It's Bill Nalt, Interim Dean of CLE. It's my pleasure to introduce for the LOO today online and here in the classroom, Mr. Simon Church from the UK. You guys all have his short bio. I've read the long bio. It's glorious in every way. But Mr. Church is joining us this week for teaching with the MSGC course over in IP and has agreed to do a LOO today on maritime security, very timely, some of the things that are going on around the world. So I could and would drone on, but you don't want to listen to that. So I'm going to turn it over to Simon and I will drive slides. And if you have questions in Zoomland, I'll be monitoring chat and come in here and get your questions answered by Simon. So I'll do you, Simon. Thank you, Bill. Can everyone hear me loud and clear? Systems working. Good afternoon, everyone. And I'd like to begin by thanking the War College for inviting me here today to give this lecture opportunity. My name is Simon Church, and I'm currently working as the Special Advisor to the Gulf of Guinea Co-Chairs of the Shade Forum in the Gulf of Guinea. The Shade Forum is an operational forum bringing navies and the global shipping industry together as partners to tackle at the time in 2021 a chronic threat of piracy against merchant shipping in that region. The co-chairs are Nigeria and the Hyundai Code of Conduct, our inter-regional coordination center, otherwise known as ICC. The ICC represents 21 countries in the Gulf of Guinea region of West Africa. I was offered by the United Kingdom as a subject matter expert because of my previous 12 years experience working against Somali piracy under the UK command of EU Naval Force Operation Atalanta from 2008. I was employed by the European Naval Force operation as an industry liaison advisor to manage the increasingly demanding relationship with the global shipping industry. And through 12 very eventful years, I became the director of the Maritime Security Center Horn of Africa, otherwise known as MSC Hoa. And eventually the strategic advisor to the operational commander on industry relations. I have an unusual background in that I worked for 20 years over half my career in the shipping industry in a variety of roles, all of which were related to commercial operations of merchant shipping. And then the second half of it, I worked in naval operations, mandated in the protection of shipping from maritime security threats and piracy. This unusual combined experience has allowed me to understand the complexities of cultivating and navigating the maritime security relationship between navies and that of shipping the shipping industry internationally and in its numerous different guises. In the time I have today, I want to take the opportunity to share with you some of my insights into the specific relationship or partnership, as I like to call it, be it bilaterally in coalitions or from different regions of the world. I've entitled today's lecture as global navies and the shipping industry, partners for the protection of trade or a relationship of strangers. Question mark. I will explain why it is still often the case that the former is still aspirational and the latter is in many cases, the reality in today's interconnected global economy. In addressing this, I intend to frame today's lecture in the following headings, which you can see hopefully on the screen. The first is why is the relationship between global shipping industry and navies still one of crisis management and rarely treated as one based on a long-term basis of operational cooperation and partnership? Secondly, what exactly constitutes the international shipping industry and why its complexity is not widely understood? Thirdly, I will look at what can be achieved when and where the shipping industry and navies have formed long-standing partnerships in cooperation against threats to a maritime trade. For example, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Guinea, the Straits of Hormuz, I will outline specific examples of where this success has been achieved. Finally, I will look at how is it that naval and academic institutions can play a transformative role in bridging this gap and fostering change? The word crisis is often overused, an overused term. For that reason, it can undermine its own currency. But right now, in the Southern Red Sea, we are truly living through a maritime security crisis that is almost unparalleled since the Suez Crisis of 1956. The reason is very simple. There are only three straits of water through which large volumes of world shipping pass that really matter. And one of them is Babel Mendeb in the Southern Red Sea. I have some experience in this region during the last 12 years of my time in EU Nav Force Somalia at the UK's Joint Force Command in London. The EU Naval Force, together with partners of US NABSENT, run by CMF, put in place a corridor for shipping in the Gulf of Aden that extends into the Southern Red Sea and has been pounded with drone and missile strikes from the Yemeni Houthis. So the timing of this lecture is particularly apt. Let me begin by going back in time somewhat. In recent decades, navies have had increasing demands placed upon them in upholding these rights. But more significantly, we have seen greater resources, assets and expertise and human capital being used by navies in protecting merchant shipping, facing an increasingly complex array of maritime security threats. Some of these threats have been so chronic requiring the creation of multinational naval coalitions and different navies mandated by their governments to come together to fight a common threat. But by the nature of these threats, it is that they are often defined as transitory and a crisis that require emergency interventions for short periods by navies. And once that crisis is assessed to be contained, then the mandates often end and with it many of the working practices of cooperation. Some good examples of that are the EU naval operation Somalia in the Mediterranean to tackle illegal immigration into Europe from North Africa, NATO's counter-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden called Ocean Shield. But what is often lost are those things that are most important that are not sustained and should they be required again in future crises? Often you have to reinvent the wheel all over again. Some examples are the operational protocols for the communication and interoperability between merchant shipping and military operations. Frameworks and formats for threat alerts, trusted mechanisms for incident reporting and voluntary reporting frameworks, including the sharing of confidential and commercially confidential sensitive information from shipping companies to military operations to name but a few. The benefit of being part of a longstanding operation such as EU naval was because of the longevity and the acute nature of the crisis. It was imperative for the naval operation to build a longstanding and trust-based relationship with the shipping industry. If it was going to be able to implement effective deterrence of the piracy threat and constrain and encourage, sorry, and constrain the freedom of operation of pirate groups. The significant collective multinational multi-mission response jointly working hand in glove with the shipping industry had never been undertaken on such a scale before. Bill, next slide. To highlight the gravity and scale of this crisis, especially in the first three to four years. Sorry, next one. Of the threat we faced at that time, between 2008 and 2011, over a hundred merchant ships were hijacked. 3,500 seafarers were taken hostage. Over 400 attacks launched by pirate groups against international shipping, as far as 1,200 miles from the coast of Somalia and $400 million a ransom paid for the release of those hostages and ships. Furthermore, the scale in terms of both the size of the sea space of operation, the volume and diversity of the shipping community, interest transiting that ocean, the Indian Ocean, is so extensive that it encompasses almost all types of vessel and cargo interests. So this required a credible processes for the coordination to be both effective in output and durable under operational stress. The confidence in processes, protocols, industry, military guidance, instruments of information sharing were tested by the gravity of the piracy crisis. It was my job to build the Maritime Security Center Horn of Africa, better known as MCHOA that you see here on the slide, which was in fact, the military to military to merchant shipping operational interface that was incorporated into the J3 operations unit within the headquarters of UNIFOR and became crucial to the effective piracy deterrence and support and protection of shipping and seafarers. At the heart of our strategic thinking was building a construct of mutual trust, which places obligations on both the merchant shipping community to report to self-protect and in return, naval response would be forthcoming. This was the premise that MCHOA was built on. We introduced reporting schemes, getting shipping to use them was quite another. Processes and protocols can shape behaviors to enhance the security for the freedom of navigation only if they are followed. So we worked hand in hand with the shipping associations to introduce and publish disseminate an entire doctrine of guidance and the application of self-protection measures. They were called best management practices, otherwise known as BMP. Next slide, which you see here. And 15 years and five versions later, you will see them on the bridges of merchant vessels around the globe today. All of this enabled the military responses to security threats that could be executed effectively, leading to the building of confidence of all stakeholders. This in turn justifies the decisions for interventions in security in commercial shipping businesses and the justification for governments and their decisions on expenditure of expensive assets. In short, there was a transaction of trust with an implied mutual commitment to that trust. One of the biggest single deterrent effects was UNIFOR strategic and operational partnership with the industry. You see there in the slide, a senior leadership forum between UNIFOR and CMF and the shipping associations at a senior level. The neutrality and singular nature of UNIFOR's commitment to industry in its mandate is its protection of vulnerable shipping from policy. It was this neutrality of purpose that enabled the trust to be built and the conditions for disclosure of commercially confidential information to our operation. UNIFOR built trust with the shipping industry over many years of operations. This trust has been predicated on the understanding that MSC-HOA was an integrated instrument of military counterparency. Next slide, please. The forced deployment of hard naval assets and ships and aircraft have a proven track record in military deterrence and piracy attacks, arresting suspects and transferring those suspects for prosecution. The high percentage of merchant ships registering commercially confidential information to MSC-HOA was done on the understanding that this information was being used for tech shipping through a military response to the threat backed by credible military threat assessments. We received vessel registrations from over 70% of all merchant vessels transiting through the Indian Ocean. There was an approximately 4,500 single vessel transits each month. The point is that we backed up our commitment by responding to the emergency reporting of incidents. This has also empowered us with the data to track patterns on routing and to identify points of vulnerability. Next slide, please. Oh, the next slide. Longstanding operational partnerships for the shipping industry was not limited to bilateral relationships between a single operation like you now for. The Shared Awareness and Deconfliction Forum, otherwise known as Shade, is a voluntary cooperation and de-confliction meeting attended by navies and organizations involved in operations and counterparency and other maritime threats to shipping. The Indian Ocean Shade has met over 50 times and has been ongoing for 12 years. Its role is to ensure the coordination, de-confliction of military resources, military operations and industry practices to achieve a maximum efficiency and effectiveness in counterparency and other threats. It has always remained an operational meeting and as such was given the freedom to make operational decisions in the interests of its stakeholders without strategic engagement, but always observing and respecting the sovereignty of nations who take part. Which Shade was formed, you now for CMF and NATO, shared it on a rotational basis. It was designed this way to reinforce the idea of community of stakeholders for which decisions are made by consensus and each military counterparency mission is an equal partner. The participation of China, Russia and India was the first and only time where these states have come together in this way with Western navies to cooperate and mitigate against a common single threat to shipping. The inclusion of the shipping industry as a key stakeholder in Shade has been fundamental to that success. Here are some of the examples of the work that was done at the Shade Forum. Next slide. Shade generated its own policy threat assessments or called IRTAs, industry-releasable threat assessments, published every three months. These threat awareness products released to industry or their associations, who in turn shared them directly with their member shipping companies. At this in turn generated awareness of the threat and the risk assessments by ship owners and recommendations for shipping companies to invest in sustainable self-protection measures. Over many years, you now for in partnership with CMF developed products such as these of threat intelligence with a strong emphasis on military doctrine and descriptions. In these periods when piracy activity was very low, this was decisive in sustaining a proportionate application of piracy self-protection measures, including the embarkation of private arms security teams onboard merchant ships in the high-risk area. What you see here on this slide is a product that was provided by CMF, illustrating activity of different criminal organizations operating in the maritime domain, but in the same area as where the pirate groups were operating and addressing that threat was key in understanding how it worked. I want to turn now to the shipping industry itself. How little is often understood within naval communities about how it works, but also to show you where long-standing partnerships have flourished. There is a common misunderstanding that I've seen and heard many, many times, and that is from naval officers around the world. And the question that I often get asked is, what does industry think? Why can't we get industry to do this? Why can't we get industry to agree that? The idea that when it comes to a maritime security to maritime security and the safety of navigation to merchant vessels, that they, being the industry, are an organization with policies or a collection of associations that can compel private shipping companies to follow routine practices or implement voluntary reporting procedures is somewhat different. This misunderstanding has been a constant for me. Why is that, you may ask? For one, it's not surprising when there is very little cross-pollination of shipping as an industry, be it commercial operators or even company security officers with naval operations. At EUNAV4, we were fortunate in having the loan of master mariners from shipping companies working alongside naval officers inside the OHQ because they were loaned for a short period, allowing us to work alongside them. This was critically important in trust building because we would often have a captain calling in to ask a question, for example, about the start of convoys or convoy times. Having a fellow master mariner answering and giving that information made all the difference in that trust being built. I vividly recall a conversation between visiting Japanese naval attaché from the Japanese embassy in London in meeting the Japanese merchant navy captain from NYK, which is the second largest shipping company in the world. He was a secondee from that company working in the OHQ. It was truly awkward because neither knew anything about what the other did, nor did they know how to relate to each other at all. The shipping industry is a highly complex and unintegrated transportation industry that spans the globe in almost every way. Vessels that are owned by a company registered in Singapore can be operated by a ship management company in Germany, whose crewing is contracted to a company in Dubai. The vessel could be flagged to Liberia, but it's also under the time charger to an oil company for 24 months. That oil company has sub-time chartered the vessel to another company for six months. The crew come from 12 different states. Risk management for security is the responsibility of the head owners, but it is often implemented by the ship management company and can be overridden by time charger clauses on where the vessel can trade as one example. All this just relates to the operations of the merchant vessels. I haven't even touched on the insurance and how vessels are insured against piracy risk and the application of war is premiums by insurance companies and the relationship to designated high risk areas for piracy and state threats. It's important to recognize that the global shipping industry did make considerable efforts to come together on issues such as the grave threats to their security in the piracy crisis. The group of shipping industry associations called or known as the Round Table consists of all the main industry associations including the International Chamber of Shipping into Tango, into Cargo, Ockinf and BIMCO to name the main stakeholders. All these associations combined represent the security interests of over 90% of the world merchant shipping fleet on all matters relating to security, security standards, environmental protection and much more. At UNAFOR we invested in building the relationship with this group as a long sustainable relationship. I wanna take a few minutes to explain what I think can be achieved in building long standing security partnerships between naval operations and the shipping industry. At UNAFOR it was recognized that a multi-level relationship with the international shipping industry was necessary. Cooperation range from relationships with the shipping companies and masters at the operational level in the OHQ. Also to the vessels directly at sea to a higher level of strategic engagement with the industry associations at the appropriate level. Also at two levels, both mid-management and at senior CEO level. The setting up of fixed processes for consultation and meetings also made a big difference. Where the existence of a dedicated follow-up meetings allowed for that trust to be built for dialogue to continue and to sustain trust. In terms of collective coalitions I've already mentioned the Shave forums. In terms of the relationship with industry it was a perfect example of effective collective cooperation. The forum is an operational forum designed to focus on operational output. The shipping industry were granted stakeholder status and an equal partner alongside the navies from around the region. This was key. Why? Because too often navies don't treat the civilian shipping as partners but those who need our protection. There is a difference. In 2009, the doctrine of best management practice or known as BMP, known as BMP an industry written guidance to merchant vessels to counter-piracy protection was written with significant input from the US led coalition combined maritime forces and UNF4. The result is that today, 15 years later it is still recognized as the standalone industry military guidance for the protection of merchant vessels from piracy. I also want to share with you examples of where the relationship between the civilian shipping industry and navies can deteriorate rapidly and if there is an absence of a foundational trust or and understanding. In the Gulf of Guinea region, a large tanker waiting to load crude oil from an offshore terminal was arrested by a navy in 2021 for not having the correct cargo and port calling documentation. The navy in question had been recently given new tasking orders for the verification of cargo lifting for tankers and documentation for those port calls. Because there had been no consultation from this navy and the wider tanker industry about these procedures, the result of misunderstanding led to an arrest and a protected legal case involving two separate states. The detention of vessel and crew for nearly a year and the cost of settlement and a resulting court case that never came to pass settlement of over 10 million dollars. All because essentially of a lack of consultation and the introduction of a new verification procedure being conducted by that navy. This kind of event can undermine the confidence and trust between the shipping industry and the navies that can last for years. So having walked you through some of the more eventful chapters of my experience of this critical relationship over the last 15 years, I want to turn now to look at the future. Where do I see the relationship evolving? And where I think educational forums and institutions such as the Naval War College can make a real difference and what instrumental role they could play. It is my belief that the root of this issue is that the relationship of strangers begins with a broad lack of awareness that exists in navies and their working knowledge around the world about how commercial shipping companies work in practice and vice versa. Security partnerships that are effective will always involve a foundation of trust and principles of shared understanding and commitment. For example, the commitment that was made by UNR4 in protecting shipping from piracy was predicated on the clear understanding that there was a mutual commitment expected in return, those being the application of vessels reporting guidance and the implementation of piracy industry guidance, best management practice. But let's be clear, this was an extraordinary crisis that created the conditions for commitments such as these to be given an agreed. For most navies, be they in the Caribbean region or West Africa or Southeast Asia, it is far harder to say single nations to know where and how they should seek such partnerships outside of their own national maritime communities. As we look into the future, new technologies also being used by nefarious actors to target shipping in international waters. For example, the use of drones and anti-ship missiles in the Red Sea to name but one. Advances in maritime domain awareness technologies not only helps agencies involved in the safeguarding monitoring and protection of shipping but are being actively used by those who seek to target ships for an attack. As we have seen recently in last November, the boarding of an Israeli-owned car carrier, the Galaxy Leader, by Houthis operating using a helicopter and fast road boarding makes clear that the reality of the threats to shipping are becoming more advanced in their capabilities as well as the technologies to support them. To conclude, it is my belief that the time is now for states and their navies to work more closely together with the shipping industry so that these threats can be tackled effectively. Knowledge and understanding must be the driver for change. Programs to foster this exchange of working practices should be promoted through institutions, especially with a naval educational nexus. The interests of larger international shipping companies that have resources and the interest to expand the working knowledge of how navies interact with them on maritime security and vice versa, I believe has real merit and will gain support and interest if fostered and championed effectively. Thank you for giving me the time today to share with you my thinking experiences and insight and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Again, in the chat, if there could be questions in Zoom. Simon, I'll get started with one. I'm a slow learner. So this took me a while to understand when I was in the position of CMF, why is it difficult or why do shipping companies, security departments, for lack of a better term, or the companies themselves restrain themselves from talking to each other about the security problems they're facing on the high seas. Why do they not like to share that information amongst themselves? What's the, again, some social and kind of, economic reasons for that, maybe that'll help. You might wonder, well, why don't they just talk to each other and say what they see and then cooperate more? What's going on there? Yeah, really, really good question and a couple of points I would raise in answer to it. The shipping industry sometimes not fully understood. Well, some of the things I tried to describe about how they are constructed is essentially they are private entities and each private entity is a company. The company will have a motive, their highest motive is always profit. It doesn't mean that they don't look after their threats to the security. But what you have to understand is that the confidentiality of information between shipping companies is very sensitive and safely guarded. So what you have is a culture where the sharing of information with other companies, even when it comes to security, is something that is not an easy habit to get into. I would say that actually what we've seen since this piracy crisis and of course a mutual interest in sharing information on threats, there is a lot more in terms of how company security officers do share information about threats because they understand that that is needed and that is necessary. There's a shared risk there. There's a shared risk but essentially the bottom line is that it's not a natural habit that they have in working together because ultimately they're competitors. So you have to see it first as a business and the security that is part of that business. So let me follow. What is the information they don't want to share? What's the loss? So mainly when it comes to confidential sensitive information that has a commercial nexus, it's things like routing and charters that they may have agreed to. So one of the things, having worked my last job, which was in a TK tankers, a big tanker company operating SewersMax and Afromax tankers, they were very careful about how exactly any information about what route they're taking might give some sort of advantage if that ship is now being taken and used for this route. So the information really relates to exactly where their ship is, which is why when it comes to security that's also an issue is what you don't want to know, what you don't want your competitors to know is where is that ship trading? Of course you have AIS and other ways in which you can find out where the ship is, it's not that difficult. But essentially it is the protection of their market and the advantage within that market that they're constantly fighting each other over. And there's also some hesitancy to broadcast their own security vulnerabilities possibly. I think that is also important because there is a reluctance to share information about what security protections they have in place, not necessarily because other shipping companies may know what happens if it gets out into the wider domain. So one of the issues that we always faced was why will I give you information if I don't know that it might somehow make its way back to nefarious actors or might take advantage of it in order to target my ship. For example, we had information and disclosure from companies about whether they had an armed security team. Now if you're a ship owner and you have an armed security team you'd be very reluctant to share that information because you feel you're vulnerable in sharing it. If there's someone new that you didn't have one who might pass that information to someone who might then use that to attack you then you can understand the reluctance. This lecture has been recorded and we'll post it and let everyone know when the link is out. So with that, I'd like to thank Mr. Church. I'd like to thank all of you who zoom landed in here. Let's give Simon a hand and he'll stick around if you'd like to chat. Thanks for this. Thank you.


It is now time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, at the Justice Committee today, we saw one of your liberal members conducting himself in a way that clearly is putting the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of taxpayers in the province of Ontario. I'm worried that there has been direction from the Premier's office to try to turn a committee, instead of trying to get answers for taxpayers on why you cancelled gas plants, the cost of the committee and why you engaged in an orchestra to cover up, to try to turn that into a circus instead of actually getting answers for committees. So let me ask the Deputy Premier, in light of this approach Liberals are taking to create chaos instead of getting answers for taxpayers. Will you support our call for a full judicial inquiry into the gas plant scam? Thank you. Do you see me please? Thank you. Well, Speaker, thank you to the leader of the opposition for the question, and I am delighted to know that he actually appeared at committee this morning. That is fantastic and a big and important step. I am, however, terribly disappointed to learn that he had no answers to any of the questions that were asked. Speaker, he appeared, and we applaud him for appearing, but unfortunately the answers were simply lacking in any substance. In stark contrast to the previous speaker who appeared before the committee, she answered questions, she's committed to being open, nobody wants to get the answers to these questions more than our Premier, and her actions are demonstrating that. Thank you, supplementary. Well, thanks, Speaker, back to the Deputy Premier. I will say, and I'll give credit where credit is due, the former energy minister, Ms. Kansfield, over at Tobacco Center did conduct herself and asked responsible questions that were productive, and we commend for it. But there's certainly a different tone for your members. So I wanted to see who was making the calls. John acting on his own or was at Tobacco Center, and clearly then when the Deputy Premier gives you that kind of answer, your approach on this gas plant committee, obviously that is to create as much chaos as possible instead of trying to get responsible answers for taxpayers who are stuck with the bill. I find that highly regrettable. I expected better from Kathleen Nguyen, but she has chosen her course. Again, in light of this orchestrated attempt by the Liberals. Just quickly, I'm going to remind the leader to use the title or the writing, please. Speaker, I apologize. I expected better from Premier Nguyen. So let me ask you in your capacity as Deputy Premier, given that your media efforts show no interest in actually getting answers to taxpayers on the cost of the cancellation of the gas plant. So last again, why not then support a judicial inquiry that can compel judicial testimony and get answers for taxpayers? Thank you. I think it's important that we review the actions that the Premier has taken since she became Premier of this province, Speaker. She is taking full responsibility for improving the planning of these large energy projects, Speaker. This new approach will include strong public consultation. It will include formal municipal input. Remember from here on, Bruce, come to order. It will include better decision-making. This report will come back to us by August the 1st, Speaker. I think that's a very important piece of what we need to do to fix the problems that got us to where we are today. In addition, she's written to the Auditor-General, asked him to review Oakville. He's agreed to do that. She immediately called the House back, Speaker. Immediately called the House back and struck committees, expanded the scope of the committee, offered documents from across government. Thank you. I am extremely proud of what our Premier has done. Thank you. And I only wish to lead in the opposite direction. Thank you. Final supplementary. I respond to the Deputy Premier with respect. The Premier has failed to apologize. She has not given direct or straight answers on some pretty basic questions on what she knew and when.  So let me ask again to the Deputy Premier. I think the mode of the Liberals was revealed today by the actions of your members at committee, which is more so to obscure facts to throw mud instead of getting answers for taxpayers at the end of the day. So let me ask an important question. Minister of the environment, come to order. I guess what's wrong with this? What is wrong with having a judicial inquiry, just like we saw with Justice Gomery, to compel truthful testimony, get answers, and will it take the threat of jail doors closing behind members from the Liberals to actually compel truthful testimony and get answers from taxpayers? House Leader. Oh, Mr. Speaker, let's talk for a second about this call for so-called judicial inquiry.  He had this to say, Mr. Speaker, the cost of a public inquiry is excessive. We don't believe that that's necessary. We're paid as individuals to represent our constituents and to hold the government. And that's where we expect this, this hearing to take place. Mr. Speaker, that was the member from Cambridge who said that. So basically, Mr. Speaker, we have a leader of the opposition who stood there in that field on YouTube and said if he was Premier, it'd be done, done, done. So he is standing today, Mr. Speaker, to ask for a judicial inquiry that his members opposed into a decision that he supported, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question. Leader of the opposition? Back to the Deputy Premier and I do hope that you'll take the time to answer my questions instead of engaging in the types of games that your House Leader tends to do. We've been very clear for months now that we believe in a full judicial inquiry. Just like we saw Justice Gomery with the sponsorship scandal involving the Liberals in Quebec at a federal level, we think a judicial inquiry is preferable. And at least my colleagues at NDP have put an option on the table on a public inquiry. But a judicial inquiry, though, will empower a judge to actually compel testimony. With the threat, quite frankly, if you do break the law by perjury, if you do, if it's found, have buried documents or intentionally destroyed documents, these are very serious accusations. That's why you supported a judicial inquiry. So let me ask you, if you truly want to get answers for tax questions, why do you oppose a judicial inquiry to actually get the truth once and for all? Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the opposition is the gall to talk about games.  Mr. Speaker, 28 times, direct questions were put to Leader of the Opposition. Simple questions like, what was his costing? Who did he consult when he made the decision to call for the cancellation of the plants? Even, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge, acknowledge his opposition to the plants 28 times, Mr. Speaker, he would not answer a single question. I have not seen skating like that, Mr. Speaker, since I saw those old clips of Barbara and Scott on TV. Mr. Speaker, it was incredible to watch the evasiveness of the Leader of the Opposition, the fact that he will not hold the PC party even to a minimal standard of the way he is holding the government. Mr. Speaker, he should be apologizing and offering answers to those very straightforward questions today. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and obviously we can see what the Liberals are trying to do here. They're trying to create chaos. They're trying to avoid answering. They're trying to obscure the essential issues as much as possible. I think that's very clear now. I just want to say that I find it regrettable that Premier Nguyen is engaging in this. I thought she was going to be different. I thought she was going to take it down a different path, but she's engaged in the same old liberal games of obfuscation, dithering, and stonewalling, and that's why, Speaker, a government eye lead will bring in a full judicial inquiry to get answers on behalf of taxpayers. Let me ask this in a different way then. I think that a government so prepared to play these types of games, so prepared to bury the truth, and so prepared to put liberal interests ahead of taxpayers, that clearly you've lost the moral authority to govern. Will you call our confidence motion to the floor of the assembly to vote up or down whether we support this government or want to see a change? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, obfuscation, dithering, stonewalling, I think they are great descriptions of what we saw today from the leader of the opposition. He would not, Mr. Speaker, he would not even acknowledge this pamphlet here that was passed out to thousands of Ontarians that said the following. The only party that will stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PC Party. On October 6th, vote Ontario PC. Mr. Speaker, we have Twitter. We have press releases. Mr. Speaker, we have newspaper clippings and we have a YouTube video showing the leader of the opposition clearly opposed to the Mississauga plan and his promise to cancel if he was Premier. And yet he refused to acknowledge it today, Mr. Speaker. There was so much obfuscation.  The member will withdraw. Withdraw. Final supplementary. Let me try the Deputy Premier one last time, Speaker, because Deputy Premier, this power plant scandal is extremely serious and Ontarians would expect to take it seriously as opposed to the clownish approach of the house leader which is tend to turn this whole thing into a circus. We all know the Liberals are willing to throw money at any kind of situation to try to save liberal seats. That's clearly evident with Mississauga and Oakville. And now you're trying to throw money to buy the support of the NDP for a budget. In short, an NDP budget written by the Liberals to support liberal seats. I don't think that's the interest of taxpayers. I don't think that's the interest of the 600,000 men and women who have no job to go to this morning, Mr. Speaker. I think clearly if we want to restore hope to this great province of Ontario, if we want to get this province back on track to bring good jobs to Ontario, to respect every taxpayer dollar, to make sure that we live within our means and end these scandals, it's time to change the government speaker, change the leadership, and to put Ontario on the right track to make Ontario lead again. Call of motion. In the thrust and no, in the thrust and perry of the House, I may have missed an opportunity to ask a member to withdraw. Under the circumstances, I do my best to try to hear all of the different and I do read my thesaurus as often as I can to make any references that you're on parliamentary. I do believe it to members themselves if they find themselves in a situation that they can withdraw, they can withdraw themselves. So having said that, I'll do my best to stay on top of things. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition just doesn't get it, Mr. Speaker. This is about the standards that they are holding the government to. We have a committee of the legislature which is looking into the decision to cancel the gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. Mr. Speaker, was that every single party of this legislature supported the cancellation of that plan. The leader of the opposition aggressively campaigned in the last election to do that and he cannot appear in front of the Justice Committee this morning and deny that fact, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of public record and if he wants to talk about obfuscation Mr. Speaker, he should be looking in the mirror because his appearance in front of the committee this morning and in many times, Mr. Speaker, he was asked direct questions on very, very simple matters even to acknowledge the fact that he opposed the plan and instead, Mr. Speaker, he decided to go for obfuscation Mr. Speaker and disrespect the committee and its mem. Stop by by continuing to make that reference I'm going to call everyone to order on that issue so just tone it down. New question, the leader of the third party. Before I put my question I'd like to, I think, take an opportunity on behalf of Ontarians and members of the legislature to let the family of Tim Bosma know that we are grieving with them. We found out today that his remains were found by the police and his wife Charlene and his daughter and his mother Mary I'm sure all their friends and family are grieving very much today and I think it's important that we say that we're grieving along with them. Mr. Speaker, my question is the acting premier while the premier has been campaigning and electioneering around the province new democrats have been actually listening to Ontarians about their thoughts on the budget and they're saying that the government has to do better if they expect Ontarians to trust them. Is the government going to listen to Ontarians and bring some accountability some transparency and some fairness to their budget? Mr. Speaker Thank you, Speaker and I too want to express the sincere condolences to the Bosma family this is news that we have just received and I think all of us have hearts that are breaking as a result of that news so we are together on that sentiment but Speaker as we move to the budget and who's saying what about the budget it might be helpful if we look at what some Ontarians are saying about the budget Sid Ryan I think the member opposite will know who Sid Ryan is he is of course a big supporter of former NDP candidate and what Sid Ryan says is there are good things in this budget I think we can work with in Labour and I think the NDP can work with Fred Hahn the president of CUPI again someone more well known perhaps to the members opposite than to Ongside says I don't think the people of Ontario Thank you Supplementary Speaker in the last 12 months Ontarians have seen scandals grow at Orange they've learned that not one but two premiers have hidden the true cost of moving the gas plants and they learned that over a thousand people were given the wrong cancer medication does this government really believe that it is doing enough when it comes to accountability and oversight Speaker so let's talk about what some other Ontarians are saying about the budget Smoky Thomas the president of Ops who says I don't see this as an election budget Gail Nyberg the executive director of the Daily Bread Food Bank says key initiatives in this budget will help more people afford to pay the rent and put food on the table whether they're families with children or single people who are making the move from social assistance to employment we encourage all parties to support the budget and the positive changes that will help low income Ontarians facing poverty and hunger Speaker Sarah Blackstock who's with the 25 and 5 network for poverty reduction says we think this budget is an opportunity to continue reducing poverty in Ontario we are really eager to see the opposition parties work with the government to ensure that we can continue making progress many Ontarians are weighing in and they're pretty positive about this budget Thank you, final supplementary Speaker after the budget was introduced New Democrats asked Ontarians what they thought but at the same time the liberals started printing pamphlets and campaigning New Democrats are interested in delivering real results for people while the liberals seem to be more interested in their own political power Will the government listen to people and bring accountability and transparency to their budget? Let's listen to what the Canadian auto workers and communications energy and paper workers union has to say the 2013-14 Ontario budget represents an important shift in emphasis by the provincial government and will make a positive difference in the lives of many Ontarians David Cole the national president of the communications energy and paper workers union says this budget is proof that minority government can work to the advantage of working people Ken Lewenza the national president of the Canadian auto workers says these budget investments in our social and economic fabric are both badly needed and appreciated Speaker the people of Ontario have spoken loud and clear this is exactly the right budget for these times and I look forward to the third party supporting it Thank you, new question Leader of the third party Thank you speaker Next question to the minister of finance Is the minister of finance still committed to a poorly thought out network of told carpool lanes that will cost Ontarians more than 300 million dollars to build before they even generate a nipple Thanks for the fire Well this is our speaker I find it odd that the third party or for that matter any of the opposition members would feel that it's inappropriate to invest in in our infrastructure in our public transit in the construction of roads and bridges enabling our gridlock to ease so that we can be more competitive in the long term constructing more HOV lanes is about facilitating people to get to and from home more quickly, more safely it's also about enabling our businesses and transports to get around the city and to get around Ontario more effectively an hour in gridlock to their competitiveness we have to invest more for the benefit of all Ontarians Thank you supplementary Well I find it surprising speaker that this government is about to embark on a new Lexis Lane boondoggle in the province of Ontario Campaign staff to transit stations, new democrats have actually been listening to Ontarians about what they think about transit they think transit and transportation infrastructure should be funded fairly and transparently speaker will the finance minister commit to canceling this poorly thought out and outrageously expensive told carpooling Minister So Mr. Speaker I'm going to allow the minister of transport to speak in a moment but I think it's essential that we all appreciate and understand that we need to continue to invest to be competitive in the long term this is not about making election cycle decisions this is not about playing partisan politics it's about playing for the people of Ontario and constructing more HOV lanes to the member opposite to suggest that that is somehow inappropriate it works in other jurisdictions around North America it eases gridlock it enables things to move more quickly more safely more effectively don't be short-sighted about this don't play politics with this and don't spin it this is about moving people quickly more safely and we have to be all together on this issue Thank you final supplementary Speaker the government plans to spend $300 million to toll carpooling lanes but whether it's gas plants e-health the presto fare card system which is ballooned to almost three times its initial cost this government cannot seem to manage Ontario's money will the finance minister put his plan for a $300 million network of tolled carpool lanes on hold minister minister of transport minister of transportation I'm not sure where the third party gets our information first of all we are not tolling HOV lanes there is an expansion of HOV lanes the system of HOV lanes does not diminish by one car the access for people who have more than one vehicle to the entire system including the HOV lanes the member of the third party said there's no plan the big move has been around since 2008 Mr. Speaker KPMG put out a detailed study that explained in detail how HOV lanes work so Mr. Speaker I am confused given that there is a plan there is a detailed explanation how someone with a party that really tops the charts for luxury car ownership can make those kinds of statements Mr. Speaker Thank you My question is to the minister of health the stench from orange just continues to get more offensive last week at the public hearing we heard that the director of forensic investigation team at orange confirmed that millions of public dollars were siphoned from health care into the MASA scheme at the same hearing we heard that the director that the minister and her deputies put in charge of a new oversight program of orange and his newly appointed staff have no experience in either air or ambulance services none they're responsible now for overseeing a multi-million dollar organization that has serious financial and organizational challenges I want to know from the minister who will she hold accountable for this last experience of incompetence deputy minister or will she thank you minister of health and long term care I have to say it saddens me to see the member from new market are continuing to hammer on the very hard working people who are making our air ambulance system work he raises the issue about the experience of the air ambulance oversight branch in the ministry so let me tell you speaker there is plenty of expertise in land and air ambulance operations at my ministry's emergency health services branch let me just discuss some of the people the staff who are experiencing these operations they include the senior manager of operations along with three senior field managers and the manager of investigation services the senior manager of corporate planning and regulatory compliance the senior manager of performance and quality management the senior management of finance and corporate support the manager of inspections certification and regulatory compliance policy and operational assessment the member does not know what he is talking about supplementary well thank you minister I have a response speaker but I'll hold it back the fact of the matter is that the one program that this minister put in place to oversee orange the director has no experience in air ambulance he admitted that at the committee hearings not one of the six people he hired to help him in oversight responsibility has any experience in either air or land ambulance that is who we expect would have some experience the minister knows full well that she and her deputy Patricia Lee her deputy minister Mr. Saad have yet one more time made a huge mistake in terms of their responsibility of oversight I now want to know this thing about this document that sets out the requirement for twenty million dollars more expenditure every year to cover off the debt that she allowed to incur is that twenty two million dollars included in the budget or will she allow a cut back in more healthcare services at orange to pay minister speaker the air ambulance program oversight branch has substantial expertise and experience in ensuring that transfer payment agencies are transparent, accountable and get value for money when spending taxpayer dollars that's their job Richard Jackson the member has mentioned is the director of the EHSB and the AAPOB has extensive experience in oversight of transfer payment agencies including community colleges private career colleges the Ontario student assistant program Toronto children's aid societies children and mental health agencies developmental services agencies and women's shelters this is an expert in oversight fiscal responsibility I think this is exactly the expertise that the member opposite would like to see looking over orange air ambulance services speaker it's what he's been calling for and it's what we've delivered the member from Toronto Dan Ford thank you speaker the question to the acting premier for months ontarians have been learning how interference by the premier's office ratcheted up the cost of the gas plants the premier's principal secretary agreed to quote preserve the value of trans canada's project it's unaccountable it doesn't respect ontarians will the acting premier admit what everyone else knows that the interference of liberal political staff drove up the cost of the gas plant cancellation to more than half a billion dollars this is a matter that's been discussed in great detail at committee we've heard from a number of witnesses including James and Stevie formerly of the premier's office who testified that my discussions and I quote with trans canada were exploratory in nature Sean Mullen and other premier's office employees said we were not and I quote we are not authorized to and we did not engage in any negotiation and representatives from T.C. themselves the gentleman Chris Breen said they were certainly not negotiating in the sense of fine detail dollars and cents this is something that the committee has looked at and I think has been dealt by the witnesses that have appeared before the committee back to the acting premier the promises made by the premier's office made it impossible for the Ontario power authority to negotiate a good deal for ratepayers when the OPA made an offer to trans canada to cancel the plant in Oakville trans canada turned them down they said the premier's office has given us a sweeter deal of accountability they expect that their money will be spent wisely not wasted on liberal seats will the premier, the acting premier admit that the interference of senior political staff drove up costs so that Ontarians have to pay more as you hear again I think we have to go back to first principles there were 19 gas plants that were sited in this province and the government clearly acknowledges that in two of those cases we made an error we went forward to the people of both mississauga and oakville indeed the people of Ontario and said that we would cancel those decisions that would have cost associated with it I remind the honourable member that his leader and his party and indeed even himself in public comments said the exact same thing I would remind him that the leader of the opposition despite the fact that he refused to answer 28 direct questions to him this morning aggressively said we would cancel the project there were to be costs associated with the cancellation of the project we knew that, the leader of the never-credit party knew that the leader of the pc party knew that everyone knew that we listened to the people of those communities and acted accordingly and as to the detailed questions he is asking today they have all been dealt with in front of the committee thank you very much speaker and my questions to the minister we all know that women play a very important role in the province and in this country and approximately half of Canada's workforce is female in 2011 female graduates from Ontario's college and universities made up nearly 60% in total speaker I'm a proud member of this government led by Ontario's first female premier and our cabinet in caucus includes a large number of women unfortunately speaker these successes do not translate into the private sector women are still critically underrepresented in private sector leadership positions in both management roles and on boards of directors several recent reports suggest that at that pace at which women in the private sector are reaching seniors positions is slowing down questions feeding up Mr. Speaker through you to the minister what is our government doing to promote gender diversity in private sector minister responsible for women's issues thank you very much Mr. Speaker and thank you to the member for Glen Gary Russell for this important question we need to tackle this issue as a province speaker because having in women in leadership roles drives innovation improves corporate social responsibility and paves the way to a greater number of women in senior executive roles in fact speaker research tells us that companies with high representation of women in senior management positions and on the board outperform those with fewer women on key metrics in financial success I'm proud that our government is doing our part by taking strong action to promote the benefits of gender diversity and equal representation in the private sector and on corporate boards and in senior management in fact page 291 of the 2013 Ontario budget reaffirms the government's commitment to delivering programs that promote women's equality and addresses the lack of gender diversity on board and in senior management of major businesses not profits and other organizations and we will enlist the Ontario Securities Commission to help us determine the best way to proceed on this disclosure issue thank you very much speaker and thank you minister for that very comprehensive answer the initiatives that the minister discussed are extremely important in helping ensure that Ontario's hard working women are fairly represented in private sector leadership positions while women are still underrepresented on corporate boards and in management positions it has been shown that women can find great success in small businesses as well small businesses are the source of more jobs in Ontario than any other sector and female owned small businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of the economy Mr. Speaker through you to the minister what is this government doing to provide women with the opportunities and the resources to become successful small business owners or operators thank you minister thank you very much speaker and there's no doubt small businesses are the backbone of this province's economy and small businesses particularly those run by women play an integral part in driving innovation creating jobs and growing the economy of Ontario the Ontario's 2013 budget makes smart investments that will strengthen the economy and takes action to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18 and it recognizes the importance of small business and entrepreneurship and the budget is a testament to that through measures such as the commercialization and innovation voucher program the establishment of venture capital fund in partnership with the private sector and more support for women entrepreneurs we see women being able to get their businesses off the ground through the help of our small business enterprise centers the new micro lending initiative that will help low income women build and grow their small businesses speaker these initiatives are good for women and they're good for the province of Ontario speaker thank you new question thank you speaker and good morning speaker my question is for the deputy premier three months has passed he promised to be quote open and transparent regarding the gas plant scandal yet the liberals continue to go to extraordinary efforts to keep the facts from the public we've learned the email accounts of three of the former premier's former staffers including his chief of staff no longer exist speaker and can't be recovered this despite a legal requirement to keep those records for five years before we get to Ontario archives vital documents that could have helped the justice committee get to the answers are conveniently missing this warped version of open and transparent is not the kind of Ontario we want my question speaker is will you support our motion for non-confidence vote on your scandal plague government Mr. Speaker he has the gall to stand today and talk about transparency after the performance of his leader in front of the committee 28 times Mr. Speaker he was asked direct questions not complicated questions Mr. Speaker not even trick questions we asked him to simply acknowledge the fact that he started a youtube video saying if he was premier of the province that this gas plant would be done done done we asked him the simple question as to what was going to be the experts he had asked who in his party had reached out to do the proper analysis and Mr. Speaker he put on his ice skates and avoided every single question Mr. Speaker we got no transparency from him so if the leader of the opposition will not tell us will the honourable member in his supplementary tell us whether he will encourage or conservative candidates in those writings to come forward we've been asking them we've been begging them we've been pleading them we want some thank you speaker you know we bring out sworn testimony and he brings out dance routines we're getting tired of that let's move on to the destruction let's move on from the destruction of documents to the withholding of the real costs of this liberal scandal and when you knew them Michael Lyle of the Ontario Power Authority was asked at the justice committee last week when the liberal government knew the mississauga cancellation was much more than stated his response quote they would have been aware that there were costs that had been paid more than the 190 million quote and that was back in July of 2012 speaker yet you and your cabinet colleagues clung to that figure for nine months until the auditor general told us what you already knew this has failed leadership at its worst and it's time for a test of confidence will you support our motion tomorrow to allow a non-confidence vote in this legislature I would remind the honourable member that in the testimony of the premier several weeks ago she appeared Mr. Speaker when asked unlike the leader of the opposition but the testimony of the premier several weeks ago I believe there were four or five different numbers that came forward in the OPA I think Mr. Speaker all of us in this house realize the reasonable thing to do is to have the auditor general an officer of this legislature finish his report on the Oakville situation that report was undertaken at the personal request of the premier upon receiving office Mr. Speaker let us let the auditor general do his work I think the one thing that we found through the testimony of the committee of various experts is this is a very complicated I think we should leave it with this fine officer of the legislature the auditor general question is to the minister of transportation yesterday the minister appear to take a step back on high occupancy tolls well the budget speed said that the government will commit to moving quickly to implement tolls the minister now says the government is not rushing into anything has the minister now realize that putting high occupancy tolls and hundreds of kilometers of on terrace highways is an expensive and risky scheme that Metrolinx agrees is not a significant revenue source for transit Mr. Chancellor thank you Mr. Speaker no we are not taking a step back and no we are not rushing into anything we are going forward steadily down the path we committed to in the budget and I'm sorry people in that party are feeling hoisted on their own with their confusing positions on transit that we're getting into this word detail let me read the budget Mr. Speaker very carefully so it's not lost in anyone the province is committing to convert select high occupancy vehicle lanes in the GTHA into high occupancy toll lanes HOV-HOT lanes in which carpooling drivers would and I want to emphasize continue to drive for free more drivers would be able to choose to drive in these lanes for a toll toll free options would exist on all highways that have HOV-HOT lanes this model has been successfully implemented in several places including Florida Texas and California Mr. Speaker that's been published for quite a while now I don't think it's complicated English I'm sure the member opposite understands it supplementary I do I appreciate the simplicity of the message the minister of transportation and the minister of finance appear to be awfully optimistic about the revenue potential of high occupancy toll lanes but in February we learned that the new hot lanes in Washington DC lost lost over 11 million in just their first six weeks of operation the Washington DC hot lanes are only 14 miles long meanwhile the province has committed to building up to 450 kilometers worth of hot lanes will the government stop wasting time with risky tolling scheme and instead focus on the real job of building new transportation options for Ontarians Mr. Speaker would the third party start futzing around and decide whether to support what is the largest investment in infrastructure and transportation in the history of this province we have more projects out there like the English and crosstown Mr. Speaker which are quite frankly the largest just on its own transit project in the history of Ontario Mr. Speaker we introduced HOV lanes in 2005 they've been a tremendous success there were naysayers at the time we are prudently looking at the experiences Mr. Speaker the member opposites view is somewhat limited California has had these for three years they did not make money in the first year by the second year they were successful by the third year they're a roaring success Mr. Speaker and that their evaluation was released just two weeks ago Mr. Speaker so yes we are prudently looking at all the evidence, the experience of other places and we will make sure Ontarians get solutions to their congestion challenges Mr. Speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker Thank you Speaker last night I held a town hall in my riding of Mississauga East Cooksville where we discussed the budget and you know some of the things we talked about as you can imagine was auto insurance increased investments in home care our deficit control plans but one area that generated a lot of interest a lot of questions was a youth employment strategy so would the minister of economic development tell us what plans we have in our budget to increase well paying jobs for our young Thank you Minister of economic development trade and employment Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the member from Mississauga East Cooksville for her question and her hard work Mr. Speaker our budget proposes a comprehensive youth jobs strategy of 295 million dollars over two years and this strategy actually incorporates many of the good suggestions that came from the NDP party but goes substantially further on additional measures to help youth get jobs Mr. Speaker our youth job strategy is designed to create employment opportunities for about 30,000 youth across the province and to promote entrepreneurship and innovation in Ontario our government has already begun consulting on the strategy in fact last Friday I had the opportunity together with the minister from training colleges and universities to consult with about 30 individuals business union representatives academics obviously many youth themselves not for profit organizations to talk about how we might refine our strategy so it's most impactful I encourage both opposition parties to work with us to pass the budget so we can move forward with this important initiative a great response and I just want to give a shout out to all the people in my writing who came out for the town hall despite the Leafs game it was a great town hall I just wanted to say that now I do want to say the speaker that you know we are all about building our community so as great as it is to have a good employment strategy for our youth we want to make sure that we can employ our youth in the communities they live so I'd like to ask the minister what our plans are for our rural youth to make sure that they have equal opportunities for good well-paying jobs thank you minister to the minister of rural affairs my gosh thank you everybody should I want to commend the member from Mrs. Augies Cooksville for a wonderful leadership in our community Mr. Speaker a 2013 budget delivers for rural Ontario the 295 million dollar youth strategy will benefit young people across Ontario and will help strengthen rural communities in addition to this investment our government has been helping to connect students with jobs in rural Ontario communities through our rural summer job service since 2007 this program has connected 18,000 students with jobs and helped over 7,000 rural employers the rural summer job service part of our government's Ontario summer job strategy and is another way we're helping to promote innovation and entrepreneurship amongst our people Mr. Speaker I was in Halflock, Ontario last Saturday meeting with my good friend Albert Buchanan and they're excited at Halflock about the summer job for rural youth question the member from Mr. Nicholson Kenbrook thank you very much Mr. Speaker my questions for the Deputy Premier it's clear from your answers here in this house and the actions of your liberal members of the Justice Committee that you have no interest in seeing the committee get to the bottom of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plant scandals the public deserves accountability they deserve to know how your government wasted $600 million the Ontario party has moved a want of confidence motion if you'll agree to support our opposition to a motion tomorrow we can settle once and for all who stands for the people of Ontario and who stands to support the liberal party and it's scandals Premier, Acting Premier will you do the right and proper thing will you support our opposition to a motion and bring our want of confidence motion to the floor of this legislation Acting Premier to the government house leader Mr. Speaker the line of question that was pursued this morning the answers that I've given in the house there's nothing frivolous here Mr. Speaker the simple fact of the matter is that there is a concern about the cancellation of these gas plants and the point that is trying we're trying to make is that every party of this house particularly the opposition party aggressively campaign that if the leader of the opposition became the Premier that he would do the exact same thing he would cancel the plant Mr. Speaker I believe those are relevant facts that the committee needs to know so we invited the leader of the opposition this morning in front of the committee we didn't ask him tough or technical questions Mr. Speaker we simply ask him to acknowledge the fact that not only did he appear in a video and hold a press conference and his candidates but to ask him about his costing and about the due diligence that he did and 28 times Mr. Speaker he refused to answer those direct questions Thank you supplementary Thank you Speaker the Liberal Party has no its track record is one of obfuscating and scandals billions Withdraw please Maybe the House Leader could withdraw the 30 times he said it Now please The member the member from Prince Edward Hasting is warned the member from Pembroke will just simply withdraw with no comment Withdraw You know your Liberal track record is a laundry list of billions of dollars wasted after scandal after scandal whenever you're caught red handed you'll conveniently say we're going to set up this committee or that committee and quote this will never happen again you know the problem isn't just accountability it's the arrogance of that government over there there's one thing that the people of Ontario can be sure of do you think you can get away with it you'll do it again so I'm asking you given your record once again will you do the right thing tomorrow there's an opposition day motion that'll bring a want of confidence about this House let the people decide you see it please Government House Leader Mr. Speaker you want to talk about caught red handed this was the party that went out and paid for robo calls throughout thousands of homes saying the only way to stop the gas plant was to elect the PC government this was a party that route and held press conferences that drop leaflets Mr. Speaker that say the only party that will and will underline stop the sure way power plant is the Ontario PC party on October 6th vote Ontario PC Mr. Speaker all the minimum that we wanted Mr. Speaker was for the leader of the opposition to at least acknowledge that position a very public position and 28 times Mr. Speaker he evaded that question in a series of simple questions about his due diligence and about his analysis Mr. Speaker there's a double standard going on here and I think it's time that the progressive Conservative Party stood up and acknowledged the very simple fact that they oppose the principle new question the member from Essex question is to the Minister of Health and Long-term Care Speaker more than a month after we learned about the errors in chemotherapy dosing patients are still left with the most basic questions of what went wrong we've seen a lot of finger pointing and it's only getting worse this week Marquesi the drug provider threatened to sue the Windsor regional hospital for defamatory remarks after the hospital did its best to communicate the situation to its patients my question is simple does the Minister think that escalating conflict and finger pointing is benefiting patients in any way Mr. Health and Long-term Care Speaker what I can tell you is that my first and last concern has always been for the patients that are affected so that's why immediately upon learning about this under dosing issue the appropriate steps were taken patients were notified they had rapid meetings with their oncologist speaker they had group meetings where they could get answers to the questions that they of course had we set up a working group with all of the partners around the table who are working through the issue we've appointed a third party investigator to look at the entire safety of our cancer supply chain our cancer drug supply chain that work is well underway speaker we owe it to the patients of Ontario not just the patients affected by this under dosing but to all patients that we get answers to the very legitimate questions that they have the Minister's response to be all well and good if it wasn't simply after the fact that these measures were brought into place speaker Ontario's patients seem to be the ones who continue to be left out of the equation they want transparency accountability and answers of how this could have happened this week new democrats urged the government to grant ombudsman's oversight over our healthcare system because patients need someone rooting for them and asking the tough questions speaker will the minister finally make sure that someone is working for patients and grant ombudsman's oversight over our healthcare system speaker ontarians have well deserved confidence in our healthcare system our cancer outcomes speaker are amongst the best in the entire world so the safety of our cancer care system is beyond reproach but we must always strive to make it better and whenever an issue arises that instructs us on how we can strengthen the system I can assure you that we will move on those recommendations speaker I mean even the member from nickel belt acknowledges that Ontario and Ontario who gets cancer in the world the member from nickel belt said that we have an excellent healthcare system and an excellent cancer care system speaker the member is right and I have said over and over again we have an excellent system but we are not a perfect system and we are striving every day to make it better thank you speaker my question for the minister of energy minister a strong northern Ontario economy is important not only for the people in northern communities but for the health of the province in general our government has been a strong supporter of the north and is taking action to address challenges such as job creation revitalizing transportation infrastructure and improving vital access to the ring of fire part of helping the northern economy grow is ensuring our largest job creators are supported will the minister please update the house and what our government is doing to help northern thank you minister speaker I thank the member for auto for the question and the member is right a strong northern economy is vital for the province as a whole that's why we introduced the northern industrial electricity rate program in 2010 to assist Ontario's largest industrial electricity consumers reduce their energy costs these firms are key economic contributors and job creators in the north and this program to help their employees and communities while maintaining global competitiveness Mr. Speaker our government is committed to helping the north succeed that's why we announced in this year's budget that we are investing $360 million to extend the program an additional three years thanks to the advocacy of our northern caucus members and that's why the members opposite should be supporting this budget Mr. Speaker Thank you minister for your response I'm glad to hear that our government is continuing its strong support for northern communities with this investment the northern industrial electricity rate has been an important program for large firms across the north as they grow and create jobs but Mr. Speaker the global recession and its after effects have created unprecedented challenges for the north especially the forestry sector can the minister provide more details about this program extension and other sectors continue to thrive as the economy continues its recovery Mr. Speaker as I mentioned we are making a $360 million investment in northern Ontario in this year's budget the northern industrial electricity program was created to help key northern industries like forestry it reduces energy bills for large consumers in the north by 25% in fact since 2010 this rate program has created or protected nearly 16,000 jobs in the north those are jobs across 24 northern forestry, steel and mining related facilities as the member mentioned these industries have faced unprecedented challenges to the global recession and its after effects so Mr. Speaker I hope all parties in this house stand with us and support the budget to help northern Ontario residents the member from Cambridge thank you Mr. Speaker my questions for the government house leader today in the Justice Committee investigating your government's gas gas scandal things took an interesting turn your party adopted a new strategy instead of evading questions in Justice Committee you have now undertaken to asking irrelevant questions the member from Vaughn asked question after question unrelated to the true government costs and the cover up that the government instituted is 30 minutes taking cheap political shots the member will withdraw I withdraw this is a committee with a mandate to get to the bottom of a $600 million scandal and counting that leads directly to the premier's office so government house leader will it take a judicial inquiry and the threat of jail time for this premier and her party to start taking this matter seriously Mr. Speaker I want to ask if the questions were so irrelevant why did the leader of the opposition not answer them Mr. Speaker the questions that we were asking Mr. Speaker were very straightforward we asked why he was so aggressive in his campaign to cancel the gas plant why he said if he was premier he would cancel it we asked similar questions to the ones they've asked our members Mr. Speaker what kind of analysis and due diligence was done Mr. Speaker 28 times questions of that nature were put to the leader of the opposition and 28 times he avoided asking them Mr. Speaker if they are so irrelevant I'm not sure why he would not be forthcoming and Mr. Speaker if they are so irrelevant I'm not sure why the PC candidates from that area are not forthcoming again maybe in the supplementary the member can talk about the efforts they're making to have those PC candidates come before the committee thank you supplementary well Mr. Speaker I have a little message for the government house leader as the government corruption meter rises so too to our message and for judicial inquiry our calls for judicial inquiry go louder Mr. Speaker after acknowledging YouTube videos and reading quotes many quotes Mr. Speaker the liberals weren't getting the answers that they were looking for the government house leader wanted the leader her majesty's her majesty's loyal opposition to come to the justice committee and this morning he did what the liberals star witness said this morning is that the McGinty government has not learned its lessons from the scandal and that they'll do it again if given the chance that's right Mr. Speaker they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy another election if given the chance we expect the premier and her office to act responsibly at least be truthful to the people of Ontario when her government officials come before a standing committee of this legislature so government house leader will it take a threat of jail time to achieve some honesty from the party across the aisle or are you so committed thank you so Mr. Speaker let me get this straight when the liberal party in the last election promised to cancel the gas plant it was the worst thing we've fallen this society since the Macarena or the plague and when the progressive conservative party makes the exact same promise Mr. Speaker well we don't want to talk about it 28 times Mr. Speaker we ask the leader of the opposition just to simply acknowledge his position and he wouldn't Mr. Speaker why the double standard Mr. Speaker when it comes to judicial inquiry Mr. Speaker we are following the advice of the very own member that the cost of a public inquiry is excessive we don't believe that that's necessary we're paid as illegals to represent our constituents and to hold the government and that's where we expect this hearing to take place I could not agree with the Honourable Member more Mr. Speaker thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the Minister of Labor Mr. Speaker last week at the Elliott Lake Inquiry a representative of the Ministry of Labor the ministry bore no responsibility for the tragedy in which Lucy Aylwin and Dolores Parazolo tragically lost their lives the ministry official testified that the employer is responsible for the protection of their workers but the workers are also responsible for their own safety they also said that the ministry official were a check on the system and could not be disciplined as a result of this disaster to even imply that these two women are more responsible for their own protection and their place of work than the Ministry of Labor is ridiculous the Ministry of Labor inspection offices were housed in the Algo Mall for 10 years but did little to address conditions in the leaking mall situation Mr. Speaker will the Minister call the Federal Occupational Health and Safety Inspectors to investigate the Ministry of Labor's role and recommend whether changes or other actions are warranted Mr. Speaker thank you very much I want to thank the member opposite for the question as you know and as the House knows that the government established the Elliott Lake Commission of Inquiry by establishing that public commission the government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to an independent review of the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Algo Center Mall the commission has authorized to review the policies processes and procedures of the provincial government this includes the policies and procedures of the Ministry of Labor which were addressed directly in evidence this past week the government has been providing full and complete cooperation to the commission in fulfilling its mandate and will continue to do so the matter of the collapse of the Algo Center Mall is now before the commission speaker and the government is of the view that the commission remains the proper form for examining its issue it would be inappropriate to comment on any evidence that has been heard by the Inquiry and of course the government looks forward to the commission's recommendations thank you thank you very much Mr. Speaker I'd like to invite the House to join me in welcoming a good friend and activist and an organizer who founded a women's empowerment group and a cultural group that promotes Punjabi culture and we are now deferred votes to the House stands recessed until 3pm this afternoon