is now time for question period. I recognize deputy leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Speaker, my first question is for the Premier. Dr. Peter Uni, the head of the Premier's own science table, calls this sixth wave a tidal wave. He says that wastewater measurements of COVID mean that Ontario has now between 100,000 and 120,000 new COVID-19 cases a day. That means about 5% of the whole province is infected. We have more COVID cases than ever before, Speaker, and the Premier is just calling this a little uptick. The Premier believes that we have the hospital beds to handle this, but the reality here in Ontario is that we don't have the staff for those beds. As much as the Premier might wish that this pandemic is over, it isn't. Why is the Premier simply waiting for hospital beds to overflow with patients before taking any proactive actions? I recognize the Minister of Health. Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you to the Member Opposite for the question. In fact, the increase in cases that we're seeing now is expected. This is something that Dr. Moore has commented on several times with the release of some of the public health measures, as well as with the increased transmissibility of the BA2 variant that is now the dominant variant in the province of Ontario. But the situation has changed very much since the beginning of this pandemic, and to quote Dr. Moore, he has said this, we have tools that we did not have just two years ago, including highly effective vaccines that have changed the course of the pandemic. High vaccination rates that continue to improve is more and more Ontario and see the value of getting boosted to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. We also have the antivirals that are now being distributed more widely across the province, and we do have the capability within our hospitals. Today, the number of people in ICUs was 157. Yesterday, it was 166. We're holding steady and will continue to do so. Speaker, if the rise in case counts were expected, where then is the urgent action from this government to implement the tools that they have to help us curb the spread of COVID-19 in our communities and help do things like make sure that our children are not kept out of classrooms and that working people don't go without paid sick days, for example, or that small businesses won't be further managing disruptions because of COVID-19 spread in our communities. Patients are already having their care delayed, surgeries have been cancelled. Piling up more people into hospitals mean that those folks are not going to get the surgeries that they need. The science table and other experts are calling for the continued use of masks, paid sick days, and more testing in Ontario. But Ontarians haven't actually even heard from the Chief Medical Officer of Health for weeks. What is the Premier's justification for dropping masks in hospitals and long-term care homes? I recognize the Minister of Health. Well, since the beginning of this pandemic, we have always taken the steps necessary to protect the health and safety of the people of the province of Ontario. We are following the recommendations from our Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr Moore, and his advisers. Dr Moore has recommended that masks don't need to be worn, except in certain circumstances in hospitals, in long-term care homes, and other congregate settings where it's necessary for the protection of people. Should Dr Moore change his views in the coming days, we will be making those changes as necessary. But as for wearing masks, it is something that is voluntary, although most people are choosing to wear masks in crowded public spaces, and we anticipate they will continue to do so. Final supplementary, the Deputy Leader. Thank you, Speaker. Well, Dr Unie is worried that without the use of masks, our healthcare system will be overwhelmed. He also said that the government moved too quickly to drop the mask mandates here in Ontario. He said, and I'll quote, he's very uneasy, and quote, and worried that the wrong signals are being sent to Ontarians. Speaker, Ontarians deserve to hear from the best experts that we have. That includes bringing the Chief Medical Officer of Health out of hiding to explain what is going on here in Ontario. Why is the Premier ignoring the problem rather than taking proactive measures to help us get through the sixth wave? I recognize the Minister of Health. Our government has always taken the necessary steps to protect the health and safety of the people of Ontario, and we will continue to do so. We are following the advice of our Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr Moore and his advisers, and the Science Advisory Table as well. The view of one physician compared to the views of many is something that we listen to, but we are following the advice of Dr Moore. He has provided us sound advice throughout, and I know that he will continue to do so. It was Dr Moore's advice himself several weeks ago to say that we don't need to have regular conferences with him because we need to learn to live with COVID. Sadly, it's not going away immediately. It's going to continue within our system, but we have the measures that we need to keep people in Ontario healthy with increased vaccinations, including the fourth vaccination that's available as of today, the antivirals, and we do have the capacity in our hospitals to manage. Thank you, Speaker. My next question is also to the Premier. Speaker, we know that one of the biggest gaps in mental health care is for our children. As more and more Ontarians seek mental health supports and are openly sharing their struggles, families and children are concerned that the supports that they need are out of reach and cost too much. They want their children to thrive and lead happier, healthier lives. But far too often, mental health services are out of reach because of horribly long waitlists and these huge financial barriers. Speaker, why won't the government recognize that universal mental health care will help families and kids access mental health supports in Ontario? Thank you. I recognize the Associate Minister of Mental Health. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that question. Mr Speaker, our government recognizes the impacts this pandemic has had on the mental health and well-being of children and youth across the province. Building in Ontario where young people are safe, healthy and thriving are the right things to be doing and our plan impacts on those very issues. And that's why we've made targeted investments in intensive mental health supports and services for children and youth that include a $20 million investment across the board, 5% increase to all supports and services for youth. In addition to that, $2.7 million for four youth wellness hubs in Guelph, Renfrew, Timmins and Windsor. And in addition to that, another eight youth wellness hubs, again, to build on the supports necessary for youth. In addition to that, we've looked at specific youth wellness hubs for Indigenous populations to ensure that they have the supports they need. Mr Speaker, we've made investments, including in eating disorders, they're solid investments to ensure that all children and youth have the supports they need when and where they need them. Mr Speaker, Children's Mental Health Ontario has called on all of us to take the Kids Can't Wait pledge to invest in mental health supports for our youngest people here in the province. Mary Clusterman, the CEO of the organisation, says, some kids are currently waiting up to two and a half years to see a mental health professional. And quote, I know in my community of Brampton that's an unfortunate reality for many young people who need supports. Speaker, it shouldn't be like this in Ontario. We're lagging behind in the country and we need to do better for children with immediate investments to cut the weights and invest in the services that they need. Speaker, why hasn't the Premier recognised that children in this province can't wait any longer for the mental health supports that they need and when are they going to make the investments to help us save lives and ensure children have access to the supports? Thank you. I return to the Associate Minister for Mental Health and Addictions. Thank you, Mr Speaker. And once again, I'd like to reiterate our government is actively investing. Our government is at the forefront across Canada from the standpoints of investments that are being made in mental health and addictions. In fact, not only are we investing through the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, we're investing through education and the amount of money that's been invested is above and beyond any money that's ever been invested by any government, even the one that you, when your government was in power. We are making a substantial difference and laying transformational change in a system that was broken long before we came into power. And the pandemic, which exacerbated the situation, is being addressed as well with the investments that are being made, which now total more than $525 million annually. In fact, Children's Mental Health Ontario said, the government's new mental health and addiction strategy, the roadmap to wellness, is a start towards making and transformational changes to address the gaps in service and wait times for children and youth mental health and addictions. And we will continue making those investments, not withstanding. Thank you. Thank you. New question. Thank you, Speaker. And I'd like to remind the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions that it was this government that cut planned increases in 2018 to the mental health budget, but it doesn't have to be this way for children in our province, Speaker. When experts like Children's Mental Health Ontario call on us to invest, to cut the wait list and build capacity, they can count on new Democrats to support that call to action. But children in Ontario can't count on this government to do the same. Under the Liberals, the wait list should have never reached two and a half years for children to see a mental health care professional, and the wait lists were made even worse when this Premier made cuts, rather than investments when taking office. Speaker, will the government recognize now is the time for universal mental health care services to be a part of OHIP and use the upcoming budget to build a better mental health care system for our children and people across Ontario? Thank you. I recognize the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Mr Speaker, I thought this issue was addressed the last time it was asked. The $325 million that's being referred to is in fact a campaign promise by a government that got seven seats in the last election. This government invested a 5% increase over the amount that was invested previously by previous governments. This government is making transformational changes in a system that was broken long before we came to power. In 2010, with your members as part of that standing committee, talked about lack of access, fragmentation, a broken system. It took this government to build a roadmap to wellness that is making transformational changes. And it's backed by an investment of $525 million annualized, $3.8 billion over 10 years. We will not take lessons nor listen to the delusions that somehow we've reduced spending on health. That's preposterous. I can't even comment on that. And this is not the first, it's the 10th time I've heard the same nonsense coming out of the same proposition. Supplementary, I recognize the member from London, West. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, this morning the Equal Pay Coalition was at Queen's Park together with leaders of the Ontario Federation of Labor, the Ontario Nurses Association and SEIU Health Care. They were here to sound the alarm on the Ford government's attack on the collective bargaining and pay equity rights of nurses, PSWs and many other women workers in health care and social services. Speaker, the Coalition and Labor leaders are united in calling on this government to repeal Bill 124, withdraw Bill 106, pay health care workers what they deserve and stop overriding women's rights to pay equity. Speaker, why did this government decide to gut pay equity in Bill 106 instead of simply paying PSWs, nurses and other public sector workers what they deserve? Thank you. I recognize the Minister of Labor and skills. Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you so much and I thank the member opposite for this question. First I want to begin by thanking all of those frontline health care workers who have worked every single day to protect our families and all of our communities. But Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to personally pay tribute to a trailblazer in this province and that is a former Premier Kathleen Wynne, the member from Don Valley West. Mr. Speaker, she blazed a trail. She inspired many people across this province and Mr. Speaker, I just want to share a story. We all know that the premiers have a hectic schedule, a busy schedule, but for me I remember this one moment at Queens Park when I was back in opposition critical of the former government but my daughter was out front of the legislature and the Premier took time to come over and talk to her as a young lady. So I want to say to the former Premier on behalf of the province of Ontario, on behalf of this government, thank you for your service. Thank you. Thank you. A new question. I recognize the member for my apology supplementary member from London West. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. They say there's a reason why this is called question period and not answer period. Speaker, Bill 106 overturns hard won Supreme Court victories on pay equity. It is a direct attack on the rights of women and health and social services who have carried us through this pandemic. It is unconstitutional interference with collective bargaining rights, just like the Ford government's earlier attack on workers with Bill 124. Speaker, an Enveronix poll commissioned by the Equal Pay Coalition was released this morning, showing that 85% of Ontarians believe it is important for the government to do more to promote women's economic equality. That means decent wages and working conditions like permanent paid sick days. Speaker, Ontario voters care about women's economic equality. Why doesn't this government? Well, Mr Speaker, it is a priority of this government, and I want to remind the member opposite that everyone deserves equal pay regardless of their gender. Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Pay Equity Commissioner, Katie Ward, who I pointed a couple of years ago. She's doing great work to ensure that women have equal pay in this province. Mr Speaker, Katie Ward, the new Pay Equity Commissioner, comes with a wealth of experience. She's worked in the Ukraine, and I think it's important to note that many of the Ukrainian refugees that are going to be coming here are going to be women and children, and we're going to be there with supports for these women and children that come here. That's why I was proud to join the Minister of Health, the Premier, the Minister of Infrastructure yesterday, and Ukrainian-Canadian leaders to announce over $300 million in supports for Ukrainian refugees to find safe haven here in Ontario and to build better lives for them. That was a test just to make sure the host was paying attention to hold the Speaker accountable, so thank you very much. It is now time for a new question. The member from the Mississauga Centre has the floor. Thank you so much, Speaker. Good morning. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I've heard from so many constituents in my writing of Mississauga Centre who are very concerned after the federal government raised the price of the carbon tax last Friday. Speaker, these people are hardworking Ontario families—moms, dads, seniors, and our young people—who have had a very, very long two years. And as the costs continue to rise, especially the cost of living, this tax increase almost couldn't come at a worse time. Speaker, through you, how is the Minister and the Government planning to address these tax hikes imposed by the federal government and cut costs for Ontario families? I recognize the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the member from Mississauga Centre. And if I could just say here in the House, I'd like to personally thank her for her incredible work, not just on the front lines through the pandemic as a nurse and representing her profession, but also and especially her incredible advocacy for the most vulnerable and marginalized in her community and indeed across the entire province of Ontario. But my colleague is completely right. Our government understands that taxpayers are under pressure. We recognize the impact that inflation, and especially the significant impact of rising gasoline and fuel prices, is having on businesses and families. And our government is here for them. That's why as we have as part of our plan to provide relief across the board, our government has introduced the Tax Relief of the Pumps Act that would, if passed, temporarily cut gas tax by 5.7 cents per litre and the fuel tax by 5.3 cents per litre for six months beginning in July 1st. Speaker, this is just one part of our plan to cut costs for every Ontarian. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the parliamentary assistant for that response. It's great to hear that our government has taken the initiative so quickly after disappointing increase in the carbon tax by the federal government, ensuring Ontarians keep more money in their pockets, not the government pockets. After 15 long years of liberal mismanagement, it's great to be a part of a government that is working for the taxpayer, for the people in so many ways. But with so much ongoing economic and world uncertainty, the pressure that so many Ontarians are under due to inflation and rising costs is becoming very difficult to bear, Speaker. Through you, what is the minister and the government's plan to help build Ontario and cut costs for Ontario's hardworking families? Recognize the parliamentary assistant. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you again to the member for the great question from the member from Mississauga Centre, and she's absolutely right. Ontarians have faced a tough two years from the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts. No government better understands that, and that's why we are continuing to call on the federal government to do the right thing and join Ontario in providing relief for families and workers by cutting the carbon tax. The tax relief at the Pumps Act is just one part of our plan to continue to build Ontario and to keep more money flowing into the pockets of hardworking Ontarians. From removing unfair road tolls on Highway 412 and 418 and posed by the Del Ducca Government to eliminating license plate renewal fees and stickers to providing tax relief for seniors, workers and families, this government is keeping costs down for the people of Ontario. Speaker, we on this side are the only party that says yes to the people of Ontario and has a plan to fight for them. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Speaker, Northwestern Ontario has a dire shortage of physicians and it needs to be addressed now. For example, the CEO of the Lake of the Woods District Hospital told Canora Online he has never seen this many vacancies. Because of the lack of staff, the ICU had to close 14 times since September. One of the biggest barriers to solving this problem is that the hospital has great difficulty recruiting doctors. The government knows that even with the expansion of the spots at Nossum, it will take many years to clear the current physician shortage of 325 doctors and that number will continue to rise. What is this government going to do to immediately address the physician shortage in Northwestern Ontario? Thank you. I recognise the Minister of Health. Thank you very much, Speaker. Our government did make a commitment to end hallway health care and that starts with improving access to primary care services for those living in rural and northern Ontario. We do understand that there is a particular concern in northern Ontario with attracting and retaining physicians. But we have both long-term and short-term solutions to that problem. We are providing $6.2 million across 32 primary care teams to improve access to primary care in high-needs communities across the province. We also have, in terms of short-term solutions, I know it's not ideal, but we do have local placements in many northern communities. But I think the biggest long-term solution that we have is increasing the number of placements in our medical schools across the province of Ontario, which were not dealt with by the previous governments. But I can speak to that more specifically in the supplemental. Thank you. The supplementary answer I would turn to the member from Thunder Bay, Ada Coken. Thank you, Speaker. Again, to the Premier. Every, almost every day I hear from constituents who have trouble accessing primary health care. This has impacts. When we tell people in a pandemic that you need to consult with your physician and they don't have one, it's a problem. As an awesome physician workforce strategy makes clear, we need short, medium, and long-term solutions to ensure that health care needs of northerners are taken care of. Experts say solutions involve training new doctors. Of course, recruiting doctors from other places and retaining doctors we have working in the region now. Physicians are burning out. They are desperate. They are leaving. This needs to be a systematic, systemic, coordinated approach. What is this government going to do to ensure that there is a systemic approach to the physician shortage in northern Ontario? Thank you. Thank you. We are taking a systemic approach to dealing with this situation with a variety of solutions. One is, as I previously said, increasing the allocations to our primary health care teams. But there is also virtual care, which is becoming more and more common. More and more Ontarians want to use that. We are digitizing our health care records. We are also allowing people in northern Ontario to obtain the solutions and assistance from physicians in other locations. And as you have mentioned, the most important thing that we are doing is increasing the number of doctors that we actually have in the province of Ontario. We are increasing the number of placements by 160 undergraduate seats and 295 postgraduate seats, of which the Northern Ontario School of Medicine will be receiving 30 undergraduate and 41 postgraduate seats. That is really important for people who live in northern Ontario to be able to train in northern Ontario. And it is much more likely that they will stay in northern Ontario. That is a true long-term solution to this problem. Thank you. New question. I recognize the member from Chatham, Kent Leamington. Thank you very much, Speaker. Through you to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The objectives of Directive 6, issued by Dr. Moore, were to set out a provincially consistent approach to COVID-19 immunization policies. Directive 6 also allowed for unvaccinated students to continue to learn online, and that seemed to work okay for students whose personal choice was to not get vaccinated. It was immoral that the colleges and universities decided on their own and were allowed to further jeopardize students and teachers when they implemented an unnecessary policy of vaccinate or terminate or even lose your academic year. Students had their personal reasons for not wanting the vaccine, and it was obvious that these non-medical powers to be disregarded personal choice. Now your government continued to allow these institutions to move far beyond Directive 6 into a heavy-handed authoritarian approach. So Minister, will you step in and stop these non-medical educational institutions from forcing an invasive medical procedure on staff and students? Thank you. I recognize the government. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, our colleges and universities are independent institutions that make independent decisions. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, that as the Minister of Health has highlighted, with the high vaccination rates in the province of Ontario and the really the groundbreaking investments that we've made in hospital capacity and preparing the province of Ontario following 15 years of failure to make these types of investments, Ontario is in a very good spot to weather the storm. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it's also important to note that our colleges and universities really pivoted very quickly. Now it took a lot of resources and additional funding online when the pivot was necessary. The Minister of Colleges and University did some great work on that. As did the Minister of Education for our elementary and secondary school students. So we're very proud of the fact that despite the global pandemic, our students have been able to continue working. They've continued to graduate. They continue to provide exceptional benefit to the province of Ontario and will continue to do so. Thank you. Thank you very much. Back to the Minister. These educational institutions continue to go even further by mandating vaccines for all students and lecturers regardless of whether students take the courses online or on campus. Does that make any sense? Students have no option. They're being coerced. Colleges and universities are now forcing students if they want to pass to attend classes in person to be vaccinated. If not, they are disenrolled. Students who have been disenrolled in their educational institution claim that they are unable to confirm if the student will be returning must repay their OSAP six months after that point of disenrollment. Why? Perhaps your ministry could reconsider its stand and implement a no-vaccine mandate and tell these institutions they can no longer mandate vaccines. It has been said that education is something no one can take away from you. Minister, don't take students' education away. So Minister, what are you prepared to do to protect unvaccinated students who are entitled to an education and a good job? Return to the government? House Leader. Again, I thank the member for the question. We've obviously prepared to do everything to keep people from the province of Ontario safe, including our students. That is why the Minister of Education, when it comes to elementary and secondary students, has ensured that we have one of, if not the safest, return to school of protocols in the entire country, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Colleges and Universities, when the pandemic hit, we knew very well, Mr. Speaker, how important it was to allow these students to continue their education so that they could graduate, so that they could progress into the careers of their choice, what they had worked so hard to do. That is why we put enormous resources in to allow our colleges and universities to pivot very quickly, something that they would want to do over a long period of time. We allowed it to happen seamlessly and very quickly so that they could continue to get the education that they're paying for, Mr. Speaker, and that is so vital not only to their future, but to the future of the people of the province of Ontario. As the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade adds so many new jobs and so many different sectors of the economy, we need these students to continue to graduate so that they can fill the thousands of jobs that are empty and are needing to be filled in the province of Ontario. They have a great future, Mr. Speaker, as do all Ontarians. If I may recognize a member from Perth, Wellington. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. We saw the Minister in Hamilton just last week making an exciting announcement at McMaster's Innovation Park to support our life sciences sector. Ontario's life sciences sector is a key part of Ontario's economy and employs thousands of workers across the province. Now more than ever, Ontarians are counting on our government to grow Ontario's life sciences sector and secure new investments in next generation health technology, medicines and vaccine manufacturing. Speaker, through you, can the Minister tell us how his ministry and our government plans to grow Ontario's bio-manufacturing and life sciences sector? I recognize the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Thank you, Speaker. Companies have made a streak of game-changing investments in Ontario in the auto sector recently. In the past 17 months, we've seen 12 billion in investments adding thousands of jobs, but as the member pointed out, other sectors in Ontario have been seeing similar success. Over that same period of time, Ontario has welcomed investments of almost $2 billion by leading life science companies, including Sanofi, Resilience and Roche. Last week, Omnia Bio announced $580 million investment to build a new cell and gene therapy manufacturing facility at McMaster University in Hamilton. And Invest Ontario, our investment attraction agency, made their very first investment by providing $4 million. So, Speaker, whether it's a game-changing auto investment one day or a half a billion dollar life science investment another day, it's clear that Ontario is getting stronger. Thank you. Supplementary, I recognize member from Perth Wellington. Thank you, Minister, for that answer. And through you, Speaker, we've seen a number of investments over the past few years which have contributed to the growth of Ontario's life science sector. I'm sure my constituents and all Ontarians are excited to hear about the record-breaking investments we've attracted as opposed to the mass exodus of jobs caused by the previous Liberal government. Speaker, through you, could the Minister tell us what new investments have been made and how his ministry is positioning Ontario to be the life sciences sector hub of Canada? Speaker, last week we also announced a new life sciences strategy, the very first provincial strategy for that sector in more than a decade. And this announcement included $15 million for the life sciences innovation program which helps position the sector for long-term growth, investment and job creation. We set a lofty goal, Speaker, of 85,000 high-value jobs by 2030, focusing on four areas, growing our business biomanufacturing, building domestic PPE, boosting commercialization and adopting innovations. Our vision, Speaker, is to establish Ontario as a global leader in biomanufacturing and life sciences. And we'll continue making the right strategic investments to support critical industries like our life sciences sector. New question. I recognize the number from the East. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Times are really tough right now, and people are struggling with how expensive life is becoming from the cost of gas to groceries to auto insurance. But instead of helping people, the concert of government is allowing billion dollar car insurance companies to rip off Ontarians. Does the Premier think it's okay that there are people in Ontario who are paying more for car insurance than for the mortgage at their own home? Does the Premier think it's okay that there are people with clear driving records who are being charged higher rates purely based on where they live? Does the Premier think it's okay that there are people who are struggling to make ends meet because of the crushing cost of car insurance? Well, it's not okay. But the Premier is allowing it to happen. So will the Premier do the right thing and vote yes to our NDP bill to lower car insurance rates to make life more affordable? Question. Do you recognize the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance? No, thank you, Speaker. And I appreciate that question because the member is absolutely right. The people of Ontario work hard and our government understands that the taxpayers are under pressure. That's why we've been following the auto insurance sector so very, very closely. And that's also why we had a clear message to insurance companies as we went through the COVID pandemic. You should provide relief that reflects the financial hardships your customers are facing because of COVID-19. And by encouraging and promoting timely action by insurers, our government enabled more than $1 billion in consumer savings, affecting 93% of Ontario drivers. And Mr. Speaker, we continue to remove barriers to relief. And by doing that, we're able to provide options and choice to consumers in the province of Ontario. And in fact, David Marshall's new report stated that FISRA since 2019 has been active in reducing regulatory burden. We support the work the regulator is doing and to cut red tape. I'll say more in the supplemental. Thank you. I return the supplementary achievement from Brampton East. Back to the Premier. The only thing that the Conservative Government is following is whatever their insider friends and buddies want in the insurance companies. If we look at the track record of the Conservative Government, it's very clear. They have allowed rates to go up in 2018 when they first got elected. They allowed rates to go up when we saw traffic drop to some of its lowest during the heights of the pandemic. And now as people struggle to make ends meet, they continue to let rates go up. And in case the Conservative Government was confused, let me make it clear. The buck stops with the Premier. Rates only go up when the Conservative Government allow them to go up. People deserve better. They deserve to live an affordable life when they're not suffering under these crushing auto insurance premiums. So will the Premier do the right thing and vote yes to our NDP bill and make life more affordable to Ontarians? I return to the Parliamentary Assistant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, David Marshall's new report mentioned that the future of consumer services like insurance lies in being responsive to rapid changes such as pricing and innovation. We recently implemented, through FISRA, a new regulatory sandbox to test new initiatives to respond to changing consumer needs. Successful innovations from this sandbox would be delivered to the consumer market. We will continue to increase consumer choice through enabling our auto insurance to offer optional direct compensation property damage savings for good drivers with telemetrics and develop stronger anti-fraud measures. Mr. Speaker, the key is affordability. We understand that the Province of Ontario, the people of the Province of Ontario need relief. That's why we're taking measures in the auto insurance industry at the gas pumps with your vehicle license plate stickers in order to provide that relief to the people of Ontario. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. New question. I recognize the number from audience. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the key is affordability. In 2018, this government made a number of promises, big promises, that they failed to deliver on, including the promise not to touch rent control. I believe the quote from the Premier at the time was, I have listened to the people and I won't take rent control away from anyone, period. When it comes to rent control, we're going to maintain the status quo. That's May 2018, Mr. Speaker. Lo and behold, one of the very first things this Premier did was to take rent control away from thousands of Ontarians. And a year later, tenants were reporting double digit increases. With skyrocketing housing costs right across the province, these rent controls could have provided much needed relief to thousands of renters who are struggling to make ends meet. This is just another broken promise in the long list of broken promises from this Premier. After two years of turmoil, does the government regret breaking their 2018 commitment to maintain rent control in Ontario? Thank you. I recognize the Minister of Musical Affairs and Housing. Thanks. Thanks, Speaker. I want to thank the honourable member for the question that gives us the opportunity as a government to talk about what we promised Ontarians. We promised Ontarians from the first day we sat in the legislature that we were going to do everything we could to increase housing supply. We also kept our promise to preserve rent control for existing tenants. It was a promise we made during the 2018 election. So what did that promise that was in the fall economic statement in 2018, what did it accomplish, Speaker? Well, we're now seeing purpose-built rental construction, the likes that we haven't seen since the early 90s, since 1992, Speaker. In each consecutive year after our housing supply action plan, communities across Ontario saw purpose-built rental being constructed, where it had not been even thought about under the previous government. Your government, sir, over 15 years neglected purpose-built rental, nothing was made. Thank you. And under our government, that changed. Thank you. I'll just remind all members to please direct their questions through the chair. I recognize a member from Orleans for the supplemental. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, let's talk about some of the government's promises as the minister highlighted in his answer. They promised lower hydro rates failed. They promised lower gas prices failed. They promised a 20% income tax cut failed. The government can come up with any excuse they want, but Ontarians know that their rent is higher today than it was four years ago. The cost of a one-bedroom rental in Ottawa is over $1,600. In Toronto, it's over $2,000. This morning, Mr. Speaker, I took a look in Brockville. It's almost $1,300, Mr. Speaker, in Brockville. Rents are sky-high, and this government has done absolutely nothing to keep them under control or help Ontarians for growing costs. Will the government admit that they broke their 2018 promise to maintain rent control in Ontario and immediately bring it back to relief for Ontario families? Thank you. And I return to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You know, Speaker, I laid out the facts on the state of purpose-built rental in Ontario. We're seeing 30-year highs in communities all across Ontario. And we want to build upon that. We want to work with our municipal partners. And, you know, we're all very excited about the federal budget today to see the measures that the federal government is putting forward, the money that they're spending. And I've said it many times here. You know, dealing with the housing supply crisis is a long-term strategy. We need all three levels of government to work. But you know what, Speaker? I'm not going to take any lessons from this guy across the way and his party.  Closing rural schools, making life unaffordable, choking off our medium and small hospitals. I'm not going to take any lessons from this guy at all. Thank you. Stop the clock. Stop the clock. New question to the member from Perry Sound, Muskoka. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. From day one of this pandemic, our government has been committed to protecting the health, safety, and well-being of the people of Ontario. But we all saw that when the pandemic was declared in March 2020, Ontario was not prepared. COVID-19 exposed long-standing gaps across our healthcare system. Unused PPE had expired in provincial stockpiles. Ontario was reliant on other jurisdictions for supplies and provincial pandemic plans had not been updated. I was pleased to see our government release a plan to stay open to ensure we are never caught flat-footed in another emergency. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us exactly what is in our government's plan to stay open? Thank you. I recognize the Parliamentary Assistant for the President of the Treasury Board. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member from Perry Sound, Muskoka, for that timely question. The member is exactly right. At the outbreak of this pandemic, we were not prepared. Since March 2020, this government has made historic investments to protect the people of Ontario, but it is clear more must be done. That is why we have released a plan to stay open and introduce the Pandemic and Emergency Preparedness Act to build up our capacity to respond. These steps will expand Ontario's healthcare workforce, improve the production of critical supplies, and build more hospital beds to ensure we have the capacity to meet any future challenges. Unlike the previous government, we understand the importance of investing in Ontario's healthcare system. Speaker, I will have more to say in the supplementary about this plan and how we will continue to protect the people of Ontario by keeping Ontario open. Thank you. Supplementary. I return the member from Perry Sound, Muskoka. Thank you, Parliamentary Assistant, for that response. The pandemic brought to light long-standing systemic challenges. All the way healthcare has been a problem in Ontario for decades. In my writing, our hospitals are frequently well over 100% capacity, largely because of the number of ALC patients who can't get into a long-term care facility or get home care. Recently, Muskoka-Gonkwin Healthcare has seen 40% of their beds occupied by ALC patients. Between 2011 and 2018, the Liberal government built only 611 net new long-term care beds. Meanwhile, our government has 27,148 new and 23,504 upgraded beds in the development pipeline. Back to the President of the Treasury Board, how will his legislation and a plan to stay open add more beds to our healthcare system? Recognize the Parliamentary Assistant. Again, Speaker, I want to thank the member for that question. I want to thank the Minister of Long-Term Care for all the excellent work he is doing to build our long-term care homes across this province. And I also want to thank Minister Elliott through the Minister of Health. We are investing $22 billion over the next 10 years to address challenges around the shortage. These investments will increase capacity in the existing hospitals, build new healthcare facilities in our communities, and renew aging hospitals and community healthcare centres. This investment includes the launch of 50 new major projects and will add over 3,000 new beds over the next decade. This is on top of the 3,100 acute and post-acute care beds. This government has already added to the system. Let me be clear to the people of Ontario, we know it is our responsibility to prepare the province for future generations. And again, this Premier is getting things done. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. The Backdoor Mission and its Mission United service partners established a model of care to support the immediate crisis needs of those most in need in Oshawa. The downtown clinic has operated with one nurse practitioner, one RN, and rotating doctors providing specialist care. And the Mission United clinic provides primary care in a full clinic to about 600 clients, individuals who previously did not receive primary care due to systemic barriers and otherwise might not. This population suffers chronic homelessness, mental health challenges and addictions and in most cases a complex combination of all three. And unbelievably the funding from the province through Ontario Health East has evaporated without warning. Days ago the medical support team found out the funding would not continue beyond March 31st and our community and vulnerable neighbours desperately need this funding to continue. It is not hyperbole to say that lives are at stake. I've sent the Minister a letter outlining the situation. Will the Minister of Health commit to the funding needed immediately to run this desperately needed acute care clinic at the Backdoor Mission? Thank you. I recognize the Associate Minister of Mental Health and addictions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for that question. Clearly when it comes to mental health addictions and of course health, they are interrelated and it's extremely important that the supports and services are in place to help everyone especially our most vulnerable. Now I just learned of the Backdoor Mission I'm not familiar with it but I certainly would like to spend a little bit more time and understand a little bit more about it. I know for instance that we have made investments in ensuring that there are beds to deal with mental health and then provide supports for individuals that are homeless and of course they are an important part of our population that needs to be taken care of as well. Our government has made investments in Durham many investments including overall spending of over 77 million dollars in healthcare in Durham. I'll follow up with additional information on the supplemental. Thank you. Supplementary, I would turn to the member from Oshawa. Thank you, Speaker. And back to the Minister of Health. Please understand that many of the vulnerable clients served at the Backdoor Mission cannot access appropriate care anywhere else. It is my understanding that more than 50% of the clients struggling with mental health or addictions at the Backdoor Mission don't have health cards or identification. They will not be served at private clinics. The clients who struggle with addictions, mental health crises, volatility and unpredictability are not going to be successful in scheduling and attending appointments. We cannot in good conscience condemn them to struggle alone without care. I've been connecting with the medical team and Nathan Gardner the Executive Director at the Backdoor Mission. It's clear that without the clinic the majority of these marginalized neighbors in need will land in the emergency room in an ambulance and in many cases will die. The doctors, nurses and partners service providers are distraught over the uncertain future of the people they care for and serve. For two years this model has proven itself Mission United. Question. And jumping through hoops to achieve that sustainable funding commitment from Ontario Health. Will the Minister please address the situation, commit the funds needed to keep this primary care clinic open and our struggling neighbors cared for? Thank you. I return to the Associate Minister for Mental Health. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again our government is committed to ensuring that the continuum of care exists for every citizen in the province of Ontario. And Durham has seen numerous investments including in mental health of over 2.2 million dollars. In every area of public health care spending there have been increases year over year as with our government in power. And one of the things as I said before when it comes to the roadmap to wellness and ensuring that there are appropriate supports for all members of our communities those are in place and those are things that we are looking at and we do support. As I said this is the first time I've heard of the back permission. I've never seen an application from them with respect to funding. Our addiction recovery fund there was no application that came forward. Answer. But I'm certainly interested in reviewing the situation and seeing what we can do because everyone in the province regardless of who they are where they are deserve supports and help. Thank you. New question. I recognize a member from York Centre. Thank you Speaker. My question is to the government house leader. Voters are concerned by the increasing financial ties between the media and government. Free and independent media is a pillar of democracy. But when this government is one of the biggest advertisers on all media platforms for the last two years TV, radio, papers, internet, benches, bus shelters, highway ads and elevator screens paid for by the government of Ontario. Speaker, I'd like the house leader to tell us how much money did the government spend on ads paid for by the government of Ontario through all media platforms in the last two fiscal years and will the house leader commit to coming back with a dollar figure next week. Thank you. I recognize the government house leader. Speaker, there's just so much to communicate right. I mean it is it is a challenge that we face because there is just so much good news happening across the province of Ontario. I mean look, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade has announced record breaking investments in the automotive sector. We have to tell people about that, Mr. Speaker. Of course we have to tell people about that. Five billion dollar investment in new technology, Mr. Speaker. We want to tell people about that. We want to tell people about how we're emerging from the pandemic stronger than almost any other jurisdiction in North America. I think that's good news. People deserve to know about that, Mr. Speaker. So we're not going to apologize for letting people know how the hard work of their government is helping Ontario succeed to become the best place in the world in which to live, work, invest, and to raise a family. You know what, Mr. Speaker? A strong, stable, majority, progressive, conservative government has delivered for the people the province of Ontario. Over 500,000 people have the dignity of a job now that didn't before. That's good news. And we're going to tell people about it. I return to the member from York Centre for the Supplementary. Speaker, if the government house leader is proud, then why wouldn't he come back with a dollar figure? Speaker, we know that this government governs by polls. Dr. Juni estimates that there are 100 to 120,000 new daily cases each day. If three months ago in January the government put the health and safety of Ontarians first or early, they must lock us down again now. Especially since protection from the vaccine has further waned and this health minister doesn't believe in natural immunity. So what changed? Is it the polls months before an election or the realization that we did not need to lock down in January or last January? But this cabinet looks at polling every time it means because the only thing it cares about is reelection. So will the house leader tell us how much taxpayer dollars were spent on public opinion polling in the last two fiscal years? And will the house leader commit to coming back with a dollar figure next week? Thank you and the House will come to order. I recognize the member the government house leader. Well here's a dollar figure that the people of the province of Ontario can count on. Mr. Speaker after question period today all of the members of this assembly are going to have an opportunity to vote on putting more money back into the pockets of the people of Ontario. I hope that the member opposite will join us in doing that. They're going to have the opportunity to work to support workers. Mr. Speaker something that has never been done by the previous Liberal government in 15 years it took this government to get it done Mr. Speaker and why do we have to do this? Why are we making investments in workers? Why are we making investments in apprenticeships? In apprenticeships because this minister of economic development job creation and trade seizing on the hard work of the minister of energy who brought down energy prices for the people of the province of Ontario. Let's not forget let's not forget colleagues when we came to office the Liberals had scheduled a 19 percent increase in hydro rates. And sir we cancelled it and you know what has resulted thousands of jobs coming back. Five hundred thousand people working that weren't working before and over three hundred thousand jobs that need to be filled Ontario is moving thanks to a strong, stable progressive concern of the majority. Thank you. Is that the clock? Start the clock. I recognize a member from Mashkegawak James Bay. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Mr. Speaker. My casters for the minister of health. Madam minister as you know the residents in the north have to go often to medical appointments. Northern health travel grant the financial support does not reflect the current costs of living. Looking back at a few years ago the travel grant covered some of the costs of medical travels but now with the rising costs of gas traveling for medical reasons has become a financial burden. Speaker will this government commit to revising their calculation of the payment considering the financial burden traveling for medical reason put on northerners. Thank you. I recognize the minister of health. Thank you Speaker and thank you to the member officer for the question. Our government certainly recognizes the unique challenges that people especially in north face when trying to access health care. So the northern health travel grant is continuously undergoing quality improvements to make sure that people get the support they need and of course in a timely manner. The 2021-22 allocation for the northern health travel grant was 48.2 million dollars and just a few extra statistics as speaker I can advise that in the 2021 fiscal year the ministry of health received and processed 143,495 northern health travel grant applications and 96.10 of those applications were approved and 95 were approved within 30 business days. So of course we want to make sure that people can answer quickly and so we've also introduced a revised application form that allows clients to provide banking information so that their deposits can make quickly into the bank thank you but checks are also available. Supplementary I would like to remember from Meshkegawak, James Bay. Thank you Mr. Speaker I understand that the health travel grant is good for people who travel but the eligibility criteria does not respond to the conditions of the travel. Many people in my riding living in a capes case for instance have to go elsewhere they have to sleep in timings to go for their appointments unless they travel through the night. The problem at night is that the travel grant does not cover because they don't cover 200 kilometers so there's not money. With the price of gas by kilometer that has not changed it doesn't cover the travel. Madam Minister this scenario happens every day too often and it's unacceptable. When will your government understand the issues in the north and will redefine the eligibility conditions and payments to reflect the reality on the ground right now. I recognize the minister of health. Thank you well I as I previously indicated we are constantly reviewing the northern health travel grant the applications the eligibility the payments and so on but we also know that because of the perilous travel conditions that sometimes people are facing in northern Ontario that we also have to have other options for people seeking care. So in addition to traveling we also have our digital first for health strategy which expands the virtual care options for all Ontarians. We anticipate that that's going to increase in the coming years as we increase our digitization so that people will be able to see their own health records. They'll be able to make appointments online and they'll be also be able to see specialists which right now they have to physically go to visit. We want to make sure that the care can come directly to people. That's what we need to concentrate on because it's more convenient it's more accessible for Ontarians regardless of where they're in the province. Thank you. New question I recognize the member from Ottawa says. Thank you very much speaker. The head of the Ontario Science Table Dr. Peter Unie says that Ontario is seeing 100,000 cases of COVID each day. Every day. And he adds that if we keep on this way and continue not to mask there will be a great stream on our healthcare system. A tidal wave as he describes it. The sixth wave is going to be our biggest wave yet. Yet for one month we have not heard from the chief medical officer of health. Total radio silence. I find it hard to believe that Dr. Moore doesn't understand the importance of communication during a pandemic. Especially given the risks that we face right now. It's clear that the premier doesn't want Dr. Moore to appear publicly. And that Dr. Moore is being muzzled. Question. Will the premier lift his gag order on the chief medical officer of health? Remind all members to not use inflammatory references in the house. I recognize the Minister of Health. Thank you very much speaker. And I'd really like to concentrate on the facts here. The facts are that Dr. Moore has chosen not to appear in regular conferences because in his words we have to learn to live with COVID as it is now. We can't continue to have to need weekly updates when we know that we are seeing an increase but the increase is manageable. Dr. Moore is free to come forward at any time as he sees fit to continue with those conferences. But he is the one that shows not to do so on the basis that we have to learn to live with COVID. So we are respecting that. We are providing daily updates to people. The information is readily available to everyone. But as Dr. Moore himself has said we should not be surprised to see an increase in number of cases that we're seeing in Ontario because we have released a number of the public health measures and we have a more transmissible variant. But vaccination is the key to success to this. Thank you speaker. Well the chief medical officer of health works for the government. So it's clear they don't believe that he should be communicating either. So for two years Ontarians have relied on regular communications both from Dr. Williams and Dr. Moore. They relied on those briefings and those doctors for information and tools they needed to keep them and their families safe. And now we're facing what looks like it's going to be the biggest wave. And there is a vacuum a vacuum of leadership. The chief medical officer of health is nowhere to be found. It's simply not believable to me and I think anyone else here that Dr. Moore doesn't feel a responsibility to do what he's been doing all along and whatever other medical officer of health is doing across Ontario. I know the premier doesn't want COVID to interfere with his election plans and that's why he's muzzling the chief medical officer of health. Once again will the premier rescind his gag order on the chief medical officer of health. Thank you. I recognize the minister of health. What the member opposite is saying is ridiculous and is not based on fact whatsoever. It's absolutely not the case. The member from Ottawa science will come to order. Please resume. Dr. Moore is independent. He always has been. He's always stated what he believes to be important. Member from Ottawa science will come to order. Please carry on. Any suggestion that Dr. Moore is doing anything other than what he thinks is in the best interests of the people of Ontario is absolutely untrue. Dr. Moore. The member from Ottawa science will come to order. As he sees fit he knows that he can do that and he has done so throughout his term as our chief medical officer of health. In the meantime information is readily available to the people of Ontario. They can find out what the case rates are what the hospital patient rates are and so on. We believe in free and public account. Thank you. I recognize the member from London Fanshop. Thank you Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Mike Bernardo owns Bernardo Karate in London and each time he's contacted the support line he's been told his application is being processed and that he just has to wait. So he's been left in the dark waiting for the grant. Another small business owner Paul Nother who owns an awards and trophy shop. He like Michael received the grant during the first round last year. Paul contacted me and asked why his business was no longer eligible for the grant despite having to be closed in January. Meanwhile Speaker during the last round grants this this government gave grants to businesses who didn't qualify and corporations who weren't even in Ontario. Can the minister explain what the delay is in distributing the grants to businesses owners like Michael and explain to Paul why some questions who are eligible during the last round are no longer eligible this round and why there's no appeal process for that decision. I recognize the minister of economic development job creation and training. Thank you Speaker. Our government's track record proves that we have been there for small businesses during the pandemic. We've provided 51 billion dollars as part of the COVID-19 action plan and that includes the small business relief grant.  It's our duty Speaker to verify their eligibility for that program. And because we need to ensure that businesses who applied are in fact eligible they need to confirm that eligibility by providing correct documentation. And we are trying to speed up the review process by encouraging all businesses to respond to our requests for information submit a complete package proper CRA numbers proper banking numbers and we'll work hard to deliver those funds quickly while balancing the integrity of the taxpayer funded program. Thank you for the time for question period.


In the last lecture, we discussed about the energy of a system of charge particles and towards the end, I made some comments on the difference between the total energy that we calculate for a continuous charge distribution and the corresponding result that you obtained for discrete charge distribution. Today, we will continue with what is known as the self energy problem. So, let us look at what the problem is in a little more detail. We have seen that the energy of a continuous charge distribution is positive and that is because we had seen that the energy is given by epsilon 0 by 2 integral over the volume of e square d v. Now, this is an integral over a constant. The integral is always positive and as a result the integral always is positive. However, this contradicts the fact that supposing I had two opposite charges, since the interaction is attractive, the energy that I would get could be negative. So, therefore, when I have a discrete distribution of charges, the total energy could have either sign. So, what went wrong? What went wrong in this calculation? Now, this problem is generally known as the self energy problem and it would be good to spend a bit of time in understanding what really was the problem. First question is that we assumed that the point charges are given to us. In other words, no work was done in assembling the point charge itself. What we did is we assumed that somebody gave us the point charge and they were at infinity initially so that the interaction energy was 0. Then I one by one brought the charged particles and put them wherever they ought to be, but is there no energy required for creating the charge itself. Now, notice that if I take the discrete charge as charge which is distributed in a sphere of very very small radius. I will calculate the charge and then take the radius to go to 0. Now, we had seen that this then becomes epsilon 0 by 2 and 1 over 4 pi epsilon 0 whole square and the integral from 0 to infinity. I am putting 4 pi from the angle integration then of course, q square over r to the power 4 r square d r. Notice that in the lower limit this one diverges. In other words, the amount of work that I need to make that point particle coming to being is infinite and that is known as the self energy of the charge distribution. Now, this is the issue then. Now, let us then try to calculate using this expression that is epsilon 0 by 2 e square d v the interaction energy of two discrete or point charges.  How does it compare with what we know? So, notice that the electric field obeys the superposition principle. In other words, my electric field e is e 1 plus e 2, but when I take a square of that there is e 1 square plus e 2 square plus 2 e 1 dot e 2. Now, if you take the contribution to this integral epsilon 0 by 2 e square d q r from these two terms namely e 1 square or e 2 square this will each one of them will turn out to be infinite and the reason is not very far to see the electric field goes as 1 over r square. So, e 1 square or e 2 square go as 1 over r to the power 4 and when I do the integration over space I have only an r square here. So, as a result I am left with a 1 over r square which is to be integrated out and as a result the lower limit diverges. So, these are the self energy charge, these infinities are things which we neglect in our calculation and the reason is that in experimentally we only measure this difference in energy with respect to the self energy. Self energy problem is not totally understood, it continues to remain a mathematical prescription at this stage, but let us proceed with this. So, what happens our interaction energy which is w now I have to take the e 1 dot e 2 thing and. So, I have q 1 q 2 divided by 4 pi epsilon 0 whole square which is 16 pi square epsilon 0 square and there is an epsilon 0 on the top because of the expression w. So, there is actually an epsilon 0 by 2, but there is a 2 e 1 dot e 2.  This is not a very easy integration to do, but we can do it instructive and it also gives you some experience about to handle complicated integration.    So, this is what follows from the definition here. So, the interaction energy w is q 1 q 2 by 16 pi square epsilon 0 integral over all space.      So, let us look at what it is firstly let us observe what are going away. There are these r 1 minus r 2 cube. So, you have in the denominator and I made a mistake here. So, this should have been r 1 minus r 2 cube in the numerator. So, this would cancel with this one and this quantity is if you look at this is written properly in the screen. It turns out to be q 1 q 2 by this factor this of course, was there. So, let me let me copy it here. So, that we can understand it better. So, this is q 1 q 2 by 16 pi square epsilon 0 1 over r 1 minus r 2 integral over space. Now, notice one thing that in the previous expression I had these quantities that is I have vector r by r cube or here this is a vector. Now, what I will do is this notice this vector is along r 1 minus r 2 direction.  So, that the modulus of r 1 minus r 2 will come out.    This expression I will try to simplify by using some vector algebra and in doing. So, what I am going to do is this I am going to use an algebraic identity which is gradient of f dotted with gradient of g is given by del dot of f times gradient of g minus f times del square of g. This can be trivially obtained by using chain rule differentiation on del dot of f times gradient of g and I choose f is equal to 1 over modulus of r plus n and g to be simply 1 over modulus of r. Now, look at what happens this is del dot del. So, I get del dot of f gradient of g minus f times del square of g. So, coming back to the screen again I find that w int is q 1 q 2 by 16 pi square epsilon. Now, this term now which is let me write it down because there are some confusion there.  Now, this is something which we have been coming across regularly using divergence theorem. I can convert this integral to an integral over the surface and this surface since it is over all space is at infinite distance. So, therefore, I need the values of the functions there and. So, therefore, these will be will go to 0 and will vanish. So, what I am left with is this term and I know that del square of 1 over r is minus 4 pi times the delta function of r. This will enable me to do this integration and I will be simply left with 1 over modulus of n which is of course, equal to 1 and this factor minus 4 pi which will come there. So, using this you notice that the interaction energy turns out to be correct there is a minus here there is a minus there this term goes to 0. So, I am left with q 1 q 2 by 4 pi epsilon 0 r 1 minus r 2 as it ought to be in case of point charges. So, when we did discrete charges we went over to continuous charge distribution by making a prescription that 1 over q over r minus r 1 for example, we change this to rho d q bar over r minus r 1. Now, this prescription did not take account of the fact that in this term the effect of a charge at its own position is to be excluded. In other words this term had to be for r not equal to r 1 this restriction was removed there. In other words that when we went to the continuous limit the self field term which should have been taken into account has not been taken care of explicitly. So, why is it that for the continuous charge distribution for instance we worked out the energy of a uniformly charged sphere and we found this was a definitive positive quantity why what happened to the infinity there. The point actually is this there is an essential difference in physics of point charge which can be regarded as a delta function density that is no matter how small you take the extension of the charge is there is the charge still resides there. In other words the charge is contained in literally a 0 volume. Now, in a continuous charge distribution even though the density like in that example we had taken density to be constant, but I can take the limit of the volume element as small as I like and the amount of charge that will be contained there in spite of the fact that the density is non 0, but the amount of charge can be made to go to 0. So, as a result there is no self energy term there. So, therefore, whenever the charge density has a delta function like behavior I will get the self energy problem. Now, as I made a statement earlier that this self energy problem is not a completely understood problem, but this is the best that we can do at this stage. Having done talked about having talked about the energy of charge distribution let me now go over to a discussion of the electrostatic field due to a conductor. Now, you are all familiar with what is a conductor, but let us formally define it. Conductors as the name suggests are materials which conduct electricity. These are characterized by having free electrons which when subjected to a an electric field these they move inside the material. This when we say free electron what we mean is these electron electrons belong to the crystal as a whole and are not tied down to an atom. On the other hand there is another class of material known as insulators and we will be using the word dielectrics. And in these the electrons are bound to the atoms and when you apply an electric field from outside in though these electrons can be slightly displaced from their mean position. They still remain bound to the atom and as a result do not move around within the material. In other words they do not conduct electricity. In spite of the fact that all conductors offer some resistance to flow of electrons and all insulators to an extent may be a small extent conduct electricity. For our purposes I will assume that when I use the word conductor the conductivity is infinite. In other words it does not offer any resistance at all and likewise an insulator has 0 conductivity or infinite resistance. But we will continue to talk about it. Now, let us look at properties of a conductor. Now, I am talking about electrostatics. When we talk about electrostatics it means I am looking at a static phenomena. Now, if I am looking at an equilibrium situation there cannot be any electric field inside a metal. Why is it so? The reason is this that if you apply an electric field the electrons in the conductor being free would move around and this statement itself negates the fact that the system is in equilibrium. So, there cannot be an electric field inside a metal in situation of equilibrium. But what happens? There are electrons which are free, but we are saying on one hand if I have an electric field the electrons should be able to move around, but we are saying electric field inside a conductor should be 0. Now, conductors they respond to this situation in a very smart way. Almost as soon as you apply an external electric field the charges the free charges they move to an edge of the conductor. So, for example, suppose I take the careers or the free charges to be electrons which have negative charge. Now, if the negative charges move to one side the other edge becomes positively charged. Now, this implies that inside the material there is an electric field created which is opposite to the direction of the external electric field which is here and this happens practically instantaneously. Typical time during which such adjustment takes place is of the order of 10 to the power minus 16 seconds and this is the way the electric field inside the conductor becomes 0. Now, let us look at some consequences there. Now, if the electric field is 0 inside then you know that the divergence of the electric field will also be 0, but according to Gauss's law divergence of the electric field is charge density divided by the epsilon 0 which means charge density is 0. Physically this means that if you take any small volume inside the material there will be equal amount of positive and negative charges there in and these charges the free charges they would move to the surface of the substance. Now, we have said that the inside of the electric field by inside of the material has 0 electric field another equivalent way of making that statement is that the conductor is an equal potential because if the electric field is 0 the potential whose gradient is the electric field must be constant. Now, what happens on the surface? On the surface the charges are moved so obviously there can be electric field, but there are some restrictions. There cannot be a tangential component of the electric field on the surface, tangential means along the surface because if they did then equilibrium will be disturbed because the charges will be subject to such an electric field and move about. However, there is no restriction on a normal component of the electric field to be there on the surface. So, let us look at some properties of more properties of the conductor. . .Supposing I have a conductor which is shown here and we have seen that there are charges on the surface which is here. Now, I will take a Gaussian cylinder and as we did earlier half of that cylinder will be outside and half inside. I know there are electric field normal to the surface of the conductor assuming that the charges are positive they are directed outward from the surface of the conductor. So, the flux through this cylinder by Gauss's theorem is equal to 1 over epsilon 0 times the amount of charge enclosed and where is this charge enclosed? Charge is just enclosed in this cross section where this cylinder intersects the top surface. .. Taking the area of that patch to be a, if the charge density is sigma then sigma times a is the amount of charge contained there. Now, what is one thing? So, the flux is the electric field times the area and that is equal to the charge which is sigma a divided by epsilon 0 and that tells me that the electric field is sigma by epsilon 0. Now, remember there was no electric field in the bottom half and the electric field then has a magnitude sigma over epsilon 0 just outside the charge surface. I would like you to recall that earlier we had talked about an infinite charged plane and we had said that the electric field is sigma by 2 epsilon 0 going outward on either direction and the reason was the following that unlike in a conductor, when I talked about a charged plane then when I had the Gaussian surface from both the edges I had flux. So, that the total flux was e times 2 a and not e times a which gave me that half the sigma by epsilon 0, but there is no contribution to the flux from inside a metal because inside a metal or a conductor the electric field is 0. So, flux contribution is 0. So, this is the essential difference that is there. The next statement I want to make is the surface of a conductor is also equipotent. Now, you have seen that the electric field can exist on the surface, but then it has to be normal to the surface. So, if you take 2 points on the surface a and b the potential difference between those 2 points delta v is minus the integral from a to b of e dot d l. Now, if the potential difference delta v is a to be e dot d l you know that e is perpendicular to the direction of d l because e is normal to the surface and d l is on the surface. So, this is equal to 0 because electric vector is perpendicular to d l. So, for any 2 points a and b the potential difference is 0 which implies that the surface is an equipotent. Suppose, you take an irregularly shaped conductor then it turns out that the charge density and the field magnitude is the most that is the electric field is the strongest and charge density is maximum where the radius of curvature of this irregularly shaped body is the smallest. Now, I will not be able to give a rigorous proof of this statement, but it can be understood in the following way. Suppose, I take an irregularly shaped body I have so let me take them to be positive charges on the surface. Now, what happens is that the electric lines of forces are like this as has been shown in that picture. Now, notice that this body if you look at large distances it would appear like a point charge. Now, since it appears like a point charge the equipotentials are spheres. So, therefore, these spheres they are equipotentials and there will be collections of spheres system of spheres and supposing I am to draw these spheres around this and let me assume that these spheres will be drawn such that the corresponding potential is separated by an amount delta v. Now, as these spheres are drawn as I come close to this place where the radius of curvature is smallest then I expect I expect these spheres to be much closer than they would be here. So, the equipotentials will be such that they would be more concentrated near this left hand edge which means the electric field will be the strongest in this area a sort of qualitative argument, but for an irregularly shaped body this is correct. .. So, let us look at the few things about the conductors. First is we have seen that if there are charges they must reside on the surface you can see it even by from Gauss's theorem Emanian this is a metal and take a Gaussian surface which is shown in green completely inside the metal. Now, since the there is no electric field inside a metal the amount of charge that must be enclosed by this Gaussian surface must be equal to 0. So, therefore, the extra charges that are there they must move to the surface. Now, some interesting problems consider a metal a conductor irregularly shaped, but with a cavity inside and let us also assume that the cavity does not have any charge. Now, it follows that that in such a situation the inside surface of the cavity cannot contain any charge that is all free charges must go only to the outside surface. The proof of this is exactly the same as before take once again a Gaussian surface which is totally inside the metal which tells me once more that the amount of charge enclosed must be equal to 0 because the flux through such a Gaussian surface is 0 since the electric field is 0 which means no charge can reside on the inner surface. Look at this red contour which I have drawn. So, this red contour intersects the cavity at points p and q and I know that it is a property of the electrostatic field that integral E dot dl over any closed contour is 0. So, as a result since the for the part of the contour which lies only inside the conductor there is no electric field. The contour integral of the electric field is simply the integral from p to q of E dot dl and this is true for any arbitrary p q which is possible only if electric field inside the cavity is 0. Now, this is the principle which is adopted for making what is known as a Faraday's cage. This tells us that electric field cannot penetrate a metal. So, as a result if you want to insulate some particularly sensitive apparatus from external electric disturbances you should encapsule them inside a cavity within a metal. Now, situation changes if by some means we have been able to put some charges inside the cavity well it does not look like it can stay there like this. What it means is that there is an insulating handle by which it is kept inside the cavity. So, that it does not touch the sides. Now, supposing I am to take once again a Gaussian surface shown in green the this time the charges are enclosed within in spite of the fact that the flux is equal to 0. Now, if the flux is 0 the net charge enclosed has to be 0, but I have only a charge q there this implies that a charge minus q must come to the inside surface of the cavity. The last thing that I want to do is to look at a very interesting problem that if I have a charged surface in a metal it turns out that the surface experiences of force or a pressure there is an electrostatic pressure. Now, how does it work the if you look at this picture. Now, notice this that there is charge density everywhere. Now, let me mentally separate it into two parts. There is a small infinitesimal patch which I have taken here the charge density is same everywhere, but this is a very small patch of area let us say and I want to find out what is the force exerted on this small area. Now, where does the force come from I know a body cannot exert a force on itself.  So, now, what about what about the electric field what about the electric field here you have noticed that the electric field above the charge surface has two parts one due to local this localized charge small area and we had seen that now this is like we are trying to remove this part by creating a hole. So, as a result there is no discontinuity across this. So, this would mean that the electric field above would be the electric field due to the balance of these charges which I call as e external plus the electric field to due to this charge distribution which is sigma by 2 epsilon 0 k and below it is the same expression accepting now it is a e external minus sigma by 2 epsilon 0 k the e external is the electric field due to the rest of the charges there. So, this means that the force that is exerted on that small piece because it cannot it cannot exert a force on itself is nothing but the force due to what I have been calling as the external things but what is this external things if you just add up these two you find that the external field is nothing but the average of the field above and the field below. Now, this is something which I know how much it is this average field for a conductor surface is sigma by 2 epsilon 0 because I know that the field is sigma by epsilon 0 and 0 inside it is sigma by 2 epsilon 0. So, therefore, the pressure on the charge surface is sigma times the electric field which is sigma square by 2 epsilon 0 equal to epsilon 0 by 2 e square. So, let us look at what we have done today we first talked about the self energy problem. We realized that the discrete charge distribution differs from the continuous charge distribution because of self energy this is I repeat a rather difficult problem to understand, but it is good to realize that one can at least mathematically understand. We defined conductors and insulators and looked at the properties of the conductors as a special case we talked about the force that a charge surface of a conductor experiences. We found that the inside of a conductor is an equipotential the charges reside only on the surface the electric field can only exist on the surface and can be normal normal and because there is a charge sheet there is a discontinuity of the electric field between above the charge surface and below the charge surface. In the next lecture we will continue with the properties of the conductor by talking bringing in the concept of a capacitor.