With respect to issue of contempt as opposed to confidence, I believe Mr. McGuinty noted that there have been no previous cases where a minority government has acted in contempt of Parliament.
In my opinion, it has never happened that a government acted in contempt of Parliament because there is the option of stating that the government has lost your confidence. Why would it be a matter of contempt when there is always the option of raising a question of confidence? What exactly are you doing to the government by saying that it has acted in contempt of Parliament? If a citizen is convicted of contempt, you have certain forms of recourse against that citizen, but what can you do against the government? One of the things you can do is introduce a motion of non-confidence. That is the explanation, in my opinion. You move directly to a motion of non-confidence, rather than trying to demonstrate that it's guilty of contempt.