It is now time for oral questions. I recognize the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The Premier told the Integrity Commissioner that he does not recall speaking with Sergio Mancha about changes to government land use policies and yet new documents revealed this week show that the Premier met with Mr. Mancha on at least two occasions before announcing changes to the green belt, changes that benefited Mr. Mancha. One was a fundraiser for a fellow caucus member, the member from Flamborgh, Landbrook. So to the Premier, how many other government members have had fundraisers with people who are looking for preferential treatment from this government? Well, Mr. Speaker, like any party, including the NDP over there and the Liberals and the green and ourselves for decades, you go to fundraisers, you meet hundreds of people, they chat with you. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what the people of Ontario are concerned about right now. They aren't concerned about what the leader of the NDP is saying. They're concerned about the carbon tax. They're concerned about their mortgage when they're about to lose their house next year or the year after when they have to renew it. They're concerned about the groceries and the gas bills. Mr. Speaker, I just went to an opening over at Costco, met hundreds and hundreds of people and every single one of them said just keep going, make sure you protect our backs, make sure you lower the cost and the burden on the backs of the taxpayers. And that's what we're doing. We're making sure that we're lowering the gas tax by 10 cents. We got rid of those tolls in the 412 and 418. We're making sure that we're giving 1.1 million low income folks in Ontario a tax break. We're going to continue doing that. So we're going to focus on making sure we're fiscally prudent with taxpayers' money and we're going to be cutting taxes, not worrying about what you meant to question. Thank you, Speaker. Well, I think people of Ontario are very concerned that their government is under criminal investigation by the RCMP. Through this government's questionable fundraising is very well known to the people of Ontario. They've been warned and even cautioned on multiple occasions by officers of the legislature and even elections on Ontario about their fundraising practices. The Integrity Commissioner revealed that the Premier's fundraiser in chief was selling tickets to the infamous Ford family Stag and Doe to developers with business before the government. Those developers at the event succeeded in getting their properties removed. So to the Premier, was the Premier aware that his top fundraiser was peddling Stag and Doe tickets to developers who were lobbying the government? Mr. Missful, Affairs and Housing. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think it was a member for Kitchener who was actually singled out as having used government resources to raise funds. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue Waterloo, excuse me, Waterloo. I think, Mr. Speaker, what matters is exactly what the Premier said, that we continue to double down on insurance to build 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario. Leader of the Opposition, of course, talks about fundraising. I guess I could ask her the same thing. When Silvio de Gasparis gave you $1,000 to the NDP, what did you promise him? Can we stop the clock? Ask the Leader of the Opposition, take your seat. I believe the standing orders indicate that questions go to the government. Not the reverse. But at the same time, I would encourage all members to make their comments through the chair. Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition. Well, from official plans to the Green Belt grab to MZO's, we have a chaotic and speculator-friendly government driven by this Premier. We're hearing hidden phone records, deleted emails, secret USB keys, brown envelopes, backroom deals, and even cash for access events hosted by sketchy speculators. So back to the Premier. Is this how business is done in his government? Order. Minister Mirkel Farrison, how is it? Well, Speaker, one of the people that she accuses of being a sketchy speculator, excuse me, are the de Gasparis. Now, having said that, they've built a lot of homes across the province of Ontario and hopefully they will continue to do so. I wonder if she thinks that Carlo de Gasparis, who also made a $1,000 donation to the NDP, is sketchy as well, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition promised both Silvio de Gasparis and Carlo de Gasparis, who are the now $2,000 donations that we have found that went to that party, Mr. Speaker. What we're going to continue to do, Mr. Speaker, is ensure that we continue to build 1.5 million homes, working with people like the de Gasparis family who are building homes across Ontario and other home builders who want to do so, Mr. Speaker. But then again, I ask the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP has accepted $2,000 in donations from the very same people she now calls sketchy, Mr. Speaker. If she has a third question, I might highlight some of the additional donations. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition. Just two days ago, we asked about two noble properties in the green belt. Can't hear the Leader of the Opposition, who duly has the floor, has the right to ask her question. I must hear the member who has the floor. The member for Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke will come to order. The member for Kitchener, Conestoga will come to order. If you ignore my request to come to order, I will warn you. Start the clock. Leave her the opposition. Mr. Speaker, just two days ago, we asked about two nobleton properties in the green belt that the Premier's friend Shakira Matula wants to develop. Now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs replied and he said, quote, no changes were made to these lands. Only it turns out there were changes made to these lands, Speaker. The former Minister changed York Region's official plan to allow private servicing to these green belt lands so they could be developed, just as the Premier's friend wanted. And new evidence shows Ministry staff assuring Ryan Amato that that's exactly what the changes to the official plan were for. They say, it's our understanding of the solution they were seeking. So to the Premier, will his minister correct the record? Minister Ms. Volker has announced it. Right, Mr. Speaker, there were no changes made to that official plan and the Leader of the Opposition will know that the green belt changes were, we revoked the green belt changes to the provincial plan, Speaker. That is a bill that is in fact in front of this house and actually collapsed earlier today when the NDP did not want to carry on debate. I will correct my record, but it is not just two donations from developers that she calls sketchy, Mr. Speaker. That's the difference between them and us, right? We want to build homes. We want to call the people that build homes sketchy because the people that build homes are the same people that came to this country, worked really hard, came here with absolutely nothing in their pocket and have grown and done something for themselves and remarkable things for this community. So while they call them sketchy, I don't think a person like Jean-Carlo de Gasparis who gave $1,000 to the NDP is sketchy. I think he's a person who works hard and, Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue to support those for the province of Ontario and thank them for doing so. Thank you, Speaker. It's pretty clear the only thing this government is sorry for is the fact that they got caught. This show that the Premier or a member of his staff wanted to make sure that the Premier's friend, Mr. Ramatoula, could develop these greenbelt lands in Novelton. On November 4th, Mr. Ramato wrote, and I'm going to quote, Premier's office has asked me for a picture to make sure it's captured. So back to the Premier. Who in the Premier's office was so interested in these Novelton greenbelt lands and why? Premier? Well, Mr. Speaker, like the minister said, everything was rescinded. So, but what are you concerned about? How deep they're involved with the public sector unions? Like Fred Hawn, that's an anti-Semite, by the way. This donating money to you... Order. Donating money to you to the maximum amount. What do you owe? What do you owe Fred Hawn? That's my question. Extra deals, backroom deals, giving you more money? You know, but again, I'll tell you one thing. Order. He supports Hamas. You know he does.  And he's a supporter of your... Order. Take their seats. Order. Order. I'll remind the members to make their comments through the chair. Start the clock. Leader of the opposition. You can tell they're running scared, eh? That is under criminal investigation by the RCMP, and they won't even take these questions seriously. The integrity commissioner reported that Mr. Rematula's request for changes to these greenbelt lands in Novelton caused quite a stir among the minister's political staff. I think this is actually the first time I've ever seen the F word written in a report tabled by an independent officer of the legislature, Speaker. The report does not explain why the minister's political staff would give so much attention, so much attention to a request from Mr. Rematula. So back to the Premier. Did he or any of his staff direct the ministry to make these changes that benefited his close friend, the people of Ontario deserve an answer? Speaker, now Mr. Rematula is building homes in Stovall. Homes that are supported by the town of Stovall, by the city of Markham. Homes for seniors, Mr. Speaker. Homes that are so important in our community. Now, the leader of the opposition called Mr. Rematula a sketchy developer. I wonder if she felt that way when he was giving a $2,000 donation to the NDP. Was he sketchy? Did you give money back? Working home, builder. I apologize to the minister of municipal affairs. I can't hear you. I'm going to ask the members to allow the minister to make his response so that I can hear him. Start the clock. Minister of municipal affairs in housing. Yeah, you have the leader of the Liberal Party chiming in, right? You have the leader of the Liberal Party chiming in. See, here's the difference, Speaker. We're not calling the people who build homes for the people of the province of Ontario sketchy. The NDP and the Liberals are. They're pleased to take money from them, but in the very same breath, call them sketchy. If they believe that and stand in your place, return the money that you receive, Mr. Speaker. We think that the people who build homes are the people that we should be supporting, and we aren't going to stop because we need them to build 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario. Ottawa South will come to order. The member for Kitchener-Conestoga will come to order. Start the clock. The next question. The member for Spadina, Fort York. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. After a decade of liberal scandals, the Conservative government came in promising transparency, but since then we have seen the most egregious displays of preferential treatment from a government in Ontario's history. Apologies ring hollow when everyday new details trickle out that show we don't yet have the full truth about the Premier's involvement in these donor deals. Can the Premier please tell us how he will increase the powers of the integrity commissioner and the auditor general to bring an end to Conservative and Liberal scandals? Again, to the member opposite. It's actually not the Premier who makes that decision. It's Parliament that makes that decision, Mr. Speaker, and it is Parliamentarians that will decide the powers of the integrity commissioner and the auditor general's speaker. But at the same time, I wonder... I wonder if Julian de Gasparis is sketchy, because the opposition NDP, of course, accepted a $1,000 donation from him as well. I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, because unlike the opposition, who call the people that build homes, build infrastructure for the people of province, I don't want this country, Mr. Speaker. You know what I'm proud of? I'm proud of people who have come to this country with literally nothing and have built something for themselves and then have turned that passion into building for other people. Generations of Italians like this family and other families, Mr. Speaker, have came here, started with nothing and have done amazing things, Mr. Speaker. We'll support them because we need 1.5 million homes. The Premier, the government house leader says that as Parliament that decides on the rules for the integrity commissioner, this conservative government already voted down a motion to strengthen the powers of the integrity commissioner that the NDP brought forward. This afternoon, the NDP will be tabling a bill that will make some vital reforms to our democratic system. The most important of which will be to finally ban preferential treatment under the members integrity act. This will mean no more billion-dollar Greenbelt grabs for conservative donors. No more shady bidding processes leading to a 100-year giveaway of public parkland at Ontario Place. This government has to work for everyone, not just the Premier's insider friends. If you agree, will this government support the NDP's motion? Mr. Municipal Affairs and Housing. Motion, Mr. Speaker. That's what the NDP do, right? They bring motions. Well, what this side does is bring bills to the house and we debate bills that it can actually make change for the people of the province of Ontario. I wonder if his motion will include the unions that support him and that are anti-Semitic. Probably not. They'll continue to take money from those very same unions, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if it will include people like Michael de Gasparis and the $1,000 to the NDP, Mr. Speaker. Let's get this straight. The people that they call sketchy, the very same people who probably build the roads or the houses that they're living in and driving in, they're sketchy. You build in Ontario, the NDP think they're sketchy, Mr. Speaker. If you worked hard to build wealth for yourself, they think you're sketchy.  We're just 15 minutes into this. We've got 45 minutes to go. We're doing the public's business. People are watching. People are in the visitor's gallery. The pages are here. A number of members have repeatedly ignored my request to come to order. I'm going to start warning them if it persists. Start the clock. The next question. The member for Essex. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ever since this government was elected, we've been working to make life more affordable for people in Ontario. And to this end, we even fought the carbon tax all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government has finally admitted that the carbon tax, which we knew all along, hurts people in the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, the federal government has only taken steps to exempt a small number of people in Atlantic Canada from the carbon tax. However, what about us in Ontario? What are we? Second-class citizens? I want to ask the Minister of Energy would he share his views on the federal government's decision to exempt only a small number of people from the carbon tax and not the province of Ontario? Great question. Minister of Energy to reply. Speaker, like the member from Essex, I can't understand why the federal government is leaving Ontario out in the cold. It just doesn't make sense, especially when half of the federal Liberal caucus comes from the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. It's quite shocking. The Prime Minister, though, this time last week, did finally admit what everybody in this House should know is that the carbon tax is making life more unaffordable for the people of Ontario and more unaffordable for people from coast to coast to coast across this country. As the Premier said in the House on Monday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that it's costing significantly more for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, and it's only going to get worse as the carbon tax goes up and up and up, Mr. Speaker. So, despite having all of this information and that knowledge that the carbon tax is making life as the current Ontario Liberal caucus of nine continue to vote against motions calling on the removal of carbon tax from grocery. Thank you. The supplementary question. I thank the Minister of Energy for that answer. You know it's truly shameful, shameful that the Liberals and the NDP in this House continue to work against us and won't work with us to make life more affordable for people in Ontario. We have tried time and time again to raise awareness about the carbon tax and it's harmful impact on things like groceries and gasoline, but the Liberals and the NDP continue to fight against us and disrespect those concerns. They do nothing to help us bring life more affordability in the province of Ontario and continue to add additional financial burden to people who work hard. Speaker, please I'm asking the Minister to share his views on the harmful impacts that the carbon tax has on hardworking people here in the province of Ontario. And to reply, the Minister of Energy. Speaker, thanks to the member from Essex again. Like you, I hope the Ontario Liberals that are now down to nine members in this House can see the harm being caused to Ontario because of the carbon tax. Something that they've supported every step of the way, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately for them, the Liberals have a cherished history of saying one thing and doing another. The Prime Minister once told us that families would get more back from the carbon tax than they would pay. We now know, thanks to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that that's not true. Liberal Cabinet Minister Stephen Gibow once said it wouldn't be fair for the rest of the Federation if we started carving out exceptions for provinces. But that's the direction that the Federal Liberals have gone, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the members of the Ontario Liberal Caucus and the Federal Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker, is why are they so opposed to making life more affordable for the people of Ontario? Once again, I'll remind the members to make their comments through the chair and questions normally go to the provincial government from other members. Start the clock. Member for Nickelville. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health. Toronto Paramedic Union issued a code red to indicate that no ambulance was available to respond to emergency calls. That was their second code red in October. During that period, a 98-year-old woman waited unconscious over 28 minutes for an ambulance to end up being dispatched from appeal. Can the minister tell us whether the elderly woman unconscious waiting for 28 minutes for an ambulance is quality care? Deputy Premier, Minister of Health. Thank you, Speaker. And, of course, the member opposite knows I cannot speak to specific cases. I was not in the dispatch center nor was she, and she was not there on the scene. What I will say and she knows full well that ambulance dispatch in the province of Ontario is a seamless system wherever you are in the province of Ontario, the closest ambulance to you will assist you. Now, having said that, we have ensured through working directly with our ambulance and paramedic experts to make sure that we have put in additional programs and supports including, of course, always there as a 50-50 partner with municipalities as they expand their ambulance services, whether that is personnel or, of course, vehicles. Any questions? Thank you, Speaker. Yesterday it was Kitchener Waterloo facing a paramedic cold red when 10 ambulances were waiting at St. Mary's General Hospital in Kitchener to offload their patients. Speaker, some patients had to wait up to 8 hours for an ambulance from a surrounding region to come and help. Minister, is this the level of care that the good people in Waterloo can expect from Doug Ford's Ontario? Once again, remind members to refer to each other either by their writing name or their ministerial title as applicable. I recognize the Minister of Health to reply. Speaker, you know, I'm proud to say under the leadership of our premier and our government, we have been able to expand not only the number of ambulance paramedics who are actually being trained in the province of Ontario through a learn-and-stay program that ensures that as we train additional paramedics in our college and university post-secondary system, we are covering their tuition and their books in exchange for practicing under covered areas. We also, of course, expanded 911 models of care. This actually ensures that that paramedic can work with the patient and make sure that they have options other than the emergency department. Look, I know that the NDP have categorically stated that they don't want to see any change in our health care system, but the truth is we are making changes that are impacting people's lives and making sure that services are available closer to home. Order. The next question, the member for NDP. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The independent Liberals and the opposition NDP members in this House support increasing the federally imposed carbon tax. They know that increasing the carbon tax will result in a significant spike in fuel prices, setting off a chain reaction of increased costs across our economy. The carbon tax will increase dramatically. Businesses, particularly those in rural, remote and northern communities are already struggling to keep prices affordable for their customers. We must do everything we can to reduce taxes for all Ontarians during this period of economic uncertainty. Speaker, can the Minister please explain how the carbon tax is negatively impacting Ontario's natural resources sector? The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to reply. Speaker, yesterday I had a chance to talk about how negative the carbon tax was on the forestry sector and how the cost of the carbon tax is now getting built into every home in Ontario. That means every bolt, screw, two by four, fence board, it's got carbon tax in it. It doesn't need to be that way. It can be a lot simpler than this. Our Premier and Minister showed the way again this week of how easy it is to reduce taxes and reduce that burden. So the federal government needs to step up and do the same thing. We heard yesterday from the OFIA, our Forestry Industry Association how damaging the carbon tax was for them. Here's what they had to say about the fuel cut. This has a significant impact on small businesses and their employees operating in northern, rural and indigenous communities in Ontario. It's easy. It's easy to do it. And our friends across the way here, Mr. Speaker, they can pick up the phone, they can send an email. Maybe they got some carrier... Order. The Minister will take his seat. Remind him that the Speaker stands. You sit. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. The carbon tax raises the price of everything. I simply cannot understand why the opposition would support such a regressive carbon tax that makes building anything so much more expensive. It causes prices to rise across the board, which puts a heavy burden on our businesses. Because of the carbon tax, businesses are left with a tough choice. Either absorb the extra cost themselves or pass them on to their customers. And while the independent liberals and the opposition NDP have no problem with the regressive carbon tax it is not fair or right that Ontario families, workers and seniors are being punished. Speaker, can the Minister please explain what impact the carbon tax has on our economy and our businesses? Thank you. Thank you very much, Speaker. Yesterday the other thing I spoke about was the aggregate sector and how every time we load up a truck with aggregates and take it to a project, there's carbon tax embedded in that load of aggregates. And this has got to stop, Mr. Speaker. Let's think about how many loads of aggregates go into projects. For one kilometer of subway building 4500 loads to build a hospital 3700 loads of aggregates. I left off the great Minister of Education and the schools that he wants to build in Ontario yesterday and he goes now, carbon tax. We could do more if we had more here in Ontario but the federal liberal government insists on charging a carbon tax on every single thing we do. It's insidious but it has to stop. We are doing such a great job in building Ontario. Municipalities are impacted as well by the work that they do. This tax is easy to stop. It just takes a phone call from our friends here in Ontario. Let's get it done. Help on Ontario. Thank you. The next question. Thank you Speaker and good morning. My questions to the Minister. Raised by veterans organizations and residents alike, there's a gap in how the Ministry of Transportation honors our veterans. The exclusion of RVs and green electrical vehicles from the Veterans License Plate Program. Today I will be tabling a clear solution. Expand the program to all vehicles. Our veterans service is invaluable and our gratitude shouldn't be limited by their choice of vehicle. Minister, let's close this gap together. Will you work with me to ensure all veterans can display the Veterans Poppy License Plate guaranteeing equal recognition for their service to our nation and our country? Thank you. To apply the Minister of Transportation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely. I'll work with a member as the member from Aurora Oak Ridge and Brain has had this conversation with me earlier a couple of weeks ago as well. I'm committed to working with all members of this House to ensure that that is something that we can work towards. It is of utmost importance to myself and thank you for raising it for my colleague as well who has been working with me on this for the past couple of weeks as well. Thank you. Thank you. Restart the clock. Member for Ottawa. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the Minister. It's nice to hear good news in this House. I have to admit because Sam Ludmer, a veteran who's watching, hi Sam, back home in Ottawa Center was the first person who raised an electric vehicle. He can't display his pride in being a veteran on its license plate. Minister Good here, we've got an opportunity to work together on this. Sam, I want to thank you for taking the time to push politicians to do the right thing because look what you just did. You've created unanimity in this place. Can we get once more for the record, a commitment in this House, as Remembrance Week approaches to work with the Opposition to do the right thing to be proudly displayed with veterans license plates. Today. My members to make their comments through the chair to reply the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Thank you very much, Speaker and I thank my colleague from Ottawa Center as well as St. Catharines for the question and for bringing this important point and the question to the Minister of Transportation. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for meeting with me earlier to hear my suggestion on this to the members of St. Catharines, as the Premier said. I want to thank you very much to you and Jonathan, please convey our gratitude for the service that he's providing to us. Mr. Speaker, every man and woman in uniform sacrifice to date past and present has and continues to sacrifice for us. We will not forget them which is why we expanded the Soldiers Aid Commission by 600% for $1.55 million to include past and present service and continue to serve our country. Mr. Speaker, which is why we removed the property tax for all Legion House. Those that have served us under the leadership of the Premier and our government will not be forgotten. We will continue to have their backs today and in the future. Thank you Mr. Speaker and this question is for the Minister of Health. A good portion of the most vulnerable residents in Ottawa live in my writing especially in the Vanier and Overbrook neighborhood but access to primary healthcare is cruelly lacking. The good news is that there are solutions. A group of nurse practitioners has submitted an efficient plan for a nurse practitioner led clinic that would provide primary care to 10,000 residents. In order to make this a reality however they need this government to do their part and provide the necessary funding. If the government is willing to pay in $8.3 billion of taxpayers money to pay over the green bell that led to a criminal investigation can the government find enough money to provide primary care to those in need unless this is not a priority for the government. So I'll give the Minister a chance to explain where the ministry is in a process of approving these critical projects so that Ontarians can have access to primary healthcare. The Deputy Premier and Minister of Health. Okay, in the members own question she talks about how we have in fact made an investment. We have asked for expression of interest we have had literally hundreds of applications come in we are making those assessments so at one hand she acknowledges that through our your health plan we've made an investment and commitment to expand primary care across Ontario and yet she is suggesting that we are not doing that which is it because we've made the investment we are assessing those applications as we speak we are as I said the largest expansion in multidisciplinary primary care teams in the province's history and we're doing that work were you there were you supporting it when we put that in our your health plan and in budget the short answer is no. Again remind the members the supplementary question. Mr. Speaker the need for primary care in my riding of Ottawa is huge it's a huge priority and it's been the number one issues ever since I was elected currently there are no community clinics in Vanier or Overbrook to provide primary care the only option for people is to go to wait indefinitely in an emergency room or pay for healthcare with their credit card when the Ministry of Health put out a call for proposals people started to hope and several groups submitted proposals to create clinics to provide much needed access to care however it's been months months and months of waiting and none of them have yet been approved in the meantime the situation keeps getting worse when will the ministers start approving the proposals for primary care practitioners so that residents can get access to the primary care that they need now Minister of Health Thank you so the expression of interest came in mid-June we are making those assessments with literally hundreds of applications and a member who is representing a party that for 15 years did nothing to expand primary care in the province of Ontario and in fact speaker actually cut the number of residency positions that were available for new docs and new physicians who were wanting to practice and train in the province of Ontario I will take no lessons from that member on how to improve health care in the province of Ontario The next question the member for Carlton Thank you Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker my question is for the Minister of Energy the carbon tax is hurting our farmers hurting our families and hurting our businesses unlike the independent liberal members in opposition NDP our government the carbon tax drives up energy prices across the province that is why it is unfair that the federal government is choosing to exempt certain parts of the country from the carbon tax while punishing others during this time of economic uncertainty Ontarians deserve respect and fairness when it comes to affordability Speaker can the minister please explain why the federal government is only taking action to help a small number of Canadians and ignoring Ontario Minister of Energy Speaker to the member from Carlton it's pretty obvious the federal liberals have looked at the polls and they didn't like what they saw and that's why they acted Mr. Speaker after years of saying that it would return more and benefit to those across the country they are now realizing that that is simply not the case that the carbon tax is driving up the price of everything as the member mentioned but to exclude only home heating oil the majority of residents in Atlanta Canada and only 2.5% of those who use home heating fuel in Ontario while ignoring the 70% who use natural gas or propane Mr. Speaker is just unforgivable it's an open admission first of all that the federal government wasn't telling us the whole cold truth for years and for all those years our government has been standing up time and time again fighting the federal carbon tax Mr. Speaker to the Supreme Court of Canada we've been making life more affordable for the people of Ontario by driving down heating costs by driving down the price of gasoline by making electricity more affordable Mr. Speaker when will the the supplementary question thank you Speaker and thank you Minister for that answer the people of Ontario deserve to have their concerns about the harmful impact of the carbon tax heard and raised and as you've said it appears that the carbon tax was raising the cost of everything our government has consistently communicated this information however the independent Liberals and opposition NDP were content to sit back and see Ontarians slapped with another tax this is wrong unfair and unacceptable to the hardworking individuals families and businesses in our province the carbon tax makes life more expensive for everyone in every part of Ontario especially Mr. Speaker through you can the minister please share his views on how devastating this regressive tax is for the people of Ontario thank you Mr. Speaker the chickens are coming home to roost for the federal Liberals it happened to the provincial Liberals a number of years ago and I know that people across the province are looking at these two opposition parties and are as disappointed as I am that they continue to support a carbon tax the price and cost of living in Ontario we've stood in this house over and over again fighting the carbon tax Mr. Speaker and over and over again they've been saying that we were fear-mongering well Mr. Speaker the price of everything is going up we're not done fighting for the people of Ontario and the good member from Lanark Kingston is going to be presenting a motion a little bit later on this month Mr. Speaker to give the opposition parties another chance to stand up for the people of Ontario he's bringing forward a motion to eliminate the carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating for people across Ontario Mr. Speaker I want to know they've got time to think about it will they be supporting the member of the PC caucuses motion to eliminate the federal carbon tax thank you the next question the member for Sudbury thank you very much Speaker my question is for the Premier the minister of the Ontario transport truck driver schools the goal is to replace licensed mills with excellent training for drivers unfortunately there are still some dodgy companies not meeting the melt standards and how do they get away with it but the ministry only has 8 inspectors monitoring 582 vocational schools 260 of these schools provide transport truck driver training basically Speaker these 8 inspectors are set up to fail my question is that we all know that putting untrained drivers on the road is dangerous my question is will the Conservative Government commit to hiring enough inspectors to ensure full compliance of transport truck driver training schools to apply Minister of Transportation thank you very much Mr. Speaker safety in the transport industry across all of our roads is the utmost priority for this government and that is why when it comes to commercial licensing Mr. Speaker we have some of the most robust and training in the entire country and in that fact across North America it includes a minimum of 103 hours of instruction and covers a variety of issues from entry level knowledge skills and those practicals needed the skills needed to operate large trucks on Ontario's roads Mr. Speaker our enforcement officers MTO enforcement officers run across this province and their roads remain safe and I want to appreciate all the work that they do day in and day out supporting the safety of our highway and transportation networks across this province and the supplementary question the member for Thunder Bay Mr. Speaker drivers are travelling across the entire province without seeing a single inspection station that is open while MTO and OPP Blitzis have led to charges being laid out earlier and more frequently the lack of proper training and lax enforcement of truck safety is resulting in horrific crashes and constant highway closures we know there is a new super station opening up on highway 1117 in Shunia but on other major routes inspection stations remain closed as they have been for years will the government finally commit to staffing inspection stations across the province so that the highest possible standard of safety is enforced on our highways and again the minister of transportation Mr. Speaker Ontario does have the highest standards of safety when it comes to not only the transportation sector but our roads across Ontario we lead North America and this country by example and will continue to ensure that we have a rigorous not only training process for commercial vehicles but also ensure that our inspectors that are out on the road have the resources to be able to continue and carrying out those inspections Mr. Speaker the truckers carry a lot of weight during this time and we want to make sure that our roads are safe and that we support our trucking industry through this as well but Mr. Speaker over a hundred and three hours are required in comprehensive training the number is licensed inspections happen all across this province every single day across Ontario and we will continue to ensure that we work together with all members of this House to improve safety on our roads thank you the next question the member for Thornhill thank you Mr. Speaker my question is for the associate minister of small business as a small business owner herself the minister knows personally that starting and operating a business takes immense effort and entrepreneurs are constantly balancing the cost and any additional burden can have a massive impact so sadly the businesses in my riding are telling me that they are facing unprecedented economic challenges due to the carbon tax and high interest rates while the independent liberals and opposition NDP are willing to support this regressive carbon tax our government believes that penalizing businesses in this way is unacceptable so Speaker can the minister please explain why the negative effects on the carbon tax on small businesses in Ontario are doing such a negative impact to the people the associate minister of small business thank you Speaker and thank you to the great member from Thornhill the great work that the advocacy she does for Ontario's constituents and our creators small businesses are the heart of our province sending vital goods and performing essential services throughout all of our neighbourhoods that's why our government is steadfastly opposed to the federal carbon tax a policy that disproportionately hurts small businesses and the families that they feed and support whether it's a mom and pop shop struggling with higher fuel delivery costs or a manufacturer seeing production businesses rise this carbon tax amounts to an unfair penalty on Ontario's job creators the NDP and liberals talk about affordability but time and time again they side with the carbon tax proven to damage our economy eliminate jobs and weaken communities right across Ontario if they truly stood with entrepreneurs they would join us in calling on the Prime Minister to remove this job thank you thank you thank you speaker and thank you to the minister for being such a progressive advocate for the small businesses and entrepreneurs in Ontario this regressive carbon tax hurts the very people that any government should be helping and the carbon tax hurts the farmers who grow the food the truckers who move the food the restaurants who serve the food and the consumers who buy the food even worse speaker it is Ontario entrepreneurs and our small businesses that are forced to shoulder increased costs because of this regressive tax and rising interest rates at a time when concern for economic security and cost of living is so high the last thing Ontarians need is higher taxes speaker can the minister please explain why removing harmful taxes like the carbon tax is so vital to helping support our small businesses thank you thank you speaker and again to the member for the question I know first hand the sacrifices entrepreneurs make and the challenges that they face each and every day that is why I was proud to see the premier and the minister of finance stand up for both businesses and consumers by extending the gas tax cut until June of 2024 for small businesses and families every dollar counts by keeping an extra $260 in people's pockets this tax cut will allow residents greater ability to support local small businesses whether buying goods or supporting a local restaurant for businesses themselves cheaper fuel means lower transportation expenses allowing them to save elsewhere whether it's delivering products to stores and customers commuting employees or other necessities speaker small businesses businesses in all of their writings shouldn't be paying Ottawa more just to get less we call on the NDP and Liberals to join us and tell the federal counterparts that hard working Ontarians desperately need money more now in their pockets acts the tax now thank you the next question the member for Hamilton moment thank you speaker my question is to the premier the residents of Flambrough Glamrock are calling on the government to shut down the stony creek dump the industrial dump has wreaked havoc on their neighbourhood the lingering stink has caused health issues ruined outdoor play and forced residents to keep their windows closed a local mom wants the premier to know her kids cannot play outside because the putrid smell is so awful the country school is paused residents have had enough they feel they've been misled by developers while purchasing million dollar homes GFL is a lucrative business who have moved their own business offices offsite when will the premier look out for this thriving community and shut down the dump thank you speaker and certainly I share the concern of those families as the directors go on to them I know they haven't been able to have a summer like many other families have had because of this issue and as soon as I learned about the issue from the member of Flambrough has had huge leadership on this front we've been talking to GFL almost every day on this issue talking with officials on the ground to take action to ensure that this issue is resolved and I will say that the premier is very much paying attention on this file as well I've spoken to the mayor of Hamilton and let's be clear speaker we want to get to the bottom of this issue and ensure that we're taking every action necessary an order has been issued for this landfill to take serious action to take swift action to resolve the matter I'm happy to share a copy of the order with the member opposite supplementary question member for Hamilton the Ministry of Environment approved the expansion of the landfill in 2019 the members of the community and the city who voted against the expansion and at that time the Ministry said the environmental impacts would be appropriately managed so quite obviously this dump is not being properly managed now the Ministry says the foul odor residents are experiencing is unacceptable they've received over 900 complaints in six months the city is exasperated and has called for a veto the minister said if the landfill odors can't be contained the dump must be closed and that's what the residents are asking for so Premier why do the profits of a private conglomerate like GFL matter more than the health and well-being of Stony Creek residents the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks thank you speaker let's be clear this government takes the health and safety of all Ontarians of Glenbrook for bringing this very important issue to my attention we've been taking action every day we will continue to be on top of this until it's resolved we take it very seriously and I do have a copy of the order in front of me right here where we have taken serious action we'll take whatever is necessary to get the issue resolved for these residents who do resolve a resolution and I have been working with the mayor who's very up to speed with what we're trying to do to ensure that this action is taken so that residents can get back to their day-to-day lives so I will be passing on a copy of this order with a page to the member's office the next question the member for Peterborough Coortha thank you speaker my question is for the member of Bay Aquinti also the Minister of Energy we spent much of this week talking about how the carbon tax is raising the cost of everything in fact my father who lives in the Bay Aquini writing called me and said that the Bank of Canada and the federal government have now acknowledged that what we've been saying for years the carbon tax is harmful to the people of Ontario in response for my father that's what our government has been working diligently to find practical solutions to make Ontario's electric grid not just more affordable but also cleaner more reliable can the minister please share information so that my father knows about what actions our government is taking to reduce energy and reduce costs for everyone in Ontario Minister of Energy alright so this one's for Ron this morning down at Prince Edward County listen I'm pleased to talk about all of the initiatives that our government has undertaken not only to make life more affordable but also to drive down emissions to the province Mr. Speaker you don't have to do what the Liberals did and are doing and making life more affordable to drive down emissions Mr. Speaker we've introduced a clean home heating initiative which makes hybrid heat pumps available to natural gas customers in various locations across the province Mr. Speaker something we think the federal Liberals should support us on as well we've introduced the ultra low overnight rate Mr. Speaker for those who have and are considering buying an electric vehicle so they can charge peak times in the overnight period saving themselves money we've introduced the green button standard right across the province at local distribution companies giving customers the opportunity to reduce their bills by having the data they need by up to 18% Mr. Speaker what else have we done we've reduced the electricity rate through the Ontario electricity rebate for customers between 15 and 17% and of course taking 10 cents off a liter at the gas pumps too Mr. Speaker supplementary question thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the minister for that my father is going to thank him as well when he sees him it's great to see that there are better ways to fight climate change while ensuring that all health hold budgets are also respected it seems obvious that the federal carbon tax was always short-sighted and simply was wrong our government knows that making life more affordable needs to be a top priority but that doesn't mean we can't also reduce emissions at the same time these initiatives prove that it's possible to oppose a carbon tax while continuing to fight climate change taking money out of your pocket doesn't fight climate change Ontario deserves both a healthy environment and a healthy economy can the minister please speak to the benefits of implementing energy solutions that help reduce costs for Ontario taxpayers thank you thanks to the member opposite for the question the rationale behind the federal carbon tax was really to make life more expensive for those who use fossil fuels Mr. Speaker so therefore it's driving up the cost of everything but we've taken substantive actions here in the province to make sure that we're reducing emissions and making life more affordable at the same time it's a bit like Groundhog Day listening to the member from Ottawa you know the things that we can do to reduce the cost of living when he votes against every single thing we bring forward the member from Ottawa south was a part of the caucus that introduced the Green Energy Act one of the most harmful pieces of legislation in this province is history Mr. Speaker their energy minister told us at the time it was going to cost a dollar more a month on electricity bills Mr. Speaker we know that that drove people into energy poverty from every part of our province Mr. Speaker and reduced his caucus to a minivan caucus the member for Toronto Saint Paul thank you speaker my question is to the premier Sue St. Marie declared gender-based violence as an epidemic adding to more than 63 municipalities across Ontario which have formally declared this truth to date 2023 has seen more than 50 Femmicide Speaker more than one per week all while this conservative government continually fails to mobilize the resources from affordable housing to pay equity to community crisis and response funding needed to reverse this tragic course that Ontario is on my question is back to the premier will he take the first step to ending gender-based violence by declaring it as an epidemic one requiring real action from this conservative government thank you speaker to apply to solicitor general well thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the member opposite let me be clear there is no excuse for violent crimes there is no excuse for intimate partner violence and we take this matter very very seriously and as I said we are engaging all partners all partners to act and we're doing so with a very broad lens and that's why Mr. Speaker we have invested over 55 million dollars in various grants including 45 including supporting 45 victim services grants to help communities throughout Ontario Mr. Speaker we will also hold offenders accountable and Mr. Speaker we are taking further action at the Ontario police college by having mandatory screening for our cadets there to learn about intimate partner violence in the end of the day IPV is completely unacceptable we supplement your question the member for Toronto Centre thank you speaker Councillor Angelo Caputo who moved the unanimously adopted Suce Marie motion to this house after the recent and heartbreaking mass murder suicide I ask Premier Ford to reconsider the stance of his government Angie Sweetney deserved better these three innocent children deserved better women in this province deserve better Speaker on Monday we were absolutely shocked to hear the Solicitor General dismiss the top recommendation from the Supreme Court in quest as an empty gesture of symbolism my question to the Premier is will he join the 63 municipalities who have already adopted similar motions by substantially declaring intimate partner violence and epidemic and committing the necessary resources to keep women and children safe in Ontario Solicitor General well thank you Mr. Speaker it's not exactly what I said what I said was very clear that declaring something in a medical term is not by itself action and that's why our government takes it very seriously and our thoughts are with the families in Suce Marie for this heinous crime that was committed on them it is undeniably tragic but Mr. Speaker the 55 million dollars are being invested in programs that will have tangible benefits Mr. Speaker training at the Ontario Honors College will have tangible benefits supporting 45 projects through victim services grants will have tangible benefits holding the people to account will Mr. President Mr. Speaker everybody has the right to feel safe in their community Mr. Speaker for me there is nothing more important than the safety of our programs thank you the next question the member for Brantford branch thank you Speaker my question is for the Minister of Finance a month ago the Bank of Canada reported that the federal carbon tax was responsible for a mere 0.15% increase in inflation researchers sought an explanation only to discover that these calculations were not accurate now the figures have changed the Governor of the Bank of Canada now says that the original number did not account for the years of tax increases and revealed that the correct impact of the carbon tax is actually four times higher at 0.6% it is clear that the federal Liberals and the Bank of Canada are out of touch when it comes to understanding the important impact of carbon tax Speaker can the Minister please explain how this regressive tax is creating economic hardship for Ontario thank you Speaker and thank you to the member from Brantford branch and I'm very happy that you're bringing this topic up because nobody else in the house seems to bring it up the opposition Liberals and NDP don't want to go here our government has led the charge starting in 2018 to fight against this harmful carbon tax we are proud that we have fought against this tax speaker which we know would lead to poor outcomes for the people of this province the carbon tax is sadly contributing to the overall inflation rate which is growing rapidly in this province that in turn is causing interest rates to go up paying off their mortgages more money to pay every single month if we can eliminate this tax we can entangle our economy from the grips of inflation and make it easier for the people of Ontario to buy the goods and services that they require this is why our government continues to urge the federal government and we would love our opposition members right here in this house to join us and fight this punitive tax thank you


From Burlingame, California, it's theCUBE. Covering SumoLogic Illuminate 2019, brought to you by SumoLogic. Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're at the SumoLogic Illuminate conference. It's at the Hyatt San Francisco Airport. About 700, 800 people full house in the keynote earlier today.  We're excited to have a very close friend of mine, CEO of the very hot companies. Kamal Shah, the CEO of Stackrocks. Kamal, great to see you. Thank you, great to be here, Jeff. Absolutely. So for folks that aren't familiar with Stackrocks, give us the overview. Sure, so in a nutshell, we do Kubernetes security. And so as we've heard all day today, enterprises are deploying microservices, containers, Kubernetes, and we do security for your cloud-native infrastructure. So how does security work for Kubernetes versus security for other things? Yeah, so, you know, the use cases for security or the mission for the security team is the same, right? You got to harden your environment to prevent the bad guys from getting in. Right. And you have to make sure that despite your best efforts, if somebody does break in, that you catch them before they do any damage, right? But how you do security has to evolve for the cloud-native stock, right? It has to understand that containers are immutable at ephemeral infrastructure. You have to understand that it's not just about the container, it's also about the orchestrator and specifically Kubernetes. And it's also about making sure that you seamlessly integrate with DevOps, processes, automation, or workflow. So it requires a fundamentally different approach to security than traditional security tools. So, you know, we talk a lot about the increasing attack area that's offered by IoT, right, and the increasing attack area that's offered by all these APIs and all these interconnected applications. But I've never heard anyone really talk about containers or orchestration as kind of a new attack surface. Is that we stop paying attention? Is that something that you're seeing happen? It's something that is starting to emerge. And we've seen some high-profile breaches at a large next-generation electric car company and a large shopping site where misconfigurations led to security breaches in the Kubernetes environment, right? And Kubernetes ecosystem also did a CUBE security audit. And so, I think we're going to start to hear a lot more because there's more and more applications that are being deployed in production. It's creating a new attack area. And as the old saying goes, the predators go where there's food in the system. And so if you're not proactive about it, I think it's going to really hurt as you deploy containers in Kubernetes. So we hear over and over and over again about breaches because people misconfigure stuff. That just seems to happen, whether it's a database or this, that and the other. And I think we can pretty much safely assume everyone's going to get breached if they haven't got breached already because we hear about it all the time. But how do you catch them fast, limit the damage and try not to have too much vulnerabilities? Exactly. And so, the use cases for what we do around Kubernetes are the same, right? It's vulnerability management, it's configuration management. And we just did a study around state of container in Kubernetes security and misconfiguration was the number one concern because the reality is that Kubernetes is that a lot of knobs and each knob has multiple options. So if you're not careful, you can really misconfigure your environment and make it so much easier for attackers. Right, right. And that's precisely what happened at the two examples I cited earlier. So misconfigurations is important, runtime security is important, and also compliance. Let's not forget about compliance, right? And so you have to make sure that you meet your PCI, HIPAA, NIST, and CIS benchmark standards for this cloud native stock, right? So what we're seeing is that these are all becoming very, very important. And as a result, it's increasing awareness as Kubernetes becomes more prominent. Right. And then they're creating and tearing down hundreds, thousands, millions of these things at a meticulous pace, right? I mean, exactly. I mean, you know, Kubernetes came out of Google, they open sourced it, and it's really what allows you to deploy and manage containers at scale, and apparently they manage hundreds of millions of containers a day using Kubernetes. It's incredible. Oh yeah, I saw a statistic that Google launches four billion containers per week. There you go. And that was from a presentation, actually from a 4.1.1, unless from like two years ago. Yes. So one can only imagine the scale. And you know, we are also seeing not quite four billion containers per week, but we are seeing thousands and tens of thousands of containers at scale at companies everywhere. And they're all deployed in production, and now they're waking up to security, right? So the good news here is that they're not waiting for breaches to happen before they solve the problem, but there's still a lack of awareness. And what SumoLogic has done today with that announcement around continuous intelligence for Kubernetes just increases the awareness around, hey, we have to solve observability, which is logs, metrics, and tracing, which is what Sumo does, and security for your cloud-native infrastructure stack. Yeah, I mean, the automation is so important, right? I mean, you can't do any of this stuff with this exponential growth of data, exponential growth of pushes, of new code releases. There's so many pieces in this. So automation is a huge piece of the puzzle. Automation is paramount, and with this new infrastructure, there aren't enough security people to solve this. So security has to become everybody's responsibility. And the only way we're going to solve this is to automate it. And it also has to integrate with your DevOps processes and automation and workflows, because if you don't, then the DevOps body is going to reject the security organ, right? And so it has to be seamless in the way you deploy it. It's interesting that you say that, because we go to RSA, 40,000 people, more vendors than you can count. I mean, it bulges Moscone to the absolute edges, but everyone says over and over and over again that security's got to be baked into the entire process from beginning to end. It's not a bolt-on and can never be successful on a bolt-on. So it surprises me there. You say that still a lot of people are kind of behind the curve. Well, I mean, if you think about it, even though they say that, right? If you're in a traditional monolithic application, you go spend six months building it, and then you can go spend a couple of weeks or a month hardening and putting security around it. But when you're launching applications every six hours, you can't spend six days addressing security, so it has to be built in. And speaking of RSA, if you recall, last year, the big talk at RSA was around AI, right? Everything was AI-driven security. My prediction, my bold prediction for this RSA, it's going to be all around Kubernetes security. Yeah, well, it's applied AI. Applied AI for Kubernetes, and that's what you need. No, it's just, I always feel for like, you know, this ISO, just walking the floor at RSA, going, you know, where do I begin?  How do I prioritize? It's kind of like an insurance problem. You can't insure to the end degree.  And it's got to be super, super confusing. It really is. And I think what we are seeing is that CISOs are relying on their dev and IT ops teams, right? They are partnering with the VP of platform, VP of infrastructure, VP of engineering, because when you think about this new world, security is really, the ownership of security is now shifting from the information security, security teams to dev ops teams, right? So security teams still drive policy, and they still want to make sure they do the trust and verify, but the implementation of security is now being owned by dev ops teams. So it's a big cultural shift that's going on in organizations today, and CISOs have to realize that it's no longer just them, but they had to partner with their dev ops counterparts to effectively address security for this cloud native stock. So tell us a little bit about the relationship with Sumo. How do the applications work together? What's the solution look like when the two solutions are brought together? Yeah, so Sumo has been a great partner. We have several joint customers. The one way, the simplest way to think about this is that Sumo does observability for Kubernetes. So that's logs, metrics, and tracing. And we do security for Kubernetes, right? So we are the yin to the yang. And what we do is we have taken all the intelligence we get from security and we feed it into the Sumo dashboard. So Sumo customers get a single pane of glass, not just for the observability data, but also for the security violations, whether it's for vulnerability, so whether it's for configuration, or whether it's for runtime threats, right? And you get it all in one single place. Right. So I just want to get your take on kind of this rise of the momentum behind hybrid cloud that we've seen recently. Big announcement at Google Cloud Show with Anthos. Big announcements between VMware and Amazon. And so it always kind of swings back and forth. It was all into public cloud and now there's a little bit of a pullback in hybrid. But that's terrific for you because the fact of the matter is workloads should run where they should run. They don't really care. It's what's appropriate, horses for courses, right? Precisely. So we've seen the shift from public cloud to multi-cloud and then from multi-cloud to hybrid cloud. And the underlying infrastructure that makes that a reality are containers and Kubernetes, right? And that's why we've seen this tremendous momentum on Kubernetes. And what we are seeing is customers that want to give their dev teams their flexibility to pick their favorite cloud or even do it on premises, their private clouds. But they want to bake in a single security solution that gets integrated no matter where you run your infrastructure and that's integrated back to your Sumo dashboard, right? So you have visibility across all dev teams, all your application infrastructure, regardless of where they're running, right? And there's one security standard that gets implemented. And that is really... And I think that's the future because that's how you don't want to be beholden to a one cloud provider. You want flexibility, you want choice. And again, Kubernetes allows you to do that. Well, and the whole thing becomes more autonomized, right? Atomic memory, atomic compute, atomic store, throw that on IoT and edges and now you're starting to distribute all those bits and pieces all over the place, which is going to happen. It is going to happen for sure. All right, so looking forward, I can't believe we're almost through 2019. It still shocks me every day. Like at the calendar, but what are some of your priorities looking forward? What are you guys working on? What do you see coming down the pike? Yeah, so you touched on a couple of these. So today there's a lot to talk around Kubernetes. We are seeing Kubernetes also get deployed in IoT and edge devices. And we're also seeing that being used to manage serverless infrastructure. And so we're going to continue to evolve as Kubernetes evolves. The other big trend that we are seeing in the market today is around service mesh, right? And so people talk a lot about Istio and LinkerD and using service mesh as your policy framework to drive consistent policies across applications. So that's another area where we are innovating very rapidly and that will become, I think, more and more real in enterprise deployments over 2020. Yeah, well, congratulations. Come all to you and the team. I think you picked a good horse to ride on. I should say ship, right, with Kubernetes. Thanks for taking a few minutes. No, thank you for having me and I can officially say now that I've checked off one of my professional bucket list items which is to be on theCUBE with an old friend. So thank you for having me, Jeff. We'll check that box for a minute. All right, he's Kavalaam Jeff. You're watching theCUBE where it's SumoLogic Illuminate from the Hyatt San Francisco Airport. Thanks for watching. See you next time.


What does it mean when a guy asks to be friends with benefits, can that end up in a relationship? What it means is that it's probably not going to end up in a relationship. What they've done is they've done a study on this and people who try to go from a friend with benefits to a real relationship, like people that actually try. It's not just friends with benefits that go into a real relationship. It's people who actually try to go from a friend with benefits into a real relationship. It only happens one in nine times, right? And so basically what you're getting right now is a big red flag that says, hey, I'm probably not going to want anything more anytime in the future. We're agreeing to this right now. You know that you're agreeing to this right now. And so if you bring up anything else in the future, just remember that you agreed to this and he'll point back to when you agreed to this and that you're nothing more. And so my suggestion is that if you want a real relationship, do not get into a casual friend with benefits situation with anybody. Just stop doing it completely. And because what ends up happening is you're going to have this guy in your life, right? And if this guy is taking up the space of getting your needs met and getting into something real, then you're not going to have space open for another man who's serious to come in and give you what it is that you actually want.


three Montgomery takes the loss McGill gets the win going to hear from Gio or Shella now who went 0 for three in the game of the strikeout. Why do you think you guys had you know errors again just struggled overall to try to make anything happen.  I mean we are trying to do the best. It's going to happen. We are trying to to keep like don't do it like trying to do like too much. We have to control what we can control and if we make an error and just keep going and stay focused for the next play. Given the circumstances how do you try to prevent yourself from from trying to do too much and making those errors. I mean this is like I said it's going to happen. We play baseball. Every time we go there we try to do the best time. For me I'm ready for every play that's that's what I play. You guys have now lost 7 straight almost the second week of September just what can you do to get back on track. Stay focused keep the same confidence that we had like a couple weeks ago when we won the win a straight and we had to keep fighting. You can go next to Tom Mariam. Gia do you sense any frustration among the players? No no no really huh. You're trying to I know we've been losing a couple games and you're trying to keep with the with the head up and we got another game tomorrow and we're going to with the same confidence. Any other questions for Gia? We go back to Meredith. Gia you mentioned the confidence and and trying to turn the page but what tells you that this team is going to be able to do so? We still got a couple games left. We know like we got a lot of people like fighting for us um it's bad and he's trying to to to keep it there you know can be frustrated sometimes but


He says, I ordered a new Mac Studio and I'm pretty excited, won't be here till June, but you know, it's how it goes. He says, I have a Drobo 5D that connects to my 2015 iMac with a Thunderbolt 2 cable. Which cable slash adapter do I need to connect it to the new Mac Studio and then, of course, retain the best performance? So the good news is Thunderbolt is Thunderbolt and it's all backwards and even in a sense forward compatible. You know, I was able to put Thunderbolt Thunderbolt 3 dock on my Thunderbolt 2 Mac just by getting the right adapter. There are lots of adapters out there. However, all the third party ones to my knowledge that we've tested are only single only uni directional. Now for a display or something that can be fine for a drive, for a dock, that's not okay. And so Apple's Thunderbolt 3 to 2 adapter, and we'll put a link in the show notes, is the, you know, the only one that goes bi-directional and that's the way I would recommend going. It's not the least expensive one, but it is the one that's going to do the magic for you. So that's the, that's where I would go with that and I'll, I'll put a link to it in the show notes. So


Hello, my name is Oliver Perta and I'm going to give a presentation where I will talk about mixture and group-based trajectory models. This is the first of a series of three presentations. So in this first presentation I will explain the logic of trajectory-based group models by comparing this type of analysis against growth models. I will then outline the key characteristics and parameters of trajectory-based group models and finally I will illustrate the criteria for determining the number of groups that we identify in this type of analysis. In the material provided there'll be also some exercises and some further material that you can read on. In many studies we are interested in developmental trajectories. Let's see, there is how an outcome like a behavior or a competence change over time and in many instances we may consider example like the one I represent here in this figure where we may be satisfied that most participants follow a single trajectory on average with some variability around this trajectory that represents sources of variation and accounted for. A similar trajectory is defined by parameters that describe the change of the variable and we call these parameters growth parameters. These include an intercept which represents the variable status at the point where we decide to start our observations and slope parameters that represent the outcome rate of change per units of time. I will discuss these parameters later in the presentation. The main point here is that we use a model that we can call one size fits all because we assume that participants generally follow this trajectory and variations across individuals growth parameters follow a predefined distribution for example a normal distribution around the average parameters. In many fields, theorists assume that the one size fits all approach that I just described is inadequate. In clinical and developmental psychology for example there is a long tradition of theorists that assume there are typical developmental trajectories where people do not develop significant mental health issues but other individuals follow atypical trajectories where they display significant mental health issues at various ages or at various times for example following a traumatic event. In this graph here for example I plotted fictional data where the lines represent trajectories of different individuals and the graph is trying to highlight how there may be different trajectory groups. See for example the difference between the red and the black trajectories the red and the black lines. The theorists that assume different groups of people with different developmental trajectories sometimes assume that there are different etiologies that is different causal mechanisms that can explain these differences or that different trajectories are the result of exposure to different events over time and often they assume that these groups of individuals can respond differently to various interventions and treatments. Here I wanted to give an example of a similar theory and that's Moffitt's taxonomy of anti-social behavior. I also put the QR code that directs you to this paper and Moffitt hypothesized that there may be two qualitatively different groups of adolescents that engage in anti-social behavior. One small group includes adolescents that engage in anti-social behavior from an earlier age and continue to engage in anti-social behavior after adolescence here represented this group in with the red line in the graph. Moffitt suggested that the causal mechanisms that lead to this life course anti-social behavior involve early neuropsychological problems that lead to an accumulation of risk factors for example family conflict and so on. A larger group of adolescents instead the green line here in this graph engage in anti-social behavior only during adolescence and they do so because they want to emulate anti-social peers that are perceived as being more independent at a time when affirming their own independence it's very important. Once these adolescents transition into adult's roles and acquire financial and effective autonomy they're not longer motivated to engage in anti-social behavior. So this is an example, a famous example of taxonomy of developmental trajectories, a theory that supposes that there are different groups of people that follow different trajectories in anti-social behavior in this case. So if we assume that there are different trajectory groups in a sample or in a population how can we identify these groups? Traditional researchers had used arbitrary categorization rules. In the example in this graph we can plot each individual's intercept the starting point of the outcome and estimate the variable the outcome change over time and come up with some sensible criteria for classification. The problems with arbitrary criteria or ad hoc rules are that we must assume before we start to study that these trajectory groups exist and we do not have formal statistical tests to check if there is enough variation in the sample we are observing to support the existence of different trajectories trajectory groups. Furthermore arbitrary criteria or ad hoc rules do not provide information about the adequacy and precision of these classifications and finally when we are devising ad hoc rules or arbitrary rules we would rely on the observed trajectories with few means to disentangle the true variation we observe from the error variation in the data. The solution to the problems of ad hoc rules or arbitrary criteria for categorization is provided by development of mixture and group based models which I'm presenting here and articulating the next presentations. I will particularly focus on growth mixture models and latent class growth analysis and these are person-centered approaches that is they assume that a sample is made up of a mixture of individuals with different propensities for some behavior or different propensities for change over time in the behavior we observe in this case. The goal of these approaches is to identify a limited number of groups that adequately explain the variation in individual trajectories we observe. The methods I will present are based on latent class analysis and if you want to know more about latent class analysis I have prepared other material for NCRM. These methods latent class analysis and the growth mixture and latent class growth analysis are based on probability rules and therefore have many advantages compared to arbitrary rules for categorization. One of these advantages is that they allow to test if a person-centered approach provides a better and more adequate representation of the data compared to a one size fits all approach. They also allow to assess the precision of the categorization by returning probabilities of individuals being one category or one group or another so in this way which can check that the level of uncertainty in assigning participants to trajectory groups is adequate. They also allow to disentangle random variation in the variables from real variation and finally by assuming different trajectory groups these methods also help relax some restrictive assumptions in one size fits all growth models as I will explain later in this presentation. Before describing that trajectory group models I wanted to provide an example of latent growth curve model which is the basis for understanding the person centered models. We start from an interest in longitudinal data that is a variable is collected at least on three different occasions or more in the figure here the variable is collected over five occasions for example. The variable can be continuous dichotomous for example depression versus non-depression or can be an order categorical variable for example drug use from known to occasional to frequent drug use. The change across time can be represented by different models for example multi-level regression models but here I focus on a latent variable model. The idea is that we can represent the intercept the initial status of the variable at time zero the time we take as the start of our observations as a latent variable and in the figure here you see that the arrows the intercept to the variables are all fixed at one which means that the relationship between these observed variables and the latent intercept is constant that is the intercept represents a value of the outcome of the outcome that does not change since it's the level at which all individuals start on average. The slope is a second latent variable and explains the range of change the rate of change in the outcome the blue numbers in the arrows from the slope to the observed variables represent the time factors that multiply the effect of the slope for example the association between the latent slope and the variable at the start of the study is multiplied by zero meaning that the level of the variable at the start of the study is only affected by the intercept and the effect of the slope on the observed variables is then multiplied by numbers that represent the increase in unit of times so if the slope is estimated as being 1.5 for example the level of the outcome at time one will increase by 1.5 while it will increase by 3 by time two so 1.5 times 2 the slope in this case represents a linear trajectory where for every year that passes after the start of the study the level of the variable observed increases by a factor of 1.5 on average. Note that these latent variables have variance which means that each individual displaying some variation and that is different values above or below the average initial status and above and below the rate of change and this variation can also be correlated providing a covariance and one assumption is usually that variation around the intercept and the slope are normally distributed so that's the basic growth curve model. A growth mixture model takes the growth model that I've just described but assumes that the sample is made up of a mixture of individuals that have different average growth parameters different intercept and slopes. These groups cannot be directly observed but we can infer them by looking at the growth parameters of the different individuals. We can thus estimate different latent classes where individuals in each class share the same propensity for displaying a certain developmental trajectory. One important issue to notice here is that there is variance in the intra class intercept and slopes which means that individuals within one latent class will still display variation in the average trajectory. Within classes the variation around the growth parameters is also supposed to be normally distributed and in other words individuals within one class are supposed to share the same propensity for a distinctive developmental trajectory and each trajectory class has its own distinctive average trajectory but individuals within each class will also vary around this average trajectory. A latent class growth analysis will provide a similar model to the one just described one where we assume that there is a mixture of individuals in a sample and each group or class of individuals have different propensities for distinctive developmental trajectory. The key difference in latent class growth analysis that we assume there is no variability within classes all individuals within a class have the same growth parameters or in other words they follow the same developmental trajectory with variation being only due to measurement error. To illustrate the difference between these models I have from these graphs so in the first one on the left I'm represented at one side fits all model with a similar distribution of a growth parameter which by the way is not normal. The growth mixture model can represent this distribution we observe by indicating different classes that have different averages of the parameter but they're all distributed normally around the respected average as you can see all the distributions of the three classes here are all symmetrical and so on. So these normal distributions represent the intra class variation whereby individuals within each class can vary in the growth parameters. The latent class growth analysis will instead represent a distribution by indicating different classes that have different parameters but with no variation around these parameters. Since there is no variation within classes more classes will be estimated to adequately represent the full distribution as we can see here. I will emphasize once again that these groups group-based models are probabilistic so the relationship between the observed and the latent variables are estimated with error. This also means that the classification of individuals in different trajectory groups is not certain but there is some level of uncertainty and it is important to take this into account in particular when we want to test the association between trajectory groups and predictors. The uncertainty in group classification is also reflected in some of the key parameters of the models as well as the class specific growth parameters represented in these figures as i, s and q for intercept linear slope and quadratic slope respectively. A second key parameter is the latent class prevalence. There is the probability that a random individual will be in latent class one, two or three and these probabilities sum up to one which means that every individual is supposed to belong only to one class. In the example here 45 percent of participants are estimated to belong to latent class one and the other important parameter is individuals probability of being in each of the latent classes estimated. We can see this individual highlighted here for example has 56 percent probability of being in latent class one and 33 percent of being in class two and 21 percent of being in latent class three so the individual has a higher probability of being in class one but you can see this affiliation is not certain and there is some margin of error. The posterior probabilities sum up to one which means that despite this uncertainty each individual is supposed to belong to one class or another. The statistic entropy represents the precision of this classification. Entropy varies from zero to one where zero represents a case where all the participants have the same probability of being in class one, two or three and one represents a case where all the participants are certain to belong to one class or another so the closer entropy is to one the more precise the classification. And finally I wanted to emphasize that in determining the number of trajectory classes that we need to adequately represent the interpersonal viability in the trajectories we observe whether we apply growth mixture models or latent class growth analysis we need to consider a series of statistics which include model fit information criteria and even entropy and I refer to my presentation on latent class analysis if you want to know more. However it's important to accept some judgment and not blindly follow the statistics and the judgment we need to accept is whether the models we are estimating represent the main features of the data in a parsimonious way that is in a way that reduces complexity but also successfully represent key characteristics of the data and allows to evidence important features of the data. Some of the key criteria for a successful model can be for example whether the groups we identify are characterized by different previous experiences different variables that can explain the affiliation to different trajectory groups and we may also identify groups that differ in these outcomes and also groups that show different trajectories in other processes so the success in identifying an adequate number of groups should also determine by how useful and parsimonious are the groups and the models we identify. So just before I finish I wanted to provide some warnings and one is that these models require samples with heterogeneity which means that ideally the sample should be large or some people say as a rule of thumb at least 300 participants in the sample that the number of participants in the sample depends on other issues and the complexity of the models and so on so it's possible to apply these methods to smaller samples than 300 participants but the models need to be more constrained. Estimating these models can also require a lot of computations and especially in the case of growth mixture model those the estimation of the models can take a long time and it's also important to consider the issues with model estimation convergence and the fact that some of the solutions we find may not be that reliable and I refer again to the presentation I made on latent class analysis. So to summarize what I've said in this first presentation growth models assuming that all participants follow the same trajectory may be inadequate or not appropriate for some data looking at and growth mixture models and models and latent class growth analysis provide person centered approaches to identify groups with distinctive developmental trajectories in their outcomes in the variables we observe. These models are based on probability and therefore provide robust and transparent methods for classification of individuals into different group into different trajectory groups and the difference between those two models is that growth mixture models assume variability within classes whereas latent class growth analysis assumes that there is no variability within the classes so the classes represent typical but different developmental trajectories and finally I emphasize the importance of accepting some judgment in the selection of different models or identifying different number of groups. So thank you very much for your attention. Bye now.


OK. So let's force this acetal to go, though. Usually, when you're going to do acetals, you want to put a little drop of acid in there, because it catalyzes them to form. It makes it form real fast. So let's work with our diol, our 1, 2 diol, and acetone here. And we'll just write a little drop of acid in a different way than you've seen it before. Let's just write that. So you can write that, what we've been saying, like H2SO4, H2O. You could also write H3O plus. Of course, all of those are the same thing. H3PO4, cat, it'll say sometimes. So I actually don't prefer to write just H plus, because honestly, that ion doesn't really exist, H3O plus, and even bigger ions than that. But sometimes in the book, you'll see it as just H plus. So I don't want you to get confused, OK? So anyways, what's the first step that's going to happen in this reaction? The third rule of organic chemistry, maybe. Acid-basic reactions happen faster than any other reaction. So when I ask and you say, I know, tell me, OK? Just tell me. That's all you've got to do. Let's just, I'm going to erase that. We should have a proper, let me see what that will do. Oh, I put it in front of me. So you could think of it doing that, OK? Or honestly, probably what's going to happen is this is going to deprotonate the acid first, and then it's going to transfer it to that, OK? Because this is more basic than that, OK? But it doesn't matter, OK? Because eventually, you have to get that proton on that ketone oxygen, is that OK? So when I do that. And in fact, let's just erase this, because that doesn't have anything to do with that first step. Now we have our dial. So now it's going to happen. There's a little bit of a tank. Those electrons will go under it, push that double bond up. So this thing is a good electrophile, right? This is like that super electrophile that we're talking about. So just like we're saying, the next step is going to be nucleophile electrophiles. And those are the arrows you want to make. Very good. I like it. That's what I want. You know it, tell me. So let's draw our product of that. So remember, what is the hybridization of that carbon there? That's SB2. SB2. And the next one's going to be SB3, right? So if we had two different substituents on this carbonyl carbon, there's going to be a stereocenter being formed, OK? So you've got to watch out for that. But of course, in these general reaction equations. Create that tetrahedral entropy. The other thing you always want to keep in mind, of course, here, we didn't write our water molecule. You know, as organic chemists, we don't always like the balance equation. But you always want to keep in mind that if you've got a positive on one side, you want to keep that positive going. So the next step is going to be what? Can anybody guess what the next step is? It's going to be y, because we've got an acid there. Deprotonation. It's going to be a two-step deprotonation. It's not this one. It's not going to deprotonate. It's too hard for it to reach around, OK? So we're going to have to have water deprotonating here. And I'm just going to erase like this arc here. Let me show the whole work. So that step, OK? So I don't have to write the whole thing again. Now that, is everybody OK with that, OK? So now what's going to happen is one of these, it'll keep going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, until eventually this one gets it, OK? So it's going to deprotonate like that. And in fact, that's one thing we should be showing here, is that all of these are equilibrium arrows. And there's a driving force of this reaction. We'll talk about that later. So of course, that's also an all-acid base reaction. So a good leading group, right? We've created a good leading group. I go down, and under the water, we create those. So I'm going to come back up into that leading group. It'll be. And now we have a point in turn. So, OK, one second. Let's see if, is everybody OK with that step? So the next step is the lone perelectrons from this oxygen, is that what you're saying? Lone perelectrons from this oxygen are going to collapse down on here, right here, OK? Yeah, it's a very important step. Because it's going to kick out that leading group. Is it easier for this thing? Is it easier for me to close my eye or to make my foot kick my eye closed? Do you know? Yeah, if I'm real talented and I don't have an eyelid, you know? It'd definitely be funny. So the closest proximity thing is going to happen first. So that's pushing the reaction, actually, because that's a stable molecule, right? And then this thing, the water's not going to be able to come back in time before this thing closes back. OK, so let's draw what we get next. I could see some of you are like, what's the water molecule? Is it easier for that to hit back or that to hit back? Which one? This one or this one? Why? Because it's attached to it, you know? It's easier to hit yourself than for somebody else to hit you. So what's going to happen? Is this oxygen is going to come back and do a nucleophilic attack on that electrophilic center? Notice this looks a lot like what it looked like up here, right, that plus charge. What's going to happen to the other one when you kick up? Like that. So that's the driving force of the reaction is losing that water molecule. I'm going to have to erase these steps over here. OK, is that cool? It's cool. Again, you can watch this video when I focus this. So when we do that, what do we got? We got that, that, that. Can't see that. Label your carbons and oxygens, right? So we can start on one end or the other. Which end do you want to start at? We'll start there. One, two, three, four, five, right? So the oxygen with the proton is number one, right? And the ketone carbon is number five. One, two, three, four, five. Is that what you did? Yes. And then what's the last step? You could say it louder. Deep protonating the oxygen. The last one. And in fact, that's going to be an equilibrium step until you extract it. And you get, what is this kind of compound called, guys? What are you making? Acetone. An acetone, yeah. That was the little bling to say that you got the right answer. Is there any questions on that one? Questions, questions? I guess the last, and we are missing. Remember, it's catalytic in acid. So that was a good question, Eve.