It is now time for oral questions. I recognize the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Thank you, Speaker. To the Premier. Yesterday the Premier was asked about the fees his government wants to impose on seniors to force them into long-term care homes that they don't want to go into. He said, I'll pretty well guarantee it's not going to be $1,800. Will the Premier make an absolute guarantee today that no senior will be charged that fee? And to reply, the Minister of Long-Term Care. In fact, the only people that have been talking about a fee like that for seniors who are going to long-term care homes has actually been the opposition. They're the only ones, Mr. Speaker, that have talked about it. The leader of the opposition, the critic, and the members of the Liberal Party, and of course the media, but only as they're reporting what they have been saying. We have been saying right from the beginning that the goal of this is to ensure that those who are waiting to go into a long-term care home who have been discharged or about to be discharged from a hospital have a better opportunity, better outcomes, Mr. Speaker. That is what this legislation was all about. And I am glad. This is another step. Yesterday was another step on the road to improving healthcare in the province of Ontario, a step that started with Ontario Health Teams, a step that continued with 58,000 new and upgraded long-term care beds in every region of the province with an addition of 27,000 healthcare workers. A response for a long-term care loan, Mr. Speaker. With new hospitals in every part of the province, Mr. Speaker, it is another step to making Ontario the best healthcare system in the country and in North America, Mr. Speaker. The supplementary question. Again, to the Premier. Well, that didn't sound like a guarantee from the Premier. These numbers, these charges may not matter much to the Premier, but it's literally a matter of life and death for many seniors across this province. The government is ramming Bill 7 through today with virtually no debate. They refuse to hear from families and frontline workers who say this bill will be devastating. And now, the Premier is literally not giving any guarantees about what people will be charged. If we can't get a guarantee that $1,800 is not on the books, how much does the Premier think seniors should be charged? The Premier. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not about the cost. It's about giving proper healthcare to people that should be long-term care. It's differentiating between sticking your loved one in a hospital bed. Imagine that, a hospital bed, one of your loved ones, when the alarms are going off, bells are going off all night, compared to giving them a beautiful home to stay in, a long-term care home, which will have proper care. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the opposition. They were preaching at the top of the mountain saying, get people out of the hospitals. They kept going on and on, and many of them were quoted in the media. All of a sudden, now they changed their tune. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The right place to put people that have been discharged from the doctor is at a proper home for proper care to make sure they have a better quality of life. No supplementary. Again to the Premier. The Premier is charging ahead with changes that will devastate people's lives. And he can't even or won't even answer basic questions about those changes. Seniors are being told that they will either have to move hundreds of kilometres away from their loved ones, or they will have to pay huge fees. Fees the Premier has either not figured out or is not willing to reveal. Will the Premier do the right thing? Admit that this dangerous scheme was rushed and pulled Bill 7 today. Mr. Speaker, respond to the Premier. I've never ever seen all CEOs agree across the province. All frontline healthcare people agree. All doctors agree. The only people that don't agree with this plan is the NDP. Because they're going back and forth every single day. They're being political. We aren't being political. We're making sure we're taking care of the people that need support, that need patient care. They're going to get much better care in a long-term care facility than sitting in a hospital bed. Even one of the CEOs said, you know, this is not good for the ALC patients. What is good is to make sure they get proper care, and that's what we're going to give them. As the Minister of Long-Term Care said, we're building 58,000 homes for these seniors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier. At hearings held by the NDP this week, frontline healthcare workers sounded the alarm about the Fourth Government Bill 7. The bill does nothing to address the human resources crisis in our healthcare system, but it will force frail seniors into private long-term care homes miles away from the circle of care and their family. Which raises the question, Speaker, is the goal of the bill to help patients, or is it to force frail elderly seniors into private, for-profit long-term care homes that no one wants to live in? Minister of Long-Term Care. The members continue to do this, right? We heard the member from Windsor yesterday say that we were going to be sending people from Windsor to Timmins. Completely not the case, Mr. Speaker. We've heard them talk about huge fees. Obviously not the case, Mr. Speaker. They say that it's a new problem, but let's look at the Auditor General's report of 2012. And I quote, given our age and population developing alternatives to long-term care and implementing more efficient process for placing people in long-term care homes is a consistent and timely manner, in a consistent and timely manner, is critical. She went on to say, numerous studies have shown that remaining in hospital longer than medically necessary, including waiting in a hospital for long-term care can be detrimental to a person's health for various reasons, among them the potential for acquired infections such as C. difficile and for older patients a decline in physical and mental abilities due to lack of activity. She went on to say that five provinces have a first-bed policy. This is back in 2012 report based on 2011. What was done in 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18? Nothing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier, the long-term care homes with the most available beds are the ones with the worst records of caring for seniors. Orchard Villa is a private for-profit long-term care facility in Pickering where armed forces found residents living in horrifying conditions. Derm police have not ruled out criminal charges. It's no surprise that their wait lists are short, literally 42 times shorter than not-for-profit homes of comparable size. My question is, if a patient doesn't want to move to a private facility like this, why would the government force them? This is the same member, the very same member who said that we were going to be forcing people into three and four bedroom wards, Mr. Speaker. Now, of course, that hasn't been allowed in the province of Montero since we made those changes, right, colleagues? It didn't happen 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18. It didn't happen when they had the balance of power. It happened under this government. This is the same member who said we would be sending people thousands of kilometres away from their home. Not true. Not true three and four ward bedrooms. Not true thousands of extra dollars. What is true? More resources, better care, Mr. Speaker.  They want to be in a home. Experts agree it is better to get that care in a long-term care facility, Mr. Speaker. This is another step on the way of finally tackling the challenges in healthcare that include staffing, that include more hospitals, that include better long-term care homes. They should get on board, Mr. Speaker, because the status quo is working for nobody. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again to the Premier. Let's be clear, 70 people died in this facility. Over 100 staff got sick. They died of, well, didn't die of spoiled diapers, dehydration, cockroaches, flies everywhere. My question is, time and time again the government has been over backwards to support for-profit long-term care. They exempted them from legal liability, ignored their own commissioners' call to eliminate profit in long-term care, and granted facilities like Orchard Villa license renewals of 30 years worth hundreds of million dollars. Now they are literally threatening seniors with massive fees if they refuse to move to these homes. Does this government truly believe that this is fair to seniors and their families as 5,000 people have died under your watch in the last four years? Thank you. Remind the members to make the comments through the chair. Members, please take your seats. Would you reply? I will watch, Mr. Speaker. We have seen the level of care increase in this province like it has never happened before. Under our watch, Mr. Speaker, under our watch, his own writing is getting $55 million more for care in the homes that he has, Mr. Speaker. Under our watch, I have approved over 500 new long-term care beds for people in his writing alone, Mr. Speaker. Under our watch, investments in healthcare have grown to the highest level in Canadian history. Under our watch, a new hospital in Mississauga. Under our watch, small and medium-sized hospitals finally get budgets that are equivalent to large hospitals. Under our watch, the largest investment in healthcare in Ottawa's history, Mr. Speaker. Under our watch, new hospitals in Niagara, Mr. Speaker. Under our watch, four hours of care for seniors, Mr. Speaker. Under our watch, 58,000 new and upgraded long-term care beds. Under our watch, we'll get it done. We'll ask the member for Windsor West to come to order and the government house leader to please come to order. We'll start the clock again. The member for, no, over here. Member for Davenport. Thank you. This question is for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, after a really tough two years, students are heading back to school next week in need of a lot of extra care, a lot of extra support. Thankfully they're going to get some of that support from dedicated education workers, from educational assistants to food service workers to the custodians who are keeping HVAC systems working. Speaker, contracts with these QP workers are set to expire today. Will the Premier commit to hiring more education workers so that students have the services they need at this very crucial time? The Minister of Education. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We can confirm that under this progressive Conservative government, we are actually increasing the amount of staffing in this province by 3,000 more for this coming September. More custodians, more EAs, more ECs and educators who make a difference in our schools. That is part of our vision for a more normal and frankly a much more stable September for these kids. Yes, with more people in the schools. But in addition to more dollars, Speaker, we're asking and expecting a higher standard for our kids. We need these children to be immersed in learning with a stable environment that keeps them there from September, right to June, in a normal, fulsome experience that includes the sports, the extra quicklers and clubs that produce the well-rounded leaders we all want. Mr. Speaker, our intention for September is to ensure that these kids get back on track with a learning recovery plan that invests over $650 million more dollars for this September to ensure these kids are well supported and get back on track. Mr. Speaker, the government talks about stability, but the only person risking disruption in this school year is this minister. I want to go back to the premier. The average income of these education workers is just $39,000 a year. 91% report that they are facing financial hardship and more than half of them have to take a second job just to make ends meet. Will this premier commit to a wage increase so that the workers who support our kids every single day can support their own families? Yet again, the new Democrats and Liberals abdicate their responsibility. The member didn't even ask the question setting the priority of keeping kids in school, which ought to be the priority of every MPP in this place. Mr. Speaker, our priority is insurance, stability for children. The question should focus on our kids, and it's about time the opposition starts to get on track with that imperative of stability for kids. That's why we've ensured more money's in place for September. It's why we've been negotiating good faith to land a fair deal for the workers, but a good deal for our families. And Mr. Speaker, the principle that we're going to communicate to the union, to the board of trustees and to the people of this province is we'll stand up for stability for your children. Thank you, Speaker. Sabrina and her husband Jack are both registered nurses. Their four-year-old daughter, Hazel. The next question, the member for Mississauga. Thank you so much, Speaker. For the Solicitor General. Speaker, Peele has experienced an increased number of gun-related crimes. And I would also like to welcome Chief Niche and Director Payet of Peele Police and really congratulate our brave men and women in uniform from Peele on leadership on issues like combating human trafficking, mental health and community safety. Speaker, yes, thank you. Unfortunately, it is not rare to hear the news about innocent Ontarians being caught in a crossfire, both figuratively and literally. Mr. Speaker, in Mississauga, there was an increase in gun violence. Doing to combat gang-fuelled violence and smuggled guns in Peele. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the member from Mississauga Centre's question. Mr. Speaker, everyone has a right to have health and safety and their activities. And agencies across the province to keep Ontario safe. And our government has invested over $200 million to combat gun and gang violence. This unprecedented investment includes $6 million for CCTV cameras for municipalities and First Nations. And we're investing over $267 million through the Community Safety and Policing Grant Program to help police services address priority issues in their community. Mr. President, our government has reinforced public security from first to the last level. And the supplementary, the member for Brampton West. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Solicitor General. My constituents in Brampton West are deeply concerned about the crime in Peele, especially when smuggled guns and illicit drugs are involved. Every day they hear on the news, Mr. Speaker, about the gang violence fuelled by smuggled guns and drugs. My question to the minister is, can the minister tell what is our government's plan to combat the drug flow in Peele? Thank you, Mr. General. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, I really am happy that we have the question from the member from Brampton West, because this is an important question. Community safety is a top priority, not just for those who work and support Ontario's policing services, but for all Ontario families. And since our government came to office, we've invested over $17 million in grants for policing in Peele region alone. In fact, yesterday, the Peele Regional Police announced the results of outstanding work on Project Warrior. Peele Regional Police used the funding provided by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, combined with excellent investigative work to take a staggering $12 million of illicit drugs off the street. I want to congratulate Chief Dr. Paul. Still time? Mr. Still time? Mr. Still time? Is there still time? Is there still time? Okay. The security of our province is very important. Thank you. The next question, the member from St. Catherine's. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Sabrina and her husband, Jack, are both registered nurses. Their four-year-old daughter, Hazel, lives with type 1 diabetes and is starting junior kindergarten in September. In what should be a time of excitement for a young family, Sabrina will have to take an unpaid leave of absence to administer medication to her daughter at school. Hazel's on a waitlist. There is not one single community nurse available that can come into the classroom each day and assist Hazel with managing her needs. Premier, we are in the midst of a staff crisis. With this province already short 30,000 nurses, will this government commit to more community nurses for schools? So health care workers like Sabrina and Jack aren't forced to choose between their families and their jobs. Premier and Minister of Health. Thank you, Speaker. You know, I love being able to highlight all of the work that our government is doing to increase the number of health human resources that practice and work in the province of Ontario. There is no doubt that across Canada and indeed the world we are experiencing shortages in our critically important health care system. However, what we have seen here in Ontario is by investing 35 million to increase enrollment in nursing education programs, we are actually expanding spaces to introduce over 1,130 new practical nurses and 870 registered nurses into the health care system. We have been working with the College of Nurses of Ontario to make sure that individuals who have applied to practice and work in the province of Ontario get those applications reviewed and expedited quickly. We will continue to do this because people like Hazel need to have that confidence that when their young daughter goes to school they have the resources they need to make sure that her diabetes is monitored and they are looked after. Thank you. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the Premier through the Minister. Increasing nurses at this time for Jack and Sabrina doesn't help. There are RNs. They are nurses and their workplace will be short now that they have to go and look after their daughter. During the pandemic we saw that working mothers became the default parent, leaving their jobs to manage virtual learning during a time when daycares and schools were closed. No nursing shortages have trickled down to the education sector. Every child has the right to equal access to education and every parent deserves to know their child has the care they need when they need it without sacrificing their career. Premier, will your government commit to a plan to ensure working mothers like Sabrina are not forced out of the workplace that is already in a severe crisis to fill gaps within an already broken system? Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the member opposite for the question and we do agree. I mean these children should have access to the practitioners they need wherever they are. And that's why, Mr Speaker, it was two years ago working with the Minister of Finance under the Premier's leadership. We actually doubled the number of public health nurses, the work in our schools, 640 public health nurses working in schools. And the members opposite posed the question, where are they? At a time when frontline workers are making a difference in our schools and our communities, we should be grateful for their contributions to our kids and to our communities. It's precisely why we more than doubled the allocation. It's why we increased the investments overall for special education by an additional $90 million for this year. It is now at the highest levels ever recorded in the history of this province because we want those kids to get the services they deserve. Mr Speaker, we're going to continue to increase investments, increase access to staff and practitioners, work with the Minister of Health across ministries to improve the services for the kids of this province. Next question, the member for Brampton-Morris. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This question is for the Minister of Transportation. Speaker, the cost of road congestion continues to take its toll on my constituents and their quality of life. Congestion impacts Ontario's economy with billions of dollars a year and lost time, wasted fuel and delayed deliveries. Other costs include greenhouse gas emissions, accidents and poorer health since people perpetually stuck in traffic report lower life satisfaction and physical activity. Experts and academics have already warned that Ontario's transportation infrastructure is not ready for the incoming surge of new Ontarians in the next 20 years. The status quo is not sustainable, especially if every new Ontarian decides to hop into a car during rush hour. Speaker, what actions are the Minister of Transportation taking to build critical road infrastructure? The Minister of Transportation. Thank you to the member from Brampton-Morris for the question. Highway gridlock is a problem that continues to plague communities across Ontario. And why is that, Speaker? It's because successive Liberal governments simply chose not to invest and chose not to build, despite knowing that the growth was coming to this province. Speaker, we know that the opposition is driven by an ideological opposition to new highways. And that is simply offside with where Ontarians are. People rely on cars to get to work, home and more. And if we don't start building now, already intense gridlock will only get worse for Ontario drivers. 401 is already the most congested highway in North America. And within the next decade alone, all major highways in the region, including Highway 407, are expected to be at or exceed capacity during rush hour.  And that spilled the Highway 413. Thank you for the answer to that question. Speaker, it's clear that road congestion costs the economy billions of dollars annually and will only worsen as our population grows. In 2019, the National Post reported actually that Toronto was North America's fastest growing city and also Canada's most congested. Peel region and the surrounding communities also face the same predicament as there are some of the fastest growing in this province and equally the most congested. My constituents value their time, Mr. Speaker, and driving remains the fastest way to travel for most commuters according to Stats Canada data. That same Statistics Canada data shows that their drive time is increasing yearly. Speaker, what actions are the Minister of Transportation taking to build major highways in this province, helping to ease the congestion crisis that has dragged on for far too long? Thank you again to the member for the question. Speaker, gridlock is not just going to disappear and neither is commercial traffic. Building Highway 413 is just the kind of bold action we need to avoid the next generation of drivers being stuck in traffic. It's a key piece of our government's transportation plan that will make the difference between calling home to say that you're stuck in traffic or tucking your kids into bed at night. Speaker, I am pleased with the support that we've received to date on this project, including from Leona's International Vice President, Joseph Mancinelli, who has said our government, I quote, continues to demonstrate progressive leadership in investing in critical infrastructure like Highway 413 that will aim to address future growth and the demands of our municipalities, unquote. And Todd Letts, CEO of Brampton's Board of Trade, who commended our government for prioritizing projects like Highway 413. Speaker, as we saw in this past election, support for Highway 413 is strong and our government will get it done. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, in February, 83-year-old Don Wilson slipped and cracked his pelvis. Four days after admission to London Health Sciences Centre, Don was transferred to a long-term care home, a home that was in COVID outbreak with only two PSWs for a ward of 30 residents and no rehab services. Less than a week later, Don fell out of his LTC bed and was readmitted to hospital where tragically, on April 15th, he passed away. Speaker, is this the kind of trauma and grief that more families will face with Bill 7? And to respond, the Minister of Health. You know, Speaker, every example is tragic when it ends up in death. But the member opposite is talking about the past and our government is focused on making improvements in the future. We have talked and we have acted on home care in particular. I often talk about how as a government we are ensuring that hospital has capacity, that community care has capacity, that long-term care has capacity, that primary care has capacity. We're doing that through investments specifically related to home care. I want to highlight the billion dollars that is in our most recent budget, which will ensure that 739 nursing visits are able to be provided in community. 157,000 nursing shift hours in community. 117,000 therapy visits including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speed language pathology in community. It's what people deserve, it's what people expect, and it's what we are delivering. Speaker, when Don's wife Jane Burgess heard about Bill 7, she contacted me to share her story. Jane and Don were told by the hospital that Don was being transferred to LTC and were not given any time to discuss or consider other options. Jane continues to live with the guilt that she didn't say no, but she was overwhelmed and felt they had no choice. Speaker, this was before the new powers under Bill 7 to admit patients to long-term care without their consent. No family should have to go through this. Will the government do the right thing and withdraw Bill 7? Speaker, I think that the member opposite is forgetting that the health care system as a whole needs to cooperatively work together for the patient. That is our goal as a government. I point to Anthony Dale from the Ontario Hospital Association in reference specifically to alternative level of care patients. Healthcare providers in Ontario are committed to working collaboratively with patients, with substitute decision makers, families and caregivers during any transition into patient care. We are transitioning people into their homes with sufficient community care support. We are transitioning patients into long-term care homes with sufficient support. We are getting it done because we understand at the end of the day alternative level of care patients deserve better than sitting in a hospital waiting for their next transition. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last March, the Ministry Without Explanation reported the long overdue replacement of Caledonia's Argyle Street Bridge would be delayed another year. During an inspection in 2001, it was determined the bridge was in a state of deterioration. Keep in mind the current bridge was completed in 1927. It's now over 20 years overdue and one and a half years since notice of delay by this government. Speaker, the approvals have been in place for many years and yet the July 1st Parade in Caledonia took an alternative route to avoid the bridge due to safety concerns. Speaker, the people of Caledonia of Haldeman County want to know what's holding up the reconstruction of the Argyle Street Bridge. Mr. Transportation. Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for the question. I want to assure her that completing the replacement of the Argyle Street Bridge is a priority for our government. As she correctly pointed out, this is a century old bridge and its restoration is long overdue. Unfortunately, the Liberals had over a decade to take action and address this issue, but instead they did nothing. Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure the member opposite can appreciate, our government is doing its due diligence to ensure that we get this right before putting shovels in the ground. This includes consulting with First Nation communities that are potentially impacted by this project and as well conducting early work projects to conserve the toll house and potential archaeological resources before the bridge replacement begins. This early work is slated to begin, Mr. Speaker, this fall. The government is making great progress to get shovels in the ground for this project. It is a priority for our government and we will get it done. The supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. Argyle Street is the main thoroughfare of Caledonia and the bridge serves both local and commercial vehicles. In 2019, the ministry set up stoplights at the bridge after the load posting was reduced to 8 tons. These lights help clear traffic in the event fire trucks must make a pass. August 2020, MTO boarded up the famous toll house, occupied by Laurie Harcourt. The ministry claimed it needed to expropriate the property on the north side of the Grand River so reconstruction could begin. Speaker, the ministry kicked this woman out of her home and yet nothing is happening. I fear a national headline if the ministry does not get to work. The community has been waiting for over 20 years. The people of Caledonia are waiting for any government, perhaps this government, to make them a priority. Minister, we all want to know what is holding up the reconstruction of the Argyle Street bridge. Minister of Transportation. Thank you, Speaker. I want to be clear. The Ministry of Transportation only acquires properties that are absolutely necessary for the construction of a project. And we are committed to treating all affected property owners fairly. Expropriations are a backstop measure only. As the project continues, we have taken interim measures to protect the safety of the travelling public that use the bridge. This includes implementing, as the member pointed out, further load restrictions for vehicles and completing temporary repair work that is necessary to maintain the serviceability of the bridge. We have been making great progress. The detailed design of the Argyle Street replacement is already complete. And now we are in the process of obtaining the final approvals to proceed to construction. Speaker, we will not take any shortcuts when it comes to getting critical infrastructure built. The next question is for Saga Singh. Thank you so much, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Speaker, for over a decade under the previous Liberal government, the citizens of Mississauga and the region of Peel were abandoned. We saw jobs leaving our region and infrastructure projects that needed repair never being prioritised. Under the Liberals Watch, many of my constituents were shut out of gainful employment. Unemployment among young people was worse in Ontario than in Rust Belt states like Indiana and Ohio. Speaker, my very own brother, a skilled automation specialist, left Ontario six years ago due to lack of economic opportunities and settled instead in British Columbia. We certainly could have used his skills right here in Ontario. Speaker, the citizens of Mississauga are hardworking and sacrifice every day to make Ontario a better place to live and grow. What is our government doing to ensure that my constituents have good, secured, well-paying jobs for themselves and their children years into the future? Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The NDP gave up on Ontario's manufacturing. In their last economic report, hear their true intention. Quote, shifting employment from goods producing industries in particular manufacturing to the service sector. That's what they intended to do. But we changed all that, Speaker, by lowering the cost of doing business by $7 billion annually. We lowered taxes. We cut red tape. We reduced our hydro rates. That's why investments in Mississauga keep on coming. Cyclone Manufacturing invested $21 million to reshore from the U.S. a project and create 60 aerospace jobs. Borough Pharmaceuticals invested $2.5 million in Mississauga to scale up their operation. And there are dozens of auto parts manufacturers who have invested in their companies through our Auto Modernization Program. Mississauga is again where businesses are invested. Thank you very much. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. I thank the minister for his response. It is encouraging that our government is focusing on investments that are protecting Mississauga and Peel Region's tech and advanced manufacturing sectors. But, Speaker, these are billion-dollar investments which are possible only for a small number of large businesses. While these large businesses employ thousands of people in my writing, what about the small companies and the startups? Small businesses and startups are the backbone of our economic strength as a province. I know many constituents whose small businesses like Palma Pasta, Lazio Bakery or Hub Rock Climbing Gym are integral to what makes my writing work and thrive. But, as we all know, starting a business is hard work and is filled with risk. What is our government doing to help entrepreneurs in my writing and city to start and grow their businesses? Small businesses account for 98% of our economy and employ millions of families. Yet, for 15 years, the Liberals in the NDP made small business ownership difficult and costly. We are on a mission to reverse the Liberal and the NDP-era anti-business policies. With our support, Mississauga's entrepreneurs now have all the tools they need to grow their businesses. We're providing Mississauga's Small Business Enterprise Centre with $420,000 to support local companies. Another $112,000 to support Mississauga's Summer Company and their Starter Company Plus. These are companies that help students and young entrepreneurs start businesses of their own. We want entrepreneurs to know that this government understands them and we fully support their success. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Judy, who resides in a long-term care residence in Hamilton, has reached out to my office and her concerns are alarming. Judy tells me the staff are overworked, beyond exhausted and most are working double shifts due to staffing shortages. A few nights ago, there was one PSW on her floor. She was left to work alone until 4am when an RN from a private agency was brought in. Thankfully, none of the 27 residents, including Judy, had a medical emergency fall or worse. Speaker, what is the Premier doing to ensure these homes are staffed to a level of safety and to a level that the caregivers, which were promised for their loved ones? Again, we started increasing staffing in our long-term care homes in the last parliament. The member will know that we've increased funding by over $4.9 billion because we are the first government in North America to go to a stand at four hours of care per day. The member will remember that she voted against the increase in staffing and she will remember that the member opposite voted against the increase in staffing for the homes in her own riding. More importantly than that, the member opposite was part of a caucus that supported a Liberal Party that between 2009 and 2018, despite a report from the Auditor General suggesting that we had to do more for long-term care in 2012. The last three Liberal administrations only managed to increase care for our seniors and homes. Response? Six minutes, Mr. Speaker. Six minutes. Shameful. Order. We are on our way and we will have four hours of care because of the investments that we have made, and that is a very big difference. Supplementary question? I'm sure this minister, I will vote against his bad bills each and every time, as I will Bill 7. Order. Not for 124 and the push to move residents from ALC to long-term care is not going to solve the issues. PSWs are nervous and they're fearful that they're not able to provide the care necessary. Judy goes on to tell me that she's worried for her neighbours. Other seniors and their caregivers who visit daily to fill in the gaps. Her request was clear. Premier, when will you admit the reality of long-term care and support and protect health care workers who residents like Judy depend on? The clock. The member for Kitchener Conestoga come to order. The member for Niagara West come to order. We start the clock. Minister of long-term care. Well, I know the member opposite will vote against improvements in long-term care because the member voted against the increases in long-term care capacity in her own writing. Additional beds, the member voted against that, Mr. Speaker. The member talks about this legislation, what it does specifically, Speaker, is ensure that somebody who is a patient in a hospital is about to be discharged with that we're able to match up an appropriate home. So exactly what the member is talking about is what the whole point of this bill is. Order. Looking at the services that a person needs, if they're going to be discharged from a hospital, does the long-term care home have the services that that patient needs? To care for them properly. To care for them better, Mr. Speaker. It also includes $5 million of support this year right now for behavioral services of Ontario. It includes $2.6 million of support for a partnership with Baycrest who have leading edge services, behavioral services. And the $20 million local priorities fund, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that every home, frankly, has what the senior needs before they get there. Thank you. Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order. Member for Hamilton West, Anne-Castor Dundas, come to order. The next question, the member for Toronto Centre. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. My constituent summer has contacted my office to express concern about the... Again, I apologize. Next question, the member for Essex. Mr. Speaker, Ontario has more than 370,000 unfilled jobs. There's a rising need to replace retiring skilled tradespeople. A report from the Canadian apprenticeship forum suggests that Ontario needs to recruit 300,000 new skilled trade apprentices over the next decade just to keep up with the retirements. Training new skilled trade workers must be a priority, and it's crucial for us to promote the skilled trades among young people. What is the Minister of Labor, Immigration Training and Skills Development doing to help more young people start careers in the skilled trades? Mr. Labour, Immigration Training and Skills Development. I want to thank the member from Essex for really being such a strong voice for better jobs and bigger paychecks for the people of Essex. Speaker, unlike those in other parties who want to quote phase out well-paying and in-demand careers, our government knows that our skilled trades workers are heroes and we need more of them. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are leading the way with a historic investment of more than a billion dollars over the next three years. With this unprecedented funding increase, we're working with employers and our labour partners to reduce the stigma around these meaningful careers and expand training opportunities. Mr.  To the Minister again, traditionally women represent less than 10% skilled trade workers, and that's just not enough. As we face a labour shortage, attracting and retaining women in the skilled trades will be very important to fill the labour gap. My constituents in Essex are very happy that this government and this Minister are providing free training for 500 people from underrepresented groups in the trades, especially women. So how is this investment going to remove barriers specifically for women and also remove barriers for other underrepresented groups in the skilled trades and get people into those well-paying jobs and those rewarding careers in the skilled trades? This is a great question, Mr. Speaker. Our government is really working every day to spread opportunity more widely and fairly to every corner of this province. Pre-apprenticeships, like the member mentioned, really do lift people up and help them move off of social assistance and into a meaningful career. People like Netisha, a single mum who got to buy the tools she needed and tried different trades in the construction industry through the hammerheads program. Mr. Speaker, she's now making $44.08 an hour with a defined pension and benefit, truly a life-changing career for Netisha.  That's why we're working every day. We're on a mission to get more people into these amazing careers. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. My constituent summer has contacted my office to express concern about the high temperature in an apartment. A candle in an apartment even melted on its own accord. The temperature must have hit at least 46 degrees Celsius or higher to melt a paraffin candle. Speaker, people will pass out from heat exhaustion or even die from heat stroke in this temperature. The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently ruled access to cooling during extreme heat waves is a human rights issue. Will the Premier today obey the Human Rights Commission of this province and make air conditioning a vital service and establish a maximum temperature in apartments? If not, why not? Thank you. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the member for the question. Our government appreciates the work of the Human Rights Commission. As the member noted, recently the Human Rights Commission has issued a statement regarding air conditioning in apartments. We take those recommendations very seriously and we'll consider it as we do when we look at issues regarding the Residential Tenancies Act. Supplementary member for University Rosedale. Thank you, Speaker. My question is back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I want to quote the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Access to cooling during extreme heat waves is a human rights issue. At most risk are people with disabilities, older people and low income people, Indigenous Black and other racialized communities. This vulnerability is also compounded by social isolation and poverty. The Ontario Human Rights Commission calls on the Government of Ontario to include air conditioning as a vital service like the provision of heat under RTA regulations. Over 500 people died in BC during their last heat wave and the vast majority of them were elderly people who lived alone in un-air conditioned apartments. Will this government listen to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and make AC a vital service and set a maximum temperature for homes? Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the member for her comments and her interest. She's placed a number of housing recommendations in this house and we appreciate that. We would hope that her party and herself would consider as well some of the amendments and proposals we've made. We've stood up for tenants on numerous times in this house. Her party and her specifically have voted against all of those measures. Every time we want to stand up and give tenants better compensation, we want to crack down on landlords who abuse tenants. Every time we've done that, Speaker, that member and her party have voted against it. So my question back to her, are you going to support pro-tenant measures? Are you going to support landlord measures that we've put into place and do you want to build upon our success? The next question, the member for Carlton. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, since the 90s, the involvement of women in the skilled trades has been less than 5% of the total workforce. A recent news article detailed the challenges many women in the trades face. Poor retention was identified as a contributing factor for the low number of women in the field. That's why we must increase female representation in the skilled trades. Ontario has a massive skilled jobs crisis and we need all hands on deck to help us build a stronger province. Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the Associate Minister of Women's Social and Economic Opportunity please inform the House of the progress made by our government in encouraging young women to enter the skilled trades? Women's and social and economic responsibility. Opportunities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the member from Carlton. For the question, Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke to a young woman named Sophie who shared with me a time when she had left her partner and was left with no job, no home, and no financial stability. When she was in the shelter, she was able to access their back-to-work program that enabled her to enter the carpentry trade. Now she is a successful journey person and is on the job site. Her credo has been, if you can see me, you can be me. And she is inspiring other young women to enter the trade so that they can experience the same rewards and financial stability that she has. Women like Sophie show us the progress that our investments and programs are making. And they need us to accelerate their efforts so that more women can follow their footsteps and see the further progress in changing the landscape of the trades. As I said it before on this floor, Mr. Speaker, women belong in all places, in all spaces, and at every table. And Mr. Speaker, that includes a construction site. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the associate minister. Speaker, a career in skilled trades has countless benefits. Jobs in this field are in high demand, pay well, and will comprise 20% of jobs by 2025. I recall traveling Ottawa with the Minister of Labor in the previous legislative session. And it was very inspiring to see so many young women in the trades when we visited IBEW as well as when I also visited the steel workers. So Mr. Speaker, with women, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please share details on the programs put in place by our government to raise awareness and encourage young women to consider a career in the skilled trades? Thank you. Associate Minister of Women's Social and Economic Opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you again to the member opposite for the question. So Mr. Speaker, our government invested record amounts into the skills trades strategy. $288 million in the 2021 budget and $90 million in the 2021 fall economic statement. And not only that, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed an additional $114 million over the next three years in the 2022 budget. Within that we've invested $22 million this year to enhance the Ontario Youth Entrepreneurship Program. Mr. Speaker, these investments will help women and girls to explore the skilled trades and set them on the path towards financial stability. As part of this funding, school boards can request additional funding to promote 14 trades in which women are historically underrepresented. That is why it is imperative that all members support the 2022 budget and help deliver the resources they need not to just get by in our economy but to get ahead in our economy. Thank you. My question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have reached out horrified about creeping privatization and the overt destruction of our treasured public health care system under the foreign government. Ryan wrote to me about how the care he received for his aortic stenosis would have cost at least a quarter million dollars. Without it, he would not be alive. He remains deeply thankful but worries about the deteriorating quality of health care and this government's obvious movement towards profit making and health care. Will this government continue to destroy health care with their privatization agenda or finally fund health care and health care workers properly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the member's question gives me an opportunity to highlight the five point plan that we have put in place and are driving towards efficiencies in innovation within our health care system. Things like easing pressure on emergency departments by actually investing and launching new provincial emergency department, peer to peer programs, investing over $300 million as part of the province's surgical recovery. We are encouraging innovation in our health care sector. Those ideas are coming forward for review and assessment and we are making the investments to ensure that people get the health care they need when they need it, where they want it, which is in their community. Supplementary question. My question is back to the Premier and through you, Speaker, respectfully to the Minister. How about they come up with a six point plan and scrap bill 124. Underfunding health care by $1.8 billion last year was a destructive act and so is bill 124 and now the government claims the system they've been strangling is barely breathing. This government manufactured this crisis in order to promote privatization. Heather wrote to me about her stepfather being pushed out of hospital into a for-profit long-term care home where they would then squeeze an additional $4,000 per month for his care. Is this government morally and ethically comfortable patting the pockets of the private long-term care industry and private for-profit hospitals rather than fix our public system and pay health care heroes what they deserve? Good question. The Member Office is, frankly, speaking and spending a day. We have, through our actions, invested to ensure that today, right now in the province of Ontario, there are 400 doctors practicing in rural and northern Ontario who weren't there today, three years ago. You know, we've invested to make sure that when internationally educated health care professionals want to practice in the province of Ontario and have submitted their application into the College of Nurses or the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, we are acting to make sure that those are being assessed and given appropriate review quickly so that they can practice. We know that there are people across Ontario who want to practice in health care in Ontario and we're expediting that process to ensure that we have those people in place where we need them. Thank you. Next question. The Member for Windsor to come see. I ask this question to the Minister of Francophone Affairs throughout the pandemic. There has been several impacts on small businesses in Ontario, especially in Francophone businesses in Ontario. For many of them, they are facing many difficulties in terms of supplying chains and on the global scale from a constituent in my writing. There's a need for Francophone support and many of those businesses had difficulties to have access to or support as a government. We have to make sure to address this issue and especially for Francophone Ontarians who want to contribute to our economy. The Minister of Francophone Affairs, can you please explain to us what is the government doing in order to help our small businesses in order to get out of this situation? Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the Member for this question. We had a funding available for small businesses in Ontario. We have also helped to amplify Francophone businesses in Ontario and we have 38 businesses here to help those businessmen and businesswomen. This funding is here to help long-term development for Francophone businesses. And now we have $2 million available. This program will help to support local businesses and regional businesses. We need to have access to qualified workforce which is essential for these businesses. And that's for this reason that our government is asking the federal government to have more immigration policies to help grow the economy of Ontario. Thank you, Minister. Speaker, the Francophone population in Ontario is essential in our culture and that's the reason we have to promote Francophonie in Ontario in order to help the economic growth of the province. We need to make sure that we are improving networking between businesses, between associations to help increase opportunities and partnership. Speaker, can the minister tell us what are the economic benefits in order to have a network of Francophone businesses in Ontario? Thank you, Speaker. Our government is giving concrete solutions because we know Francophonie is essential to Ontario's economy. In 2020 and 2021, we had an investment of $500 million to help create the federation of Francophone people in Ontario. And these businesses, these online platforms help to promote goods and services in French and Ontario. Because of an investment of $1.5 billion in three years, Ontario is still expanding services and support available for Francophone businessmen and businesswomen. These funds will be beneficial for them in order to use those opportunities here in Ontario and to shine Francophonie in our communities and outside of Ontario as well. My question is to the Premier. Today, on August 31st, we recognize International Overdose Awareness Day, an annual campaign to end overdose, to remember those lives we have lost to addictions and acknowledge the grief of the family and friends left behind. More than 2,400 Ontarians died from opioid-related causes in 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, there was a 96% increase in apparent opioid toxicity deaths compared to the year before. Since then, deaths have remained high. An increasingly toxic drug supply, increased feelings of isolation, stress and anxiety, and changes in the availability or accessibility of services for people who use drugs has led to worsening of the opioid crisis. In my community, the Windsor Essex Community Opioid and Substance Strategy Group has released five alerts already this year due to a high number of opioid-related emergency department visits and overdoses. In 2021, 66 people in Windsor Essex lost their lives to overdoses. Speaker, my question is this. How many lives must be lost before this government takes action to address this crisis? The Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addiction. Yes, today is International Overdose Awareness Day and I want to begin by reflecting and thinking about the families that have lost loved ones and the pain and the suffering that they're experiencing as a result of those losses. I also want to reflect and think on the things that we have done as a government and continue to do. And that's the investments that we make through the Addiction Recovery Fund, the $90 million that went into assuring that there are supports and services. We've invested in 400 beds, 7,000 treatment spots. These are all investments that are being made by the government because it recognizes the importance of providing the supports for mental health and for addictions in the province of Ontario. And I'm also reflecting on the fact that it's this government that's making these significant investments, not former governments, that left the province of Ontario in shambles and not providing the supports and services that are needed. It's important that we continue thinking about people that overdose and making sure that we provide supports and services where and when they need them, no matter where they live in the province of Ontario. Question period for this morning. Next we have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 7, an act to amend the Fixing Long-Term Care Act 2021 with respect to patients requiring an alternate level of care and other matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act 1996. Call in the members. This will be a five minute bell.


Souffre Jazz 2023 The Experience Is Not To Be Missed Slated for May 7th 2023 at the Souffre Mini Stadium, organizers, promoters and the public are all teeming with excitement about the return of the festival. The Souffre Original Development Foundation, SRDF, has partnered with the Souffre Events Management Organization to execute the highly anticipated event. The corporate communications and marketing manager at the SRDF, lovely Saint Amy Joseph, says Souffre Jazz has received backing from the business community and corporate partners, which speaks volumes about the caliber of the event which will be put on. Of course education, the economy, those things are part of our mandate but we also have a mandate to ensure cultural exposure and to ensure that social development and it's also economic activity for Souffre. Jazz enables there to be a ripple effect that people can earn money and we're super super excited to have the return of Souffre Jazz following seven years. That would not be possible without the generous support and much appreciated support of our sponsors. Saint Amy Joseph touts Souffre as a top tier events location. We know that there is so much excitement and anticipation surrounding Souffre Jazz 2023 and with good reason. We have an eclectic mix. Souffre as many people will tell you is just a vibe. It's just somewhere when it comes to events is unmatched. We've seen that with our hosting of sports events, even political events, cultural events, social events. Souffre is definitely the place to be. According to her, Souffre Jazz 2023 presents the perfect opportunity to get reacquainted with Saint Lucia's tourism mecca. And while the festival, the music concert is amazing, we continue to encourage people to make it an experience, a full experience. To have the full experience of Souffre Jazz 2023, it is a must to visit some of our iconic sites. You simply must take a bath in our sulfur springs. There's so much research that points to the health benefits of the sulfur springs and we have it right here at home where you can experience its restorative waters. So do that for Souffre Jazz 2023. You might want to hike the piton as we have our Go Piton nature trail. The beach park is always a wonderful place to have a meal, have a drink, take in the sights at our viewing points, patronize our many wonderful restaurants. We have our small airbnb's, our hotels, all of them open for business, ready to welcome you to Souffre for a full experience for Souffre Jazz 2023. Souffre Jazz the Experience 2023 will see the likes of son of the soil Arthur Ale, reggae sensation Christopher Martin and the electrifying Patrice Roberts will be headlining the event. Souffre Jazz 2023 is brought to you by Platinum Sponsors, SLTA at Shastney Jade Mountain, Sugar Beach of Viceroy Resort, Hotel Chocolat, Gold Sponsors, Bank of St. Nusha, Ladera, GPH, Silver Sponsor, MCE Sounds, Bronze Sponsor, WJ Montgomery, Partner Sponsors, Kaiblan, Intercarri and Airways, Heineken St. Nusha, Lewis Industries, Chairman's Reserve, Digicel, Yellow Media, Choiselle Cooperative Credit Union, Caught St. Nusha, Lucillec, Media Partners, 88.5 Souffre FM, MBC Real FM, Hot FM, KISS FM, Hot7 TV, The Wave, Blazing and Rhythm FM, DBS, HDS Radio 100, Cam Advertising and Radio Caribbean International. From the Souffre Original Development Foundation, I am Jean-Yves Gonzaga.


The Radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Tuesday, January 17th. We're in the second half of January and it is noon in Puerto Rico. Morning for many of you I know and evening for some of you. Thanks for joining me to get caught up on the news of the day. I appreciate that. So let's jump right in. As you probably know there was a missile attack on, I mean there's missile attacks every night on Ukraine. A couple of nights ago a missile hit a building in the city of Dnipro. Dnipro, I'm butchering names as usual. In this case it was a residential building and 44 people were killed. So there's one interesting aspect of this, or at least that I found interesting. Ukrainian presidential adviser Olexiy Orestovic. Olexiy Orestovic, somebody who I guess has his own YouTube channel has like 1.6 million subscribers. 200,000 views for his daily videos updating people on the status of the war. And he's an adviser to Zelensky. Anyway when it first happened he suggested that the missile had been, this was a Russian missile. I think it's a KH-22 missile which is very inaccurate. So these are not exactly precision weapons. Anyway he said that this KH-22 missile had been hit by a Ukrainian air defense system and had dropped on the building and killed other people.  It's Ukraine's fault for shooting down the missile. There's some crazy moral inversion going on here, right? It's truly astounding. Of course it's Russia's fault. No matter whether the missile was pointed at the building or not pointed at the building, no matter whether, given its inaccuracy, it doesn't matter at all. But it doesn't matter if the Ukrainian shut it down. If the missile hitting the building was, and I'm not suggesting this was, a missile that the Ukrainians launched to defend themselves. All the deaths on the battlefields of Ukraine are Russia's fault. All of them. So a big deal has been made about him claiming this. He's since said no, he was mistaken. Indeed the KH-22 missile is one that the Ukrainians can't shoot down. And he's offered his resignation, and there's a big uproar, and the Russians are celebrating and the Ukrainians are mourning. Anyway, it's a... But it doesn't matter. Russia started this war. Russia is the aggressor. Russia is launching massive missile attacks into Ukraine every single day. Some of those missiles are going to go, even if they're targeting military infrastructure, some of those missiles are going to go astray and kill civilians. The fact that they're targeting infrastructure is going to kill civilians. Russia has no problem killing civilians. It hasn't shown any concern during this war about killing civilians. This is 100% unequivocal Russia's fault. And as a consequence, anything else is irrelevant. And somebody needs to stand up and say this rather than debating. Did the Ukrainians shoot it down? Didn't they shoot it down? It's irrelevant. I mean, it's interesting to know, and it's important for the Ukrainians maybe to know, if they could shoot down a KH-22. But the reality doesn't matter. The moral blame, it doesn't matter for moral blame. It doesn't matter for anything that is actually relevant here. All right, why is this not working? No, okay, it's picking up the wrong one. Sorry, I've got a small technical problem. Let's see if we can fix it. All right, that's better. Anyway, so just a quick update on that vis-a-vis Ukraine. It just shows the inability of people, in this case, Ukrainians, to think in terms of clear moral categories and clear morality. And the fact that the Russians can exploit this is just absurd and nuts. All right, for the first time since the early 1960s, when Mao starved millions and millions of his own population, the population of China is actually show to decline. Now, let me just say that this is assuming we believe Chinese numbers, because it is indeed hard to tell what is actually going on in China. And there are demographers and there are commentators out there claiming that China's population, in particular, that China's population has been declining for several years now. But according to official Chinese statistics, for the first time since the early 1980s, China's population fell by 850,000 people to 1.41 billion. And the country had 9.56 million booths, 10.41 million deaths, and population is shrinking, young people 16 to 59. You can think of it as working age population. It's also gone down to 62% from 62.5%. I mean, these are significant numbers. The expectation is that this will continue, that this will continue significantly until indeed 2021.  Now, part of this is COVID. But COVID, you know, we'll see I think the impacts of COVID more in the 2023 numbers. China is announcing as declared the 60,000, they had 60,000 COVID deaths between December 8th and January 12th. But nobody believes that number. Everybody who looks at what's happening in Chinese hospitals and what's happening in Chinese cities believes the number is much, much larger than that. Maybe 10 to 20 times larger than that. Very few people, China has a foreign workforce, but they don't count those in the population because foreigners, I don't think, I don't think foreigners can become Chinese. But they also have, you know, one of their big problems is where they're going to have to allow some immigration, is that they have way too many men and too few women. So as a consequence of the one child policy, not only did they gain a shrinking population, one child is not enough for a placement, but they also, there was a lot of self-selecting for boys over girls. So what happens is that there's an entire, I think, two generations of Chinese where there are way more men than women and therefore they're not going to be able to have that many kids at all because there's just not of marriages unless they allow immigration of women into the country for the purposes of marriage, which they might do, who knows. I don't think they have done, but they might do in the future. There are foreign workers by million in Southern China and certainly in places like Shanghai, but they don't count them in these statistics and they don't count them as immigrants, as technically immigrants. The other thing that was announced this week is that China reported its lowest GDP number in, I think, the only other year was 2020, that COVID year at 3% for 2022, it's much lower than previous Chinese government targets. It's significantly lower than the high growth rate of China's last 40 years. I think American investors and European investors or generally investors are pouring a lot of money right now into China, into Chinese markets, into Chinese companies under the assumption that now China's opened up and now in a sense that they're getting COVID out of their system that what's going to happen as a consequence is the Chinese economy is going to boom and we're going to go back to the good old days and this is a great time to be investing in China. Let me just say I'm skeptical. I think that slower economic growth is what's installed for China in the future, at least as long as Xi maintains his commitment to central planning. I think it's probably foolhardily to jump in with such enthusiasm as it seems like foreign investors are. Now a lot of times the foreign investors, it's funny because a lot of the foreign investors investing in China tend to be Taiwanese, for example, or Chinese from overseas. Taiwanese should know better than anybody and it's funny that Taiwan being under constant threat of Chinese invasion is maybe the biggest investor in mainland China, one of the biggest investors in mainland China, per capita certainly the biggest investor in mainland China and making it possible for them to kind of build up the resources that would make an invasion of Taiwan possible. It's a bizarre world in which we live, in which the victims are constantly sanctioning the aggressors and constantly supporting the aggressors. So that's just a little bit more in China. I'm sure we'll be talking more in China as the year develops. There's going to be a lot of foreign policy and economic issues that China's going to be involved in and of course it's going to be interesting to see how COVID ultimately lands up playing out in China. The Chinese population shrinking as I told you it would and that's going to accelerate. And by the way, that is expanding population is pro-growth, economic growth, just sort of pure growth perspective. Shrinking population is a challenge for growth. So it's going to be interesting to see how China deals with these challenges. It's going to try to bribe people to have kids but that doesn't seem to work and doesn't seem to work anyway in the modern world. All right, let's see. Yeah, this is a good topic. Economists out of touch. So last week the American Economics Association had their annual meeting. I used to go to these annual meetings because they usually held in conjunction with the American Finance Association, which I was a member of and used to go in the old days. And the American Economic Association is basically all the economists in the United States belong to it, both government employees at the Fed and so on and private economists, university economists and so on. It's a big conference in which cutting-edge research and papers are presented and it's obviously a place where all the economists aggregate famous and young and old and everybody else. And it's always an interesting place. It's an interesting place in the sense of what are people presenting about because the presentations are papers that one day expect to be published. So this is kind of the pre-publication. This is the people pushing the envelope a little bit, trying out new ideas, trying out new things. This conference, like I think last year, part of it was held virtually. So that was a bit of an issue. So there was some commentators, some participants via online participation. That generally did not go well.  There were lots of technical problems. It was kind of funny. Everybody was in freezing Chicago and everybody went to hear Larry Summers. Larry Summers, after all, is now, he's always been famous. He's always been highly regarded. But now he's like God because he actually predicted inflation and one of the few economists out there were actually predicted price inflation. Everybody went thinking that Larry Summers would show up live. So it was the largest session at the conference. And it landed up that it was by video, and of course the video didn't work, so they heard his voice before they saw his picture. And then when he finally showed up, they are all huddled in some hotel room in New Orleans and Larry Summers is actually talking to them by video from a beach somewhere in the Caribbean. It was just kind of a funny thing. Anyway, a couple of observations, well actually three observations about the conference that I've read about. I did not go to the conference, but I read about. One, crazy COVID policies. This is the American Economics Association. These are people who are supposed to understand statistics, understand risk, understand probabilities, be able to evaluate risk and, I don't know, be in touch with the world. The economists are supposed to be evaluating stuff in the world. They should know. Well anyway, it turns out that the American Economics Association required attendees to show a COVID-19 vaccine card indicated that at least had one booster. If you hadn't had a booster, it couldn't come so that they could get their pass. There was a mask mandate for all those in attendance at the main hotel. I guess if you were doing it virtually by video, you didn't have to wear a mask, but in the hotel you had to wear a mask. Now notice that the hotel didn't have a mask mandate, so other guests at the hotel didn't have to wear a mask, but the conference attendees had a wear mask. So you had this ridiculous thing of, and I'm reading here from an economist, Ryan Bourne, who was there, and he says, so you had that ridiculous spectacle of other guests and families in the hotel walking around unmasks as hordes of smartly dressed economists paraded the K-95s of economists walking unmasked in busy shared areas only to then mask up when entering sparsely populated sessions like some of these sessions are like two, three people, but they wore masks. A presenters taking off masks to talk loudly at large groups and sessions before putting their mask on to watch other presenters in silence, of groups of economists eating and drinking together in the hotel or surrounding bars and restaurants only to then put on their mask on to chat with the same people in the hotel conference areas. This is insane.  Put aside whether the mask is effective or not, it doesn't matter if you're taking them off and you're putting them on, you're taking them off and you're putting them on, you're taking the same people and the same... it doesn't matter.  The other thing that Ryan found interesting was the hero economists again, they should know the data, they should know the science, the scientist after all, somewhat scientific. And he says young people who are not particularly susceptible to COVID and who face low risk of COVID, right? Low risk of having a severe outcome if they have COVID. I mean, very low risk of severe outcome COVID and vaccinated and boosted. It was young people in their 40s or younger, 90% of which women asks, it was less than 30% in 50 and older. So this could be younger generations and more fearful, more broadly, more generally. It could be virtue signaling, younger people are more interested in using this to signal their virtue because they have job prospects, they're on the job market or you never know, right, when you're young, you might want to switch jobs and you want to make sure that everybody knows that you've got this right. Versus older people who are actually susceptible, most susceptible to disease and have more to lose, if you will, but don't have to virtue signal because they've already got their jobs and they're not looking to replace them.   This is a well-educated, particularly in statistics and probability, particularly in risk and understanding risk, you'd think. And it shows that they have no knowledge, no understanding of the science and are not behaving in any ways to reflect of that or maybe what they are behaving in ways that reflect future-earning potential, that is this virtue signaling in nonsense. That's one aspect, point one about the American Economics Association and the ridiculousness at this point in the pandemic of not only demanding vaccine passes and boosters on top of it, but also a mask mandate in a hotel that doesn't have a mask mandate in a city that doesn't have a mask mandate. Just absurd and ridiculous. The whole thing is ridiculous. I don't know, sure of what, but just stupidity. Stupidity and virtue signaling, they want to show that they're an organization that's responsible. I wonder what the board meetings are like at the American Economics Association for them to come to these kind of conclusions. All right, but then there's the issue of the session Topics. So it turns out that, and this is Ryan's calculations, this is from his substack, by his calculation of all the panels, papers and plenary sessions at the conference, there was 69 featuring at least one paper that was focused on gender issues. This is the American Economics Association. 66 papers focused on climate-related topics and 65 papers looking at some aspect of racial issues. Now, just to give you a perspective on this, take an issue like inflation. Inflation, which is ravaging our economy. Inflation, which is purely an economic issue. Inflation, which every American is really concerned about. And it would be important for economists to address inflation. That economists, with exception maybe of Larry Summers, did not predict inflation, which is still not fully understood in terms of its causes, at least not by these economists. Inflation had just 23 papers, 69 on gender issues, but 23 on inflation. God, they don't understand inflation, but they guess they don't want to understand inflation. They'd much rather write about gender issues, climate issues, racial issues, and what? They've impacted on the economy, they've impacted on employment, they've impacted on what exactly? I mean, sure, some of those papers had some, or most of them, all of them had some relations to economics, but this is a little detached from reality, detached from the concerns of most human beings. Another topic, economic growth. Economic growth, another important topic, given that we've gone through over a decade now of very low economic growth. It is one of the big puzzles to them, to the mainstream economists, of why, why we have such low economic growth. What's going on is this permanent, is growth even possible? A worthy topic for an economist trying to understand? Again, only 23 papers that could reasonably, according to Ryan, be considered to be about the subject. In other words, roughly three times as many sessions featured papers on each of race, gender, and climate, as there were sessions on topics of inflation or growth. For the conferences, a whole, that means 13.2% of all sessions featured gender issues, 12.6, climate, 12.4, race, against just 4.4% for inflation and growth. I mean, that's modern economics, modern academia, modern irrelevancy, modern irrelevancy.  And related to that, there's an economist article that talks about the fact that the American Economic Association, there was no ambition there. There were no big projects. There was no new theories. There was no breakthrough research. It was all just incremental, same old, same old, nothing. And now I will add there's very little of any significance in these things. Most of these are studies that have no relevance to anything. But there's a broader point. And that is, and this is a point Tyler Cowan makes of George Mason University. Tyler Cowan, you probably know a free market economist he makes. In the last 30 years, the reliability of empirical world and work and estimation have risen dramatically. That is the econometrics, the statistics, the probability, all of that, the gathering of data, the quality of the data, all of that empirical work, that has gotten better. So in the past 30 years, the reliability of empirical work and estimation have risen dramatically, which is good. But few new important ideas have been really generated. So we can crunch the numbers. We just have no idea what they mean. And we have very few explanations for them. Indeed, one of the fields in which you're seeing the most progress in economics and the most investment in economics and the most people interested in economics is the field in a sense of machine learning AI using massive sets of data in order to explain the world. Now, this is truly scary in my view because all this does is it gives central planners more hubris, more delusion that they can actually run the world. That, you know, with the right kind of AI, with the right kind of algorithm, with the right kind of powerful computers, they can actually make a difference. It just gives them the impression that central planning can work because, oh, I have so much data. Remember, one of the problems is that in much of the standard critique of central planning, including the Hayekin critique of central planning, reason is the enemy. The idea is that central planning fails because we don't have the capacity to integrate all the data. If we had the capacity to integrate all the data, we could centrally plan the economy rather than an understanding where values come from the fact that, no, it's not an issue of the quantity of data. It's the issue of where the data resides and the data is individual valuing and the fact that you can't access that even if you have the most powerful computer in the world. So that Hayekin still leaves an opening for if I just had a powerful enough computer. And I think other Austrian economists understand that that's nonsense. It's not about the power of the computer. We're trying, you know, Stanford and other places, they're building massive programs, massive quantities of data to try to explain the world mathematically and to plan it as a consequence. All right, I don't know what's happening this week, but you guys have to step up your game in terms of helping fund the Iran Book Show, particularly these morning sessions. We can't do these sessions unless we're funding for them. We can't devote the time to them unless they generate some income. Right now we have, oh, we had 100 people watching earlier. Now it's about down to 92. But between 90 and 100 people, if everybody puts $2 each, we can make our numbers, but everybody has to put $2 each. So if those of you motivated enough to put in some money, put $5 each, we can make our numbers. All right, I want to talk about cancer mortality. Cancer mortality rates have over the last 50, 60 years declined substantially and they continue to decline. It's one of the really good news stories in healthcare. In spite of the fact you hear horror stories about cancer constantly, the actual rates of cancer, the actual mortality of cancer is declining. And it's declining for a number of reasons. Part of the reasons are we just have better therapies. And I think I actually expect that we're going to have a real revolution in therapy over the next couple of decades so that the impact is going to be dramatic on cancer survival rates or mortality rates in the next two decades because of therapeutics, because of new therapeutics, because of therapeutics that make it possible for people who get cancer to recover from it and for it to be cured. And in ways that are far less harmful and traumatizing as radiation and chemo have been over the last few decades. So I'm very optimistic about our ability to cure certain cancers over the next 20 years with new therapies that are far less disruptive and disastrous.  Let's hope that that indeed is the case. Another reason why you're seeing a big decline in cancer mortality is behavior. That is people have changed their behavior. People have stopped smoking. People are generally, at least some people, are eating better. There's much more awareness of the role of food and of the role of smoking and of all of alcohol and of all of other things in cancer. And as a consequence, some people at least at the margin are changing their behavior and their changed behavior is having a real impact. You can see this with lung cancer and smoking. A massive impact on the decline of cancer mortality in the United States but really in the entire world including in the entire western world. So there is a real impact of behavioral changes. We've got therapeutic behavioral changes. I want to focus, I want to say a few things now on the third and maybe the most important right now way in which cancer has declined in terms of mortality and something you guys can do something about in your own life. Now certainly you can change your behavior which I encourage everybody to do. Life is too precious to fit it away, I don't know, for French fries or for dessert or for a smoke. But there's one other thing that turns out to be really, really crucial when it comes to cancer and that is screening. That's early prevention. And I'm going to tell you a real story that happened at one of the listeners of this show. One of my better supporters for a number of years now on the Iran book show. And John lived in San Diego and a Canadian citizen was living in San Diego. I visited him a couple of times. We had chatted. He was one of the ones who had purchased, in a sense, one-on-one time with me. And at some point I'd mentioned to him that I was doing health nucleus. I'd mentioned this. I haven't mentioned it on the show for a long time. But I have this program with a clinic in Southern California where I go in Northern California actually, Southern and Northern California. I go in once a year and they do a full body check-up. They do an MRI scan of the entire body. They do blood work. They do an echocardiogram for the heart. They do a calcium score for the arteries. They put you through everything. They scan everything. They review everything. And then they review it with you. And basically they do the full body MRI and detailed MRI of the organs and things like that, basically to look for cancer. And I've done this twice now and so far, so good. Nothing's being discovered. But we have, I've done a lot of work with the doctors there on trying to improve my health generally. And we've done just based on the blood work. We've done some pretty amazing work and it's worked out well.  And I told John this, I told him a number of times about this being really good. And he lived close to where the clinic was. And finally a few months ago he went. And he did their full body scan. And the full body scan, he discovered a nodule in his lung.  It's happened to be nothing. But they said, let's do it in four months and test it again and see what happens and see if it's grown, if it goes away. And they tested again four months later and they hadn't grown. But it was suspicious and it was there. And ultimately he went to a lung doctor, a pulmonologist, I think it's called. And they decided to do a biopsy. And they did a biopsy and it was cancer. Stage one, very early, he is now in Canada. He has health insurance through the Canadian system. And he's going to go through surgery next month or in a few weeks to take out the cancer cells. It hasn't spread anyway because they caught it early. So I'm a huge fan of screening. Now a lot of people are afraid of screening because of false positives. Deal with false positives. The best way to deal with false positives is more screening.  So screen.  Get the mammograms. And if you can afford it, find a service like this one. It's called Human Longevity. If you look up HumanLongevity.com or just look up Google Human Longevity. And you don't get a service that screens you once a year. The nice thing now is I have an MOI benchmark now for basically every organ in my body. I know what it looked like two years ago. I know what it looks like today. A year from now we can see any anomalies, any abnormalities. We've got a really, really, really good picture of my heart. We know exactly how my heart functions. Any abnormalities, any changes, anything to my blood work, to my imaging, to any of these things you know to investigate. And it's pretty amazing. It's pretty amazing. And you could save a lot of your life. Cancer is a killer. And it doesn't have to because if you catch it early, most cancers are treatable. Almost all of them are treatable if caught early. But it's a big if. It's a big if. So anyway, while we wait for the therapies, they're coming and they're already a lot better than they used to be, but they're coming. And while you should engage in behavior change, by the way, John never smoked, ate an incredibly healthy diet, was in great shape, worked out regularly. Cancer, many cancers just don't care. It's just kind of a, you know, who knows, a biological fluke. It's just a biological thing that happens. So don't rely on just behavioral changes. Anyway, just thought I'd give a pitch for screening, whether you use health nucleus, human longevity, it's the same company or not. Whatever you use, it saved John's life, probably. Hopefully it can change yours. All right, save yours. All right. That is it. As I said earlier, you know, this is not good. So I'm hoping, if not today, then in, you know, we need to get some of our whales to listen. By the way, those of you who listen to the show later and you want to support it on YouTube, you still can. There's still a way to provide funding on YouTube for these shows. Also, you can of course become a monthly supporter and you can do that on Patreon and SubscribeStar on your onbookshow.com slash support. So please do so. But we are, I don't know, we're almost 200 short of a goal, which is no fun. Everybody would have to do, yeah, two bucks each in order to get us the way we need to be. Thank you, ex-Canu. Thank you, surreal truth. Thank you, Walter. Thank you, Darlene. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Shazba. Thank you, Vladimir. Thank you, Theemasta. And thank you, Jonathan Honing. All of you participated and contributed. There are about 90 people who have not or more than 90 because some have left. Okay, Ian. Ian, thank you, Ian. Thanks for having Adam Masoff on. It was a great show. And I wish I had been watching live to ask questions. Everyone talks about the influence of Alex Epstein, but I think Adam's influence is just as important and a great example. I agree. I mean, I don't know how to measure influences, but Adam's had an enormous influence. He is the main voice out there for intellectual property rights. He is testified in front of Congress. He writes a lot of papers. He is known in the profession. He is known globally. I mean, years ago, he traveled to China and actually helped them design their property rights regime, or at least advised them on that. He is known globally internationally as an expert. And I think he is also known as an objectivist. I don't think he ever hides that. So that combination, I think, is incredibly powerful. It helps give us the philosophy of real legitimacy and it helps spread these really important valuable ideas, for example, of intellectual property and their connection to reason. He defends it on objectivist grounds. He defends it on Rand's philosophical grounds. So yes, kudos to Adam and to everything he's done. Jennifer asked, did you see the Mina pick? Remind me who Mina is. What am I missing here? I'm blanking out. Sorry, Jennifer, blanking out. Bree says, tell your friend to not trust a free Canadian health care. My cousin caught a stage one lung cancer in 2017. Had it removed in the UK, they failed to follow up and returned. She died in 2020. He doesn't completely, and as a consequence, Bree, he is in constant contact with the doctors from human longevity in the United States. He wants to make sure that the treatment he's getting in Canada is the right treatment. He wants to make sure that they follow up. He will be going back to human longevity to follow up and to continue the scanning.  I mean, in that sense, you should always get second opinions, third opinions, fourth opinions. You can never get enough opinions. It's good to get multiple opinions. It's good to find real experts. It's good to get, find the best doctors in the world and ask them.  Unless I've talked to two, three, four doctors and made sure that there's no alternatives and made sure that the doctors I'm consulting are some of the best. This is why you should, you should if you can afford to have the best healthcare, the best insurance you can so you can talk to the best doctors. But even if it costs you out of pocket, it doesn't cost that much to get a consultation with a world expert somewhere. So yes, research, research, research, don't let them do anything to you without really understanding and knowing what's going on. Oh, so Jennifer's asking about Mina Hood dog, this cute little dog. Yes, I saw the picture. It was really, really cute. If, you know, I don't like pets. I don't have pets, but it was a cute dog. I like other people's dogs. I just don't want my own. All right, Alan's got the last question here. Thank you, Martin, and thank you, Colleen. Really appreciate the support. Alan says, general support. Thank you, Dr. Book, for being a voice of reason in an unreasonable world. I appreciate that, Alan. All right, so we made up a little bit. It's about only halfway the way we should be. But I appreciate all of you who supported the show. Remember, this is value for value. I'm not asking for anything without hopefully trading. If you don't value the show, please don't contribute anything. And anyway, thanks, everybody. I will see you tomorrow. I hope I'm flying tomorrow. So when I get in my hotel, if I have the internet and if I have the time, I will do another show. But we'll see the same Thursday, Friday. They are contingent on hotel bandwidth and contingent. Friday, there won't be a show for sure. Not in the morning and not in the evening, because Friday, completely swamped from 6 in the morning on. But so Wednesday and Thursday, I will do a show. And Adam reminds me to remind you all. Tonight, Adam is sponsoring a show on sports and how sports reflect philosophy and how sports is kind of the last bastion in which one can appreciate and celebrate good virtues and values, objectivist virtues and values, but some of the best that the culture has to offer, both through particular athletes who, I think, exemplify some of these virtues and values, and just through the phenomena of sport, the engagement of sports. It should be fun. So please join us and participate. And come on live. It will be at 7 p.m. East Coast time. And yeah, it should be a lot of fun. I think I'm going to show a bit of a video of Kobe Bryant. So yeah, and I'm curious what your favorite sports are and why and what you admire about them and what you like about them. And those of you don't, I know some of you don't like sports at all. Maybe we can convince you to like them a little bit. Maybe we can convince you to like them a little bit. Tonight at 7 p.m. East Coast time, join us and it'll be a lot of fun.  I like baseball. We can talk about baseball and why baseball is an amazing thing.  We'll try to cover them all in one way or another. All right, everybody, thanks a lot, Adam. Thank you for adding that in the end. Thank you for reminding me to remind everybody else. And yeah, I've seen a couple of movies I've actually enjoyed. So I will let you can tell if you know about those tonight. See you tonight, everybody. Bye.