 It is now time for Question Period, the member from Nipissing. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Well, Premier, you got caught red-handed again. You were told about the precarious state of Ontario's finances on one day and went out the next and told the Bond Rating Agencies the complete opposite. In fact, you and your finance minister told the entire legislature the complete opposite of what you knew to be the facts. And now you're trying to block the release of public documents you know that show the real you. This is not the old liberals doing this. This is you, Premier. You preach openness and transparency, but as soon as we published public documents, you tried every trick in the book to block us. Premier, exactly what is it you don't want Ontarians to see? Can you say it, please? Can you say it, please? I'm beginning to hear already things that I don't like, and I'll stop it. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the Government House Leader is going to want to speak to the specifics of the documentation that the member opposite is referring to, but I just want to make a general statement, and that is that since I have been in this office, I have done everything in my power to question whether it's questions on from Leeds Bremble, from Warner. We opened up the process around the gas plants. We provided tens of thousands of documents to the committee. I've appeared before the committee twice. In terms of our fiscal situation, Mr. Speaker, the information that is provided in the fall economic statement speaks to the exact situation that we are in in Ontario. We were very open about the realities of our situation, including the revenue shortfall of $5 billion. So I hope that the member opposite has had a chance to read the fall economic statement. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Premier. Your government got caught again. So outcome the liberal buzzwords. The budget was recalibrated. No one an accounting speaker even knows what that means. Nonetheless, we're talking about a fixed point in time last spring. You and your cabinet were told the cold hard facts, and you turned around and told the bond agencies the complete opposite. Now they say the budget speaker will be aspirational. They aspire to have better numbers. Well, I'm sorry, Premier. The financial world doesn't want your aspirations. They want the real numbers. Premier, everything in your power to block the facts from getting out. What you continue to say, one thing and do the other is opposite. Thank you, Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, let's talk about some numbers, because the member opposite has said that he's interested in some numbers. The member from Renfrew-Nippelstein-Kembrook will come to order. Let's talk about some reality here, Mr. Speaker, what we're dealing with. He will come to order again. Exceeded our fiscal targets four years in a row, Mr. Speaker. We're the leanest government in Canada. If you look at the cost of programs, Mr. Speaker, we're the leanest government in Canada. We've created 446,000, more than 446,000 net new jobs since the recessionary low. Employment grows in Ontario by 95,700 jobs in 2013, Mr. Speaker. We've created 9,000 youth job placements through the Youth Employment Fund since September. From Matthew and Carlton will come to order. So, Mr. Speaker, you know, those are facts. What is happening? And the advice that we have gotten from officials, Mr. Speaker, is advice that we have acted on when we have released the fall economic statement. Those numbers and that advice was reflected in the fall economic statement. Thank you. Final supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Premier, let's look at the secret documents you tried to have quashed today. Let's see what you didn't want the public to see. You have a fiscal gap. First, it was $3.5 billion. Two days later, you were told, quote, your plans fall short of managing within allocations, quote. So you bumped up the gap to $3.6 billion with no plan on how to pay for it. Then you went to a caucus retreat to take decisive action on reducing this massive hole. Sadly, you spent a further $900 million that day bringing the hole in your budget to $4.5 billion. That's just the extra. That does not take into account the $10.1 billion deficit and the $7.2 billion deficit you're already forecasting. Now, Premier, I can see why you want these documents to be kept from the public. What else are you hiding from us? You see the post? Thank you. Premier, government. Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit disappointed in the honourable member across the way. I think he would realise, above anyone who is someone who has served on a number of committees that have had access to a certain government information, that there's a balance in this legislation. We've discussed this before in the House, Mr. Speaker, where committees have the right to information that right is provided to them. But there are also moments when there are private matters, where there are third-party issues, where there are documents that are of such a sensitive nature that the public versions are redacted. You know, Mr. Speaker, I quote from 2002, the Minister of Energy, Mr. Wilson, in regards to confidential information and a lease agreement between the Ontario Power generation and British Energy acknowledged at that time that disclosure of financial and commercial information from Ontario Power and I'll use his words, quote, make your prejudice significantly. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. New question. New question. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, if anyone should be standing up bringing a point of privilege, it should be us against every minister who attended the cabinet retreat, where it was disclosed you have a $4.5 million budget gap and then all stood in this house and told the rest of us, quote, we're on track to balance the budget. Premier, you knew what you were telling this legislature, the financial community and the public was exact opposite from the real financial picture. And when we presented these public documents, your first reaction was to attack me personally. Excuse me of releasing confidential documents, even though you know those documents were supplied by the clerk and our public documents last September and said, quote, I don't believe undermining people's credibility or attempting to do that is necessary. When did you change your tactics? Or was that always your aim? Premier. Government House Leader. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me continue the quote. 2002, the Minister of Energy, Mr. Walsh of the day, in regards to confidential information and a lease agreement between the Ontario power generation and British energy acknowledged at that time the disclosure of financial and commercial information from Ontario power in all uses were- Not from home, come to order. Regidus significantly the competitive position of the corporation or result in undue loss of gain to parties other than the corporation. Mr. Speaker, that's just one example when they were in power of how efforts were made to make sure that there was a balance between the committee's right to see documents and the fact of the matter that certain documents, Mr. Speaker, are of a sensitive nature. Those documents were provided to the committee, Mr. Speaker, but there was also an urging of the committee which the committee accepted, Mr. Speaker, to hold those documents in confidence without the express permission of the committee itself. Supplementary. Thank you to the Premier. I realize you're talking about 20-year-old documents, but why don't we look at a very recent one and see what you didn't want disclosed to the people of Ontario? The gravity of the situation, Ontario, comes to light in a note from your financial officials. They tell you that because you haven't implemented any changes in your spending habits, you now have to cut $6.9 billion. They say, quote, changes since 2012 budget shows a deterioration in the fiscal outlook beyond 2013-14. Premier, you want to keep this information from being made public, but you can't. These are public documents that you want watched. This tells me we've only scratched the surface. These are the ones that are already disclosed. There's something else in those files you don't want us to see. So I ask my fellow MPTs, lend us your staff to scour through these thousands of documents and discover what Kathleen Wim does not want us to see. Order. I will remind the member and all members again that we use titles or writings. Comrade Oster. Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to get this clear. The Honourable Member is standing up and quoting from documents that were provided by the Minister of Finance to the Committee, which are in the public domain, which are in the possession of all the members of the Committee, Mr. Speaker, and he's standing here in the Legislature and saying, why do we not give him the documents? Mr. Speaker, we gave the documents. The member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke will come to order and the member from Oxford will come to order. Mr. Speaker, the best estimate we have is that there have been over 2.6 million documents provided to various committees by this Government. And Mr. Speaker, the phishing expeditions of the Opposition have cost tens of thousands of dollars in staff time, have tied up the bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker, but we recognize they're right for those documents and we have provided them, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question. Final supplementary. Yes, we have the documents and you're trying to stop us from releasing them. You continue to use the buzzword aspirational. Let's see what the Secretary of Cabinet told you in one of these documents. Quote, the plan to continue reducing spending beyond 2015-16 is largely aspirational in nature rather than backed up and measures to get us there. So now we know what aspirational means. We'd love this to happen. We just have absolutely no idea and you attempt to drag me through the mud to distract from the fact that you have no plan for the 600,000 minimum. Mr. Speaker, members should know the Oscar season was a few weeks ago. I mean, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have provided thousands and thousands of pages of documents to that committee, Mr. Speaker. Those documents have been made public. They are available for discussion and debate here in the legislature. At the time, Mr. Speaker. That's enough. Yeah, I did. I caught you. And you can look away all you want. Mr. Speaker, at that time, the committee of which the opposition has a majority on it decided that certain documents, certain parts of documents which are at sensitive nature should remain confidential unless the committee itself decided otherwise, Mr. Speaker. That was the committee's decision, Mr. Speaker. The documents that he has received, Mr. Speaker, that he's talking about today, Mr. Speaker, and the public domain, the other documents that will be part of a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you would agree, will be dealt with later in today's session. Thank you. New question. Later in the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. For the last few weeks, we've been putting forward positive plans to clean up the mess in our electricity system to help small business and job creators. Yesterday, the Premier wouldn't even confirm what current government policy is when it comes to her planned tax cuts for the wealthy. Why can't the Premier answer basic questions about her fiscal plan, Speaker? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I think the leader of the third party for the question, what I said yesterday was that we will be bringing our budget forward. There will be information obviously laid out, Mr. Speaker, about how we are going to move forward to make sure that we meet the needs of the people in the province. Part of that, Mr. Speaker, is taking costs out of the electricity system. And, you know, we have a long-term energy plan, Mr. Speaker, that speaks to just that. It speaks to having a reliable energy plan in the province, Mr. Speaker. Something which we have not heard come forward from the NDP. In fact, all we've heard from the NDP on energy is that they don't agree with any of the initiatives that we've taken. They don't agree with nuclear. They don't agree with green energy. They don't agree with any of it, Mr. Speaker. But what they would do, we have absolutely no idea. So we have a long-term energy plan. We will be bringing the budget forward, Mr. Speaker. And in the meantime, I look forward to any conversation that the leader would like to have. New supplementary. Speaker, the Liberal plan seems to be changing day by day. The party that brought us the HIST and Sky High Hydroweights is suddenly concerned about the middle-class squeeze. The Premier said she had no choice to ask the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship come to order. The HIST is suddenly scrambling to back away from the middle-classes and universities. Come to order. Would the Premier agree with the following statement? Liberals have very strong principles. And if you don't like them, they can change. Bring it. Mr. Speaker, well, I don't have the Marks Brothers response to that, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was one of the Marks Brothers who has a paraphrase. Mr. Speaker, we know and have known all along that the middle-class is the backbone of the economy. We know that, Mr. Speaker. That's why we put the 30% off-tuition brand in place, Mr. Speaker. That's why we have been working so hard to make sure that costs like electricity are managed and that there are plans in place to help people and programs in place to help people deal with those costs, Mr. Speaker. So what I said last week about the decisions around how we will raise revenue for the transit fund, Mr. Speaker, I simply took some options off the table. We will still bring forward a transit plan, Mr. Speaker. There will be a transparent fund that will provide for the building of transit into the future. What the leader of the third party is not saying is that she does not support and has not put forward any ideas about how we would actually build transit into the future, Mr. Speaker. We're committed to doing that. We will bring forward our plan in the budget. I think it would be consistent with the history of the NDP if they actually supported the building of transit and transportation in this province, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, families feeling squeezed in tough times are looking for a government to focus on creating jobs, making life more affordable and to respect the money that they send to Queen's Park. Instead, they see a Liberal government scrambling to distance themselves from their own policies while the same old status quo rolls on. Does the Premier really think that that's good enough, Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I really think that it's a bit rich for the leader of the third party to talk to me about distancing myself from policies when unrecognizable across the floor is anything that would resemble the NDP that I have known in the town and support transit building. Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My next question is for the Premier. Although I find it ironic, this is the government that cancelled the ONTC. Some achievable, affordable, concrete plans to make life better for people and to create jobs for them. Job-reason tax credit is a simple way we can reward the companies that are putting people to work, not the ones that are shipping jobs away. It's working in other jurisdictions and the Obama administration thinks it's going to work too. Why is the government more interested in defending the status quo than trying to create new jobs with something new? Thank you, Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I am absolutely not in favor of the status quo. In fact, I'm very impatient about our future, Mr. Speaker, which is why I want to move on making the investments that are necessary. And I am looking for, and we are working with groups of people around the province and we are putting forward ideas that are going to make life better, including integrated transportation planning. And, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party neglected to mention that on the ONTC we have put together a group. We are working to make sure that there is a plan to turn, Mr. Speaker, and I think the leader of the third party knows that. Mr. Speaker, we are going to work with ideas that are feasible, but I would ask the leader of the third party what would be the cost of the credit that she's putting forward? Thank you. Is it for every job in the province, Mr. Speaker? I think she hasn't done her homework on that, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary? Well, Speaker, I'm going to try again with another one of our plans. Our broken electricity system is driving up bills and it's driving businesses out of Ontario. In fact, American cities are trying to entice Ontario businesses with cheaper electricity. And the worst part is, it's our electricity. The people of Ontario subsidize electricity exports to the U.S. and the U.S. uses those discount prices to lure our jobs away. We've put forward a concrete plan to stop exporting hydro at a discount rate. Why is the government more interested in defending the status quo than trying something new to create jobs? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, and I will speak to the specifics of the energy issue, but I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that as the NDP leader has done for a number of weeks now, she is pulling individual issues out of the air, Mr. Speaker. We are working to address the concerns of the people of the Province of Ontario in context, Mr. Speaker, in a coherent way. So having a long-term energy plan, Mr. Speaker, is that kind of coherence. You can't just deal with issues on the one off. Supporting business, Mr. Speaker, making sure that people have jobs. Those have to have coherent plans. So in fact, this NDP plan, which isn't a plan, it's just a single initiative, Mr. Speaker, would actually drive electricity bills up. What the NDP wants to do is to end electricity exports that save ratepayers $300 million a year. Well, we're not going to do that, Mr. Speaker, but if you want to bring forward a plan that's part of a broader coherent strategy, we'd be happy to look at that. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, people see liberals scrambling to defend sky-high CEO salaries at bloated hydro agencies, selling discount electricity to the U.S. and sticking families with the bill, opening loopholes for CEOs that can get the HST off their entertainment expenses and scrambling to back away from some of their own plans. What they don't see is a plan to put their priorities first and create and protect good jobs. Why is this government more interested in defending the status quo that's not working than trying something new to create jobs? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So, on all of those fronts, whether it's job creation, Mr. Speaker, or whether it's energy, Mr. Speaker, we are putting in place, as I said, coherent plans that have a number of aspects to them. So if we talk about energy, we are in our long-term energy plan. We talk about the generation of electricity over the next decades, Mr. Speaker. We talk about taking costs out of the system so that, for example, we won't move ahead to build new nuclear because that's $15 billion, Mr. Speaker, that it's not necessary to spend. On the job creation strategy, Mr. Speaker, we need to make investments in training and skills. We need to make investments in infrastructure, including transit and transportation, Mr. Speaker, and we need to support businesses that are ready to expand or bring their business to Ontario. We have to have that kind of coherent planning. We can't be on us as the NDP is proposing, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. A few moments ago, your government house leader threatened to censor or tried to censor our finance critic for revealing in public documents you have a $4.5 billion hole in your so-called aspirational budget. That tactic, the one that you're trying to employ closely resembles the one that Dalton McGinty did over the two cancelled gas plants. It's very difficult for Ontarians to trust you when you say one thing in the back rooms and another thing here in the assembly. Premier, we want to know from you what's it going to take for you to come clean on the state of Ontario's economy? A third OPP investigation. Thank you. Thank you. I regrettably, the member from Renfrew Nipissing Pembroke is warned. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's disappointing, but let's just go with the facts of what's happened here, Mr. Speaker. A committee of the legislature as is its right as for documents in this case from the Ministry of Finance that they were provided. The committee itself, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier of which the opposition is the majority decided that certain documents that were of a confidential nature that had been identified by the Ministry of Finance should remain confidential until the committee decided. Mr. Speaker, that is the issue. My understanding is that you will be hearing a point of privilege on this a little bit later, Mr. Speaker. But once again, Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of documents were provided to that committee as requested, the subject of discussion and debate, and over 2 million documents, Mr. Speaker, were actually decided to committees. That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation and the experience that she's put forward. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the facts are my finance critic, Vic Fidelli has the information. He found a $4.5 billion in the dollar hole. He has the documents and you're trying to censor him. The public has these documents and you're trying to censor a member of the opposition for exposing this government for and canceled gas plants that we've seen so they could save seats. This Premier would cling to power. Is will she come clean and tell the province exactly the practices they're going to employ? We had a Premier last night in this nation over a $45,000 expense case. Now she has a $4.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, again, the majority on that committee, Mr. Speaker, is the opposition of that committee decided to keep certain documents confidential and there will be a moment later today in which this matter can be looked at by privilege, Mr. Speaker, but it's a little rich coming from that side of the house when they want to talk about committees and gas plants, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues back here have reminded me, Mr. Speaker, when are we going to see the conservative candidates come forward and leave the committee? Who wants to talk about their promises during the last election to cancel the gas plants? To come forward and talk about the funding analysis that they've done, Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about... The member from Prince Edward Hastings is warned. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order. Mr. Speaker, there's any party hiding things before a committee? It's the PC party across the way and what's in front of the Justice Committee. The member from Timings, Jr., is to be... My question is to the premier less than two weeks ago, you stood in your government caucus room in a press conference saying that you represented change and that you were going to bring transparency and accountability to this province. You may not be applauding at the end but the next day, what do you do as you appoint Sandra Puputela as the Chair of Hydro? Can you tell me how that is different from what has happened in the past in a cronyism that we saw from the McGinty government before you? Premier? Minister of Energy. That question has been asked on several occasions. That question has been raised. Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same. We had two chairs of two of our agencies, Mr. Speaker, who had been in office for ten years and we decided we were going to replace two chairs. Through the environment? With respect to the chair that has been referred to by the member of the third party, she has served as a public servant for 17 years, Mr. Speaker. In this house, she has served as a minister of three or four different portfolios in government. She has tremendous credibility. She understands the system. She understands budgeting. She understands sensitivity to the public, Mr. Speaker. We could not have chosen a more rational candidate. Supplementary. Listen, this is a simple question that liberals are appointing their friends to a political office in order to get money. Listen, if it was just Sandra Puputela, we would say, oh well, it's a one-off. But you take a look at who you've appointed. You've called Brian to a very nice board with a very nice salary. You've appointed Maria Van Bommel to another board with a very nice salary. You've appointed your transition team leader, Madame Smith, to Washington just to save you. So tell us, how is the win government any different than any other liberal administration when it comes to appointing their friends to high places on the taxpayers' dime? Mr. Speaker, I'd like to throw a few names out for the members. Let's talk about Francis Lincoln. Let's talk about Albert Buchanan. Let's talk about Joe Panteloni. Let's talk about Bernard Lord, former Premier of New Brunswick, who was also appointed the same time as the chair of Hydro One, Mr. Speaker. We have been meticulous and being a brother of the political appointees, Mr. Speaker, and we have nothing to be embarrassed about. Thank you. Your question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Civil Affairs, the Honourable Michael Cotto. The number one destination in Canada for newcomers. This remains true despite representations otherwise from the party opposite. New comers to this province speaker by and large have the post-secondary education, the on-the-job skills, most of all the drive to succeed in their chosen careers. That's the creation of our immigration strategy in 2012 and why we have prioritized the licensure of international trained professionals. In this regard, the government has introduced the Ontario Immigration Act, an important piece of legislation. My question speaker is this. How will the Ontario Immigration Act, Bill 161, strengthen our efforts to ensure that highly skilled newcomers such as physicians and engineers find positions in their fields? Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the member for the question. I'd also like to acknowledge that today's the beginning of Noru's. So anyone who's celebrating that wonderful ancient celebration, all the best. It gives me great pleasure to talk about Ontario's Immigration Act, Bill 161, and I'm encouraged by the positive feedback that I've heard in this legislature in debate. Mr. Speaker, this bill will do many great things and current and prospective newcomers here to the province of Ontario. Like the member asking the question stated, helping newcomers find the right type of job that matches their skills is a priority of this government. If Bill 161 is passed, it will amend the Regulated Health Professional Act to provide timely decision-making regarding registration application and access to records by applicants in healthcare professions. These measures are the recommendations from the Fairness Commissioner back in 2013. But I'd also like to highlight that our government will continue to invest in the Bridge Trading Program. We made a commitment of $63 million this week over the next few years. Noru's, Mubarak, to you also, Minister, and thanks for the response of the various measures that you've outlined, which I know will be appreciated widely, but not only across Ontario, but in my own writing, Avitopico North. Speaker, the Ontario's Provincial Nominee Program was designed to nominate workers who address skill gaps that employers have identified. Last year, 86% of businesses benefited from their nominees, including increased revenues, new contracts, and new customers. Recognizing this program's success, the Feds recently increased our nomination targets from 1,300 nominees to 2,500. This, of course, is good news, but the changing federal immigration climate is precarious. Over the next few years there will be implementation of the Interest Model, which will radically change Ontario immigration. Speaker, my question is this. How will Bill 161 better configure our Provincial Nominee Program so that we can bring in new customers? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the member again for his excellent question. Mr. Speaker, the members correct. Our Provincial Nominee Program is making a difference in four Ontario businesses that have highly specific skills to fill. The member is also correct in stating that the federal government intends to make massive changes to the immigration system here in the province of Ontario and throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, Ontario cannot afford to be left behind. We need to take steps to ensure that we chart our own course here in the province of Ontario. And Bill 161, if passed, would position Ontario to be a full partner in immigration with the federal government, giving Ontario a framework in which to design, deliver, and manage a larger selection of our programs in regards to immigration. The legislation would allow Ontario to have similar powers to that of the federal government, helping protect our program against fraud and misuse. Ontario's committed to increasing economic immigration to meet the needs of our knowledge-based autonomy. Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation would ensure that Ontario has a structure, the structures in terms of... Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. New question, the member for the political grade. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Premier, on March 3rd, in a reference to funding for the Cystic Fibrosis Drug Coladico for 12-year-old Maddie Vanstool, you told this legislature, and I quote, we're going to push to expedite the process and that you will, quote, keep her and her family in the loop. In fact, when you and your health minister met with Maddie and her mum that morning, you promised that you would provide them with biweekly updates to advise them as to what was happening concerning negotiations with the company Vertex and the Pan-Canadian Pricing Alliance. It's been over two and a half weeks now, Premier, and Maddie and her mum have heard absolutely nothing from you or your government. In fact, they haven't even got a response to the many emails that they've sent to you. Since you won't respond to her on your own, like you promised, let me ask you publicly, what have you done to expedite the process? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Health will answer to the specifics on the supplementary, but I want the member opposite to know that as recently as yesterday, I asked my staff in my daily senior staff meeting, I asked yesterday whether the VanStone family had been kept in the loop and wanted to make sure that that communication was happening, so if it's not the member opposite to know that I asked that question and I am going to make sure that they get the information that they need. I can assure you that Beth VanStone, Maddie's mother tells us that that communications is not happening, Premier. Premier 15 countries, including England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the United States, and even Greece, which is an unemployment rate, have all found the necessary resources to cover the cost of Kaleidiko, and they have agreements in place with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, the company that makes the drug, so I ask you again, how long is your government willing to let Maddie VanStone and other children with cystic fibrosis suffer before you actually do something? How many more bake sales, dog walks, lemonade stands, do the children of Beaton and Bradford have to survive? Do we tell these children to continue, or can we finally say to them that your government values Maddie's life and will help to save it? Thank you, Premier. Mr. of Health and long-term care. Mr. of Health and long-term care. Thank you, Speaker, and I'm pleased to tell the member opposite that a member of my staff actually has already spoken with Maddie's mom earlier today, so we are committed to having that conversation. We are committed to reading an article written by Andre Picard in the Globe and Mail recently, and he talked with some thoughtfulness about the process of negotiating prices with drug companies. I have to say we are continuing that work. I've spoken to the Minister of Health in Alberta. We are asking Vertex, the manufacturer based in the United States to have fair proposals that are fair proposals, Speaker. We will continue to fight, but if the member opposite is suggesting that we pay whatever price those pharmaceutical companies ask us to pay, I have to say I completely disagree with him, and indeed he disagrees with himself, because when he was Health Minister he was in the very position that I am in now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister of Finance. Minister according to data provided by M-PAC on 240 houses in an area in and around Parkdale High Park property assessments for modest homes where typical middle class families live are being over assessed. For example, a house on Campbell avenue sold for 377,000, while M-PAC was assessed for 537,000. It was assessed 0.9% over market value. This is another example of how this government is hitting middle-class families with taxes and fees. We've seen evidence in Parkdale High Park, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister, is this a case throughout all of Ontario? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are very cognizant of the requirement to support our middle class and ensure that people, especially those that are finding it tough to afford to do the things that matter for their families. We also know that MPAC, which is an arms-length organization which also includes working with the municipalities by way of making those assessments with regards to the mill rate, is affecting communities all over the province. As a result of the good work by my parliamentary assistant, Stephen Del Duca, we have reviewed MPAC and continue to do what's necessary to revise the processes to ensure fairness across the system. And we'll do just that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, the simple fact is it's not working. In just one small area of my riding, 20 modest homes were over-assessed, at least 240 homes throughout the area generally. Why is the Liberal government hitting middle-class families with unfair over-assessments? It's going on. It continues to go on now. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, I mean, it's not a fair comment, and I reject the premise, because there is an appeal process. The householders can go forward and try to find ways to revise their assessment, and that occurs all the time. And the member opposite knows that full well, so stop playing politics and help your constituents with the appeal. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Our government's economic plan has produced solid job numbers, and in February alone we gained 6,100 new jobs. Building on the 6,000 gained the month before. So our job plan is working, Mr. Speaker. Employment across the province is up by over 440,000 jobs from the recessionary low of 2009, and just last year employment rose by 95,000 jobs. And, Speaker, our government has made some tremendous strides throughout the province because of our successful regional economic development funds, and these investment speakers have actually impacted positively in my writing. Yesterday I had the privilege, Speaker, of hosting the Glen Gary Prescott Russell Day here at Queen's Park, and my constituents and my community leaders who were here know that there is a lot of economic growth happening across the province. So, Speaker, I'm just going to ask the Minister if he could update the House on how we're creating jobs and partnering with businesses to grow the economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member from Glen Gary Prescott Russell for that great question, and I enjoyed, as I know many of the members from both sides of the legislature enjoyed the Glen Gary Prescott Russell Day yesterday. Thank you to the member for helping to organize that wicked community. And the member's writing, like many writings in eastern Ontario, has benefited significantly from our Eastern Ontario Development Fund. And just last week, on Friday, I spent the whole day in the member's writing, and it was a wonderful opportunity to meet with many members of the community, including the business community and business leaders. And we announced three investments from the Eastern Ontario Development Fund, the one in Mullour, Alexandria Moulding, creating and retaining 353 jobs there at Montabello Packaging as well. Our investment there is helping the company create and retain 86 jobs and Scottedakis Goat Farm. We've partnered with this food processor to create and retain 110 jobs. Great companies in a great writing, in a great province, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for your commitment on job creation across the province of Ontario. I'm excited by the news of these significant investments in my writing, and I know that our government is working to spur growth through strategic partnerships with businesses. In addition to regional economic development, I know that this government has partnered and invested in other major companies as part of our plan for the long-term economic growth. I'm aware of the major Cisco investment that created and retained 3,700 jobs, which is also the single largest tech investment in our province's history. We also had a significant investment in Ford Canada and Oakville, and secured 2,800 jobs. This is great news for all Ontarians to take pride in, and our government has created the conditions for businesses to thrive and invest. Last week, a significant announcement and investment was made in jobs and in the people of my writing of Blengary Prescott Russell. Minister, please provide this House with an update on that specific announcement. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, thank you to the member for his question. Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Jobs and Investment Fund targets specifically it's targeted to attract strategic investments in innovative projects that will create high-value added jobs and support cluster development. And we announced one, an important one, last week in the members' writing at Ivaco Rolling Mills in LaRignau. This investment will help the company modernize their facility. It's part of the steel sector, Mr. Speaker, and it will increase their capacity to produce high-quality steel products. It's also going to make the plant much more energy efficient as well as reducing emissions and becoming a more sustainable operation. This is all good news for the community and the region. Our investment, Mr. Speaker, helped to create and sustain 450 jobs at that important location. The irony about this, Mr. Speaker, is that the official opposition, the party opposition, is not only opposed to Southwestern and Eastern Development Funds that resolve the good-paying jobs, but they continue to talk down business and investment in this great province. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy. On Friday, March 7, it was announced that the Stone Boat Community Wind Farm would be withdrawing its proposal to engage in a renewable energy project in my writing. While this developer made the right decision in withdrawing this project, I have been unable to get an answer from your ministry or the Ontario Power Authority about whether the FIT contract has also been cancelled. It's like playing a game of whack-a-mole. Where will this show up again? It's a moving target. The ministry will not respond to my questions from my office or requests from the community. I'm asking you directly today, has this FIT project been cancelled by the Ministry of Energy? Mr. Speaker, the member will know that our position is that we will not cancel existing contracts. That's very, very clear. The party office at Mr. Speaker has flip-flopped on this, Mr. Speaker. I think maybe somebody on that side should work in the shoe store, Mr. Speaker, because of experts on flip-flops. The latest flip-flop is the Million Jobs Act, Mr. Speaker, whereby they give the Minister of Energy the power to cancel existing contracts. That will expose us to litigation of $20 billion, Mr. Speaker. With respect to this particular contract and the other contracts in the area, the people who are proponents will have to meet all the conditions, including environmental conditions, and if they can't, they will fall by the wayside. We have one that has fallen by the wayside. We have to wait for the others to see whether they will be successful in the environmental assessment process. You know that I met with the Buddhist proponents. And we are very, very... Thank you, supplementary. Well, Minister, you did meet with them and you said you wouldn't make any approvals till you contact them. And then you made an approval without letting them know in December the last day of the Legislature. On March... You know, you keep saying that it's going to be illegal to cancel feed-in contracts with wind-powered developers. But on March 4th, I know that Wind Concerns Ontario released a letter to you referencing the decision in Trillium vs. Ontario 2013, which clearly states that governments are free to alter policies in the public industry. The $40 million Sham Sham Temple Buddhist retreat near Bethany is in jeopardy because of the noise that these wind-powered brands will produce. The Peterborough Airport and its flight schools are worried about safety because of the sighting of a turbine in a flight landing path. The City of Peterborough, the County of Peterborough, the City of Court, the Lakes, they've all said they don't want these wind turbines in their communities. Manvers, Winkins and thousands of communities said that you keep extending these contracts. You do have the help. So, Minister, why won't you listen to all these people in the public interest and cancel all those contracts? I'm going to serve the environment. Take it easy on her, Jim. Whenever there is a review of these, it's a very extensive review which is conducted. A number of ministries make comments to the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment has its officials conducting a review. There are onerous requirements on the part of the proponent to meet. There's even consultation in some cases where there's federal jurisdiction. When we talk about NAV Canada, there's being one of them. So, there is all kinds of international affairs in place. And, ultimately, in any of these cases, when any individual or group is dissatisfied with the decision that is rendered, that decision can go to a final review tribunal. Sometimes these even end up in court. But I want to assure the member there's always a very extensive review of all these. Thank you. Your question, leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. During the recent by-election, the Premier announced in February that the Ford Erie race track would stay open. In the meantime, the race track submitted a detailed business plan to the government in February. The deadline to pay their lease is April 1, less than two weeks away, and the track has no details as to whether the festival idea has been approved. They've received no money and no response from this government. Will the Premier keep her word and respond immediately to the Ford Erie business plan and ensure that the track has the funding that they need to operate? Thank you, Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I know that the leader of the third party will be very pleased to know that there's a meeting happening next week to finalize an agreement to make sure that there's a robust season for Ford Erie. And Mr. Speaker, I know that she will pass that along to any of the people who are concerned. We're committed to having that season at Ford Erie, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad that the meeting's going to happen next week. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I'm talking more than just a season. I'm talking about a future for the racetrack at Ford Erie. For almost two years, this government clipped-flopped on the Ford Erie racetrack. They don't seem to understand that businesses need stability to operate, asking the track for a business plan, and then not responding when the deadline to shut the doors is looming is just not acceptable. There are a thousand jobs at stake in Ford Erie. Will the Premier ensure that the Ford Erie racetrack stays open by providing the funding and long-term commitment that they need for more than just one season, but for a future of another hundred years at that track? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm talking about a five-year plan, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about $400 million that we are putting into the horse racing industry to make sure that we have those long-term plans, Mr. Speaker. But the reality is that all of the tracks are going to have to work to make sure that there are business plans in place, Mr. Speaker. These are businesses. We took out an unaccountable not a non-transparent program, Mr. Speaker, and we're putting in place a transparent process. We're investing in the horse racing industry to make sure that the tracks around the province, including Ford Erie, can be sustainable, Mr. Speaker. So I'm glad the meeting's happening next week. One of the issues has been a 2014 season. There will be a 2014 season. My hope is that we'll be able to have that long-term plan, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to seeing the results of the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister of tourism, culture, and sport. Minister, just last week you made an important funding announcement with the Canadian Sport Institute Ontario CSIO and a couple of our wonderful athletes at the University of Toronto. This is great news for my riding of Scarborough Guildwood as the CSIO will be housed at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus. As a legacy piece, the Pan Am Aquatic Centre and Field House will be a beautiful facility that's going to be used by the community and by our athletes for decades to come after the games are over. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please explain how this funding will benefit Ontario's athletes? Mr. Speaker, tourism, culture, sport. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you much for the question and I want to thank the member from Scarborough Guildwood for the question. The funding for CSIO is 8 million over three years that will purchase, specialise equipment and enhance and expand the current Ontario High Performance Sport Initiative programme, open a new facility and offer programmes and services and also increase space funding to support those operating and programming costs. Mr. Speaker, our government recognises the importance of supporting our high performance athletes and coaches. The 2015 Pan Parapan American Games only heightens our shared interest in that sport. Mr. Speaker, this is why we are committed to working with CSIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Minister, for that response. We can all agree that it's extremely important to support our high performance athletes and the coaches and organisations that train them. I know this firsthand because my brother has benefited from a successful career in professional sports. During your announcement, you also mentioned funding for two other programmes from your ministry. One of them you mentioned a couple weeks ago, Quest for Gold, and undoubtedly has proven successful given the recent results from our amazing Ontarians competing at the Olympics in Sochi. The other being the sport hosting fund, which will help deliver great sporting events to our province like the upcoming 2014 FIFA Under 20 Women's World Cup. Mr. Speaker, can he provide us with the details of this funding? Question. Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to continue our commitment to our high performance athletes and para athletes. For 2013-14, my ministry is providing a whopping 10 million from the Quest for Gold programme for a number of them who just returned from Sochi. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, the announcement last week also includes 2 million for our sport hosting fund from Celebrate Ontario, which will help host events like the upcoming 2014 World Junior Girls Golf Championship. Mr. Speaker, since 2006 we launched Ontario's International Amateur Sport Hosting Policy. Our government has provided a million to support 34 events. These investments encourage athletes and national sport organisations to consider Ontario as the province of choice to train and compete. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Finance, Ontario's colleges find themselves waiting once again to hear when your government will address the serious backlog of deferred maintenance issues at the province's existing buildings. This is a serious issue for every one of the colleges throughout the province and is also a long-standing problem. In 2010, the utter general said the deferred maintenance backlog is in the range of half to three quarters of a billion dollars. Most significantly the utter general said that about 70 million dollars of these maintenance and repairs are in the critical category. Minister, this involves safety. Ontario's colleges need to ensure that students are learning in a safe and effective environment. Can you assure us, Minister that your 2014 budget will finally address this critical issue? Thank you, Minister of Finance. Minister of Training and Colleges and Universities. Mr. Speaker, I gotta tell you I am astounded by that question coming from the party opposite. A party that cut and slashed our colleges and universities through their entire time in office. We on the other hand in stark contrast to their approach have put in place billions of dollars records amounts of investment in capital projects for colleges and universities across this province. In the next two years alone there's 800 million dollars to be spent in capital investments in our colleges and universities. Mr. Speaker, that's record amounts of funding. That deferred maintenance is an issue and Mr. Speaker, we're working hard with the sector to address it and coming from the party opposite that question is almost laughable. Back to the Minister of Finance. Last time I checked the Minister of Colleges Universities doesn't know what's in the budget. Last time I checked it's up to the Minister of Finance to do the budget of this province. Aside from what he said it was the Honourable General that I'm quoting his report from 2010 and the Minister of the day agreed with the Auditor. They agreed with the Auditor that nothing has been done. Four years and nothing has been done. Minister it isn't good enough to simply invest in new buildings. We must ensure that our existing colleges and their many campuses are effectively maintained and our students deserve nothing less than to learn in a safe environment. You stand in your place today and give our colleges a commitment that your 14 budget will finally and seriously address these much needed much needed repairs. We'll continue to address the capital challenges in our post-secondary sector but let me tell you what our students deserve. They deserve and they're getting a government that stands up for them when it comes to affordability. Our 30% off tuition program is funding 230,000 low and middle income students. That's a program that your party wants to cut and eliminate. 230,000 low and middle income students would have to find more dollars, $1,700 more a year to be able to fund their education. We're going to keep standing up for students. We're going to keep investing in our post-secondary institutions unlike you did will never leave them in the lurch that you left them in 10 years ago. Thank you. New question. My question is to the minister of natural resources. Today I rise to echo Sorry. Excuse me. Stop the clock. The member from Oakville will withdraw. Thank you. Echo concerns of my constituents as well as elected officials throughout the Niagara region. As the minister knows, conservation authorities have an important job preserving and protecting our land and waterways and water resources. Recently, the actions of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority have raised concerns. Their strategic plan shows a shift toward land acquisition disposal and development and my constituents and elected officials are telling me that property development seems more important than conservation by the NPCA. Does the minister share the concerns of the people of Welland and Niagara about this direction? Thank you. I am pleased to respond. I have received a letter today from the member from Welland so I am happy to review that and get back to the member. With respect to conservation authorities what I am pleased to report is that since 2003 our government has provided over $130 million to 36 different conservation authorities across the province and this year we are going to be providing $12 million as well. With respect to the governance of conservation authorities it establishes these organizations and the responsibility and make up of conservation authorities as the member knows is directed largely by elected representatives of municipalities. In fact, the board of directors they are responsible for making all staffing and hiring decisions with respect to the general manager and the administrative officer of the conservation authorities. I will have more to say in the supplementary speaker. Thank you. I urge the minister to look into this matter. Just yesterday the NPCA purchased a piece of land in Wayne Fleet with regional taxpayer dollars. That was rejected and deemed unsuitable by the Niagara Regional Council in 2012. The purchase of that land was conditional on Wayne Fleet cutting a developer a break and waving the townships 5% in lieu of parkland deal thousands of dollars for that municipality thousands of taxpayer dollars from the region. Our conservation authority needs to be focused on keeping water clean, preventing floods keeping our residents safe from natural hazards not cutting deals for developers. To the minister again, is he prepared to conduct a review or an audit of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority to ensure its meeting its mandate. Thank you minister. Thank you and to the member with respect to the accountability of conservation authorities across the province they are audited regularly. The funding that we do provide they are accountable for. The large majority of members on conservation authority boards are elected representatives from municipalities and perhaps some of these questions would be best directed to those municipalities in the regional areas. The reality is that those individuals that are on these boards are accountable to their municipal colleagues who are elected representatives as well. I'm happy to review this. Happy to look into this but those are independent boards and agencies that are responsible for the decisions that they make and are accountable to their local electorate. I have received an appropriate point of privilege and I'm prepared to hear that now. I will call upon the government house leader to make his presentation. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. You just noted I rise on a point of privilege which is in regard to question period on Tuesday March 18th, 2014. At that time the member from Nipissing disclosed the contents of a confidential committee document. This disclosure Mr. Speaker I would submit was a flagrant, an intentional breach of a November 26, 2013 motion of the standing committee on estimates which required that certain commercially sensitive and privileged documents became confidential. The release of confidential committee documents to the public without authorization from the committee I believe Mr. Speaker represents a serious breach and must attract strong sanction to defer future breaches. Now to go through the facts Mr. Speaker giving rise to contempt I begin with a statement in question period by the member. He made the following statement in a question to the minister of finance and I quote we also saw that you blacked out many emails labeling them commercially sensitive information. Well let's take a look at what you're covering over and he quotes from the document no funding for incremental compensation increases for new collective agreements salaries for designated groups frozen until 2007-18. This disclosure was done Mr. Speaker with full knowledge that the information was intended to remain confidential and despite the clear direction from the estimates committee that the information not be made public and I'd like to spend a few minutes on the estimates committee in the direction they gave. First of all the statement read by Mr. Fidelli was contained in a document that was disclosed by the ministry of finance in response to the following June 11, 2013 motion of the estimates committee and I quote I move that the estimates request from the ministry of finance cabinet office and office of the budget and treasury board the following documentation all fiscal journals produced for treasury board management board of cabinet between April 1, 2013 and June 11, 2013 medium and long-term expense outlooks containing fiscal years 2015-16 2016-17 and 2017-18 any documents stated 2013 containing consideration of user fees and or revenue generating fees, taxes or tolls all fiscal and economic update presentations and or slide decks provided to cabinet. On October 15, 2013 the ministry of finance provided the committee with an unprecedented number of privileged and commercially sensitive documents that were responsive to this motion in light of the sensitive nature of the disclosure the ministry provided to the committee. One set was redacted for privileged and commercially sensitive information and one set contained unredacted copies of the documents which were not to be made public. On November 26, 2013 the committee passed a motion which required unredacted documents to be kept confidential and the committee to notify the ministry of finance in advance should the committee decide to make the unredacted documents public and I quote again your subcommittee and I quote from the decision of the committee. Your subcommittee on committee business meant on Tuesday October 29, 2013 and Thursday November 7, 2013 to consider the method of proceeding with the information received through the ministry of finance pursuant to the June 11, 2013 motion adopted in committee during review of the 2013-14 estimates of the ministry of finance and recommends the following one that the committee accepts the information received from the ministry of finance that are responsive to parts one, two and four of the motion two that one electronic copy of all redacted and unredacted documents received be provided to each caucus and that the caucuses keep the unredacted documents confidential three that the ministry of finance be notified in advance should the committee decide to make the unredacted documents public and the unredacted documents responsive to part two of the motion be made public in five that the subcommittee meet when the information responsive to part three of the motion is received by the committee. Mr. Speaker disclosure of confidential committee information is a breach of privilege May 20, 2010 the speaker commented on the nature of confidentiality in committee stating and I quote a parliamentary committee is a creature of this house subservient to the recommendations of this house unable to report only to this house an unauthorized premature release of the committee report or in camera proceeding has indeed been found on certain occasions in the legislature and others to be a prima facie breach of the privileges of the legislature release of commercially sensitive information is serious it puts negotiations at risk it creates an unstable business environment and it undermines the trust of third parties whose records Mr. Speaker the question has been raised why are we raising this in the house and not the committee as members may be aware estimates committee is not currently sitting pursuant to standing order 63 A of the standing orders this statement in question Mr. Speaker I would also remind members was made in the house and therefore I contend should be dealt with in the house Mr. Speaker there were questions raised in question period this morning of whether an unredacted version of this document exists and whether this is a cure for contempt and although as I say Mr. Speaker that question may be out there of whether there is a unredacted separate document it is clear from the members own statement that he knew that the information was intended to be kept confidential it was a clearly redacted in the copy that the it was clearly redacted Mr. Speaker in the copy that the member read to us it is clear that the information was intended to the committee and that the member was aware the member from Nipissing I remind you Mr. Speaker specifically noted that the information he read had been blacked out he specifically stated that information had been blacked out on the basis of commercial sensitivity before quoting directly from the redacted portion of the document the member from Nipissing said and again I quote let's take a look at what you were covering over closed quote if there was any uncertainty about whether the information was confidential and how it should have been dealt with I think the member should have taken the matter to the committee now due to the large number of documents disclosed it is possible that human error may occur and information that was intended to be redacted is not in one or more documents this was specifically noted Mr. Speaker by the Deputy Minister of Finance in his cover letter which accompanied the ministry's production in response to this motion and I quote please note that every effort has been made including the retention of an outside law firm specializing on document disclosure to identify commercially sensitive information however given the volume and scope of material being included in the time period to produce these records the ministry cannot guarantee that all commercially sensitive information has been redacted Mr. Speaker another point that has been raised is about the time of me raising this I would argue that this issue was raised at the first opportunity it did take a bit of time Mr. Speaker due to the voluminous number of records provided by the Ministry of Finance in response to the committee's request for information time was needed to review the records and identify the information referred to by the member so Mr. Speaker I just want to summarize we are a government which has prided itself on our openness we have put forward millions of records across a number of committees but Mr. Speaker what we are talking about today Mr. Speaker is that the member from Nipissing improperly release documents that the committee including members from his own caucus deemed to be commercially sensitive Mr. Speaker the committee was a member from the Pian Carlton will come to order Mr. Speaker the committee was unanimous in voting to keep commercially sensitive documents confidential they did this because releasing them could negatively impact our business environment and job creation or hurt taxpayers Mr. Speaker we released thousands of documents intending them to make them public but that doesn't apply to those documents that could hurt private commercial interests or taxpayers the fact of the matter is Mr. Speaker if the honourable member had any questions about those documents he had every right to go back to refer to the committee motion which made it very clear that they should be kept confidential unless the committee decided elsewhere so Mr. Speaker I therefore move that the matter of the speakers finding of a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the disclosure of confidential information by the member for Nipissing or that you hear the matter obviously sorry I won't go there Mr. Speaker I ask Mr. Speaker for you to refer the matter and of course if you were to roll in the positive I'd be in a position to refer to a specific committee before I seek response first of all thank you for withdrawing that motion would not be appropriate and I thank the member for his submission and I was going to say right up until the last second thank you to all the members for their important and collegial response to this serious issue and I would expect it to continue and for those that started to stop so now I'm prepared to hear another point of order on the same issue from the member from the opposition House Leader thank you Mr. Speaker first of all I will be very brief because the honourable member from Nipissing Mr. Fidelli can certainly speak for himself in this matter nothing has happened that's in any way of breach of the trust of the committee or the confidentiality of the committee the documents as you'll clearly see and I have the CD here the redacted documents that Mr. Fidelli made public were in the public domain the honourable House Leader for the government said that this afternoon in question period when he said Mr. Speaker I'm trying to get this clear the honourable member is standing up and quoting from documents that were provided by the ministry of finance to the committee which are in the public domain which are in the possession of all members of the committee and he standing here in the legislature and saying we did not give him the documents or give them the documents so secondly just because he's mentioned the points this is all contained in in our submission previously to you Mr. Speaker but we do question the fact that just because the estimates committee isn't sitting that they can't deal with this matter they should be called back to deal with this matter as per our standing orders that's you tried this trick during gas plants and said the committee wasn't sitting right at the very beginning when we brought the contempt motion forward and that didn't hold water then and it shouldn't hold water in this case secondly we do question although it's a more minor point I would agree with House Leader the timeliness of this this beginning of this incident a so-called incident began quite a few days ago and it's only now that they're bringing it forward having said that Mr. Speaker it is clear to anyone that the documents that Mr. Pidelli put forward came from either the CD or physically from the box that everybody in the committee room knew were the public documents now you guys messed up by setting four different versions of one document you redacted as Mr. Pidelli will show you two lines of four lines in one document you didn't redact anything in another document you redact a different line in a third document this is all the same page just four different times shows your government you can't even do a cover-up properly excuse me order please order please order please order please the member will withdraw withdraw Mr. Speaker and then there's another copy of the fourth copy of the document where two other lines redacted so you know this is a smear campaign it is below the respectability that I have respect I have for the government house leader on many other matters he is the person that's supposed to be in charge of the open government project that this government apparently is going forward on the fact that he would do this to my colleague is shameful and you're just simply trying to distract the public from the fact that Mr. Fidelli is a better finance minister than your finance minister will ever be he through diligent work of thousands of documents has found that excuse me I'm trying to be as lenient as possible but I'm also going to ask you to stay directed to the specific of this issue please thank you well I get a little emotional Mr. Speaker when they pull this nonsense to distract the public from the fact that they can't be honest with the public about the finances of this province but having said that Mr. Speaker I've dealt with some of the technical arguments that the Honorable House Leader has brought forward and I know Mr. Fidelli would like to opportunity to make his presentation thank you House Leader Mr. Speaker just as from New Democrats as the House Leader I want to make a couple of points here first of all the Honorable House Leader for the government the Estimates Committee is not sitting that is not the case the Estimates Committee actually did sit two weeks ago they're still able to meet because there's some procedural matters that they still have to deal with so I think you should correct his record in fact Estimates is still in session and this could have been brought to Estimates the second thing that I would say and I understand the government's concern in regards to them feeling sensitive at this particular time within their mandate they're feeling a little bit concerned about considering what's going on politically in this province and I understand they want to be able to try to do this but I got to say the following we have seen an unprecedented number the government is right we have seen an unprecedented number of documents that have been released to various committees of this assembly that is true but we would also have seen that the government at numerous times tried to say that certain governments are private and confidential in camera with the committee but when then committee members looked at the documents they weren't commercially sensitive they were politically embarrassing that was the difference so the government in this particular case is making the argument that these were documents that were commercially sensitive all I'm saying for the record Mr. Speaker there's been lots of examples in committee over the last two and a half years where documents were attempted by the government that were made to be in camera so that they would not be released supposedly because they're commercially sensitive where in fact they were not so I would just say to the government and to your deliberation on that in order to keep that into account I understand what the government House Leader arises but I think the point has also been made that the same document exists both in the just to make it clear documents are given to the committee and then the committee has to vote if those documents are made public the same documents as I understand that are being referred to that are supposedly the ones that are in camera that can't be released are actually in the public documents as well so I think you need to look at both of those when you're making your decision about is this in fact the case of contempt Thank you Thank you Speaker I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to the minister's point of privilege that he sent to you on March 19th 2014 the point of privilege revolves around his accusation that I released confidential documents from the standing committee on estimates as you read in the minister's submission the standing committee on estimates requested the documents on June 11th 2013 from the ministry of finance once the documents were received by the committee the committee passed a motion that said quote one electronic copy of all redacted and unredacted documents received be provided to each caucus it goes on to say that unredacted documents were to remain confidential and redacted documents were to be made public period to your attention subsection 4 of the November 26th motion which states and I quote that the redacted documents responsive to part 2 of the motion be made public period quote May I have the disk Speaker this is precisely and only where the information I released was sourced from the redacted files which were already made public the disk here has two sides confidential and confidential unredacted and redacted part 2 is the area and only the area which I drew from this is why Mr. Malloy the minister is categorically false in his assertion of releasing confidential information from an unredacted document I did no such thing I only released information that the committee had already released into the public domain again only from that file I have attached in my letter to you speaker 4 different print screens to my submission and I will ask that you'll notice at the top left hand of each of these screen captures it says redacted box redacted box redacted box and again the redacted documents of part 2 be made public so again I'm only dealing with public documents you will notice also that box they're from box 1 box 4 and box 7 all of that is included on the disk you will also note that I have included the page number for you to see page 373 of page 2,970 page 2,736 out of 3,171 page 2,849 out of possible 3,179 and page 185 of 2,303 pages again all of that is attached in my document in each of these public domain redacted documents which were per the committee's November 26th motion you will clearly see that the quote cited by the minister in his submission is redacted in two of the attached documents but not redacted in box 4 or box 7 therefore they are accessible in the public domain again if I may repeat what the house leader of the third party said there's nothing commercially sensitive about these speakers they're just politically explosive so let me illustrate again in one of the versions of the document on the redacted which are public domain somebody has redacted three different paragraphs in another version of it somewhere else in the document somebody has redacted the first and last but not all the ones in the middle in another version somebody redacted the second and the last not the first in the middle but this person here just left it all unredacted this is the document that I am going from this is in the redacted file totally in the public domain that anybody in the media who takes the disk can access just as easily as I did speaker that's the evidence that I have specifically to the documents and where I sourced them only sourced from public domain documents that the committee has already released now speaker I would like to draw your attention to the general rule regarding point of privileges stemming from the matters in the committee Mr. Moloy's issue is strictly related to the release of documents that were confidential to the committee in fact all of Mr. Moloy's references and precedents relate to the committee however O'Brien and Bask are categorical when discussing the proper procedures about matters of privilege related to committee they state that quote speakers have consistently ruled that except in the most extreme situations they will only hear questions of privilege arising from the committee proceedings upon presentations of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member they also point to a ruling from considering the disclosure of confidential draft committee report in that case speaker Millican ruled that quote in the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue it is virtually impossible for the chair to make any judgment as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of privilege with regard to such charges therefore the issue should not have even come to the floor of this legislature because the government house leader has ignored parliamentary tradition and procedure by failing to raise lastly I take issue with the timeliness of Mr. Malloy's point of privilege parliamentary authority state that quote a member must satisfy the speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the house as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation when a member has not fulfilled this important requirement the speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege by the time Mr. Malloy will have raised the issue in the house it will have been over 48 hours after the question that has raised their ire in fact the government house leader and his staff had ample opportunity to review the instant answer check the documents because they are searchable all of his staff all his staff had to do was copy my quote and search the different files they would have found them in the files that are already disclosed in the public domain speaker there's no reason why Mr. Malloy needed 30 hours to bring their point of privilege to your attention on any points of privilege brought forward you should notice expeditiously and introduce them on the next session Mr. Malloy had time to introduce his point of privilege yesterday but he waited and did not introduce the point of privilege at as early as possible opportunity I ask that you find the government house leader has not fulfilled the requirement and rule against this point of privilege in conclusion speaker I must say and this is not the first time I find it deplorable that the government house leader has brought this frivolous point of privilege forward to distract from the context of the documents it is an attempt to met damage my good standing as an MPP and my reputation as you can see I only released redacted documents that were in the public domain already I followed the committee's instructions and have not released any documents that were marked as confidential thank you Mr. Mayor I listened carefully to the what you have to indicate that point of order on the same issue the member from Cambridge Mr. Speaker I'm not going to take too much more time on this particular issue but I do want to draw attention to a few things and at the outset I want to state uncategorically that the member for nipissing is a champion for truth I wanted this legislature and you Mr. Speaker what has transpired with that committee as has been noted in the government's submission that the initial request for documentation came on June 11th of 2013 through a motion that motion wasn't fully complied with until just a few weeks ago Mr. Speaker I think that's important to note because we have been going through this process for nearly for nearly a year to extract the documents and to release the documents in appropriate manner and there was agreement on the approach that we were taking to do that and I state that Mr. Speaker because it speaks to the fact that there was ample time to actually go through and vet all those documents it's taken almost 10 months to get them fully out in the public domain already there shouldn't be the kinds of inconsistencies that have been very evident in the process of disclosure of this document so I want to state Mr. Speaker that we have to understand that this is a very sensitive file I understand that there are certain reasons why some documents need to be redacted we have complied with that we have followed those reasons and we have respected the wishes of the government to keep those unredacted documents confidential we have respected that we have complied with it in due course Mr. Speaker that during the course of committee we learned that the government and the public service has gone through a process for document disclosure on the basis of all the documents that we have requested in this committee in this legislature and this committee and the various committees of this legislature they are now contracting an outside firm law firm to go through and vet all these documents that's what they are doing and in the process of doing that they are obviously doing things vetted they are trying to standardize their approach for document disclosure and document release and that's something that we are fully expected to comply with so if there is an issue that a document was unredacted that should have been redacted or vice versa the responsibility rests for the people who are doing the redactions not for the member from NIPASA and so I want you to be very clear Mr. Speaker that if there is an issue here with documents that weren't completely redacted the government should take that up with the contracted firm that did the redactions in the first place not from the member of NIPASA who was doing his job to uncover the truth for the people of Ontario the motion was very clear it stated that all redacted documents be made public the documents that were released by the member from NIPASA came from boxes that were clearly labeled redacted if there was some mistake it is not the member of NIPASA's fault it is the fault of the people who were doing the redactions so this is a completely frivolous matter Mr. Speaker they should be taking this matter up with the people who were doing this process so Mr. Speaker in conclusion we are dealing with only one thing here and that is sometimes the truth it hurts thank you Mr. Speaker I have listed very carefully to all the presentations I thank all the members for their contributions and seeing the importance of this particular issue I will reserve my ruling for a later date and I thank you all the members for your input at this time there are no deferred votes this House will stand recess until 1pm this afternoon