississauga East–Cooksville: “The opposition received all 36,000 pages.... The request of the committee ... has been satisfied.... These documents were provided to the committee.” The member from Scarborough Southwest: “He released the documents.... They were released.... The documents were all put forward.” The Minister of Energy basically said, “These are honestly all the documents I have. These are the documents I have.” He signed a letter saying, “These are the documents I have in my possession.

I think the documents are there. The information has been released.” The member from Richmond Hill—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member, I would like you to get to your point because now we’re starting to duplicate those issues. If you have any written submissions that just tell me those quotes, then I would take them as well. We need to sum up.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. The point, of course, is the fact that they have now told us that they knew 15 days ago that there were additional documents yet speaker after speaker after speaker stood and told us, “You have all the documents.” That’s the point I’m making.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the same point of order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just for clarity, is it on the same point of order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, the same point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If it is, I would ask you to be brief and to your point.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much. What has been raised here today by my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings is a motion of breach of privilege and the fact that this House was misled by members of the government. That is in fact what we—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. I would ask everyone just to bring it down a bit. I have already indicated that there are going to be moments in which this is going to be discussed in this manner because of the very nature of this issue—but I would like that to be simply mentioned and move on without the interruptions.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know why they get so upset; I guess they’re a little sensitive about it. But they have to understand that what is in fact being levelled against them here is that members of their cabinet, members of their government, of their caucus, have misled this House. Now we have the evidence of the statements they’ve made to the Legislature.

I further say, Mr. Speaker, that I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that this was completely orchestrated to try to minimize the amount of information that the opposition would have access to. In fact, on October 2, the day of the vote on the original motion, the Premier basically threw himself on the mercy of the court, as they say, hoping that people would change their minds and not proceed with this motion.

I contend that had that plea been successful, we would not be seeing any more of this new information. It is only because we, as an opposition—and I thank our fellow members in the third party—stood strong and said no to that plea that, as a result, the government then had to go back to their reading rooms and their thinking rooms and say, “You know what? We didn’t win that battle. Now I guess we’re caught.

We’re going to have to go back to the folks at the OPA and the folks in the Ministry of Energy and we’re going to have to actually reveal more documents, because we never intended to table these additional 20,000 pages. We were hoping we could appeal to these people in this House and get away with it like we’ve been getting away with it for nine years.”

But on October 2, in front of the press out there, the Premier in his press conference repeated that all the documents had been turned over—repeated more than once that all the documents had been turned over.

I find it pretty rich to believe and expect that a Minister of Energy or the head of the OPA would be aware of facts that potentially would lead to more documents and would not have informed the Premier and/or the Premier’s office. There is a lot more here that needs to be investigated, and that’s why this motion of privilege should be adopted by the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all the members for their contributions, and now I’m beginning to hear the same over again.

I will take under consideration—first of all, I thank the member from Prince Edward–Hastings for his submission, and I thank all the members for their contributions. I will allow, which we always do, any other written submissions that need to be heard to make my decision, and I would hold that until I have enough time to seriously evaluate this issue.

It is now time for members’ statements.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

D.J. KENNINGTON

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m proud to stand and recognize a remarkable accomplishment by one of my constituents from St. Thomas. D.J. Kennington came into the final race of the NASCAR Canadian Tire Series on September 22, needing only a 24th place finish to claim his second series championship title. This proved to be no trouble for the talented driver, as he brought home his number 17 Castrol Edge Dodge in first place at the Pinty’s 250 held in Kawartha, Ontario.

This capped a record-setting season for D.J. This final race marked his seventh win of the season, breaking the record for most wins in a season previously set by Andrew Ranger in 2009.

Kennington accomplished another record-breaking feat by winning five consecutive races. Those wins occurred at the Canadian Tire speedway, Delaware Speedway in London, MotoPlex Speedway in BC, City Centre Airport in Edmonton and Riverside speedway in Nova Scotia.

We in Elgin–Middlesex–London could not be more proud of how well D.J. has represented our community across the country. I congratulate him and his pit crew and wish them luck for next year. I also want to wish him well in his upcoming role as a new father, as his wife, Jaime, is pregnant with their first child.

WOUND CARE

Ms. Cindy Forster: Mr. Speaker, a resident and her family from my riding are baffled by the fact that post-surgery wound care treatment strongly recommended by a Toronto surgeon is available to Toronto patients from the CCAC in Toronto but not to patients in the Niagara region, through the HNHB CCAC.

Alexis MacLean and her husband called me and told me that the Niagara branch of the CCAC told her that the wound care treatment she needs is simply not a service that is available in Niagara, and that she would have to rely on conventional dressing care that requires the use of antibiotics. She was also told that the problem with this treatment is that it will take substantially longer than the recommended medical treatment to heal her wound.

I’m sure the dedicated RNs and health care professionals at CCAC Niagara are aware of this inconsistency. However, geography, resources and funding seem to be the driving forces for what is available to the people of my riding, and that is simply wrong.

I would ask the Minister of Health to please review the situation and critically assess CCAC services in Ontario. Health care dollars need to be applied appropriately and consistently for the treatment of the people of Niagara using the CCAC, as well as other people in the province.

SENIORS’ INFORMATION EXPO

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: A few weeks ago, I held a 50-plus information expo in conjunction with my federal MP, working in a non-partisan way in the interests of our constituents. It was a wonderful expo, with lots of great presentations and information for everyone.

On the second day of the expo, our Central East LHIN CEO, Deb Hammons, provided the audience with a very detailed

summary of the investments the LHIN has made to improve the lives of seniors in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East and across the entire Central East LHIN. These investments include more assisted living spaces for high-risk seniors, with 24-7 on-call support; geriatric assessment and intervention network clinics for our largest hospitals; restorative care programs in our hospitals, so that seniors can regain their ability to care for themselves and return home safely; and the LHIN’s nurse practitioners supporting teams, which avert transfers to the ER by placing highly skilled nurse practitioners in the community to support their colleagues in local long-term-care homes.

My constituents appreciated this opportunity to hear from our local LHIN about the great work they are doing, in partnership with local health service providers, to improve and transform our health care.

I’m very pleased that the LHINs are being held accountable to provide these services and the investments they’re making, and that monitoring is being done.

I’m very proud to share this information today in the House.

BULLYING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: A year has passed, today, since Jamie Hubley passed away from suicide as a result of bullying. In many ways, things have changed in the last year, and in other ways they haven’t.

I think many of us read with sadness, in the last week, about Amanda Todd, a young British Columbian who took her life.

We also look to our federal colleagues, who are now addressing this very issue today in debate.

As Allan Hubley, Jamie’s father, said to me earlier today, it’s no longer sufficient just to pass laws and to fund further studies. We need to do something about this to give our children hope. We need to stand up. We need to speak.

It compels me to read into the public record today an

article from a reporter who used to live in Ottawa, who is now with the Globe and Mail. Carly Weeks says, “It’s time to recognize bullying is not about a headline or an isolated incident or a tragedy you heard on the news. It is a problem that affects all of us. There are bullies. There are victims. And there is everyone else watching from the sidelines. It’s time for us to take a long look in the mirror. It’s time to speak up, say something, and refuse to be the complicit bystander.”

I urge all members of this assembly to have conversations in their own community about what we can be doing as parents, as members of this assembly, as neighbours and as friends to simply not be bystanders, but to speak up and to stand up.

EVENTS IN KITCHENER–WATERLOO

Ms. Catherine Fife: This past week, I had the opportunity to celebrate the 44th Oktoberfest in the region of Waterloo, in addition to meeting with many constituents.

This famous festival continues to grow. It attracts thousands of visitors, creates new jobs and continues to generate economic activity throughout the region. At last count, over $21 million was brought into the region, in addition to $1.5 million towards not-for-profit organizations and charities. This annual celebration recognizes and shares Kitchener–Waterloo’s unique cultural heritage with Ontarians from across North America.

Each year, we also celebrate German Pioneers Day, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the foundations of our community and to remember who worked hard to help make our cities places to be proud of.

At the Oktoberfest parade, for instance, we raised over 15,000 pounds of food for the food bank—we shouldn’t need food banks, but we do—and we also raised over $15,000 that day.

I’m proud to be part of the Kitchener–Waterloo community and indeed proud also to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the city of Kitchener, founded as Berlin.

Kitchener has undergone many important changes, but its roots as a German community still show in outdoor markets, German clubs and our Oktoberfest celebrations.

Congratulations to the Oktoberfest planning committee and the over 2,000 volunteers who made this festival safe and successful for Ontarians and the broader community at large. Prost!

YOUTH SERVICES

Mrs. Laura Albanese: In response to the incidents of violence that took place this past summer in Toronto, our government has come forward with the implementation of a youth action plan. I was pleased to welcome the Minister of Children and Youth Services, Dr. Eric Hoskins, to my riding of York South–Weston last Thursday. He announced at our very own Jane Street Hub that the province will be adding 35 youth outreach workers across Ontario to help young people make positive choices and stay on track.

The youth action plan has sparked an ongoing dialogue with youth in our province. Just this past weekend, I participated in a round table organized by the Toronto Youth Cabinet, and in my riding I co-hosted a town hall meeting at the end of August, bringing together our three levels of government and special guest MPP Michael Coteau, community organizations and youth to discuss youth services and crime prevention.

I want to thank everyone who took time out of their busy schedules to come out and share their thoughts on how to keep our community safe by helping young people find jobs and succeed.

Mr. Speaker, every young person in our city and our province has the potential to contribute in a positive and productive manner in their community. Every young person must feel valued and be valued. We all have a responsibility to ensure that our youth have access to the right supports and the right opportunities so they can make posit