Therefore, now time for question period. The leader of Her Majesty's Land Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The government still claims they balance the books. But all with typical liberal math. That's not helpful when I'm trying to get attention for your leader. Thank you. Please put your question. But all with typical liberal math, something doesn't add up. What do you get when you add in $1.8 billion from double-counted cap and trade money? You have $500 million in pension assets, despite the Auditor General's advice not to count it. $1.5 billion in double-counted federal transfer funds. $450 million in land transfer taxes. And lastly, $1 billion from the fire sale of hydro. What do you get, Mr. Speaker, when you add that all together? It's a $5 billion operational deficit funded through cash grabs. I'm going to ask the member from the PN Carlton to withdraw. And I've made it clear I don't want that set. Carry on. Mr. Speaker, it is a $5 billion operational deficit through cash grabs, pension assets, and one time an unusual revenue. Will the Premier come clean and amend the House? The budget is not balanced. Thank you. No, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to say that this is the first balanced budget in Ontario for nearly a decade, Mr. Speaker. Hard to eliminate the deficit, Mr. Speaker. We knew that that was critical. And our economy is in a very strong position in Ontario. We are leading the country, Mr. Speaker, in economic growth. But the reality is that people are still anxious. And so the foundation of a balanced budget actually gives us the opportunity to make investments that are needed in the province. Also, Mr. Speaker, a prime example of that is OHIB Plus, which allows us to invest in the people of this province and allows children and youth in this province, as of January 2018, to have free medication, Mr. Speaker, because we know investment and kids and young people can get access early to the medication that they need. They will be healthier in the long term, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, you know what else doesn't add up? The fact that the wind liberals are adding another $10 billion of debt. They say they have a balanced budget. But another reason the liberals claim they have a balanced budget is because they're simply hiding debt elsewhere. If this budget was quarter balanced, we wouldn't be adding debt left, right, and center. But the wind liberals are adding $10 billion worth of debt to the most indebted province in the world. We owe more than any province or state, and it's about to get worse. So, Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain why we're adding so much debt this year, $10 billion, if it's actually a balanced budget? Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of the opposition has no interest and no plan to make capital investment in this province, Mr. Speaker. No interest in it and no apparent understanding that without investment in capital, without investment in transit, Mr. Speaker, in roads and bridges across the province, you know? He was at the city of Toronto today, Mr. Speaker, talking about the city of Toronto. And he's made one commitment to invest one cent in transit in the city of Toronto, Mr. Speaker. We have billions of dollars that's being invested in Toronto, in Ottawa, in Kitchener Waterloo, Mr. Speaker, in Hamilton, around the province, because we know that those investments are critical to the economic viability and growth of those communities in the province overall. We are proud of our balanced budget, Mr. Speaker, first one in a decade in Ontario, and it allows us to have a foundation upon which to invest. Thank you. Thank you. You see the face? You see the face? Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. You know, this myth of a balanced budget didn't trick everyone, didn't confuse everyone. Just look what Kelly McPearlane had to say in the National Post. I quote, in this article, the budget claims to be balanced, even though debt will rise another 26.4 billion this fiscal year, debt servicing costs will again eat up one billion a month. He added, I quote, billions of dollars in expenditures for capital projects are kept off book. Billions more and borrowing shoved into the future. One-time asset sales like hydro and sell-offs are used to make the numbers look better than they are. And that's from the National Post. Mr. Speaker, clearly this budget is not balanced. And my question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier is playing with the numbers. Is fudging the numbers really worth hurting the long-term future of on-payments? I'm on the edge with that, please. Just keep it away from there, Premier. Minister of Finance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To be clear, we balance the budget. This year, next year, and the year after that, this is coming from a party who increased debt by 53% when they were in power as a province during the good times. And this member himself, he voted in the largest deficit in our country's history, $55 billion, Mr. Speaker. And he doubled debt during the time that he was there. Mr. Speaker, I'll read a quote from an independent source at rating agencies. They said the following, the government has, to its credit, outperformed its targets each year, efforts to constrain wages and limit spending growth in key program areas, kept the plan on track. Initially, while the province was benefiting from strong economic growth, and more recently, one off-measures, Mr. Speaker, that's the DVRS. It goes on to say the net debt to GDP ratio is seen falling for a third straight year at 37.5% in 1716. Ontario aims to ease a debt-to-GDP ratio. Yeah, that's a good question. Good question. The leader of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. This morning, I sat down with Mayor Tory to discuss the Liberal government's 2017 budget. We both agreed on one important fact. A Premier who got elected on the promise that they would fight for the city of Toronto has clearly turned her back on this great city. The Liberals have ignored almost every promise that the Premier made to the city of Toronto. Instead, they sent down a minister to say John Tory had crossed the line. Standing up for the city of Toronto isn't crossing the line. It's honouring the promises they made, which they have broken to the city of Toronto. So my question, Mr. Speaker, is when does this Premier get to actually honour the commitments she made and make sure we actually support the city of Toronto? Thank you. Thank you. You see it, please? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well? The member from Prince Edward Hastings will withdraw and then not to be done again. Carry on. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me first say, Mr. Speaker, that I have a very strong working relationship with mayors across this province, Mr. Speaker. I work with them. I go to their gatherings. I listen to their concerns. I believe that the municipal level of government is extremely important to the well-being of the whole province, Mr. Speaker. And I meet with Mayor Tory on a regular basis. So let me just talk about the ways in which we have invested and supported Toronto, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, there's no government in the history of this province that has invested more in housing and transit in the city. First, also, let me note that we have earmarked $30 billion more for infrastructure in the province and a proportion of that, a large proportion of that will go to the city of Toronto over the next decade for future projects, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to supplement you. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. And as the Mayor Tory said, what happened 10 years ago doesn't do much for the future. Listing off highlight reels doesn't help with immediate infrastructure needs of the city of Toronto. Now, one very serious example Mayor Tory raised was the stories about people living in Toronto community housing who are who, when they get convicted of a crime, when these people are jailed, they're allowed to jump the queue. We have 82,000 people on the waiting list for Toronto community housing. And someone who is a convicted criminal can jump the queue over those families. That is outrageous. And I don't understand how this government could continue to support allowing violent criminals and drug dealers to jump the queue over our most vulnerable in our city. Mr. Speaker, this is shameful. Mayor Tory and city council have made this request of the province. Yes or no? Will you stop this practice? Will you allow the province to make sure convicted criminals don't get to jump the queue for social housing? Minister of Housing. Well, thank you, Speaker. And thank you for that very interesting question, because it is factually incorrect. The province disappointed that the leader of the opposition wouldn't at least check his facts before he stood up on TV and spread that falsehood. Speaker, here's how it works. I will offer the minister a warning as much as I did for the leader. Stay away from there. Carry on. OK. Mr. Speaker, the only legislation, the only regulation that this province puts in place is that victims of domestic violence get priority, not what the leader of the opposition is saying. You see that, please? Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again, to the Premier. And the Liberal government seems to be oblivious to the fact that the entire city council, and Mayor John Tory, made this request, and the wording is, the provincial legislation needs to be changed right now because of the wording disadvantage, you're allowed to jump the queue, a convicted drug dealer or anyone who's committed a violent offense. The entire Toronto City Council has passed this request. You really confuse my job when I'm trying to get them to be quiet and you continue. Mr. Speaker, since I can't get an answer on the convicted criminals being allowed to jump the queue, Toronto Community Housing has one other request, and that's the natural gas purchasing. Because of the way the province has set up, Toronto pays $6.3 million more. Mayor Tory has a legitimate question, a legitimate ask, will the Premier at least acknowledge that if she's got an answer? Mr. Speaker, you know, I thought I gave a fairly clear answer, and I'll give it a game. The province of Ontario gives the only, the only mandate the province of Ontario gives is that those people fleeing domestic violence get priority in this housing. So, you know, I can say that Ontario has a long standing commitment to tackling homelessness, and ending chronic homelessness. You know, the Speaker, I will, I'll say that again, they're the only regulation that we have in place is that those people fleeing domestic violence get priority. Answer. So, Speaker, the, with regards to natural gas purchases. New question, the leader of the third party. Speaker, in the Premier's political response to the pharmacare issue, she left out 10 million Ontarians. Why? Thank you. Can you hear? Well, Mr. Speaker, what OHIP Plus does, and I, you know, I said on, I said last week that I'm very glad that the leader of the third party and her caucus are on the same page in terms of the need for pharmacare support, Mr. Speaker. I think that the more voices that we have leading the charge across the country, Mr. Speaker, joining with our Minister of Health, who has been talking about this and working with his colleagues across the country, the more voices we have joining in that chorus, the better off we are, Mr. Speaker. We made a decision to cover, instead of 125 medications, to cover 4,400 medications, Mr. Speaker, including medications for rare diseases for all children and young people, 24 years or younger, Mr. Speaker. That was the path that we took. It will make a huge difference in children's lives. Supplementary. One in three people in this province have no drug coverage through their work. This situation is getting worse today. Not better, Speaker. Ontario needs a universal pharmacare plan that will ensure those people get the medication that they need. And yet, in the Premier's political response to this issue, she chose to leave them out. Under the Premier's response, people will continue to max out their credit cards, being forced to split their pills in half or go without the medication that they need. Why? Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration of the third party, but I find it remarkable that I have yet to find another third party stakeholder, patient interest group that actually shares their view because this pharmacare program has been lauded and celebrated and applauded across this country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, even the individuals that were involved in helping the NDP create their income-tested pharmacare proposal have supported this. In fact... Minister? So Steve Morgan, one of the experts in this country that was utilized as she... In fact, he stood right next to the leader of the third party, saying, Bravo at first-dollar single-payer pharmacare plan for children, recognizing that this is critically important. That was his response. Final supplementary? Well, Speaker, I'll give the Minister of Health a little bit more time to read our plan because, in fact, he's got it wrong, but that's okay. He would rather spin than be up front about what's in our plan. But let me say for the record, Speaker... Stop the clock. Minister of Tourism and Culture and Sport. Let me say for the record, Speaker, that I do agree that young people need their prescriptions filled. But maybe their parents do too, Speaker. I believe that their parents need their prescriptions hard, but don't have workplace benefits. Why she thinks they should have to continue to empty their wallets, reach for their credit cards, to pay for their prescriptions, or worse, go without those prescriptions as they do right now. Thank you. Minister? Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can all celebrate this proposal that's in the budget. This is the biggest transformation in Medicare in this province, probably since the beginning of Medicare, Mr. Speaker. It's a giant leap forward towards universal pharmacare for all Ontarians. It's providing, I believe, that national leadership that the Premier has worked so diligently on over the last number of years. And it means come January 1st, four million children and youth will be able to, with their parents, go into pharmacies, get absolutely free access to 4,400 medications, including cancer drugs, including drugs for rare disease, at absolutely no cost to them. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that a progressive party like the NDP would get up with this and celebrate this incredible visionary transformation of OHIP, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you have a question, the leader of the third party? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is also for the Premier. Nearly a quarter of Canadians between the ages of 30 and 60 are dealing with high blood pressure. The largest cohort of people living with HIV and AIDS are aged 30 to 40, not under 24. The gathering of statistics for people with high cholesterol doesn't even start until age 40, Mr. Speaker. The NDP plan for universal pharmacare would give all of those people coverage for the medications that they need. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a single Ontarian because that's what's needed, Mr. Speaker. That's what's needed. Why has the Premier decided to leave all of these people out of her plan? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, as I said, the leader of the third party and I have come at this from a different direction, Mr. Speaker. What we have done is we have said for young people 24 years or younger, we would cover all of the medications that they might need, Mr. Speaker, 4,400 medications. The leader of the third party chose to bring forward a proposal that would have been much, much narrower.  The reality is we both know that a national pharma care plan that covers everyone in the country is actually what is needed in this country, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of God, we have taken a huge step forward so that all children and youth 24 years or younger will have all of their medications covered, Mr. Speaker. 4,400, right in January, 2018. So as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary? Well, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier refuses to admit and the minister refuses to acknowledge is that the vast majority of those 4,400 drugs will never be utilized by the vast majority of young people in the province of Ontario. The member from Eglinton, Lawrence, second time. The member from Hamilton, East Stony Creek. Please finish. Mr. Speaker, a truly universal pharma care plan will create savings that could range between $800 million and $1.9 billion immediately, Mr. Speaker. These are real savings that are backed up by independent experts. Why has the Premier chosen a response to the pharma care that minimizes the benefits to Ontario's economy? Thank you. Mr. Health and long-term care? Mr. Health, long-term care? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am profoundly disappointed at the NDP's position. And this shouldn't be about which program is of greater benefit. This should be about the important announcement that was made last week that is the biggest transformation of Medicare in the history of this province. Mr. Speaker, I learned of a mother, of a family with a teenage daughter that has cancer.  Yeah. And she said that $20,000 represents her daughter's college education, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Final supplementary? Well, Speaker, I'm profoundly disappointed that 10 million Ontarians are not gonna have their prescription drugs of Ontarians. Once again, we are reminded that these Ontarians are just not the priority for this premier. So let me be clear to all Ontarians. I don't agree. And I am committed to bringing forward universal, comprehensive pharmacare for the people of their actually join me, Speaker, in supporting a plan that does cover all Ontarians as Ontarians would expect a premier to do. Thank you very much. You see that, please? You see that, please? Thank you. Minister? The Speaker, our premier has been advocating for national pharmacare for years. And I know it's recently that that leader of the third party has joined our efforts for national pharmacare, Mr. Speaker. But now, per se, one of the, from St. Mike's, one of the leaders across this country on pharmacare on Metro Morning last week said, quote, this announcement is potentially historic. It indicates that the government is taking action to address the fact that millions of people who don't take medications because they can't afford them will, Mr. Speaker. Danielle Martin, another leader on this, said these are real people who are going to be significantly helped by this, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the member opposite doesn't think that children and youth are real people deserving of pharmacare, Mr. Speaker. And Natalie Merra of the Ontario Health Coalition, I know an individual that the member opposite knows well, said, quote, this is an amazing announcement that will provide national leadership. This is a great first step in the right direction. Thank you. Can you see it, please? Can you see it, please? Thank you. Start the clock. New question, the member from Nipissing. Thank you, and good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Home capital is one of the largest non-bank mortgage lenders in Ontario. The Premier would know them as being under investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission. They've seen a withdrawal of hundreds of millions of dollars from savings accounts, and their shares tumbled 65%. Last week, they received a $2 billion bailout from the Health Care of Ontario Pension Plan, or HOOP. Seeing as one of the players is under provincial government regulators' investigation, and the other player manages the pension funds of Ontario's health workers, we have questions. I ask the Premier, was the government aware of this deal, and if so, when? Thank you. Can you show us your finance? Mr. Finance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our first priority is always consumers and investor protection. The Ontario Securities Commission is reviewing and assessing the circumstances around home capital. We understand that there's a case before it now. Although FISCO, our financial securities regulator as well, has engaged because of the mortgage component of it, and then there's the investor component of it that the Ontario Securities Commission is involved with. We have actually been doing a review for over a year and a half now, referencing to increase consumer protection, and ensure that full disclosure is made for those consumers and investors to appreciate the degree of risk that are involved in those circumstances. But it is before review, and that's where it is, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. The supplementary. Back to the Premier. The first chair of home capital is Kevin Smith. He earns $357,000 a year and has some one and a half million dollars in stock. But that's only his part-time job. The Premier would know him better as Kevin Smith, CEO of St. Joseph's Health Centre, his other part-time job where he's paid $720,000 a year. And he was also a board member of Hoop. Now Hoop's CEO was Jim Cohane, who also happens to sit on the board of home capital. Speaker, you truly can't tell the players without a program. The apparent conflicts are beyond description. So after the bailout, which helped restore the share value, he's the son from the other's boards. Question. Mr. Premier, is it right for executives of a lender to also be making decisions of a borrower? Thank you. Mr. Finance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a member of me, I appreciate he knows that home capital group is incorporated federally and it's regulated by the federal financial institutions. FISCO, which is a province that's confident that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions or OFFSC is carefully monitoring the situation as well. And we're monitoring any impact on mortgage availability in the marketplace. But again, the transparency and the oversight, consumer protection is paramount. It's why we've taken the initiatives that we have to strengthen FISCO's regulation, also moving more of that to the OSC to ensure that our consumers, our investors are protected and our fully disclosed. And it is before a review, Mr. Speaker, and we're trying to protect the interests of the consumers here. Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Toronto set out some clear and reasonable priorities for the Ontario budget. People living in Toronto community housing need help and the mayor asked that the province join with the city to provide that help. People relying on the TTC need an improved transit system and the mayor asked the province to join the city to help provide that system. Now, I understand what the mayor is talking about and when we met, I was clear. An NDP government will be there for Toronto. The Premier ignored the people of Toronto in last week's budget. As the mayor told people leaving in community housing, quote, the Ontario government is not helping to get your housing fixed, end quote. Why isn't the Premier doing what's needed to fix affordable housing in Toronto and communities around the province? Thank you. So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again that we are making billions of dollars of investment in Toronto. We have uploaded literally billions of dollars of cost from municipalities, including Toronto, around the province. But let me just talk specifically about housing because I am concerned about social housing around the province. I am concerned about social housing in the City of Toronto as a Toronto member, Mr. Speaker. I know firsthand the challenges of Toronto community housing, but those challenges are found in other parts of the province as well, Mr. Speaker. For Toronto, what this budget does is it provides $130 million for social housing repair, Mr. Speaker, $340 million for prevention of homelessness, another $130 million for affordable housing, Mr. Speaker, and a specific ask that the mayor had which was about provincial land, we have acquiesced a provincial land worth up to $100 million to build 2,000 new affordable renting housing units. Those are all supports for housing in the City of Toronto, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the mayor told Torontonians that the city got a big goose egg when it came to social housing repairs. Social housing stock is crumbling and concern doesn't fix it, Mr. Speaker. Funding fixes it, but that wasn't all. To quote the mayor, the most crucial needs of the people of the City of Toronto were not met by this budget. The Premier and our government had a chance to stand up for Toronto on transit. Instead, they turned their backs. Now, when I went with Mayor Tory, we talked about the importance of the province supporting 50% of the TTC's operating costs. Why is the Premier saying no to immediate improvements to Toronto's transit system? Stop the clock. Stop the clock. I'll come back to the leader for that last part to make sure that she has an opportunity to say it, but the member from Eglinton, Lawrence, is warned. Carry on. Why is the Premier saying no to immediate improvements to Toronto's transit and transit systems across the province? Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, the chatter that you might have heard behind me, Mr. Speaker, is from members who are not from the City of Toronto, who have watched the funding that has flowed to the City of Toronto and to Hamilton, Mr. Speaker, and to Kitchener Waterloo and to Ottawa. And let me just talk about the money that is going into the City of Toronto. 5.3 billion for the Eglinton crosstown. 1.2 billion for the Finch West LRT. 3.7 billion for GO RER within Toronto. 870 million for the Toronto York Spadina subway. 1.48 billion for the Scarborough subway. And, Mr. Speaker, on future projects, which is I know what the mayor has been talking about, $150 million for planning and design work on the Toronto relief line, a line and a project, Mr. Speaker, for which there is no committed city money at this point, Mr. Speaker, and 55 million for the same work on the Young North subway. No government has put more money into transit in the City of Toronto than ours, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Question to the members from Etobicoke North. Thank you, Speaker. On behalf of my constituents of Etobicoke North, Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, the Honorable Charles Sousa. Speaker, I can tell you that all of my colleagues on this side of the House are in fact quite proud of Premier Nguyen and Minister of Finance Sousa for the Ontario 217-218 budget. In fact, our growth has outpaced Canada's and all of their G7 countries for the last three years. On the ground, that means, Speaker, the greatest expansion of prescription healthcare in a generation, a billion dollars for transit just in my own riding, $400 million for Etobicoke General Hospital. We've created 700,000 new jobs since the recession and our unemployment rate has been below the national average for two straight years. Speaker, when the global economic recession hit, we made a deliberate choice to invest in Ontarians and the things that matter to them most. Will the Finance Minister please itemize more of what we're doing for Ontarians in the 2017-2018 Ontario budget? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the member from Etobicoke North for the question and his advocacy in this regard. I'm happy to reaffirm that the 2017 budget is a balanced budget, and it's the first one since the global recession. Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to add again that not only have we balanced this year, but we're on track to do so again next year and the year after that. A balanced budget means that the government will not be boring to pay for operating costs because all of it now goes directly to invest in capital, long-term capital assets. The result is more money and more available for things that matter to the people of Ontario like free prescriptions for children under 24 and under or free tuition. When the global recession hit, Mr. Speaker, we set out a realistic and responsible approach to return to balance in 2017-2018, and last week we delivered on that commitment. Thank you, Mr. Comentary. Speaker, OHIP Plus, new schools, new hospitals or hospital expansions, free tuition for modest income Ontarians, 25% cut in hydro rates, more childcare, eight stops of the Finch LRT in my riding alone. Minister, on behalf of the people of Etobicoke North, muito obrigado. Families in Toronto, Speaker, will benefit from these important investments. Speaker, we are already making the largest infrastructure investment in our province's history, and that Toronto is in fact receiving a very significant funding support, not only for the items that I've listed, but of course for affordable housing as well as transit. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance please comment on how we continue to build up the city of Toronto? Thank you, Minister. Again, I'd like to thank the member from Etobicoke North for his question and his language skills. Mr. Speaker, it's important to remember that no provincial government in Ontario's history has invested more in the city of Toronto. We've increased provincial uploads, meaning that the city of Toronto will save $530 million this year alone. In fact, since 2003, we contribute over $10 billion in transit projects like Ellington Crosstown and the downtown relief line that we're supporting. And this year's budget includes another $130 million for social housing repair, $340 million for homelessness prevention, and $130 million for affordable housing. We're using provincial lands of up to $100 million also to build 2,000 new affordable housing units in the city. The city has asked us for new revenue tools and we've responded, Mr. Speaker. Our balanced budget will give the city the ability to implement vacancy tax and empty homes and as well hotel sacks. In fact, no, to ensure the people of Toronto benefit from predictable ongoing funding, we've also doubled the share of gas revenue to the city. On this side of the house, we support Toronto and all of the city. New question, the member from Elgin, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of finance. Speaker, children and youth are experiencing a mental health crisis because they can't get the treatment they need when and where they need it. The Canadian Institute for Health Information released new data this morning that indicates that children, youth and families facing a mental health crisis are earning up in hospital ERs and inpatient units at disturbing rates. Since 2006, there's been a 63% increase in ER visits and a staggering 67% increase in hospitalizations for children and youth seeking treatment for mental health addictions. Speaker, the new statistics are trending in the wrong direction compared to 2015 and this government is failing our children. My question to the minister of finance. Did the minister of children, youth services request funding in this year's budget to deal with the eroding capacity and community-based children's mental health centers? Impressed. Minister of Finance. Minister of Children and Youth Services. Sir, children and youth services. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I also, again, want to recognize all the advocates, parents and family members and staff who are working across this province to make sure that our children are positioned for success here in the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, when I first became the minister responsible for this file, I was given a mandate by the premier to work with providers to transform the child and youth mental health system here in the province. And we recognize without a question that there's more work that needs to be done to improve the services that young people receive. We are facing challenges with wait times. We're facing challenges with service delivery. We're facing challenges with our funding model. And, Mr. Speaker, our agencies have said this. The auditor general has said this. And we've accepted this. Yes, sir. This is exactly why we're seizing the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to give Ontarians a community-based mental health system for today and into the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take that as no, I did not ask the minister for any funding. Speaker, the data shows how the erosion of community services not only leaves children and youth unable to obtain the help they need, but also strains our hospital resources. The data shows that the government's inactions endanger lives and cost the systems 175 million a year. Children's mental health Ontario estimates at $118 million the system needs annually could save a billion dollars in the long run while ensuring children and youth receive the services and treatment they need. Speaker, will the minister of finance explain why none of the new federal health transfer money for mental health initiatives was allotted to children and youth? Also a good question. Minister? Minister of Health? Minister of Health, long-term care. And the importance of this issue is part of the reason why we announced $140 million towards mental health services, including access to cognitive behavioral therapy, supportive housing as well, while we announced in Barry 10 inpatient beds for children and youth's mental health, as well as a set of outpatient services, Mr. Speaker. But this is precisely why OHIP Plus is so important. We know that 70% of mental illness emerges during childhood, Mr. Speaker. And for the first time in this process, those children and those youth are going to have free access to the medicines that they need to deal with their mental illness. That's right. He's a farmer. Thank you. And your question, member from Tamek Hocker. Thank you. My questions to the Premier. Ontario hospitals have been driven to the breaking point while your government and this budget won't undo the damage. Operating funding for hospitals is $300 million short of what the hospitals say they needed. That means our community hospitals will continue to be squeezed, patients will be continued, will be continued to be treated in hallways and Northern rural hospitals will continue to be forced to cut the services that people count on. Why is this government continuing to refuse the damage they've caused in our hospitals? Thank you, Premier. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister of Health, Long-Term Care. A billion in Ontario's hospitals. And this past week in our budget, we announced more than $500 million or a 3.1% increase to the bottom line that base funding the operational cost of hospitals right across this province. And that means that all Ontario hospitals are going to get a minimum increase of at least 2%. And we've reserved that extra part specifically so we could address those challenges that are faced by a number of hospitals across this province, whether that's in their ERs, whether that's bed capacity facing a high level of population growth in their regions. And Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the member opposite perhaps might want to speak to the Ontario Health Association, sorry, the Ontario Hospital Association, the OHA. Answer. With regards to their response to what is outlined in the budget, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Supplementary. Four years. Speaker, once again, back to the Premier. Hospital budgets have been frozen for years. And a 2% increase, a 2% increase is basically inflation. Like that's nothing to crow about. Giving inflationary costs to the base budget isn't exactly a huge gift. So the people who are in hallways and the surgeries that are being canceled are not going to be corrected by simpler and inflationary increase. Why is this government refusing to acknowledge this problem? Thank you. Thank you. Minister. So Mr. Speaker, Anthony Dale, the President and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association had this to say about our budget. The government's significant investments in hospital capital because we added 9 million to the 11 million that's already there for a total of 20 billion, sorry, billion dollars over the next decade will help to support a sustainable healthcare system for the future. With regards to the operational investments, today's investment in the healthcare sector is an acknowledgement of the capacity challenges that hospitals have been facing. It also signals a renewed commitment from government to expand and enhance access to care across the continuum. And Mr. Speaker, today's budget announcement, he goes on to say is an investment in patient care and will help maintain system stability and strengthen access to frontline services. A 3.1% more than half a billion addition to the half billion that we increased by last year. That's more than a billion dollars in two years to our hospitals, Mr. Speaker. New question to the member from Davenport. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last week, our government introduced a budget which includes significant investments in healthcare. In fact, the 2017 budget includes an additional $7 billion for the healthcare sector over the next three years to reduce wait times, provide access to care and enhance the patient experience. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this budget includes funding for priority healthcare services that will have a real impact for Ontario families. Mr. Speaker, this budget invests in our hospitals in long-term care homes, in mental health, and in our world-class healthcare professionals. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one piece of this budget that stands out for me as the member from Davenport more than anything else. Youth and parents in my community are particularly excited about the new OHIP Plus program. Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please inform this House of the historic investment our government is making in Ontario's children and youth? Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, it truly is historic, and that's the way it's being described across this country, Mr. Speaker. Pharmacare for Ontarians and for Canadians is so vitally important, that issue of access to medicine. And come January 1st, not sometime deep into the future, potentially, January 1st of 2018, four million Ontarians, including the member from Niagara West Glandbrook, Mr. Speaker, four million children and youth under the age of 25 are going to be able to go into pharmacies with their parents if they're underage with a prescription from their healthcare provider and receive absolutely free of charge. No copayment, no annual deductible, access to 4,400 medications. Drugs for cancer, Mr. Speaker. Drugs for rare disease. And this is truly a historic moment in Ontario's history and indeed in Canada's history, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, thank you, Minister, for that response and thank you to the Minister and the Premier for all their hard work and dedication in ensuring access to prescription medications for Ontario's children and youth. As the mother of two young boys, I know how important this access is, and this new program will make a tremendous difference for those families who struggle with poverty and social inequality. It's going to give these families and their children in Davenport and across the whole province, Mr. Speaker, a better opportunity to grow strong and healthy and a chance at a brighter future. But most importantly, it is going to impact all of Ontario's children and youth. No matter the circumstances, no matter the socioeconomic status of the child or their parents, all Ontarians under the age of 24 will benefit equally from this program. Speaker, can the Minister of Health and long-term care please share with this House the impact the program will have for Ontario families? Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, this is such an important advancement to Medicare in this province. It's the biggest transformation, I would argue, in the history of the 51 years that Medicare has existed nationally. It provides that national leadership to Premier by making this decision and showing such courage is making that bold statement to the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker, that this can be done. This must be done, Mr. Speaker. Access to medicine is one of the most fundamental issues of health equity. I'm proud to be in a cabinet and part of a caucus with the Premier that has such vision and courage and hold this visionary aspect of Medicare, and we're going to deliver it come January 1st. And, sir? 4 million children and youth under the age of 25. Thank you. You've seen it, please. You've seen it, please. New question to the member from Kitchener, Conestoga. Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why she's allowing a return of full-to-radar back on major expressways and roads in the province of Ontario? Full-to-radar. Thank you. Minister of Transportation? Transportation. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite knows that, in fact, with Bill 65, this government is moving forward. The Safe School Zones Act, we're moving forward to help protect our most vulnerable road users because municipalities and road safety partners asked us for the support of the Speaker in school zones and in community safety zones, and only in those municipalities that want to take advantage of the power that this legislation had passed would provide to them, Speaker. Thanks very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Speaker, if only the wind liberals were focusing on protecting students with Bill 65, of course, we certainly support and enhance student safety. But as we know with this government, the devil is always in the details. Instead of a road to student safety, they've chosen a sneaky route, placing us on a slippery slope to allow photo radar on potentially any municipal parkway, expressway, allow photo radar on potentially... North, come to order. This will parkway, expressway, road, and highway right across the province. This Premier is quite literally bringing us back to the future and putting photo radar back to highways in Ontario. Bill 65, the photo radar act is in committee today. Will the Premier bring the focus back to school safety and stop her green light to speed-trap cameras on municipal highways and roads across the entire province? Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, Speaker. I think the more pertinent question for that member is why has his party and his leader brought forward 214 amendments, procedural delays, Speaker, that will help deny giving municipalities that choose to use the power the opportunity to protect our most vulnerable road users, Speaker. Something John Tory... I've listened throughout to all of the debates on Bill 65, and I've heard that member, and I've heard the member from Nipissing, and I've heard other members on that side of the legislature literally stand up and on the one hand, Speaker, claim that they want to protect our most vulnerable road users, including those older pedestrians and school students, so Speaker, who are on their way to their community and neighborhood schools, and yet, Speaker, again, when they had the chance to work constructively with us on Bill 65 against, Speaker, more than 200 amendments to slow down the process, Speaker. The question is it, why won't we do something, Speaker? The question is, why won't they help us protect Ontario school students? The member from Kitchener-Conestoga. The member from Nicobelt, no question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Prime Minister. But Ontario... Let's repeat. By the decades of liberal cuts. And the Premier budget does nothing to undo the damage already done. As the Ontario Health Coalition says, and I quote, this budget will... Minister of the environment. ...of overcrowding faced by hospitals across Ontario, and patients will continue to wait on stretcher in hospital hallways. Why is this Premier ignoring the overcrowding in our hospital, and basically turning her back on patient care? Thank you. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister of Health, Long-Term Care. Well, we're doing the opposite of that, Mr. Speaker. We're doing the opposite of what the NDP did when they were in government, when they closed 24% of all acute beds in the province, when they closed 13% of all the mental health beds in this province. What we're doing is we added $9 billion to the 11 billion that's already there for $20 billion new dollars for capital improvements, new hospitals, redevelopments across this province. And we named some of those... Windsor. Some of those, including the hospital in Windsor and elsewhere, Mr. Speaker. But on the operational side, more than half a billion dollars on top of last year's, roughly half a billion dollars, that this year's budget alone is a 3.1% increase to operating funding. It means that every single hospital across this province is going to benefit and benefit substantially, Mr. Speaker. We continue to make these investments to make sure that we got the highest quality care. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. The premiums budget fails our healthcare system. It fails our hospital and let the crisis of hallway medicine continues. It fails patients who needs care and have to wait days to get it. Today, hospitals are operating 1,100 unfunded beds. More than 250 of those beds are in hallways and storage rooms that were never designed to provide patient care. Surgeries are still being canceled today, as we speak. An emergency room wait time are longer than they have been in a decade. Why is this premier ignoring the damage that she's done and refusing to stop the cuts to our hospitals? Thank you, minister. So, Mr. Speaker, here's what the NDP apparently don't like about our budget. I already mentioned the extra $9 billion on capital. They don't like the fact... Mr. Speaker, they obviously don't like the fact that we're investing $11 billion more dollars over the next three years in our healthcare budget, where we're investing $500 million to support our hospitals, to reduce wait times and expand capacity. They don't like the fact that we're investing $140 million to expand access to mental health services over the next three years, or $101 million over the next three years to support our dementia strategy. They don't like the fact that we're adding $100 million to support the creation and expansion of interprofessional teams over the next three years, or $80 million for long-term care, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Another question from Perry. So, Dana, say it's great. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Labor. Today on May the 1st, we recognize the beginning of Mental Health Week. Mental Health Week is an annual national event to encourage people from all walks of life to learn, talk, reflect, and engage with others on all issues relating to mental health. People often associate the Ministry of Labor's health and safety initiatives with preventing and responding to physical injuries. However, more and more, I'm hearing from constituents about the importance of mental health.  Can the Minister please share with us what he is doing to ensure that our government is taking action to promote mental health in the workplace? Good question. Thank you, Minister of Labor. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for that excellent question. Speaker, this week, we're going to recognize Mental Health Week and it reminds us of how much mental health affects us all, Speaker. It affects us at home. It affects us at work as well. In fact, today, speaking Canada, as I speak today, about a half a million Canadians are unable to go to work today because of either mental health concerns or illnesses. Now, smart employers know if they look after their workers as well as their bottom line, they become even more successful. So I'm excited to announce this week two new initiatives of the Ministry of Labor that are going to help promote the importance of mental health in our workplace. The first is a webinar. It's free. It's an hour long. Any organization in Ontario can avail itself of it. I'm also proud to let you know we're launching a new portal later this month. It's a one-stop shop. It contains free workplace mental health resources for all employers in this province, Speaker. Speaker, we're investing in mental health. It's the right thing to do. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister for his answer. I'm happy to hear how committed our government is in promoting mental health in the workplace. We've come a long way on this issue of mental health. Everyone has continued, continued role to play. It's clear that we've made tremendous strides in advancing workplace mental health in Ontario. Last Thursday, as part of the budget, further plans were announced to support workers across Ontario. Can the minister please give us further details on the recent plans that were unveiled? Good budget. Thank you, minister. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member for that excellent question again. Speaker, in the budget, the proposed budget that we have before, Speaker, is going to ensure finally that workers who develop chronic mental stress will be entitled to benefits that are provided by the WSIB. Benefits for injured workers in this province, Speaker, have long been a priority of this government, but we know that workers don't just suffer physical injuries. There's invisible injuries as well, Speaker, the ones we can't see, and although they're unseen, they're still equally as significant. Chronic mental stress speakers become a reality for far too many workers in this province. Those workers, they deserve the benefits, they deserve the supports, we're already providing to workers who suffer traumatic injuries and stress. This is one important step in our effort, Speaker, to make this province the most psychologically safe place to work in the world. Speaker, we all need to do a part. We're committed to make sure that Ontarians are protected from chronic mental stress. New question, member from Redford, Nipissing, Pembroke. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Bodyshire River system has experienced flooding at a level like we've never seen before. People living on Round Lake and Golden Lake and along the river have been engaged in a man versus nature battle for the last few weeks. The amount of damage to homes and properties is extensive. The disaster recovery program now allows for individuals to be compensated for some of their losses, but that program can only be triggered by the Minister and his officials. I'm sending over a most recent copy of the Eganville Leader and I'll provide a thumb drive later with photos so that the Minister can see for himself the damage. There's no question in my mind that this spring's flooding event qualifies and I would ask the Minister to make that call as expeditiously as possible so that people can get on with their lives. Thank you. Minister, may I first? Thank you. I want to thank the member for the question. I want to begin by saying I'm aware clearly of what's going on in Renfrew County. On the weekend, I want the member to know I did reach out to the Mayor's, Mayor Vizneski from Killillow, Hagerty and Richards, Mayor Gruntz from Brondell, Lindock and Raglan, Mayor Love from Atowaska Valley, Mayor Far North Elgona-Wilberforce, Mayor Murphy from Bonacere Valley and Mayor LeMay from Pembroke. When I reached at least five of them, the goal in reaching out to them was to ensure as best I was able to discern from our conversations that those municipalities and those mayors were receiving the assistance and the information that they needed to convey back to their constituents as they all deal with this tragedy, this major environmental issue that's going on. It sounds to me like they're getting the benefit of the information out of the Kingston office. They're well prepared to speak to their constituents. In the supplementary, I'm happy to provide a bit more information for the member in terms of the program, how it works and when, if ever, it gets activated. Thank you. Thank you, supplementary. Minister, I recognize there is a process I appreciate you reaching out to local officials and that officials from your ministry were in the riding yesterday. But people can't wait. They need to know that their government will be there when disaster strikes. It rained heavily over the weekend and another downpour is expected today with heavy rains later in the week. This is only going to increase not only the financial losses but the level of frustration that people are feeling as well. I firmly believe that once the minister has the opportunity to review the data, he will agree with me and local municipal leaders that this spring flooding warrants the enacting of the disaster recovery program. I emphasize once again, this is an event of historical proportions along the Bonnisher River and I ask the minister to recognize this as a disaster as quickly as possible. Can we have that commitment? Thank you, minister. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the member for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. The way the program will work is that the ministry folks on the ground make the assessment. They cannot do that assessment, Speaker, until the waters have receded so they're able to see and determine exactly what has occurred. Once they've been able to gather that data to make that assessment, they will then make a recommendation back to me as the minister of municipal affairs based upon what they provide back to me. We will then go forward and make a recommendation on whether or not to activate that program. Unfortunately, until the water has receded, it's not possible for the ministry staff to do their work. There is a possibility there, Speaker, for people on the private side to get assistance, possibly. Again, that requires the work of the people on the ground. There's a second component to the program that deals with municipal infrastructure. But again, Speaker, the best I can do for the member in terms of his advocacy for his constituents is to let them know the water has to recede before the ministry can do its work, make a recommendation back to me. Once they receive that, we'll expedite the process as quickly as we can. New question, the member from Kitchener Waterloo. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Mr. Sillat is a retired senior from Waterloo who is living in pain. He survived cancer, and now he needs two surgeries, a knee replacement and back surgery. Mr. Sillat's first met with a surgeon 15 months ago. He doesn't even know when his first surgical consult on his knees will be. But as of December 2016, it is a 413-day wait between consultation and surgery in Waterloo region. He continues to wait to find out how long he'll be waiting for surgery, Mr. Speaker. And while he waits, his situation gets worse. Mr. Sillat is trying to lose weight to qualify for back surgery, but because of his knee issues, he has reduced mobility, which affects his entire health. Speaker, Mr. Sillat is in pain. And after nine years of liberal cuts to hospital funding and four years of freezes, why does this liberal government believe it is acceptable to give hospitals $300 million less than what they need to help people like Mr. Sillat in the province of Ontario? Mr. Health and Long-Term Care. Mr. Health, Long-Term Care. Well, Mr. Speaker, we're contributing more than $500 million to our hospitals this year. That is a 3.1% increase. And it allows us, in fact, to target specific challenges that are being faced. It allows for a substantial new increase in cataract surgeries. It allows for a substantial increase in hip and knee surgery, Mr. Speaker. But what I would encourage the member opposite to do if she hasn't already is that she should remind that individual that wait lists do vary from place to place, from surgeon to surgeon. She should encourage that individual's family physician to see what the wait times are and to see if there might be another provider that can perform it nearby sooner. And work with the Linn, because this is precisely what the Linn is there for. And I've talked with the Linn, and there are many examples of where they work directly in patients to help them with this. Deputy Premier. Order, I have, I want to welcome Joanne Sharon from Vanier Children's Services here today, a great champion of Children's Mental Health. Thank you, Minister Turf from Culture Sports. Speaker, thank you. I'd like to welcome from my riding at Burlington, Brian Hansel. Thank Brian for joining us today in the members' gallery for Children's Mental Health Week. Welcome, Brian, to Queens Park. Minister of Municipal Affairs, on the point of order. Thank you. I was a little late getting to QP this morning. Once again, I'd like to welcome my oldest son, Dustin Morrill, from the members' east gallery. Thank you. There being no deferred votes, this house stands recess until 1 PM this afternoon.


Hello, everyone. Tim Petrie here, extension livestock marketing economist. I certainly wish I was up in Carrington with you observing the crops and livestock up there, but the COVID-19 obviously affected that and also dramatically affected the livestock market as we'll see in a minute here. We have not only the unprecedented epidemic, but we have an unprecedented economic collapse into recession. We have unprecedented social unrest. Each of those alone would cause uncertainty and volatility in the market, but you put them all together and actually we have the most uncertainty and volatility I've ever experienced in my almost 50 years in this business. So a lot of uncertainty and what I'd like to just quickly show you is several charts to give us an idea of our topic for today. That's fall calf braces, which normally we would have a good idea of what they might be, but now as we'll see a lot of uncertainty. So we're going to go to slide one, which is the 550 to 600 pound calf braces in North Dakota. The red line is this year and the green line is last year. And so as you can see, we started off 2020 right on last year, but our expectations were for much better prices over similar to those 2018 or 19 or 2018 and 17 prices on the right hand of your chart. And now again, the big question mark there. So on the bright side of why we were expecting higher prices, and that's going to help us into the future, but not as much this fall as we have a lower cow herd this year. So we had fewer calves to sell this fall. We had in the start of the year, an excellent economy, record high stock market, record low unemployment, record high exports. Also as we'll see in a minute prospects for a record corn crop. So those were all extremely positive, but the COVID-19 through a monkey wrench into all of that. So you know, the good news when we look at the chart right now is we are at about the same level as we were last year in spite of all those problems that we're having. But for fall, I think we're going to have to look for some lower prices. And we'll look at some of the reasons for that in a minute. Again, the two biggest things that affect fall cap prices are corn and fed cattle prices. So let's just look at these for a better idea. Right now, if I had to give you a price, I'd say let's go $5 to $10 lower than last year, but they certainly could be much lower than that and higher than that. And so let's just move along here into the second slide. Then is corn prices. Actually, there's two charts on here, but we have very, very low corn prices, as you can see in Omaha. Right now, corn prices are $1.20, a bushel lower than last year. And on the bottom, December live cattle futures down there at $3.25 are at contract lows. So certainly that would be very, very supportive to fall cap prices. But when we go to the third slide, fed cattle is where we run into the problems you see there. Again, we started the year about the same and we're expecting better cap prices. But as you can see, they plummeted because of COVID and look at the fall futures of what the expectations are. October futures are now $10 under last year and December futures are $18 under. So that is not supportive at all the cap prices. So we'll end up with this fourth slide is the heavier yearlings, the 800 pound steer prices. There is a futures market here, not one for cap. So this gives us a better idea. And again, the cash situation there is about the similar to calves. We started off the year about the same. And in mid June, we're about the same. But the fall futures are lower. October futures down about $10 over last year's cash, but by November only $6 lower. That's another reason why I'm saying in that $5 to $10 lower range. But again, there's so much uncertainty and volatility. And so I think we need to plan for lower prices, talk to our lender, hope for better prices and make sure this isn't our last year in business. There are better times ahead into the future when we get through the COVID and I wished I had better news for you, but that's the story as of now.


Here, thank you, Xander. Here, thank you, Anika. I'm here. Sorry, I might have very spotty service right now. I'm sorry. Alex alerted us to it and we're glad that you're able to join us. I'm Austin, I'm here, and we're joined by Craig from Colliers. We have two sets of minutes that we need to approve. The first are the minutes from July 26th, and the second are the minutes from September 22nd. Both sets of minutes are in the packet that was distributed for this meeting. Let's take up July. Is there a motion to approve the July minutes? So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. Is there any corrections to the minutes? Okay. To vote to approve? Yes. Not to approve? No, Sharon? Yes. Alex? Yes. Thank you. Christine? Yes. Xander? Yes. Thank you. Anika? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Minutes of September 22nd. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. Okay. Any corrections to the minutes of September 22nd? Alex? Yeah, I sent this to Angela, but on the third page, where it's the motion for the FF and E budget. Yeah. I just asked her to clarify. It says, you know, LaFaye asked if an opportunity exists to reverse this for the future, but I asked her to clarify that what I had asked for was that we could have the designer look as if the full budget were there. And then and then we could cut what we needed to rather than so cutting the budget by having the designer look at the whole budget. So I just asked her to make that change to my comment. Could you say that again? Sure. So just in the form of in the form of what you're asking her to do. Yeah. So what I said, I sent her notes saying I'd like to make sure my request is in the minutes that if we cut the FF and E budget that we can still work with the FF and E designer as if we had the larger full FF and E budget and then make choices of reductions ourselves if needed based on final project costs and funds raised. So you're asking that that be inserted into the minutes? Correct. And I gave that to Angela. Yeah. Right. Without objection, is there any objection to amending the minutes or correcting the minutes in that way? Great. OK. Any other correction to the minutes? September 22nd. All right. Voting yes to approve. No, not to approve. Sharon. Yes. Alex. Yes. Thank you. Christine. Yes. Xander. Yes. And the Nica. Yes. And Austin votes yes. Thank you all. The town manager report. So I'm not in a position to report for the town manager, but I will report about the town manager. We have had discussions and continue to have discussions to try to finalize a memorandum of agreement, the memorandum of agreement addendum as it is called so that it can be presented to the library board for its discussion and approval and signed by the town manager. And I think we have made good progress in our conversations and are very close to having a document that can go to the library board of trustees. Sharon, do you want to say anything about the so-called Additional State Funding Initiative? We meet tomorrow with with Mindy and Joe to find out what what progress has been made over the past couple of weeks. Yeah, progress. I guess we should say, if any, has been made for the past couple of weeks. Okay, any questions about any of that? As soon as the memorandum of understanding is finalized, right then the town manager in the position to sign whatever it's necessary to sign and give the go ahead to find Gold Alexander. And Craig just, I think you already know this. Our hope is that the board of trustees of the library will discuss and hopefully approve on October 12th. And but we'll see the trustees may or may not be ready to approve at that time. Okay, next is the financial update. And without our good finance director, I don't know that there's anything that we can do. Okay, item number five, Colliers. Thank you, Austin. I'll share my screen to help with the discussion. I'm getting a message that the host has disabled participant screen sharing. Please hold. How's that? Give that a try. That works. Yeah. Thank you, Sharon. Okay, so taking things in order, the agenda. The first is the designer's proposal regarding rework to the layout, floor plan layouts. This is the proposal that was submitted September 27th or maybe 28th in the amount of $55,000. So Sean had some questions, which I answered by email. Does anyone on the committee have any questions or would you like me to sort of give the rationale for this or are we? I think the rationale is so to speak in the document, right? But yeah, Christine. Yeah, so there was only this document. They didn't give any attachment to what that $55,000 is made up of. Correct. And they did explain that they're estimating it's sort of six weeks of work. On the schedule, I'm showing eight weeks to allow for this committee to review the layout and make any adjustments as needed. And ultimately approve it. So they said that they're going to try to expedite that six weeks if possible, but six weeks, $55,000 is probably where this will land. Christine. So they say it's to rework the floor plans and all this was discussion in schematic design, getting feedback. Some of that would be considered normal business and included in their previous estimate. So how did they adjust like, or did you have a hand in figuring out what was above and beyond that and why they need to request this extra? Very good question. Yes, you're correct that during schematic design, as with all the design phases, it's an iterative process kind of back and forth. The changes that they received and that this proposal will address were received very late in the schematic design. I mean, schematic design was only two months long in an attempt to get the project moving and as quickly as possible, they compressed their design to those two months. So when we received this, it was at the very end of that timeframe. And so if there were, if the changes were minor in nature or in limited areas, I think they would have been able to absorb that in their normal design process, but the layout modifications are more of a rethinking of kind of the strategy and placement of different areas on different floors. And so it does require them to basically take a big step back and then rework some of the stuff just to kind of finish up that schematic design phase. So if the changes were smaller or localized or earlier, much earlier in the process, they would have been able to absorb them, but because it came in there larger and at the end of the phase, that's why they're asking for this additional design fees. And I know you didn't ask, but the amount of the $55,000 is what my office would anticipate to see for this scope of effort. Christine. Okay, so building on that, I was a little confused where it says rework of MEP systems because in schematic design, I wouldn't have thought they would have dough very deep on that and we haven't seen MEP on the diagrams. Just where did that come from or what's that? So that's a very good point. So at this stage, the MEP design would be largely diagrammatic, but I think they wanted, because they're working with their 3D model, the BIM model, and they've been sharing that with their consultants, their consultants have done some work, maybe behind the scenes to kind of lay things out at a schematic design level, not a completion level. Those consultants now are gonna have to get a new version of the model and kind of same thing, kind of work backwards or just take a step back and redo some work. So yeah, it's not, I don't think that is the very large portion of this, but. And again, an attachment with a breakdown of that would have been helpful. And I can see, you know, so a sub sort of raised ahead, but we were in schematic design, not design, I would hate for us to have to be paying for an over-eager designer that, if you know what I'm saying, but that's your problem here. So what I can do is I'll ask for a breakdown of the $55,000, which I'm sure they can put together pretty quickly. I'm thinking maybe like a bulleted list of sort of the effort that they think will need it, and then maybe how that $55,000 kind of falls across those different tasks or activities. So I will certainly ask them for that. And is that a 55 that's, or could they possibly come back again? Cause you said eight weeks, six weeks, you know, how much more are they gonna need, if anything? Right, I do, I don't think it will come down any from the 55,000, but.  Yes, so this would be a lump sum. So it would not go up, yeah. Last question, thanks, Austin. It was, I don't see anything on this. I really feel since there is so much rework and that's why I'm looking for extra money because so many things have changed and have to get adjusted. I feel strongly about renderings. I know they outsource those with, they're not mentioned here. Would that be included? Is there extra money? I think we're gonna have to see an exterior and interior rendering if we're gonna move forward. So I did broach that topic with them. Unfortunately, my memory is failing me. I can't remember what they said about it, but I asked, okay, now I remember. So the, at the end, so this is mostly layout work. So the first six weeks, let's say eight weeks, they'll be doing work in plan for the most part. And so they wouldn't have any new 3D imagery. But then after that point, shortly thereafter, they'll be able to produce some 3D images, especially of that interior. I think the exterior we can imagine what it would look like without the saw-truth roofs, but the interior views, it wouldn't be a photorealistic rendering, but they did say, yeah, they could start producing some 3D imagery, say two months into that DD phase. Thank you, Chris. Thank you so much. Thanks. Alex? Thanks, yeah. Wanted to speculate that the MEP, I'm wondering, won the changes in the bathrooms, which would greatly, potentially impact. But then also we did the sustainability committee, based on their recommendations, we did actually have the energy, they paid an energy modular to do work. And so as they're making changes, I know that they always are trying to think about getting to our EUI target. So I'm just wondering if that's part of why the MEP is in there, is maybe one of those things. So putting it out there. Could be totally wrong, just putting the information out there. So just procedurally, I wanna make sure we could have all on board. Do you want Craig to ask Fingal Alexander to provide a more detailed, but not only a breakdown, but a more detailed explanation of what this work is? Or do you feel that, based on the questions that Christine asked and you've asked, and the responses that Craig had so far given, that you, again, this invoice will be directed to the town manager, right? And the finance director. So at some point, Sean will bring this back to us, I assume. After his questions have been answered, it's to his satisfaction, right, Craig? Yes, I think so. Or is it your, was it your intention that the board, excuse me, that the committee recommend to Sean that we approve this, that we go forward with it? I think the latter is probably the most time efficient method. So yes, as you said, this proposal is addressed to the town manager, the town manager has the authority to approve it. The timing is we would like to have this approved at the same point that they were giving them the go ahead to move into design development. So, yeah, so perhaps if you, this committee made a recommendation that would kind of help that process. Okay, any other questions about this from Fine Gold Alexander and are you ready to vote to recommend to the town that they approve this proposal from Fine Gold Alexander? Okay, if someone would move the approval of this proposal from FAA? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Sharon, yes or no? Yes. Alex? Yes. Thank you, Alex. Christine. Yes. Thank you, Christine, Xander. Yeah. And I seem to not see Anika on the screen anymore. So, Austin, vote yes. Okay, Craig. All right, thank you all. Can we do this when we're out of quorum? We have a quorum, there are five of us. So next thing on the agenda was the schedule update, which we don't really have an update. This is the latest schedule has not changed since the last time we looked at it. Let me see if I had any notes about it. I do not. Next topic is the budget. And for that, I have not changed the budget, but I do have a couple of updates. Oh, I see Christine's got a question. Oh, sorry, Christine. It was just on the schedule. Does that triangle, the fade out, will that get shifted even further? And does that jog anything else? Because we're already in the first week of October. Because you were saying we're paying them for six weeks. So those six weeks of work, eight weeks total effort is represented here by this blue rectangle. So they will be doing those layout updates in this phase. And as we've sort of discussed in the past, that the door is still open for some input into the design that will still have a noticeable effect. Then once we get to sort of the December timeline, now we're in the typical design development portion where they've completed those layout changes and now they're advancing the design. And then I added another blue rectangle here for an extra month of value engineering. Should it be needed? And sort of back and forth and getting that accepted. Continuing to a place where everyone's comfortable with the budget and the design. Thank you, Christine. Xander, Xander, you're muted. Thanks. I'm looking at the period of impact on color selections and interior materials. I don't know if I'm saying anything that's actionable more than just expressing some unease at the idea of like, we, given the back and forth of like, start, stop, going back to people while there are so many other balls in the air and start talking about materials and color selection seems really difficult in this moment of time. And then coming into November when we're looking at, you know, holidays and whatever, it's just a very crunch timeline. And I think something that the previous discussion brought up for me is like, when we end up making suggestions late, they come with additional costs. Right. And I don't want to recreate a scenario where we are more or less discouraging people from making suggestions because it might cost us an additional yearly salary to do the extra design work. Okay. Not sure, I wasn't, as you said, it's not actionable, right? So it's not, you're not suggesting any change in the schedule, Xander? I don't have an actionable suggestion on how to avoid this. I'm just expressing it to see and earn unease and wondering if anyone else maybe has an actionable suggestion on what we can do about it. Craig, what do you think? I think we would continue the prior process of collecting or continuing to collect or being open to receive comments, but then reviewing them against where we are in the process and where we are in the process would be part of the decision to incorporate a particular comment into the design or not. But we're halfway through October. That's, I think, part of the point. And if we, are you anticipating that this little triangle would move out at all or this is it by the 1st of December, given where we are in terms of the FAA work? I think this triangle previously resided at the end of schematic design and allowed sort of comments to trickle into the design development, but at a smaller and smaller anticipated impact to the design. Because we've basically been on pause or the design team's been on pause for two months, that period has moved out as well. And so I think there is still an opportunity to incorporate ideas from the public at large into the design. But as before, we're now in this period where they're not going to have as much impact. So to address Zander's concern or unease, when the design subcomittees reviewing those ideas, potential cost is something that we would factor into that decision making. Okay, but Alex, before I call on you again, Craig, if I look at this triangle, it starts at the beginning of October. Yes. We are now at the, I don't know what's today, right, the 10th of October, so to speak. So it's going to slide a little bit out, no? Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm sorry. Thanks so much. Okay. No, that was my question. Alex? Yeah, so I'm super confused and I apologize, but so my understanding was that when we went into design development that there would be choices so that we would like, so the outreach subcommittee hasn't been actively doing anything because as far as I knew, there isn't anything for us to be doing. So I mean, so I guess I'm trying to sort of reconcile, I don't even know what data I'm collecting from the public. Like I, it was my understanding, and again, if I'm wrong, was that as we're working with the designers, there are going to be ideas or choices and then that's when we would sort of activate ourselves. So I'm trying to figure out how if the designers are working for six weeks to finish schematic design, I don't know what I'm collecting data on. So I'm confused and are we still having a period where there will be choices that we can go out to the public and say, you know, whatever. So yeah, kind of like we did with the, you know, we had the exterior materials, you know, we've got to throw it up there and when we, you know, I sort of, that was my impression, was there were going to be sort of actionable items that we were given that were concrete that we could present to the public. I mean, it references the impact on color selection and different materials. We can't get anybody's input until we have something to show them. Exactly, I don't understand. Which is why I was suggesting that this little triangle thing has to move a little bit because otherwise I don't know what we're doing. But Craig, do you have a response to Alex? Only to show, you know, that triangle was always part of this design development, occurred in the design development phase. Yes, at some point, you know, this was a somewhat of a crude diagram. You know, at some point, say in early construction documentation, there'll be parallel discussions about, you know, interior material colors and carpet selection. Is that something that you, that the town wishes to have public input on? If so, that would be unusual. Typically the design subcommittee would be given that authority. But that is, yes, a decision that would not be made for, you know, a number of months. So potentially something that could seek public input on. But that's a decision that would also need to be made somewhat quickly, sort of like within a month. Usually within a month, the design team presents an interior color palette. And then by the end of the month, you know, it's going back and forth with a design subcommittee or a building committee and then it's resolved. So if, if public input could be sought. We have responses within two weeks.  And then later, you know, there's going to be less say, but there's going to be concrete options to be made. And I feel like we have built a pretty good process for, you know, when we had the exterior options, I mean, we got a ton of responses really quickly. So I'm not worried about, you know, if you tell us we have two weeks and here are the choices, that's fine. I just, we just need to know what's happening so that we can prepare people for when and what the choices are. And I just want to be clear and I'm not clear currently. Well, I think the way to be clear is to tell Craig what we want to do. And then that, right? And Craig, you had in this diagram all along this idea that we would be like soliciting comments. And the question is, when are we going to get things for which we can solicit comments? Christine, and then I don't know if it's Sanders, your hand is still up, but Christine? I just want to say yes, Craig. To me, it is not industry standard is color and interior materials are usually chosen in-house. And we could do it differently, of course. This is Amherst, but I just want to, because it's hard to make everybody agree on color. This is anyways. But in the process, building on what Alex is saying, does it go to the design subcommittee first and then roll out and the outreach or are we throwing it to outreach first? And Craig, you would maybe have some insight on this part. FAA, do you think they'll just bring us like half a dozen color schemes or they'll narrow it down to two or three? And in that case, can't the building committee just choose which one? Which, believe me, that will be hard enough to get all of us to agree on what color we want. Anyways. So I don't know exactly what FAA is planning on as far as what options they will show. But in my experience, when I was on the design side, it was more, like you said, Christine, two or three kind of pallets. Like here's a warmer, simpler pallet. Here's a cooler, more patterned pallet. You know, does it, either the striking accord and then kind of go down that path a little bit, whichever direction the committee prefers or the community prefers and then develop that a little bit more until at the end of the month, we've got a color pallet that everyone is comfortable with. Like I said, comfortable with, not like. Right, not everyone's gonna like it, but one that people feel is appropriate for the building. I share, I think a little bit, Alex's concerns and it may have been our misunderstanding. I think what we need to do is we need to move as expeditious as we can to a point where we have something to look at. And I believe that it would be in the interest of the project. And I think what Xander said is exactly right, which is we wanna restart, we wanna re-engage people. I think it would be in the interest of the project to solicit whatever feedback we can solicit. And of course, we can do it somewhat differently than we did it the last time where there was this outreach committee and then the design committee went and ranked all the suggestions. But I think all this pivots on when are we gonna have something to look at, whether it's the design subcommittee or us or any other group. But Xander, I think your hand is up again. Xander. Yeah, I guess, I guess like I hear all the difficulties about like picking a color. Like my wife and I can't agree on color in our own house and there's two of us, right? By the way, it should be blue just in case anyone's wondering. But the thing that I was gonna say is like, when I think of re-engaging the public, there are a lot of really big ticket conversations that we're having regarding some of the really big issues that have come up, right? The costs that has increased. For us to go back to the public and be like, and we have six weeks to talk about a color or building material just doesn't seem in line with the same tone of the work that's being done at these meetings. And so like, if there is work for the community to be doing in engaging in the legislative process, right? Let's use that and really re-engage as a public on the level of the challenge that is in front of us instead of trying to minimize what the challenges are in order to make it more palatable to go back to the public. I think what we need to do is to be clearer. And I think that we need to be clear about what it is that we're trying to achieve. And I'm gonna say what I think I've heard but maybe I've missed it. What we wanna achieve is we want some opportunity for continued engagement with the public. We want the public's engagement to be meaningful in terms of we're not gonna be just showing things where we've already decided things. And we need to do that in a way which does not further delay the design process. Did I get it right? Okay. All right, so I hope we have some clarity about that. Correct. Yes. So the takeaway I'm hearing is that I will ask the design team to help me understand so that I can report to this committee what decision points are remaining and approximately when in the process those will fall. And I think that will be information that will help this committee decide how to engage the public and make those decisions. That would be very helpful. Okay, any other questions on this, on the schedule?  No, sorry, I'm just really bad at Zoom. Oh, that's okay. Not a problem. Craig, next. Yes, thank you. Next we have budget and the reports I have on budget are, sorry, adjusting my screens here. Last week, or last meeting, we talked about furniture and equipment budget. And the question of the books order, did it include the quote that FAA received from one of the vendors, did that include installation or not? And the answer to that is yes. And the other question was, how did it include installation or not? The answer is yes, meaning it did include installation. Yes, includes installation. Okay, good, thank you. Yeah, sorry. That's okay. The next part was we knew that quote did not include any money for the RFID tags and associated equipment. So we asked for that and they were only able to give us a range based on some broad assumptions. But they took another look at the layout. So they took another look at this layout, I believe was Sharon, and they were able to refine that cost down to around $229,000 for this equipment and installation. And then the RFID materials and equipment would be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000. And so that gives us a range of having a functioning book sorting and RFID system of 379,000 to 429,000. Somewhere in that range, which if we look at our budget does fall within our line item of audio visual equipment and book sorter, 440,000. Great. If we end up on the upper end of that 429,000, it doesn't leave a whole lot for audio visual. 10, $11,000, maybe that's one room's setup. If that book sorter and RFID comes in in the lower range, $379,000, then we still have a good amount of money for the equipment. So the good news is it's within our budget and we can continue to work with them to refine that number as the more questions get answered. Are there any questions about that particular item? So I just have a question about contingency and how it gets used. So we have a contingency fund. So suppose in the budget, we have a contingency. Suppose we're on the upper end for the RFID and the book sorter. Is it, would it be imaginable given, as one might say, industry practice to use some of that for AV equipment? That would be an appropriate use of one of the contingencies. That's the owner's project contingency. So this was $1.5 million for added costs between now and the end of the project for optional items. Assuming that there aren't more pressing needs. Right. And then what, we would not, the contingency, we would not use that as construction contingency or unforeseen things that crop up during construction. Yeah, I think I see Christine. Christine? Talking about industry standards, I'm still really concerned that we even have a 2.5 contingency percentage there for where we're at in this early design phase. I don't know, just normally those would be much higher right now. And I'm really concerned since we have such an ambiguous kind of unknown, why are we using such non-low numbers? Craig? So this, so we're still, because there are things up in the air, we're still using this low, mid, high range, but the blue column is what we're sort of focusing on. And the percentages, the construction contingency is at 5%, which is a healthy construction contingency. And the owner's project contingency at this level is 3.5%, which we sort of noted up here. Do you have any concerns that that 3.5 will come back and bite us? No, the owner's project contingency is, you know, it could be anywhere from 2.5 to 5%. So 3.5 was kind of in the middle. So it's not like a really robust owner's contingency, but it's also not an emaciated contingency. So I think there is in 1.5 million dollars feels like an okay number. We'll be able to cover kind of a lot of things with that. Right. Or absorb costs, you know, I mean, it's a safety measure. It's not just like you're holding it reserved to buy fun things. Right, it's for things that, well, I think of the owner's project contingency as things that crop up, ideas that come up after the budget is set that will really, you know, be a large benefit to the say function or usability of the project. Whereas the construction contingency is more like things that are out of your control. So the owner's project is within, say this committee's control, construction contingency is to pay for things that are outside of your control. But as we roll out, if things become tighter, you absorb any of these, don't you? So you're saying if the next cost estimate comes in very high. But yeah, if it was 50, like we have to rejuggle the budget, right? Yes, you can move money sort of around between these. If the construction cost comes in very high, then this construction contingency is here also ratchet up proportionally.  And then you would just have less money to spend on those optional items or just, yeah. Okay. Christina, are you all set? I'm good, thank you. Thank you so much, Xander. I just wanted to invite Sharon to maybe talk about like the actual machine here, right? Like I'm old enough to remember when a book sort of was a person, RFID was a card that we literally signed. And so just like what is the role of this in terms of like the savings in our day-to-day library expenses? Because this is something that is going to push up against the rest of the AB budget potentially. Thank you for asking Xander. So a lot of us keep talking about industry standards and it is for a library of our size. It is the industry standard that we should have an automated materials handling system because the return on investment is absolutely there. I don't have those figures in front of me but I can get them. So the benefit of this machine that we've been talking about for so long is that it allows the staff that we do have to focus on front-facing customer service tasks as opposed to sitting in a back room and just scanning every item that comes back. That is time taken away from being with the public. So once a building project happens, usage increases. That's the way it has happened for 100% of the construction projects from across the state. And so in order to rein in additional staffing costs this machine will allow us to continue with the status quo on top of the fact that this new building will be designed so much more efficiently the sight lines are going to be there. So the combination of those things will allow us to maintain our staffing levels. Thank you. Xander, did that help? That's great, thank you. Thank you so much. Craig, back to you. Fantastic. Next, another question, actually something that Alex had brought up at the beginning portion of the meeting was the FF&E budget reducing it by a million dollars. The question that Alex had was, I'm sorry if I butcher it but can the design be done as if we still had that million dollars? And then once we know, once all the cards on the table we know how much everything costs and how much and what funding is really available that point can we make adjustments by striking things out? So I asked that question of Fungal Alexander and they said yes. The FF&E designer, Stephora would be able to do that. But they did say Stephora would not do that inventory of existing items that would not be in that that is not in their proposal. And I mentioned that we were talking about George Hicks Richards doing that. He's on it. Awesome, wonderful. And they suggested taking pictures, taking a picture of each piece as well as dimensions. So let's- I'm sure George will love doing that. Dimensions would be of great help when it comes to that. Thank you, yeah. Thank you. And then one more update having to do with budget but also somewhat schedule was Sean had asked is there any precedent for MBLC to make more than one disbursement in a fiscal year? And so I forwarded that question to the MBLC and the response was that it depends that it is possible but it depends greatly on what the annual cap from their administration of finances, how many grant payments they're making across all projects. And if there's money to do a second disbursement or a partial second disbursement. So while it's possible, it's not something that we can really count on. Thank you. And then last, the value management list. See where, where is it? Where is it? Sorry, too many windows open. Yeah. I hope I didn't close it. All right, let me check my files. They have accidentally closed it. So the one open item was the cost estimate for swapping out synthetic slate in lieu of the real slate. We finally got information back from both cost estimators. They were largely in agreement. One thought it would be $290,000. One thought it would be 300,000. So averaging those two together, we get a $295,000 anticipated cost reduction. I also identified, when we're going through that, I identified a mathematical error. This previously was $65,000, but it should have been cut in half to 325. So taking those two changes and applying them, this is our new total cost reduction based on the accepted BE items. So two point almost $2 million. Above $2 million. Yeah, just above $2 million. Yeah, okay. Questions about this? Okay, thank you Craig. Certainly. And I'll stop sharing the screen. Thank you, that would be great. Okay, so I don't think we have any reports from design or outreach since we're in a little bit of a holding pattern. Is that right? Christine, Alex, and Alex. The only comment that I would make is to Xander's point that there actually was a push in the outreach newsletter as well as sort of trying to get out the word about the state funding initiative with Senator Comfort and Representative Dom and a link was provided for people to speak out. And that's certainly something that we can continue to maybe push in different channels and work on. Great, thank you for that, Alex. Okay, next item is our meeting schedule. So Sharon, do we have another meeting? I'm sorry, so the value management list, do we need to vote that? No, have we done that already? Great, ignore me, thank you. Yeah, we were waiting for the figures exactly and thank you for adjusting the mathematical error. Certainly. Okay, so Sharon, two weeks from today, are we on for another JLBC meeting? That would be the 20th of October. And hopefully by that time we'll be into design development or something close. So the 20th of October, Sharon? So I have taken all of the meetings out of my calendar because I thought that's what we did when we got hung up by things. But so I guess I'm asking the group, should we starting with the 20th, put it all back into our Google machines every other week after that? Yes, we'll do. I think that would be appropriate. Okay, and my next question is 5 p.m.? So on the 20th, could we do 430? Does that work for people? Okay, so let's say 430 on the 20th and please save that time every other Thursday and we'll be in a better position hopefully soon to figure out when we get more information from Craig about scheduling our subcommittee meetings. Okay, so no questions about the schedule I have received or know of no correspondence. I know of no topic, not anticipated 48 hours in advance of the meeting. So the next item would be item number 10. We have nine attendees. So thank you very much to those who are attending. We have now an opportunity for public comment. If anyone would like to make a comment, if they would raise their virtual hand, that would be great. Okay, I see no virtual hands. So with that, it looks like we have completed our agenda. I wanna thank you all and wish you a good weekend and look forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks. Bye, everybody. Bye-bye.


Hey everybody this is Brett and today I'm going to show you how to get your power soft top down on your 2010 to 2015 Chevrolet Camaro. They can be tricky and if you're not doing it exactly right you might be pulling your hair out trying to figure out exactly what's going on why isn't it working and I'm going to show you exactly how to do it step-by-step here and I'll make the video really quick.  You don't have to start the car, but that could you could start the car too. So now what might happen is you might open this and press the button and nothing happens and that can be a problem and you're like why is that not working? Well, you got to go to the trunk and I'll show you exactly what's that. The other thing it to note is that this has to be closed otherwise you won't be able to get into the trunk and your trunk button will not work. So what we're gonna do is we're going to press this button right here and we will go to the trunk. So you get back here and you'll see like a handle type deal. You're gonna want to grab that and pull it out. Looks like a sunshade, but what it does is it clips into the sides here and on that side and what that does is it tells the car that it is now safe to put that soft top down and without that shade in its place that soft top will not go down. So now if we go back to the car and we do the exact same thing, press that button and magic. It'll automatically stop and that's really the trick here. So then you can admire your car with the soft with the soft top down and it's really that easy. Thanks for checking out the video. Give us a like, subscribe if you learned something from the video and once again thanks for checking out the video and just see more demonstrations in the upper left hand part of the screen. There's a link to that. Just subscribe to our YouTube channel, a link in the upper right hand part of the screen and a link to one of our latest YouTube videos in the bottom. Thanks for checking out the video. Remember to like, subscribe and share.