Good morning, everybody. We are a little bit delayed, but we promise that we will at least try to compress our presentation as much as possible. So it's really a pleasure to be here, especially after all this crazy COVID times, seeing the people together. That's really wonderful. It's really a pleasure to be here. So my name is Michael Severa. And today, together with Semenicius, we will present the stuff related with addressing the GitOps. So the title is GitOps-based Cloud native 5GC lifecycle management. I think that we will have a lot of insights coming from our experiences during the deployment. But before, we'll start just a short intro and presentation. So once again, my name is Michael Severa. Actually, I'm not talking about the technology stuff. I play guitar. I am a physicist enthusiast. And I'm also a member of Open Networking Foundation. Actually, we did a lot of activities around open software, around the packet core with the first world deployment of the open source EPC. And now we are trying to continue this work also in the cloud native area. Yeah, hello. My name is Semenicius. I'm located in Brim, northern Germany. And yeah, I like coffee. And I like traveling and cycling. Actually, on an e-bike, but not because I'm lazy, but I like to cycle fast. Yeah, I recently joined the 5GC cloud native DevOps team. And yeah, all right. Perfect. Very good. So let's get started. Actually, the agenda for today is a sort of journey. And we would like to take you with this journey focusing on how we started and where we are today. So we will go quickly through an evolution of mobile core networks, then getting through the 5GC architecture, which we have. And then finally, focusing on the transition and the technical platform deployment. So that's basically the plan. Of course, we will finish with the Q&A session. So whatever questions you have, it will be a pleasure to discuss things with you. So let's start with the evolution of mobile core. Actually, I think that we hear the keyword transformation every five to 10 years. When I started my work at telecom industry like 20 years ago, that was a world of boxes. So basically, everything was a box and still plenty of people from that times, they are telling like, yeah, that's the highest quality. That was the very good sort of telecommunication, right? So that was a closed shop box, standard TCA or ATCA. And basically, that was a completely built ecosystem, including the hardware. Now, I think that a decade ago, we as an industry started this sort of transformation trying to get the benefits of the virtualization. So that was this famous moment of doing the virtualization. Actually, even in our company, in Deutsche Telekom, we started a program called PanNet with the ambition, actually, to move the telco platforms to this frame.  We had a box which was pretty much still owned by the supplier. OK, the technology was different, but the processes behind it, that was still pretty much the same. If you will go to the industry checking the things, you will easily discover that a lot of operators across the world, they have a box-based virtualized solution, which means from contractual perspective and process perspective, that's not significant difference compared to a world of previous generation of boxes.  And actually, that was a fantastic presentation from Cisco showing that 5G is actually an abler. And we consider it exactly the same, so we believe that 5G is the first platform which really gives the opportunity to do things differently. And that's the sort of cloud-native approach. Now, in order to understand what does it mean cloud-native, I would like to first of all state a following statement, which I always try to repeat, is that running application as a container does not mean that the application is cloud-native. And I think that is a fundamental statement. There is a lot of claims in the market that, hey, we are super cloud-native and we have a platform which is cloud-native. That's really not true. Cloud-native means it's no longer a box-based solution. And when I say it's no longer a box-based solution, it means that it's completely decomposed not only from a technology perspective, but also from the processes perspective. So if you will see here on this picture, you have a lot of moving parts. And those moving parts have different ownership. So actually, you have images, hand charts, pipelines. You have things like Kubernetes network policies. You have the things like RBAC resources. And of course, if you will go to the bottom, you will see that, OK, there are also platform as a service components, which are not coming from a supplier. They are generic. So definition of system is completely different. There is no longer a world of box. We are talking about heavily distributed system. And each of those components has their own lifecycle, which means, and that's a super important statement, is that there is no longer a concept like, yeah, let's freeze everything. Let's keep it, do not touch it for next half a year. Let's do big sort of testing. And then after this big sort of testing, let's do once upgrade. And we are done for one year. No. Actually, we need to enable the process to allow individual changes of individual platforms. So if you will travel with time, I love the movie Back to the Future, if you will do this traveling time and speak with the guys 20 years ago, that will be a total disaster for him. Because it means that potentially every week, every month, one of those components will be changed. So for example, you have a security vulnerability and you need to address it on a Kubernetes layer. What does it mean? It means that basically you will need to do a rolling upgrade. And there is a different state of the system after this change. And to cope with this, we need to remember, and I really highlighted, that the frequent changes are imminent part of the system. And I think that if I will try to compile the most important statement, which is showing the difference, that will be this one. So how to cope with a system which can change at any point of time, and you need to still be able to control quality, and you need to really be able to control the touch points. So I was mentioning this movie, Back to the Future. And I really like it because I think that essential part of the cloud native ecosystem is to have a sort of time machine. And Sami will explain the technical details of this later. But I think this analogy is really very well. So you should have the ability to put your time in back to time whenever you have an issue. So for example, you are doing an upgrade, or one of the components is being upgraded, and then you're saying, OK, we have a problem. You need to be able to automatically revert all the changes, not only in terms of configuration, in terms of everything, images, deployments, things like this. So I think that this one is showing the sort of challenge. Now, to go to the 5GC architecture itself, I was just showing the framework. Now, if we think about what does it mean in terms of complexity, we'll need to multiply this challenge by each of these platforms. So I think that the colleagues from Swisscom, they were mentioning the combo core-based upload. So converged core means 5G and 4G. And that's, of course, a natural way how you need to produce the service. You cannot just say, hey, I will just do the 5G part, and customers will be happy. Of course, it's not impossible, right? We need to have a converged core. So we need to take the previously, the legacy, which we really hate because those legacy, like LT, that was completely not prepared for a cloud native way of producing the service. So that increased the complexity even more, right? We have the components like AMF, which are pretty much prepared for the cloud native. But we need to support the components like MME. And if we go even more, actually, we have a lot of protocols which we really don't like. On the right side, on the slide, you will have a fantastic SBI stack, which we really love, because that's purely designed for a cloud native. If we have an HTTP-based REST interfaces, that's really fantastic. You can use Kubernetes ingress services. Kubernetes is basically designed for it, right? But if you want to produce the service containing both 5G and 4G, still you have interfaces like, for example, M3. And when we are saying about the interface, if we are discussing the details about the interface like M3, they are really far away for being a Kubernetes sort of compliance, right? The things like GTP and things like this, that's immediately enabling the light in our head like, OK, which means MUTUS, which probably means a couple of other things. Maybe in the future, doing things in smartNICS, but not today, right? So this complexity, actually, is because we have a lot of legacy in our backpack. So now, how to do this sort of transformation? Because I think that essence is really the transformation itself. And I really love the statement, the most dangerous phrase in the languages, we've always done it this way. I think that one of the biggest mistakes of the industry with the virtualization was that the people who tried to implement it, they had the mindset of boxes. And if we are smart enough as an industry, we should take the learning out of it and do not make the same sort of mistake. I think that trying to implement the cloud native with just keeping the same sort of box way approach would be a disaster. One of the examples which I can make is that I had a couple of colleagues and they were always asking me, but where is the command line? Where I can log into a box? And I'm saying, there is no longer a box until we will not get out from the side sort of thinking, like, okay, I need to upgrade side A, side B, and I need to move the traffic. That's really not cloud native. Of course, it is a journey. We will need to go to this. But I think that the holy grail of cloud native stuff is thinking beyond the sides. It's thinking beyond the boxes. And that's the essence. So from our perspective, the idea to make it happen was to merge two types of personalities. On left side, you have the telco experts. They know details about 3GPP. They know everything about architectures, complex interfaces, those kind of things. On the right side, you have typically young guys, and I see it also in the sort of community that we are sort of mixed, giving a fantastic experience about the systems related with cloud native. The question is, how to mix those two worlds together? Because in our view, doing it separately means, like, let the application guys, let the telco experts work completely separately out of the guys from cloud will not work. So we took the journey in a way like creating a team, trying to merge the skills, trying to put the experts from both domains. And what is really fundamental, let's do the clean approach. So in our case, when we tried to build this new solution, we had an idea actually to question every single thing from a legacy. One of my favorite examples is that IPv6. We always had this sort of debate like, okay, is IPv6 future or not? Yes, of course it is. So why we are using V4, right? In our deployment, we erased V4 completely, right? And if you will go to an examples, actually we were really successful to question the legacy things.  One of my favorite one is multipathing, which was designed conceptually like 20 years ago, where the world of boxes was. Now in the cloud native, that's completely irrelevant. It's like trying to port horse into a front of car, right? Because yeah, we had horses some years ago. And I think that the concept of questioning everything, doing a clean design and mixing the things is a sort of, was a sort of fundament in case of our approach. So if we will go further, actually comparing those two worlds, we believe that the fundamental thing is to be sure and to be aware about the differences. So if we think about the 5G, cloud native 5G ecosystem, we believe that the change is really an asset. So in a traditional world, and I know it from years of experience before, that was always the sort of big day. You are preparing for an upgrade, half a year you are doing a thousand regression tests with Spirant, and then there is a sort of big day like yeah, today we are doing a pilot and we are putting a new software and whatsoever, right? Here it's completely opposite. I mean, we are doing massive changes. We are doing changes sometimes, couple of changes even per week, but they are really small ones. And I think that the essence is to have the framework which really supports it. So from my perspective, once you have a framework which you can really trust, and it's not using the sort of brain interface, so protein-based interface like human beings for every single work order or change, you can really trust it. And then once this will be, this is set up, you have a lot of other benefits, like you can do small improvements, dynamic scaling, recovery of system. What I love in actually cloud native approach is that with this travel and time, you can say like yeah, I want to be again on Monday 9 a.m. with everything, right? And with GitOps, actually, that's possible. And imagine that you have a system which contains 10 sites, you just did something, and you would like to revert everything in 30 minutes. It's absolutely possible. In a world of legacy, typical behavior is that yeah, okay, we need to do redeployment, which means sending professional services on site or doing things remotely, but the long time, right? And I think that the fundamental difference is exactly that you have built in mechanisms to support this frequent changes. And in order to understand how we did it, it will be a pleasure to hand over to Sami. Sami was a significant contributor in the project. Actually, he forced a couple of solutions which we're very proud of. And Sami, the floor is yours. Thanks, Vita. Telecommunication, hardware and software specifically designed to support very strict requirements like 5.9's availability. On the other hand, IT hardware components are not specifically designed for takeover application, even that of high quality. DT's target is to achieve at least as good capacity, performance, and availability on the cloud as it is provided nowadays on traditional legacy or proprietary hardware. That's the reason why DT decided to build their own car solution, which is called Das Schiff, which means the boat in English. Das Schiff is a managed Kubernetes cluster service for takeover applications and it runs on any infrastructure. It is available in different region, different environments, and in every network segment where takeover applications are located. It is built with infrastructure orchestration in mind, using the cluster API framework, and there are two types of clusters, management clusters and workload or tenant clusters. And the management clusters manage the lifecycle of the workload clusters. So I would like to take the chance to advertise also the KubeCon talk from our colleagues on Friday afternoon. So if you would like to know more, especially on the networking part, then please make sure to attend this talk. And this picture is actually from them describing how they feel about telco workloads. Okay, so the next section, I would like to describe how we are operating the network in comparison to the legacy era, using all the benefits which we get from the cloud. This slide shows an overview about each layer used to build the five GC and F, the fundamental for the five GC and Fs. Due to the high demand of user plane traffic, it is absolutely essential for us to run on bare metal hardware. On top of that, the host OS runs with container runtime followed by the CAS layer, which includes Kubernetes as orchestration API. The past layer is mixed responsibility and we already got challenged several times in troubleshooting, identifying issues on the border between application and CAS. And components like observability and monitoring are managed SAS components by the shift. On the other hand, components like ingress or specific CNIs like already mentioned, MULTUS are brought and managed by the five GC DevOps team themselves. And on top of that, we are running all our five GC and Fs. Now I would like to explain the concept of rolling train. Rolling train means that we keep infrastructure, host OS, CAS and pass components on new software version. This is a big challenge for us as the environment is frequently changing. We need to implement nonstop testing and keep the impact on customer traffic at a minimum level while doing the upgrade. The big advantage is to release up-to-date product versions more rapidly and have them fixed according to customer and security demands. The next topic I would like to address is GitOps, which is a major part of the new operational model. So what is GitOps? GitOps means that everything we would like to apply to Kubernetes cluster is derived from a Git repository. The Git repository is defined as a desired state, whereas the Kubernetes cluster itself represents the actual or the current state. The task of the GitOps operator is to always make sure that the current state is equal to the desired state. This process is called Reconciliation and it's a fundamental concept how Kubernetes works internally. As developers, everything we do is based on two principles. Either we are changing the desired state in the Git repository or we are observing the current state on the Kubernetes API. And the GitOps operator is the only entity which applies resources to the Kubernetes API and all resources and also custom resources must, and I repeat, must be stored in the Git repository. So what do we gain from this? With Git at the center of operations, we increase the deployment frequency by on the same time decreasing the change failure rate. We reduce lead times and we have an increased productivity and maintainability through the usage of best practices like infrastructure as code or don't repeat yourself. We decrease the potential of human error as we have an improved data quality, accuracy and transparency through the removal of data silos. So this is the concept of single source of truth. Yeah. And the DevOps team can do merge requests to accelerate and simplify application deployments. So we are able to prove our takeover or to merge our takeover processes into the GitOps system. And there are many, many, many more advantages. So now I will give back to Michael. Thanks a lot, Sammy. So I think that the keyword of this part which Sammy presented would be reconciliation. You remember Steve Ballmer doing developers, developers. I think that we should do the same with reconciliation, reconciliation, reconciliation. Honestly, I think that reconciliation is the heart of this concept. If you have reconciliation for all the layers, for configuration, for images, for everything, then you are very close to a target concept of cloud. Because it basically means that sooner or later you could start to think, I don't care how many sites I have, five, 10, I have a full automation. So if I have a problem, actually I can revert to a day before with everything. And that's exactly reconciliation.  Or where is the documentation for our lost site? Oh, okay, maybe. And he's on holiday. Sorry, he cannot do it today, right? With GitOps actually, everything is documented. You can always revert to a state N minus one and you need to fully trust it. So I think that reconciliation is a keyword. Now in order to think about the sort of challenges, because you would say like, yeah, fantastic, wonderful. Actually just go for it and yeah, everything is simple. There are a couple of challenges and that's the last slide and after it we will go for the Q and A. But I would like to really underline those kind of challenges because we spent a lot of months actually or hard work facing those kind of challenges and I would like to share this sort of experience. So first of all, ISSU, so in software system upgrade is a sort of holy grail. What does it mean? It means that actually colleagues from Infra or we can do the rolling upgrade of the Infra or the upgrade of the application without even thinking that, hey, I need to move the traffic from one side to the other. That's the holy grail. Well, unfortunately, it's not so simple because we still have a lot of protocols as you remember from the slides before which are not cloud native. And it basically means you still will have a certain interruption of the traffic. So for example, if you have SCTP session on the NGAP level, so NGAP, which is application level interface for AMF, it will survive but SCTP will have a glitch, right? The second part is how to do it stateless. So imagine that you have millions of subscribers connected to your network and while they are using a service, you are doing an upgrade. So you are taking note by note by note which means that whenever microservices is being drained, the new one needs to fetch the last state from the subscriber and it needs to be smooth for the customer. Of course, it's a sort of holy grail. That would be fantastic. I could go sleep and say, hey, okay, rolling upgrade is happening itself. I don't need to care, but unfortunately we are not there yet. I think that for industry, this is one of the holy grails. And once we will do it, we will be really having significant benefits of running the cloud. Second part is configuration management. Configuration management needs to really follow these 12 factor principles. In the beginning of session, I think that there was this Q and A and someone was posting 12 factors. I believe that 12 factors is a hard of this. If the application is not fulfilling 12 factors, it's really not cloud native. It needs to really be completely separated from health charts. It needs to be separated from code and it needs to be stateless and that's absolutely essential. The next one, our famous example UPF, we have a lot of discussions like how to make UPF without relying on multis. And we believe that the holy grail is exactly to port the user plane out of it towards the smartNIC or maybe to a kernel leveraging then Kubernetes only for the control plane. And I'm absolutely sure that within the course of the presentation, this topic will be heavily, heavily touched.  In a world of boxes, there was a statement like have we completed all the regression tests? Yeah, project manager is calling and saying how much percentage of the tests you've completed or a famous management question. Well, guys, tell me how many of test cases you have automated? Well, in cloud native, this is no longer the question. In cloud native world, the question is, well, how many test cases you have automated for a root cause analysis? Because you need to run the test automation always continuously. And the fact that you will be having thousands of pickups from the results does not mean that you know what's wrong. So I will park with this one. I would love to have the sort of Q&A right now. Yeah, and that was basically it, what we prepared. Thank you very much. It was really a pleasure. Thank you.


So, let us try to bound this term here we have probability mu i hat minus log t divided by T of t minus 1 that being greater than mu i. So, just reorganize this in a format which is familiar to us want this to be. So, before we apply our concentration inequality on that we have to be bit careful. So, what we know about our if x is a sub Gaussian noise. So, if you have a n samples of the sub Gaussian noise or a samples from a sub Gaussian distribution and we want to know how is this quantity distribute how is how is this error probability we know the bound is like exponential if my distributions are all sub Gaussian with sub Gaussian parameter 1 then these are and this based on n samples we know this is the bound right which we have already shown. So, when we applied this concentration bound here we knew that there are exactly n samples that are used been used to estimate this parameter mu i the estimate mu i hat is based on n samples ok and then we had in this bound here ok, but I cannot treat in this case this to be an alpha in this case and apply a bound like this here. Why is that? Because this number of rounds here right this mu i hat is estimated based on this T i number of rounds sorry number of samples and this T i number of samples till round T minus 1 that is a random quantity it is not like a fixed one. So, I have to take into account this randomness in T i before I can go and apply this concentration bound here. So, how to do that? How to get rid of the randomness in this? So, one possibility is that you take all possible values that T i would can take and then use this bound on those specific values of numbers ok. So, what are the possible values of T i? We know that it has to be something between 1 to T minus 1 right because either I would have played one round at most or I would have at least or I would have played the same arm for all the slots till T minus 1. Now, taking that into account this bound we are going to write it as there exist S between 1 to T minus 1 such that mu i S minus mu i is greater than alpha log T divided by S here. Now recall the notation that I introduced at the beginning of the class what this mu i hat i S means this is that my the estimate for i thumb is obtained exactly using S samples and that is why this S is also coming here in the denominator. Now, given that S is a deterministic quantity here then I know how to apply my concentration bound on this, but before that I need to deal with this like this I have to since I am dealing it with all possible values of T S I have this. So, I am further going to apply union bound on this to get and now this is somewhat we know how to deal with this and this quantity is upper bounded as S equals to 1 to T minus 1. What is this? This is exponential and this estimates are based on S samples. So, this is S times and epsilon is this quantity here. So, I am going to take alpha log T by S and there is also denominator S here and this will give me S equals to 1 to T minus 1 after knocking of S. So, this will give me after simplifying I will get T to the power minus alpha by 2. This I could further simplify it as. So, I am adding. So, this S this is the T term here and the running variable here is S 1 to T minus 1. So, this term get added T minus 1 times. So, I will just make it this add this term for T number of rounds and I will get T to the power minus alpha times T this will give me T to the power 1 minus alpha by 2. Now, I am going to choose specifically alpha to be equals to let us say 6. Now, if I choose this alpha to be 6 this bound I am going to get is like 1 upon. So, alpha 1 by 3 and I am going to get it as T equal to 6. Now, what I am interested in? I am interested in now computing this probability now I have actually computed this probability in I have higher bound on this probability now through this and now I want to compute its value over T running from summing it over T from 1 to n. So, let us do that now. Now, so we have that T equals to 1 to n probability that I T equals to I and 1 holds we have upper bounded as T equals to 1 probability that 1 holds and this one we have already shown that T equals to 1 to n and this quantity is we have shown to be exactly upper bounded by ok. Now, so this series this series here when it is summated from T equals to 1 to n we do not have a closed form expression, but when we can bound it. So, when we bound it let us say by letting T equals to 1 to infinity we know value for this series and that is pi square by 6 ok. So, similarly you can verify this term here the second term here. By going through exactly the same stuff you can verify that this is can also be upper bounded similarly as pi square by 6 ok. So, now putting all these things in my bound on the expected number of pulls of I I will get expected number of pulls of I is what is u let me put it back the value of u I have used the u I have used to be this quantity plus the first term here ended up yielded me pi square by 6 and the second term also added a similar term. So, if I just simplify this this give me 4 alpha log n plus pi square by 3. So, finally, what we have shown here is the expected pulls of the suboptimal arm I is bounded by this quantity here that is 4 alpha log n by del I square plus pi square 3. Now, we are almost done like once we have this we know already how to get our regret bound right. What is our expected regret rather pseudo regret of policy u c b or n rounds we have denoted it we know that this is going to be expected number of pulls of I times delta I and this summation is over 1 I equals to 1 2. Now, I think I missed. So, when I when I remove this yield maybe I can add one here and this bound still holds. Now, plugging back the value of this from this I will now take anyway I know that del I is 0 for the optimal arm I will just skip that part. So, taking all the arms which are not optimal this bound holds and this bound is saying that this is like 4 alpha log n divided by delta I square to delta I plus summation I naught equals to I times delta I into pi square by 3 plus 1 ok. And just a simplification will give you this quantity here and recall that we got all of this by setting alpha equals to 6 in this fashion. So, if you plug it back here the bound I have here is finally, 24 times I naught equals to I star alpha log n by delta plus this quantity here. And further if you want to further replace suboptimality gaps of each arms by the suboptimality gap we have defined earlier this problem can be further bounded as this is going to be 24 times k minus 1 alpha log n by delta plus this one ok. And if you look in this problem in terms of n this problem is sorry I do not have alpha here I have plugged in 6 for alpha. So, this problem like grows like logarithmic in n and in terms of number of arms it is like grows like k minus 1 or like almost like linearly in k.  And if I write order wise in terms of my k and number of rounds this problem I can write it as this will order k times log n this we have already discussed when we introduce this algorithm. So, finally, we ended up showing that my regret of UCB algorithm is order k log n by delta or more precisely it is given like this ok. And it is clear that my UCB gives sublinear regret ok. Now, here the problem the regret bound we have it depends on the specific instant of the problem right. So, recall that we said that for a when we say a problem instance is fixed that is the mean values associated with the distributions are fixed ok. If that is the case once the mean values are fixed the associated gaps are fixed and this bound is in terms of this gaps and such bounds we call it as problem dependent ground or instant dependent bound. So, once you fix a problem here that is your bandit instance this del i's are fixed and you are expressing it in terms of those values. You may be interested in now knowing ok this bound is logarithmic in n when it the bound is expressed in terms of the problem specific constants. What if I do not know what what is the underlying problem instance and I want to get a bound which is holds uniformly across all the problem instances ok. Such bounds we are going to call it as problem independent bounds. Now, how to get a problem independent bound that is a bound which holds irrespective of what is your problem instances. So, that we can get by the same analysis, but bit exploiting our regret decomposition theorem a bit better. So, what is the regret decomposition result we have? We have that for any policy pi and n we know that the regret can be defined as where expectation of t i n is the expected number of pulls of i term right. Now, can we write this bound use this bound to get a bound which does not depend on this delta i's that is the problem instances ok. So, let us see how we can do that. So, this expected term here we are going to write it as t i n expected value of t i n this is just like rearrangement nothing changes here. And once I do this I am going to apply Cauchy-Schurz inequality on this by treating this quantity as let us say b i and by treating this quantity as a i. So, we and treating this a i as the ith component of a vector and that vector is of dimension k. So, treating this a to b a i and b to b b 1 b 2 to b k. So, this is like now where a i is defined like this and b i defined like this. So, this is a inner product between these two quantities and by Schwarz inequality we know that this is upper bounded by sum of square of this term right. So, because of that the first term is going to give me t i n i equals to 1 to n and the second term will give me i equals to 1 to sorry this should be k here i equals to 1 to k expectation of t i n times del i square ok. Now, I know that the expected number of pools of arms i when I summed over all arms it has to be equals to n right. And what about this term like let me keep it like that for time being now. Now, we have already the bound on expected value of t i n let us plug in that here. So, once we do that our bound is to be like n what is the value of k. So, I will again since for the optimal arm the delta is going to be 0 I will only consider i not equals to i star and for this we know the bound is like now again right delta i square plus i square 3 plus 1 right delta i square ok.  So, now, further simplifying it this will give me 4 k minus 1 sorry n 4 alpha log n plus n times this I will keep it just like that ok. So, now notice that this delta i square got knocked off with this delta i square term here and we are left with delta i only in this part of the bound here ok. Now, we are assuming that my distributions are all sub Gaussian right aftercentralizing them and each one of them without centralizing them they have their own mean and they have some associated sub optimal some sub optimality gaps here and because of my sub Gaussian distributed with the non centered version of this can any mean value which could be between 0 to infinity this del i's can also be any values any real numbers. But, however suppose we assume my problem class is such that all the distributed all the distributions are such that their support takes their support is over some fixed interval let us say the support of the distribution ok. So, because of this if this is the case then all mu i's are also in the interval 0 1 and so on delta i's ok. So, in this case we could further upon point this quantities by replacing this delta i squares by 1 and in we will get a bound which is so now for the class of all distributions for the class of my bandit instances where my distributions have this support 0 1. Now, we have this bound which does not depend on what is the particular problem instance from this class right and it this upper bound only depends on my number of arms this alpha whichever I chose in my algorithm and the number of rounds for which I run. So, such bounds we are going to call it as problem independent bounds that is if we can give our bound which does not depend on which particular instance of the problem we are talking about. The bound count so, just to be clear contrast this bound here with the bound I have got here for a special case of distribution with bounded support here my bounds did depend on my specific problem instance. The problem instance are coming through here delta i's and also or delta here whereas, this deltas are not here. Now, in this case in this problem dependent bound I we got a regret bound which is of the order k log n whereas, in this version of problem independent bound this regret is of order k minus 1. So, this is the main difference between problem independent and problem dependent bound. In the problem dependent bound the problem specific problem instance comes in the picture and usually we get a regret bound which is of the order k log n whereas, in the problem independent bound we will get regret bounds which is of the order square root n times k minus 1 ok. So, both of them are sub linear in this case this goes very fast when you divide by n it goes very it it decays very fast to 0, but this one bit decays slowly. So, that is obvious because you are this bound holds irrespective of what is your problem instance whereas, this bound does not depend this this depends on the specific problem instance whereas, this does not depend on which problem instance. So, this this holds uniformly across all boundary densities ok. So, we will stop here in the next class we are going to see whatever the bounds we have are they really optimal is UCB algorithm is really optimal or we should be thinking some better algorithms ok we will stop here.


the world really can feel like. And so what I thought on a poetry night to express a little bit of my encouragement for us not to sit and ponder and be so somber as we stare out into the universe and wonder if it hears us or if we're listening or if we should put our antennas up to hear God and you'll strike us by lightning and it will be blistering our skin as we're looking out at the world so vast and wondrous and we're wondering if we're here because of a reason or because of the season just brought our birth and wondering if we should be pushed to, or put our nose to the grindstone and instead we should realize that we just should roll on home and play till the cows come home too. And don't worry about the picket fence, we should stick it to the man, cause and hence and whence. We should play with our grammar too because we made that up once and we can make it up against. Maybe it's a part of our mind but we could see as we look into the sky and wait for the sun to fade so we can peer into the stars that this place is ours and it should be a place for fun and joy and we shouldn't be so worried about whose toy we're playing with or if I stole this pen from Berlin or if it's mine. You know what? I've found it and it can be a way to take what's in my mind and put it out and express it. I don't need to shout. I can play with me and we can play together and we can be playing full of whimsy if you can come and play with me. We can play with little doll bearings. We can play by taking apart things and staring them. We shouldn't be afraid to play. We shouldn't be afraid not to play. Anyway, so what I was thinking about doing was just coming up and improvising poetry to show you that we can all be poets and the simplest one is you're a poet and you don't know it. Don't be afraid to be cheesy. I learned this from the TV when I was watching some Tamillion movies. The three idiots. And they take it easy for the sea. Or was she? Or was she? You guys remember that? Because I do and it impacted me. I was on a bus in Kerala and everyone didn't care about a sight or a gaze. They were amazed and I was amazed because we could play for days and everyone was just dancing in the streets like no one was watching because maybe no one was watching. Who is one? Hmm. We're all basking in the sun. What's inside and what's out? You don't know until you show. Then you can hear your own echo. And you wonder if you're there or here or if you've even heard or heard. It doesn't really matter if you're weird. Let's go play with each other. In that kind of way. At all. At all. Well, that was more than that.


It is therefore now time for Question Period. The leader of the National Security Council. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The Premier has forced the Auditor General to essentially become a rubber stamp to allow clearly partisan government advertising to be approved. This is not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing and restore the Auditor General's oversight of government advertising? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I would just say to the member opposite that Ontario was the first and remains the only jurisdiction in the entire country that has legislation to prevent partisan advertising, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality. And while partisan advertising is now banned, it is still permissible and it will continue to be permissible and important for the government to inform the people of Ontario about initiatives that impact their lives. So let me give some examples of the kinds of things that people need to know about, getting the flu shot, updates to the sex ed curriculum, consumer protection, sexual violence and harassment awareness, organ donations, Mr. Speaker, and letting families know about our fair hydro plan is important too, Mr. Speaker. There are aspects of the plan, the increases to the Ontario Energy Support Program, better application-based, Mr. Speaker. It's important that they go to the website and that they understand what's available to them, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. The Premier says this government hasn't taken away the AG's oversight. Who do we believe this Liberal government, under multiple OPP investigations, or the Auditor General, who has clearly said that the powers have been stripped, that there's partisan ads running on the air right now as we speak. What fantasy world are they living in? They're running ads right now. They're abusing taxpayer dollars right now. They know it's wrong, Mr. Speaker, but this is a government that's had a history of abusing taxpayer dollars. So rather than pretend you have not stripped the Auditor General of that right to have oversight, will the Premier do the right thing and stop running these partisan Liberal ads at the expense of taxpayer dollars? Mr. Treasury Board. Yes, thank you very much. And you know government advertising plays an important role in informing Ontarians. And I think we all know that sexual violence has a devastating impact on the lives of victims and their families, and it's far too prevalent in our society. If you look at the Who Will Help campaign launched in March 2015, it challenged existing attitudes. And what were the results? Well, you caught yourself on an oops-site. I'm glad you did, because the member from Leeds, Grenville, will come to order. And there's a couple of others that are on the edge. President? Who Will Help campaign was viewed by over 7 million, generated more than 85 million views worldwide. But the important thing is there were results within six months, 55% strongly agreed that they had an obligation to intervene when witnessing sexual harassment. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, these are diversion tactics. They're mentioning ads that the Auditor General did not have problems with. What we're seeing right here is Auditor General has pointed back that the government took away oversight and is now taking advantage of that by running ads that are clearly partisan, that should be paid for by the Liberal Party, but instead they're charging to taxpayer. I don't want diversion tactics. I don't want talking points. They stripped the powers from the Auditor General to abuse taxpayer dollars for self-interest vanity ads. I'm asking the government to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, rather than talking points, yes or no, will you restore the powers of oversight that you took away from the Auditor General? Here you go. Can you say it, please? Can you say it, please? Thank you. President. Senator. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can then explain why they did not do the right thing in 2004 and voted against the bill that introduced the most stringent and limitations of partisan advertising in our province. Why did, Speaker, the member from Simcoe Gray, the member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke, the member from York, Simcoe, the member from Perrystown, Muskoka, the member from Haldeman, Norfolk, the member from Oxford, the member from... The member from Leeds, Grindel, Second Time, the Minister of Labour, Cumber Order and the member from Dufferin, Caledon. Finish, please. All these members I just named, Speaker, still serve in this legislation. They did not... You want to do that? I will, too. The member from Dufferin, Caledon, Second Time. As soon as I sit down, don't start up. Why did these PC members did not... did the right thing in 2004, Speaker, and voted for a bill that put an end to Mike Harris' style partisan advertising? Speaker, we all remember that our advertisement of Mike Harris where he flicked the lights off on Ontario and closed hospitals and closed school speaker. Thank you. New question? The Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. We have many great phenomenal physicians here today with Ontario Medical Association and I'm sure members across the aisle have been hearing from these physicians in communities across Ontario. I know I heard about the Canadian Institute for Health Information's annual report. The report revealed patients are waiting longer for cataract surgery. Last year, only 70% of patients had their surgery within medically accepted timeframes. This was down from 86% in 2012. The facts speak for themselves. Patient care is being diminished. Mr. Speaker, cataract wait times are getting worse, not better. How much longer is this government going to fail patients? Well, Mr. Speaker, let me... I know that the Minister of Health and Care is going to want to speak to this as well, but I just want to welcome the OMA and the members to Queen's Park thing. Doctors are an essential part of the healthcare system, Mr. Speaker. They're essential to the delivery of a strong and sustainable healthcare system. We're working to deliver on our mandate in healthcare, Mr. Speaker, to improve access, reduce wait times, improve the overall patient experience, and we want to do that in partnership with doctors, Mr. Speaker. So we are going to work to continue to improve that partnership. I look forward to having an opportunity to meet with some of the membership today, and I know that members across the House will be having those meetings, and thank you very much to the OMA for being here. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, it's a bit rich hearing from the government here today in the House when they vilify and disparage our physicians across the province. It's not right. Physicians devote passionately, dedicated in their work life to care for patients, and the reality is we have 29,000 doctors who go to work and put patients first, and this government is not putting patients first. I didn't get an answer about cataracts. Maybe I will in the second response, but what I want to know is what is this government going to do about the chronic underfunding of healthcare. Everywhere I go in Ontario, I hear about hospitals that are struggling to make ends meet. I hear about physicians who are really not helping yourself. Mr. Speaker, whether it's hospitals that are underfunded, whether it's nursing cuts, or whether it's physicians who have the biggest diminishment of morale because of this government's cuts, it's not right, and what I'm asking of the government is can I get an answer on the underfunding? And is there even one physician in this province that actually supports this government? The record in healthcare is embarrassing, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity to do a shout out to my dad. He's 91 years old, Mr. Speaker, and in Richmond Hill in 1952, Mr. Speaker, he practiced with three other doctors. He was on call every other weekend. When York Central Hospital was built, which wasn't until I was in my teens, Mr. Speaker, until then, he had his rounds at what is now Southlake, but was York County, Mr. Speaker, and we'd go up with him while he did his rounds, and we'd wait out on the lawn. Many Thanksgiving dinners, many Christmas dinners were interrupted by kids being born, Mr. Speaker, that he would go and deliver, because, of course, he was practicing during the baby boom. Mr. Speaker, I know exactly how hard doctors work. I know exactly how committed they are to the system, Mr. Speaker. Cedar, please. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, unfortunately, those roads, those words are hollow when you have a minister of health who disparages and vilifies physicians across the province. Those words ring hollow when you introduce health legislation routinely in the House and don't control. The member from beaches east York. Please finish. This government introduces health legislation and doesn't include doctors. They're not at the table. They have no voice. It's not right. For three years they've been working without a contract. You know, it's not a big secret that we have a pretty ugly relationship right now between the provinces, physicians, and the government. We have 29,000 hardworking doctors, and they deserve some respect. They deserve a voice. And what I'm asking the Premier to actually answer, if you're not going to answer my question on cataracts, can you at least tell us, Mr. Speaker, can the Premier at least tell us when physicians will actually be at the table? Question. Thank you. Mr. Health and Long-Toon Care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I too want to welcome Ontario's doctors, including medical students who are here today for many meetings with, and I encourage all of my colleagues on all sides of the House to take those meetings and listen to what the doctors have to say. But, Mr. Speaker, the Premier a number of weeks ago indicated that we were committed to binding interest arbitration. They were committed to making that the first item to be discussed when we sit down with our doctors, and I'm pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that last night those negotiations did begin with the first order of business to negotiate a process and an agreement for binding interest arbitration with Ontario's doctors so we can move forward to other aspects of hopefully an agreement with their physicians in the weeks and months ahead, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The cost of electricity has gone up over 300% under the Liberal government, including 50%, just since this Premier took office. Families, businesses, municipalities and public institutions like schools and hospitals are suffering under the crushing weight of their hydro bills. Yesterday it was revealed that the new CEO of Hydro One took home $4.5 million in 2016. Does the Premier think there's anything at all wrong with this picture, Speaker? Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm very concerned and have been for some time starting in 2013, Mr. Speaker, we were working to take costs out of the electricity system in order to reduce people's electricity bills, Mr. Speaker. We recognize that more needs to be done. That's why our fair hydro plan is going to take 25% off people's bills come summer, Mr. Speaker. And for people who live in remote and rural communities, Mr. Speaker, they're going to see a 40% to 50%. And Mr. Speaker, we're going to hold those increases for at least four years, Mr. Speaker. We understand that the improvements that have been made to the system had a cost associated with the, Mr. Speaker, and that's why the fair hydro plan is in place. That's why people will see the investments come summer, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, $4.5 million for the new CEO of the privatized Hydro One, which is 10 times more than the average of other hydro CEOs in Canada. If the Premier plans to pull Ontarians to see what they think of this $5 million CEO salary, she should save her money because I can tell her straight up people are outraged and they are insulted by this salary. Just situation. Minister of Energy? Minister of Energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pleased to rise and talk about this subject, Mr. Speaker, because I do know that the salaries are high and much higher than those of the vast majority of Ontarians. And I know Mr. Speaker, many Ontarians are struggling to pay their electricity bill and that's why we brought forward the 25% reduction for small businesses, farms and families, Mr. Speaker. But when it comes to Hydro One, Mr. Speaker, they've transitioned into a very good company, Mr. Speaker, a publicly traded company and not a government agency, Mr. Speaker. And let's look at what they've done over the last little bit, Mr. Speaker. They've made $60 million in productivity savings. They've improved their health and safety performance to the best on record, Mr. Speaker. They've advanced multiple initiatives for customers aimed at reducing their electricity rates, Mr. Speaker, and they took the initiative as well, Mr. Speaker, of reconnecting all of their disconnected customers back in December, Mr. Speaker. Now I know the majority of the executive compensation is contingent on meeting more... You are finished. I thought I was standing to get attention. Thank you. Final supplement. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that all of the benefits are going to the top executives and the shareholders of the corporation. But at the same time as the Premier is defending this $4.5 million CEO salary, her Minister of Energy seems completely comfortable with the idea that mandatory use pricing is no big deal. Talk about being out of touch, Mr. Speaker. $4.5 million for a CEO while this Premier is punishing parents for cooking their dinner at dinner time and seniors for staying home during the day. Does the Premier think this is the right thing for the people of Ontario? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we're pleased to act and help those families, Mr. Speaker, with a plan that's actually going to reduce their bills by 25%, Mr. Speaker. Not a plan that is pie in the sky, Mr. Speaker. Not a plan that's going to wait decades and decades before they'll even think about talking about helping low-income individuals, Mr. Speaker. We have acted. We have acted because we've listened to the people of Ontario and brought forward a plan that will reduce their bills by 25%, Mr. Speaker. That's significant when it comes to time of use, Mr. Speaker. Again, it shows that they have no idea on the system, Mr. Speaker. We are making significant savings, a 5% savings on conservation, Mr. Speaker, which then takes more cost out of the system, because we don't have to build more generation. It just shows that they're pie in the sky when it comes to electricity, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. You're my next questions for the Premier, but talk about pie in the sky. They didn't come anywhere near reaching the targets that they set in terms of taking energy off of PQs and conservation. I can't pretend what the facts are around here. Look, the Premier told Ontarians repeatedly that the government would be able to maintain control over Hydro-1 even when the sell-off was complete. If that's the case, and the Premier does have control over Hydro-1, why hasn't she done anything about the outrageous salary that the CEO is currently collecting? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are a shareholder in Hydro-1, Mr. Speaker, and that is something that is very clear. And when it comes to, again, Mr. Speaker, the importance of recognizing that, yes, these salaries are high, and yes, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that they are much higher than the vast majority of Ontarians. And we also know that Ontarians are struggling to pay, many Ontarians are struggling to pay their electricity bill. That's why, Mr. Speaker, we brought forward our plan. The Fair Hydro Plan is the single largest electricity bill reduction in our province's history, Mr. Speaker. We're making sure that low-income individuals will actually have their bills reduced by 25% plus, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Electricity Support Program, which will help them even more. Low-income individuals were not even mentioned in the NDP idea, Mr. Speaker. We're making sure we're helping every family in this province, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Somehow people are supposed to be happy that the Liberals have increased their bills by 275%, Mr. Speaker. I don't think they're happy about that. Look, if the Premier is unable to rate in the CEO's salary even when she says the government maintains control at Hydro One, can she explain to Ontarians why she has spent years trying to sell the clearly false idea that even when the Hydro One sell-off is complete, the government will maintain control of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know once again we've talked often about the sale of Hydro One and the benefits that we're going to be doing and investments and infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. But the one thing that, you know, the third party doesn't talk about, Mr. Speaker, is our government acting to eliminate coal. We now, Mr. Speaker, do not have coal part of our electricity system. And this morning, Mr. Speaker, we heard from kids. We heard from children that live in our province that now can actually go outside and play because we no longer have smog days, Mr. Speaker. Because of the investments that we've made as a government, we're actually benefitting families right across the province. And we recognize, Mr. Speaker, that that cost more. That that cost more, Mr. Speaker, $50 billion is what we invested to make sure that people can go outside and breathe. And while they wouldn't do that, Mr. Speaker, we did. And now we're making that as affordable as possible for people right across the province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Premier is defending a ludicrous $4.5 million CEO salary. She refuses to stop her wrong-headed sell-off of Hydro One even now, even though it's now very, very clear that the government will have no control whatsoever of this new corporation. She and her minister clearly do not understand the struggles that families are facing with time-of-use pricing. When will this Premier show Ontarians that she is actually serious about more than buying support for the next election in the face of sinking pool numbers, do what's right for the people of Ontario, not her political party, and stop the disastrous sell-off of Hydro One? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's under the leadership of this Premier, Mr. Speaker, that we are investing in infrastructure right across the province, Mr. Speaker. It's under the leadership of this Premier, Mr. Speaker, that we are reducing bills by 25% on average, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we can continue to talk about the investments that we made, we spent $50 billion, Mr. Speaker, investing in a system that was left in tatters by both opposition parties, by freezing rates, cancelling ideas, not moving forward at all, Mr. Speaker. They kept kicking the curb, kicking to the curb the electricity system. We didn't do that, Mr. Speaker. We invested, we built a clean system, a reliable system. Thank you. My question is to the Premier. The Liberal government has waged an ongoing battle with Ontario's doctors. Many times, they've created the illusion that doctors' billings equal their take-home pay. Instead of working with doctors, time and again, the minister and this Premier have unilaterally cut patient services and attempted to blame the doctors for this government's own mismanagement. With the OMA present here today, will the Premier stand up and apologize for a government's treatment of doctors in this province? It's a long-term care. Mr. Speaker, I'm encouraged, greatly encouraged that a number of weeks ago the OMA named a new negotiating team for themselves shortly thereafter, the government named its new negotiating team. The Premier and I expressed our commitment that the first order of business as part of negotiations of that first episode of sitting down at the table together, that episode that took place last night, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, that the first order was to agree on a process for binding interest arbitration. We're confident with this renewed spirit of collaboration, with the commitment that the Premier and I have made with the, quite frankly, the talented and committed individuals at the table, I think both Ontarians and the membership of the OMA can be satisfied that we have the right people at the table, I believe, to truly work together on this challenging but attainable task, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker, back to the Premier Speaker. Where was this talk three years ago before they started the vilification of doctors? Why weren't they doing this three years ago, Mr. Speaker? Recently it was revealed that the government created their negotiating strategy through polling and not what was in the best interest of patients. Everything they did through the media was calculated to sway the public's opinion against doctors. Instead of working with the OMA to find a solution to benefit patient care, this government spent a lot of money on polling and to buy schemes to vilify the profession. Speaker, according to the financial accountability officer, this government will need to cut an additional $2.8 billion from the healthcare system. Is this Premier going to base her decisions on current polling numbers or work with the frontline healthcare professionals and make the best decisions based on patient care? Thank you. Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, that question had so many parts to it. It's easiest. I'm going to go back to the initial question from the leader of the opposition where he referenced wait times in this province and he referenced the Kaihai report that indeed I know he cherry-picked from it. There is more work to be done, but hip replacements, 85% of Ontarians have their hip replacements completed within the medical benchmark. 6% higher than the national average. Knee replacements, 12% higher than the national average. 99% of radiation therapy in this province marks the lowest wait times for MRIs, CT scans, the shortest wait times from GP to specialist, from specialist to treatment. On average, Ontarians are receiving care more than four weeks earlier than the national average. We have some, if not all, of the shortest wait times in this country, wait times for general surgery have gone down by 13% for medical oncology down by 39%. We have done this, Mr. Speaker, because of our doctors, because of all those healthcare doctors. Thank you. You worked so hard. Can you see the please? Can you see the please? New question, the member from London West. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, today, OSSTF released findings from its study on violence in the workplace. Findings that echo earlier and equally shocking results from ETFO. 41% of OSSTF members reported an increase in violent incidents in their schools over the last five years. None said that violence is decreasing. Yet in this context of rising violence, four out of five OSSTF members were either unaware of or unable to access violence reporting forms. And more than half said that they are often pressured not to report a violent incident. After five years, the situation is worsening, not improving. What will it take for this government to show education workers that it is serious about protecting education worker health and safety? Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the member opposite who is the critic for education for this very important question. Mr. Speaker, under no circumstances is violence acceptable in our schools. We want our schools to be safe and healthy places for students, for teachers, for education workers. And that's something that we want to make very, very clear. Mr. Speaker, I've met with the membership of OSSTF and I've been very, very clear with them that I recognize that we have to take this very seriously. The concerns around reporting that the member opposite asked, I am concerned about that. We want to ensure we create a culture in our schools that promotes safety and that's what we're working towards and working together with OSSTF on that. Thank you. Supplementary. Speaker, the numbers from OSSTF and ETFO are alarming and provide an urgent call to action, action that is needed across ministries including education, labour, health and children and youth services. OSSTF reports that in at least one classroom per board per day, a student is removed due to a violent outburst. The mental health needs of both students and education workers are being ignored, putting young people and education workers at risk. Yet 25 school boards are receiving 8 million dollars less funding in special education grants and school staff with specialised mental health training like psychologists and social workers are being cut. Speaker, how does the Premier plan to make schools safer when she won't even provide the basic supports that students need to succeed? Mr. Speaker, we are working with all of our partners in education. We have a provincial health and safety working group that is strengthening the culture of training and access to information to staff on violence prevention. For example, we have designated one half of a PA day. Finish please. Mr. Speaker, we have designated one half of a PA day for our elementary teachers this past year for health and safety training. We have also added new mandatory content on supporting students with special needs in the enhanced four semester teacher education program. Mr. Speaker, here is what we are investing in special education. We have increased our investments by 70 percent to 2.7 billion dollars. We have increased the number of education assistance by 6300 Mr. Speaker. We know that there is more that we need to do on this issue and that's why we are working together across all aspects of the sector including with the Minister of Labor to focus on this issue. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Our government realizes that students should be able to access our government realizes that students should be able to access higher education based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. We know that making post-secondary education more affordable is part of our plan to grow the economy, create jobs and build an inclusive future for Ontario. We have heard about exciting changes to OSAP this past year to make OSAP more generous for all students across the province and I have had the opportunity to share with other students in Davenport. Could the Minister give this house an update on how the OSAP changes are progressing? Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member for Davenport for this very important question. Just this morning, the Premier, the Minister of Education and I were at Bishop Morocco Thomas Burton Catholic Secondary School to launch the new OSAP application. Starting this September over 210,000 students in this province will have free tuition. Their grants will be greater than the cost of their tuition. Post-secondary students in Ontario will have free tuition and many middle income students will have more generous student assistance than they have ever had before. The changes we have made are truly transformational. Here's our new deal with students. You work hard, you get the marks, you get accepted to post-secondary and we're going to make sure that money does not prevent you from achieving it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development for her answer on the great news for all students across Ontario. I've heard the Premier say many times that Ontario's advantage is our people. I know that this means ensuring that our people have the best available opportunities to access education. However I know for many aspiring students including those from my riding of Davenport and especially folks who are returning to school as adults the cost of going back to school can't be daunting, not to mention confusing. With all these grant improvements to OSAP what are we doing to make sure people know how much help they can get. Thank you Minister. Thank you Speaker and I confess to showing the OSAP calculator on Ontario.ca OSAP to anybody who will let me show them that. Speaker what it demonstrates is that there's tremendous support available for students. It means changes for everyone but especially mature student speaker. They're eligible for more grants than ever before. Let me give you an example. If you go to Ontario.ca slash OSAP this is a calculator. It will show that if you're a single parent you've got three kids, you earn $60,000 a year and you're going to college. You're eligible for grants, totaling $16,000 speaker, way more than tuition and an additional $8,700 in loans if you want them speaker. So tuition is also support for your family. For these changes to have the impact we need them to provide. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister of energy. People across southwestern Ontario were shocked when the parliamentary assistant to the minister of energy commented on greenhouses moving from Ontario to Ohio saying and I quote part of what caused them to move were the high levels of poverty. I'm actually astounded Mr. Speaker by his comment because our area has always been high in humidity. Humidity that's not the deal breaker. The cost of energy is the deal breaker said Jim Domenna president and CEO of red sun farms. Speaker to the minister why is this liberal government spewing hot air greenhouse relocations and lost investment? Minister of Agriculture Minister of Agriculture for his question the sporting last Thursday I had the great opportunity to be in the wonderful riding of Durham with my colleague Mr. Anderson to announce a 19 million dollar support package for the energy in the province of Ontario. That's real support. I am very pleased to share this information with my fine colleague from Chatham Ken Essex. Ontario's green house sector is a major contributor to environmental economy. We appreciate the government of Ontario's support and recognition of the need to support the continued growth of our sector, its capacity to reach jobs, drive exports, provide a reliable supply of locally grown green house products. Thank you. Back to the minister I'm not sure which one. Support package is probably code for life support. Deniro farms in Leamington use less natural gas this past February 2016. The result? The bill more than double. Of course there is no line item on natural gas bills showing the new cap and trade cost. Kind of makes me wonder if the government lobby the OEB to bury the costs in the delivery charges. But thankfully Mr. Speaker Union Gas created an online tool which determined Deniro farms paid over $15,000 in cap and trade costs bringing a monthly bill to just over $30,000. So to the minister Mr. how can Deniro farms and other greenhouses cope after this government more than doubled their natural gas bills? Well Mr. Speaker I want to thank the honorable member for supplementary because I have some more quotes. Here's one from George We are extremely pleased with the announcement made by Minister Leal today. We are very optimistic with the prospects to continue our work with the government to determine how we can assure a vibrant and sustainable future for our province and greenhouse sector. It's better than that. Today's announcement confirms the government of Ontario's understanding of the green house contribution to the economic success job creation, productivity and world competitiveness. This budget announced by Minister Leal our Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will help keep our quality growth in Ontario products as the first choice for North American consumers. Thank you Mr. Speaker Health care in Ontario is at a tipping point. Families and seniors need the premier to cut wait time to stop overcrowding in our hospital. But instead of listening this premier has let us all down by doing tremendous damages to the relationship with the good doctors of Ontario many of them are with us today. This morning we've learned that the premier actually spend money on and get that speaker, not one not two, ten polls to try to win her war with the doctors. Does this premier think it is right to spend public money on polling and on PR when every dollar should be going to good health care for the people of Ontario? Mr. Speaker I appreciate the question and to be honest I think the party opposite wants it kind of both ways. They constantly are asking us and reminding us to speak to us, to consult with them on the direction that our government is going and the policies we should implement Mr. Speaker. Minister and Mr. Speaker when the Ministry of Health consults with Ontarians across the province in person, online through letters, through polls we do it in a variety of ways on a myriad of issues Mr. Speaker can inform us on the best ways we can put patients first in the province they complain. This method of reaching out to Ontarians is important and happy to talk more in the supplementary. Thank you Speaker back to the premier people want shorter wait times they want faster appointment with their doctors but instead of solving the overcrowding in our hospital froze funding for four straight years instead of working with the good doctors to improve care the premier made unilateral cuts to physicians funding instead of cutting wait time this premier is watching the ER wait grow longer than they've been in a decade and instead of putting every dollars into better frontline care this premier is spending money on polling on PR to help the Liberal Party why does the premier think her job is to put the Liberal Party first and the needs of patients at the back of the line Mr. Speaker we continue to make substantial progress on wait times and I have to counter the myths that the opposition member is perpetrating a recent Fraser Institute report concluded that Ontario has the shortest wait times in the country wait times more than four weeks lower than the national average with ER our wait times for the sickest patients have been cut by 29% while volumes have in fact increased by 40% ER waits for the least sick have been cut by 15% the wait time alliance report card on wait time straight A's for Ontario by the way notes that Ontario continues to receive straight A's for wait times for cancer radiation coronary artery bypass graph Ontario by the way was the first to measure wait times in many important areas we were certainly the first when it comes to either the PC party or the NDP party that didn't bother to measure wait times at all Mr. Speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the minister responsible for early years of childcare providing a barrier we are lucky to have a great early childhood education program at Georgian College but I have heard from many students that they are finding it hard to be motivated to pursue their passion of becoming an ECE they're concerned about the low wages in the field and worried they may not be able to pay for their student loans or even for their own families childcare needs average salaries for ECE graduates have increased from the past five years to $31,000 however they are still lower than the average salary of college graduates which is $35,000 making recruitment and retention of ECEs difficult for childcare operators as a student and graduate this may be discouraging can the minister responsible for early years of childcare tell me and my constituents what is being done to ensure students pursue their educational passions that's why the minister is responsible for early years of childcare thank you speaker and thank you to the hardworking member from Barrie for this very important question speaker we recently held public consultations across the province on childcare and heard from many early childhood educators about the challenges that they face when it comes to low wages that's why that's why we're investing in these professionals so our government is supporting a wage enhancement for eligible providers working in licensed childcare and we're ensuring there's ongoing annual funding so for 2017 the ministry is allocating more than $188 million to support the wage enhancement and the home childcare enhancement grant that means eligible staff and home childcare providers can receive a wage enhancement of up to $2 an hour plus 17.5% in benefits and eligible home childcare providers working with an agency can receive a grant of up to $20 a day Mr. Speaker these investments are part of our plan they're the right thing supplementary thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the minister for the answer a wage enhancement is a step in the right direction I'm glad to hear that our government is helping those who are ready to enter the workforce and who are passionate about their careers it's important that we recognize the value of those who are shaping and caring for our youngest learners and it's equally as important to make sure we retain the hardworking professionals who are already doing this crucial job they are the front lines of our child's path through education can the minister tell me more about what she is doing to help encourage early childhood educators to stay in this field thank you Mr. Speaker and I'm pleased to answer the members question speaker our government has committed to creating new licensed spaces for a hundred thousand more children over the next five years just think about that this is not only an investment in our children's future it's an investment in our economy and in Ontario families because with the addition of a hundred thousand new spaces we will see an estimated 20,000 new ECE positions created in Ontario that's 20,000 new jobs speaker through the wage enhancement this new job creation we can help create and close I should say the wage gap between registered early childhood educators working in kindergarten and childcare professionals working in licensed child care settings we will also stabilize licensed child care operators by helping them keep their ECEs and other child care program staff and we will support more employment and income security but speaker this is about laying a foundation that will put our children to success on March 7th the Minister of Agriculture spoke about Canadian agriculture literacy month and the importance of educating young people about opportunities in the agri-food sector but there was a glaring omission in 2015 I brought forward a motion growing agri-food jobs which passed with support from all parties speaker it recommended that the government add a component to the grades 9 and 10 careers and guidance curriculum on agri-food career opportunities sadly speaker the minister failed to mention what progress has been made on implementing it when he gave a speech we all remember when the premier issued the agri-food job challenge but due to inaction the Canadian agricultural human resources council is now warning that there will be a significant labour shortage by 2025 in light of the Canadian agricultural literacy month will the premier commit to seeing this important component of the curriculum implemented in time for the next school year minister of agriculture food and rural affairs minister of agriculture food thanks so much mr. speaker and I want to appreciate the question from the honourable member this morning and I know her long time commitment in improving agriculture literacy in secondary schools right across the province of Ontario with regards to the agri-food challenge the premier gave us a challenge to create 120,000 new jobs in this sector by the year 2020 I can report to you mr. Speaker and all members of the house today that we're well on our way to meeting that goal we've created 42,000 jobs today and so if you extrapolate that we will meet that target by the year 2020 but more importantly mr. Speaker every day as I'm travelling across the province of Ontario when I've been community colleges to see their graduates when I'm at the University of Guelph to see their graduates everybody's looking forward to careers in agriculture in the province of Ontario Speaker no one believes or trusts that minister back to the premier when I met with the president of the treasury board when I met with the president of the treasury board she assured me my motion would be considered just last week the minister of education proved that she can quickly jump to task when she announced the financial literacy pilot project why is the premier, the minister of agriculture, the president of the treasury board, the minister of education and the entire liberal cabinet choosing to ignore the needs of Ontario's agri-food sector there are two and a half days left in the agriculture literacy month so will the premier commit to adding agriculture to the guidance and career curriculum thank you the sector you guys have had control of it well Mr. Speaker the history from the members of that side is really quite fascinating what this government proposed what this government proposed the member from here Bruce asked the question I'm sure she wants to listen to the answer Mr. Speaker when this government proposed a number of years ago to create a $100 million risk management program to support those farmers in the province of terro that were not covered by supply management they voted against let them down again so every time we bring new innovations to this house to continue to grow a sector that generates $36 billion to Ontario's GDP Mr. Speaker thank you Mr. Speaker thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the premier skyrocketing hydro costs have made it more expensive to take the TTC last year the TTC's hydro bill was up 13% from the previous year even though it used about the same amount of electricity since the current premier assumed office ago the TTC's hydro rates have gone up by over 40% the premier said she wants to fix this quote unquote mistake but the TTC will not see the 25% in hydro bill reductions that she's promising in ads ads by the way paid for with public dollars why did the premier exclude the TTC from her hydro plan Mr. Vanity thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the honourable member for the question Mr. Speaker when it relates to Ontario's fair hydro plan the first thing I think it's important for me to say about the TTC is that every rider on the TTC will be getting that 25% reduction Mr. Speaker and on top of that every single individual in Ontario's 444 municipalities will benefit from Ontario's fair hydro plan but when it comes to the city of Toronto the TTC is part of Mr. Speaker they're going to see a 2 to 4% reduction in their electricity bills Mr. Speaker that's a modest reduction I know Mr. Speaker but there are also many other things that we do for municipalities and we have many other programs that actually also help municipalities manage their energy costs Mr. Speaker for example the Ontario municipal energy plan program provides funding to municipalities to help them plan for more efficient energy we also helped with $92 million from the green investment fund Mr. Speaker to help with other energy supplementary thank you again back to the premier Mr. Speaker I repeat the TTC's hydro rates have increased by more than 40% since the premier assumed office four years ago the premier's hydro plan will make bankers rich but it won't do anything to rain costs of privatized hydro which is making everything more expensive the premier's plan won't lower the TTC's hydro bills by 25% or even 17% why is the premier spending public dollars to promote a hydro scheme that makes bankers rich while allowing the TTC's hydro rates to keep rising out of control driving up fares and making life more expensive for transit riders minister of transportation for transportation I thank the member opposite for her questions today and I can understand from the tail end of the second question at the root of what she's asking about it relates speaker of course to making sure the transit in Toronto and transit right around the province of Ontario is not only there but that it's accessible and affordable and the city of Toronto knows I've had the opportunity to say this repeatedly in this house and elsewhere there is no government in Ontario history that has done more to support public transit in the city of Toronto and in the other 98 communities across Ontario that have transit then this government under the leadership of our premier speaker that member knows just a number of weeks ago we announced that we'd be doubling the provincial gas tax program over the next four years for a government with more than今 to all of the communities that have transit systems will keep building and getting it right thanks Mr Speaker my question is to the minister of seniors affairs minister I want to again congratulate you on becoming minister for Ontario's first ever ministry of senior leadership towards care for seniors. Minister, I know that you have been very busy in your new portfolio and you have travelled all across the province, including visiting Christine McMillan and the Oasis Group in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. Yesterday, as part of Bill 87, the Seniors Act of Living Centre Act was introduced in the House. If passed, this act will be a stronger, more flexible legislation than the current Elderly Person Centre Act. This is great news for the over 260 existing centres that provide services to over 100,000 seniors. These are important and timely changes. And I'm hoping that the Minister can share more information. Thank you, Speaker. And I want to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for the important question. Mr Speaker, our proposed Seniors Active Living Centre Act was developed in recognition of the changing nature of demographics in Ontario. Mr Speaker, over the next 25 years, the Seniors population in Ontario is projected to double to 4 million people, and it's important that people are able to age in our province in a way that allows them to be active, healthy, safe and socially engaged. And Elderly Person Centres play an important role in this. This act, Mr Speaker, aims to modernize the framework for Elderly Person Centre, so they reflect the realities of today's seniors better. One very symbolic change, Mr Speaker, is that all of our demand, we are renaming the Elderly Person Centres to Seniors Active Living Centre. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. And I want to thank the Minister of Seniors Affairs for her answer. This sounds like great legislation that I'm sure that all members in this House will get behind. I have no doubt that the Seniors Association of Kingston Region in my riding will be pleased with the changes. With 675 dedicated volunteers, there's a spectacular number of dedicated community partners caring for our community seniors in Kingston and the Islands, and I'd like to extend my warmest thanks to their continued effort and passion. But Minister, I would have to ask, how did you determine what changes you would want to make to the current legislation? The EPCs serve people of different backgrounds, of different levels of health, skills and education, of differing interests, and speaking different languages. They also have a large range of program flexibility. Seeing how this program affects seniors across the province, from Wawa to Windsor, our city and rural community, how did you strike about it? Minister? Speaker, and I again want to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for her great question. Her question was, how did we determine what changes to make to the Seniors Active Living Act? And Mr Speaker, the answer is very simple. We went to the seniors of Ontario through surveys, consultations and stakeholder input. We were able to hear from almost 80% of the elderly person's centers soon to be renamed Seniors Active Living Centers and got a full picture on how to move forward with improving the program and the enabling legislation. Some of the proposed changes include empowering local communities, opening the program to potential future partnerships and reducing the administrative burden. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Speaker, today's Queen's Park has been again visited by disease sufferers who continue to wait for provincial approval of a life-altering treatment that's already been given the go-ahead by Health Canada. Speaker, sufferers of polycystic kidney disease, PKD, deal with the painful effects of tumors that can swallow impacted kidneys up to the sides of a football. Last year, Health Canada approved the first-ever PKD treatment and yet Ontario has refused to cover this treatment under the public drug plan. Speaker members of the PKD Foundation are meeting with the Minister's office today and some are here, of course, in the gallery. Will the Minister tell these patients why he's not covering the treatment that they so desperately deserve? Thank you. Thank you, Minister of Health. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the question and I welcome those who are here today to speak about polycystic kidney disease, which is indeed unfortunately prevalent, all too prevalent, but also very challenging condition for anyone to have. I think the member opposite should know by now, Mr Speaker, that there's a process in place that the Health Canada approval for a drug generally for a specific indication is only the first and one step in a multi-step process. At that time, once it's approved by Health Canada, there's a requirement that it be examined for evidence of its effectiveness, its efficacy, and that historically used to be done separately by each province and territory. Now we've created a process in fact that's done nationally one time and that's the process that we're applying here to review the evidence after Health Canada's approval to establish its efficacy. Supplementary. Yes, Speaker. We understand that this treatment is not for every patient. However, PKD sufferers are here today with doctors who have outlined exactly those that would benefit and yet continue to wait for this important treatment. We've seen this story before. Rare disease sufferers continue to wait for action from the minister's so-called working group that he used to shoot down our call for a rare disease select committee. While our committee would have been completed its work by now, we still await word of the actual work from the minister's working group even though we hear the report is in fact sitting on your desk. Rare disease patients are tired of waiting and PKD patients need answers. Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit today to approve treatment for those PKD patients that will benefit from this important treatment and table the report his working group has completed? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assume it's Gennark that the member opposite is referring to. He's nodding his head. So it was reviewed by that national process, the common drug review. In fact, the common drug review recommended that Gennark not be listed for the treatment of polycystic kidney disease because it was not shown to definitively improve relevant outcomes and patients with that disease. Additionally, the common drug review noted a number of safety concerns associated with the drug including liver injury, low sodium increases in uric acid and gout, polyurea, thirst and skin cancers. So it's important, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we take the politics out of this. We leave it to the clinical experts, the frontline doctors, the scientists, the academics to review the evidence. They've invited the manufacturer, in fact, to come forward if they have additional evidence, but in the spirit of collaboration and transparency, I've identified specifically why that negative recommendation to date has been. Thank you. We have a preferred vote on the motion of second reading of Bill 111 in act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2017. All in the members, this will be a five-minute bell. All members, please take their seats. On March 28th, 2017, Ms. Sandals moved second reading of Bill 111. All those in favor, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk. Ms. Sandals. Mr. Sandals. Mr. Nacky. Mr. Nacky. Mr. Del Ducca. Mr. Del Ducca. Mr. Sousa. Mr. Sousa. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. are 42. The ayes being 51 and the nays being 42 I declare the motion carried. Bill Duzan lecture due. Order G111 third reading of bill 111 and act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31st 2017. Mrs. Sandles. President of Treasury Board. Speaker I move third reading of bill 111 and act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31st 2000. Mrs. Sandles moves third reading of bill 111 and act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts of fiscal year ending March 31st 2007. It's a pleasure house motion carry. I heard you know all those in favor please say aye. Hose say nay. In my opinion the ayes have it. Calling the members this will be a five-minute vote. Same vote. Same vote. The ayes are 51 the nays are 42. The ayes being 51 and the nays being 42 I declare the motion carried. Third reading of the bill was an election to present the law. Be it resolved that the bill now pass and be entitled as in the motion. There are no further deferred votes this out stands recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.