DATE: 20010419
DOCKET: C34653
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
FINLAYSON, AUSTIN AND BORINS JJ.A.
B E T W E E N:
TONY CLEMENT
P. John Brunner and Mark Frederick for the respondent
Plaintiff (Respondent)
- and -
DALTON McGUINTY
Julian Porter Q.C. and
Kim Beatty
for the appellant
Defendant (Appellant)
HEARD: February 20, 2001
On appeal from the judgment of Justice William P. Somers dated June 20, 2000.
AUSTIN J.A.:
[1] This is an appeal by the defendant Dalton McGuinty (“McGuinty”) from an order of Somers J. made June 20, 2000, striking out parts of McGuinty’s statement of defence in an action for damages for defamation and refusing leave to amend. His reasons are reported at [2000] O.J. No. 2466 (S.C.J.).
[2] The order was made on the plaintiff’s motion under rules 21.01(a) and (b) and 25.11(a). These rules read as follows:
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all of part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly.
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
[3] Counsel for the appellant concedes that parts of the defence were inappropriate and were properly struck out. He also submitted a draft amended statement of defence and during argument made further concessions with respect to it. In all of the circumstances, I would allow the appeal in part, set aside parts of the order below and grant the appellant leave to amend as he may be advised. My reasons for so doing follow.
[4] The plaintiff is a barrister and solicitor, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario (the “Legislature”) and at the relevant time, namely the late fall of 1999, was the Minister of the Environment. The defendant is also a barrister and solicitor, a member of the Legislature and the Leader of the Official Opposition.
[5] By way of background, it should be stated that for some time before and after late 1999, the development of what are called “moraine lands” lying some miles north of the city of Toronto, was a matter of some contention, involving in particular, developers and local municipalities. The matter was discussed in the Legislature.
[6] Clement complains of two sets of statements attributed to McGuinty. They are set out as schedules to the statement of claim and to these reasons. The statement of claim alleged that the discussion in Schedule “A” took place on November 25, 1999, between McGuinty and a reporter/interviewer in the Global Television Network studio and was video recorded with the intention that it be published as part of Global Television Network’s news broadcast and that it was in fact so broadcast on several occasions.
[7] Schedule “B” is alleged to be the transcript of a telephone conversation between McGuinty and a CBC reporter on November 29, 1999. It is said to have been broadcast on the radio on that date and thereafter.
[8] In his statement of claim Clement pleads that the two statements, both in their plain and ordinary meaning and in the innuendoes arising from them, are defamatory of him personally, in his capacity as Minister of the Environment and as a Member of the Cabinet. The plaintiff also claims that the statements are false and that they were made maliciously.
[9] Among the particulars of malice pleaded by the plaintiff, it is alleged that on January 11, 2000, the defendant published by way of a statement to the Globe and Mail, a newspaper, the following:
It remains Mr. McGuinty’s position that it is highly inappropriate and a serious abuse of authority and office for a Minister of the Crown to interfere in Quasi-Judicial proceeding. . .in a letter to a public official when the matter was before the Ontario Municipal Board.
[10] As a further particular of malice, the plaintiff alleges that on January 13, 2000, in an interview with radio station CFRA in Ottawa, the defendant repeated his prior allegation that the plaintiff was corrupt, refused to withdraw his statement and said “I stand by what I said” and stated that despite the plaintiff’s willingness to accept an apology he would not apologize.
[11] In his original statement of defence, the defendant admitted that he spoke the words set out in Schedules “A” and “B” but denied all other allegations respecting publication. It is, however, common ground that the statements were published and republished.
[12] The gist of Clement’s action is that he was called corrupt because he intervened on behalf of a developer on a matter concerning the moraine lands which was before the Ontario Municipal Board.
[13] The statement of defence denies that the words complained of in their plain and ordinary meaning were defamatory of the plaintiff or that they bore, or were capable of bearing, the meanings alleged in the statement of claim. The defendant also pleaded fair comment, qualified privilege, alternate meanings and legal innuendo.
[14] The motion to strike attacked: paragraphs 9(h)(i) and (j) (particulars in respect of justification and fair comment), paragraph 11 (qualified privilege), paragraphs 13 and 14 (justification and fair comment) and paragraph 19 (s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Those paragraphs, together with paragraphs 10 and 15 (for context) are as follows:
FAIR COMMENT
[9]The facts upon which such fair comment is based are those set out herein, together with the details of documents referred to, or are otherwise notorious:
a.The Oak Ridges Moraine spans 160 km. from the Niagara Escarpment to the west of the headwaters of the Trent River in the east;
b.It is the largest source for the headwaters for 35 watercourses and major tributaries within the Greater Toronto Area (“G.T.A.”);
c.It contains dozens of unique “kettle lakes” and provincially significant wetlands;
d.Natural forests and reforestation areas cover 30% of the Moraine;
e.Current/planned urban development occupies approximately 14.4% of the Moraine in the G.T.A.;
f.The regional governments of Peel, York and Durham have collaborated on a Joint Regional Initiative to produce a discussion paper which calls for the preparation of a Provincial Policy Statement pursuant to the Planning Act to protect the Moraine. (all of the above are generally known facts set out in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority pamphlet);
g.Neither the government nor the plaintiff have instituted a freeze in respect of the Oak Ridges Moraine nor have they proposed any specific policy to ensure the safe maintenance of the Moraine;
h.Developers and their companies interested in developing the Oak Ridges Moraine for residential sites have contributed 209 separate political donations totaling $335,00 to the Progressive Conservative Party between 1995 and 1997 as stated in the Legislature on November 3, 1999;
i.One of these aforesaid companies, Fernbrook Homes, proposed by advertisement a private gated community overlooking the Oak Ridge Moraine;
j.The Cortellucci and Montemarano companies, who were interested in development of the Moraine, contributed $8,840 in 1998 to the plaintiff’s riding association, which the plaintiff admitted in the Legislature on November 4, 1999;
k.1997 – An earlier planning application filed by Jay-M Holdings proposing 770 residential units and an art centre was withdrawn, according to documents from Durham Region Planning Department dated October 26, 1999;
l.March 4, 1999 – Durham Region Planning Department receives an application from Jay-M Holdings, owner of 790 acres, to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan to propose a major expansion of the Uxbridge Urban Area onto the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Official Plan amendment (OPA) proposes 2,500 residential units, an arts centre, a campus for Durham College and a golf course. The OPA proposes to change the land use designation from “Major Open Space – Oak Ridges Moraine” to “Living Area”. The development is called Gan Eden;
m.June 8, 1999 – Jay-M Holdings appeals the OPA to the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis that the Region had not adopted the proposal within 90 days. The OMB files are PL990551 and 0990092;
n.June 17, 1999 – As per requirements of the Planning Act, the Region of Durham sends documents to the OMB confirming the subject matter of the appeal and providing background material. (A municipality has 15 days from the filing of an appeal to provide background to OMB);
o.June 18, 1999 – The OMB receives and logs the Durham Region background material confirming the appeal subject matter;
p.July 29, 1999 – Stephen Diamond of McCarthy Tetrault, writes a letter on behalf of Jay-M Holdings to Regional Council arguing that the Regional Council must approve the Gan Eden development because of the requirements of an Environmental Study Report regarding Uxbridge’s sewage treatment services. His letter suggests that if the Regional Council does not review his proposal they may be subject to prosecution under the Environmental Assessment Act and be punished by way of fine. His letter makes it clear that the Regional Council must reply to his proposition;
q.August 5, 1999 – The OMB issues a notice to the parties in the appeal of a pre-hearing conference scheduled for September 9, 1999;
r.August 26, 1999 – Roger Anderson, Chair of the Durham Region Council, receives a letter written by the plaintiff recommending that the region carefully consider the legal and financial implications of Diamond’s letter dated July 29, in which Diamond clearly linked the sewer project in question and the Gan Eden project by stating, “as part of our client’s application for amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan with respect to the Uxbridge lands, our client has indicated that it was prepared to assume certain costs of a force-main and attendant infrastructure to connect its land and the existing built area of Uxbridge to the YDSS”. The plaintiff’s letter to Anderson sets out in a positive tone Jay-M Holdings’ proposition and refers to the “significant modification test”, (which had not even been raised in Diamond’s letter) and ends with “I trust you will carefully consider this new information and would appreciate being informed of your response to Mr. Diamond.”;
s.September 7, 1999 – Roger Anderson relies to the plaintiff citing OMB File No. 0990092;
t.October 22, 1999 – OMB releases notice of further pre-hearing scheduled for November, 1999;
u.October 26, 1999 – In Planning Departments Report no. 1999, P. 81, October 26, 1999, the Durham Region Planning Committee recommends rejecting the Gan Eden proposal, partly because “the proposed land uses are based on an undesirable servicing concept of extending the YDSS to the Uxbridge Urban Area” and it would invite “overwhelming growth pressures on the Oak Ridges Moraine far beyond the limits of the Uxbridge Urban Area.” Also it stated “the proposal does not represent good planning as it violates the fundamental principles established in the Durham Regional Official Plan and is contrary to growth management principles of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Oak Ridges Moraine Guidelines”. The recommendations tie the environmental assessment and the OMB application together.
10.In the further alternative to the extent the words complained of have the meaning referred to in paragraph 7 and 14 of the Statement of Claim, they are fair comment which a fair minded person could hold upon matters of public interest as set out herein in paragraph 8 and upon facts set out in paragraph 9.
PRIVILEGE
11.The defendant pleads that the words complained of were published on an occasion of qualified privilege. The matter of the treatment of the Oak Ridges Moraine was of vital public interest as reflected in the Legislature on October 26, 1999 to November 4, 1999 in which the word corruption was used therein receiving absolute privilege and the defendant’s repetition of such debate constituted a similar situation in law to a scrum adjacent to the Legislature and the defendant as the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition had a duty to honestly oppose and to repeat what was said in the Legislature in good faith and the public had a reciprocal interest in hearing such opinions concerning that legislative debate and the defendant’s view on the matter. On November 3, the word corruption was used in the Legislature modifying this issue and the aforesaid particulars in paragraph 9 herein were discussed.
LEGAL INNUENDO
13.Further and in the alternative, by way of legal innuendo the words meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had acted improperly and had failed in his public duty to the detriment of the public.
14.The particulars are:
a.in the political argot ‘corruption’ is used in the legislature as a form of attack covering a wide range of misdeed as indicated by one Michael Harris, the member from Nipissing on 21 June 1995 who said without censure the argot “corruption waste and mismanagement in the affordable housing industry have tainted ministers from Chaviva Hošek to Evelyn Gigantes” and Mr. Runciman on 21 June 1993 saying a minister had been corrupted even though he had respect for him.
b.the tenor of the word corruption in political argument in Ontario is that the systems have deteriorated beyond functional good use and their foundations have suffered extreme sclerosis and in such innuendo the words are substantially true and fair comments, based on the particulars in paragraph 9 herein.
Such meaning and connotations were familiar to the audience hearing the broadcasts.
15.In the further alternative, the defendant, in support of the legal innuendo, pleads in mitigation he made it clear on CFRB, one of Ontario’s most listened to radio stations, that he did not say that the plaintiff had been involved in criminal wrongdoings whatsoever, which reiterated Mr. Danson’s position to counsel for the defendant as expressed in a letter dated January 10, 2000.
19.In the hurly burly of politics, politicians with true passion say strong things, and the public benefits from such vital political debate with the necessity of the Leader of the Opposition taking part and such debate is protected by paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[15] All of the portions of the statement of defence attacked were struck out by the judge below. In addition, the words “in support of the legal innuendo” in paragraph 15 were struck out.
REVIEW OF ORDER BELOW AND ANALYSIS
[16] It is convenient to deal first with paragraphs 13 and 14 and the words “in support of the legal innuendo” in paragraph 15.
[17] At the outset of his oral argument, counsel for the appellant conceded that he was in error in his plea respecting legal innuendo and that he was withdrawing his appeal in that regard. The appeal is therefore dismissed insofar as it concerns paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of defence. In addition, the words “in support of the legal innuendo” should be struck from paragraph 15 of the statement of defence.
[18] The plaintiff attacked paragraph 9(h)(i) and (j) of the statement of defence on the ground that the defendant was attempting to rely on an “admission” made by the plaintiff in the Legislature, thereby violating the principle that such cannot be “reviewed” in the courts. The defendant concedes this point and intends to amend his statement of defence in an attempt to carry out that concession.
[19] Counsel for the plaintiff also contends that the same paragraphs are irrelevant to the pleas of fair comment and justification and should be struck out as tending to prejudice or delay the trial of the action.
[20] In this context, Somers J. considered Polly Peck (Holdings) PLC v. Trelford [1986], 2 L.D.R. 84 (C.A.) and the statement of O’Connor L. J. at page 102 to the effect that in permitting a defendant to particularize a plea of justification or fair comment, a court must not permit a defendant to act “oppressively”. Somers J. concluded at paragraph 28 of his reasons as follows:
In my view sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 9 would involve an investigation of contributions made by some 209 separate individuals or companies who are developers or others interested in developing Oak Ridges Moraine. Their records and those of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1995 and 1997 would have to be made available to the court as would the amounts of each donation which allegedly total $335,000. In my view, this plea is oppressive, so is the plea in sub-paragraph (i) tied directly to it that one such contributor had published an advertisement for a property overlooking the Oak Ridges Moraine. I take the same view with respect to sub-paragraph (j). It involves the alleged contributions of two companies which are said to be interested in the development of the Moraine and the amounts they contributed to the 1998 riding association. These pleadings in my view should be struck out.
[21] In this court the appellant argued that the judge below erred in his approach to the question of “oppression” in that he failed to consider the other side of the equation, namely, the extent to which the evidence sought to be introduced by way of particulars is essential to or supports the case of the defendant. In Asper v. Lantos (2000), 2000 29038 (ON SCDC), 51 O.R. (3d) 215 (S.C.J.) MarFarland J., in speaking of a plaintiff’s motion to strike particulars as oppressive, said at p. 219:
On the return of that motion, it is the duty of the court to consider not only whether the plea offends rule 25.11 and is, thereby, unfair to a plaintiff, but also whether it is relevant and necessary to the defendant’s effort to justify the meaning it has alleged. It is an exercise in balancing the rights of the parties on the particular facts before the court.
[22] An example of the balancing that is required in circumstances such as the present is found in the very recent decision of Swinton J. in Yew v. Globe and Mail, 2001 28035 (ON SC), [2001] O.J. No. 317 (S.C.J.). In paragraph 14 of her reasons Swinton J. stated that:
…a pleading should not be struck just because it is oppressive to the plaintiff; rather, there must be a consideration of both prejudice and relevance. Here, given the relevance to a number of aspects of the defendant’s case, the pleading should not be struck, even if it appears burdensome to the plaintiff.
[23] In Yew, the “wide-ranging factual inquiry” suggested by the particulars would reach back some fifteen years. In the instant case, the inquiry suggested would only go back to 1995.
[24] On this point it is clear that the judge below did not consider to what extent the particulars attacked are necessary to enable the defendant to prove its case, nor their probative value in establishing that case. Nor can it be said from the nature of the particulars in issue that the oppression would clearly outweigh that probative value. For these reasons, the order below striking out paragraph 9(h)(i) and (j) must be set aside.
[25] Paragraph 11 of the statement of defence raises the defence of qualified privilege. The plaintiff attacked this pleading both here and below on a variety of grounds. One was that it purported to claim privilege on behalf of, or as attaching to, the defendant as Leader of the Opposition. The main ground of attack, however, was the proposition that, as the statements complained of had been made to the world, the law was clear that no privilege, qualified or otherwise, could attach. Douglas v. Tucker, 1951 54 (SCC), [1952] 1 S.C.R. 275, Globe and Mail v. Boland, 1960 2 (SCC), [1960] S.C.R. 203 and Jones v. Bennett, 1968 126 (SCC), [1969] S.C.R. 277 were relied upon as supporting this proposition.
[26] In his reasons, Somers J. referred to these cases and to an apparent exception, Stopforth v. Goyer (1979), 1979 1661 (ON CA), 23 O.R. (2d) 696. He concluded at paragraphs 38 to 40 as follows:
The mention in paragraph 11 to the comments being made by the defendant as being “a similar situation in law to a scrum adjacent to the legislature” undoubtedly was meant to refer to the case of Stopforth v. Goyer [citation omitted]. In that case the defendant Mr. Goyer, was a minister in the Federal Government. In the course of a debate over the financing of the acquisition of aircraft, he stated that neither he nor his deputy minister were aware of any financing arrangements for the cost of 18 long range patrol aircraft for the Department of National Defence. Having taken this position for a period of time during the course of the debate, Mr. Goyer was surprised to be advised by one of his senior civil servants in the department, that in fact there were certain discussions between the manufacturer and the Department of National Defence. In the course of his making a correction to the house, he identified the senior civil servant, the plaintiff Stopforth and at the end of the statement indicated that Mr. Stopforth had been removed from his function as Deputy Head of the project office.
Immediately upon emerging from the Commons into the government lobby, Mr. Goyer was besieged by representatives of the print and electronic media who asked for clarification on the removal of Mr. Stopforth from his position. Mr. Goyer indicated that he would stand for his officials but that he did not believe that “ministerial responsibility extends to cases of misinformation or gross negligence.” The trial judge refused to give effect to the plea of qualified privilege but this was reversed in the Court of Appeal. Jessup J.A. speaking for the court said at p. 699:
In my opinion the electorate as represented by the media has a real and bona fide interest in the demotion of a senior civil servant for alleged dereliction of duty. It would want to know the reasons given in the house were the real and only reasons for the demotion. The appellant had a corresponding public duty and interest in satisfying that interest of the electorate. Accordingly, there being no suggestion of malice, I would hold that the alleged defamatory statements were uttered on an occasion of qualified privilege.
This case was subsequently distinguished on its facts in Doyle v. Sparrow (1979), 1979 2024 (ON CA), 27 O.R. (2d) 206. I see no factual connection between the situation in Stopforth and that in the case at bar where the words complained of were uttered in radio and television talk show broadcast some three weeks after the event. To give effect to this plea would in my view give a leader of the opposition some form of generic qualified privilege in all of his political utterances. Qualified privilege attaches to the occasion on which the words complained of are uttered or published and not to the maker of them. Nor do I accept the argument that the question of qualified privilege should be left to be determined after a full review of the circumstances and timing surrounding the making of the statement. The pleading has made it clear that there is a substantial time gap between the two and makes clear the circumstances under which they were made. In my view, no additional evidentiary enquiry will alter these facts or make them more susceptible to the application of this plea. In my opinion, this paragraph should be struck out.
[27] I agree with the judge below that Stopforth was distinguished on its facts in Doyle v. Sparrow. MacKinnon A.C.J.O delivering the judgment of the court in Doyle said at p. 208:
The facts in Stopforth v. Goyer [citation omitted] are completely different from the instant case and we do not feel that the principles there relied upon have any application to this case.
In Doyle, however, there is no disavowal of or retreat from the statement of Jessup J.A. on behalf of a very strong court (Jessup, Arnup and Morden JJ.A.) in Stopforth.
[28] The judge below went on to say he saw “no factual connection between the situation in Stopforth and that in the case at bar where the words complained of were uttered in radio and television talk show[s] broadcast some three weeks after the event”. With respect, that approach attaches too much weight to the matter of timing. In my view, the appropriate weight to be given to timing should, to some extent vary according to the nature of the issue under consideration. In Stopforth, the statement was made immediately after the issue broke in Parliament and the duration of the event in issue was very brief. In the instant case, the issue of the development of the moraine lands has been of public interest for some years – and it continues to be so. The statements in issue are, in my respectful view, not beyond the temporal limit of any possible qualified privilege. In any event, the application of Stopforth to the facts of the instant case should be left to the trial judge who will have the advantage of having heard evidence of the surrounding circumstances.
[29] It must be remembered that in Stopforth this court made a finding of qualified privilege. That is not this court’s role in the instant case. Our function is to determine whether the judge below was correct in finding that it was plain and obvious that this could not be an occasion of qualified privilege. Our role, therefore, is different from that of the court in Stopforth.
[30] In my respectful view, the approach to be followed in these circumstances is the one laid down by the Supreme Court in Canada in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 and illustrated by the decision in Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco (2000), 2000 17170 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (3d) 699 (C.A.). Just as the dismissal of an action is a drastic remedy, so is the striking out of a defence. A defence should not be struck out at the pleading stage unless it is plain and obvious that it cannot, under any circumstances, succeed.
[31] The judge below said that he saw “no factual connection between the situation in Stopforth and that in the case at bar”. There is, of course, no factual connection, but in my respectful view it is not at all difficult to anticipate language such as that used by Jessup J.A. in Stopforth being applied in the context of discussions involving the moraine question, the Minister of the Environment and the Leader of the Opposition. It is, therefore, not at all plain and obvious that the defence of qualified privilege could never be found to apply to the circumstances of this case. Unlike Stopforth, malice is alleged in this action but thus far there is no basis for any finding that it was present. I would, therefore, set aside the order below striking out paragraph 11.
[32] Paragraph 19 pleads that in the “hurly burly of politics” the Leader of the Opposition is protected by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms. This was struck out by the judge below. No serious challenge was made to that disposition by counsel for the appellant and the appeal in that regard is dismissed.
[33] On the matter of leave to amend, the judge below said after considering whether leave to amend should be granted, that “I have concluded that the nature of these pleadings is such that it would be inappropriate to make such an order and I decline to do so.”
[34] It will be apparent from my reasons that I take a different view than the judge below of the relative clarity of certain matters in this action. Accordingly, I conclude that there is room for the application of rule 26.01, which provides as follows:
26.01On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.
No reason has been suggested why leave to amend should not be granted in the circumstances, it being understood that the defendant is not bound by the draft amended statement of defence included in the supplementary appeal book.
[35] In summary, I would allow the appeal in part. I would set aside the order below striking out paragraph 9(h)(i) and (j), paragraph 11 and paragraph 15, with the exception therein of the words “in support of the legal innuendo”. The order will stand with respect to those words and with respect to paragraphs 13, 14 and 19. In addition leave to amend the statement of defence should be granted.
[36] As success is divided I would make no order as to costs.
RELEASED: April 19, 2001
“Austin J.A.”
“I agree G. D. Finlayson J.A.”
“I agree S. Borins J.A.”
SCHEDULE “A”
THE INTERVIEWER: - - - for support today. You also hit out very hard on the government. The word ‘corrupt’, ‘corruption’ was used. I think for the first time by you to describe this government and the way it operates. Aren't you afraid of opening a Pandora's box here?
A lot of liberals remember 1990, the Patti Starr affair, the liberal problems that David Peterson had. There’s some risk in going after a government calling it corrupt - - -
MR. McGUINTY: Well - - -
THE INTERVIEWER: - - - when some would suggest previous liberal governments have perhaps been in the same way - - -
MR. McGUINTY: You know, Robert, at some point in time we have to establish some kind of a break with the past and focus on the issues of the day. When we go to the election, when we go to the polls next time in 2003, the years in which we had the privilege of serving in government will be long, long gone.
I’ve got a responsibility to point out shortcomings of this government today. I’m not laying any claim to the fact that we may have been perfect in the past, but the fact of the matter is, when we’ve got a Minister of the Environment here, Tony Clement, who insinuated himself into a matter that was before the Ontario Municipal Board and went to bat for the developer, I think that is corrupt. You’re not allowed to do that.
As long as he stays in government, that stink of corruption hangs over the entire government.
THE INTERVIEWER: The Minister says he did not go to bat for any developer, he simply wrote a letter.
MR. McGUINTY: Well, I understand and I expect that he would say that. But the fact of the matter is, he did. It’s there in black and white, there’s a letter and there’s a reference number from the recipient of the letter that refers to an OMB file. That’s corruption, you can’t do that. And Mike Harris has a responsibility now to step up to the plate and say, Tony, you shouldn’t have done that and now you’ve got to sit on the side lines.
THE INTERVIEWER: But, Mr. McGuinty, with respect, I don’t see people picketing outside Queen’s Park saying, Tony Clement’s got to go. So where is the issue in the minds of the public?
MR. McGUINTY: Well, my responsibility and the responsibility of my caucus is to continue to hammer away at this issue. I mean, the fact of the matter is, we are privy to these issues, we watch them day in and day out, and we’ve got to continue to bring them to the fore. That’s exactly what we’re going to continue to do.
THE INTERVIEWER: I have to go back to a question, because I think it’s significant about what’s going to happen here tomorrow and your leadership question. I think there seems to be a feeling in the halls of this hotel tonight that you’re going to hang on to the leadership. But, again, the percentage of the vote is critical.
At one point you seemed to be saying fifty per cent plus one, that’s fine. Do you really still think that that’s going to be fine for Dalton McGuinty?
MR. McGUINTY: Well, I mean, the constitution clearly provides that, if you want to stay on as leader of a party, you must earn the confidence of the majority of the membership. That’s fifty per cent plus one. Now, obviously, I hope to earn more than that and I’m looking for strong support, I am working in the halls, I am listening to people, convincing them that I intend to work with them and to capitalize on everything that they bring to the table.
THE INTERVIEWER: So is it 65, 70, 75 per cent? What is going to satisfy you that you have earned the confidence of this party when you leave here tomorrow?
MR. McGUINTY: Strong support. It’s not so much a number, Robert, as it is a sense that people understand how important it is for us to emerge from this weekend united and focused on the job for which we’ve been given specific responsibility. Oppose harmful government policies. And, ultimately, replace the Harris government.
THE INTERVIEWER: On that note, thank you very much for joining us.
MR. McGUINTY: Thank you, Robert.
THE INTERVIEWER: Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty.
SCHEDULE “B”
THE INTERVIEWER: You called the current government in your speech this weekend, underhanded and corrupt, which disappointed some people even within you own party, they thought that language sort of extreme as well as conservatives. Do you feel that that’s the kind of tone you’re going to take into the next election?
MR. McGUINTY: Well, I understand that I may have offended some of the sensibilities of the conservatives in Ontario, and, of course, I deeply regret that and I remained awake all night thinking about that. The fact of the matter is, we are up against a government which is a bully, which is aggressive, which is not attuned to the sensitivities of Ontarians and their concerns and their hopes and their fears.
We will stand up to this government, we will do whatever it takes to stand up to this government. Just recently a cabinet memo was leaked, I think it was brought into the light of day that said this government continues to cut education and will hide those cuts from the Ontario public.
We’re not up against somebody who plays by the rules, and our intention is to do whatever it takes, John, to ensure that we expose this government and people see the real face of this government.
THE INTERVIEWER: And what you’re trying to expose, you believe, is a corrupt government? We’re not talking about individuals who might have done something currently under investigation or under dispute. You believe this government that you’re opposing is a corrupt government?
MR. McGUINTY: When I use language like that, I’m talking about - - - let’s take one specific example: we’ve got the Minister of the Environment, presumably who’s going to act for the environment, on behalf of the environment, who went to bat for a developer who wants to develop lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The matter also happened to be before the Ontario Municipal Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal. Cabinet Ministers are not allowed to interfere in those matters. That’s a sign of corruption. The man stills is there, he holds onto that job. And as long as he’s there, that taints the entire government.
THE INTERVIEWER: But you - - just remembering the Patti Starr affair while David Peterson was the liberal premier. Did that whole affair make his government corrupt, or was it just about an individual or a few of them who were involved in - - -
MR. McGUINTY: My responsibility, John, is to deal with the present, it’s to deal with this government. I’m not about to defend anything that we’ve done, that my government might have done in the past. That’s how Ontarians intend for me to act. This government is coming up short, there are all kinds of very serious allegations now that this government is having to contend with.
We will continue to press our points forward, and we will do that relentlessly and tirelessly.
THE INTERVIEWER: Mr. McGuinty, congratulations on the vote of confidence you received from your party, thanks for talking to us this morning.
MR. McGUINTY: Thank you very much.
THE INTERVIEWER: Dalton McGuinty, the liberal leader of the Ontario liberals speaking to us from his home this morning.