Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's case breaks calm coming at you with 2023 tops gilded collection baseball six-box full case pick your team a number eight There's the case right there. We're doing all six boxes a very big. Thank you To this group right here for making it happen Monday the 23rd pick your team eight Danny with last spot mojo diamond backs. Good luck Danny They're the rest right there. You can see we pulled 13 teams out For the random number block randomizer. We did that in a separate video, but here's everybody else right here Thank you. Thank you. Thank you're the results of the number block Mostly Danny's we got some David in there as well. Good luck to both of you So it's a 13 team number block featuring these teams right here So it's a serial number break baked inside of a bigger team break Get a block of numbers here for all these teams. Good luck to both of you We're gonna set that to my right right over here. Let's pop this case open and Where's my knife? left the tools of my trade Not on the Table out there. All right empty box. Just some extra bit of packing paper there Well box is right up top there. So we got all the boxes stacked up There it is one gold frame autograph one gold edge chrome autograph per box on average Sometimes we see three autographs out of here. There's the I think that's the auto spot the second to last card We have a third auto a second auto that is no. All right. We've got a Cedric Mullins to 75 That will be for the Orioles family feud on the background. We've got Lance picked up the O's straight up and then there's Garrett Mitchell to 99 That's for the brew crew Francis picked up the brewer straight up and behind Boba Shet Ray wave to 25 is Nick Prado rookie auto 24 out of 75. That'll be for the Royals Francis There's the Boba Shet right there 15 out of 25. That'll be for Toronto Toronto's part of the number block team So we go by that digit right there not the one But the five so that'll go to Toronto five and that will be for Danny gold frame on beans 12 out of 50 on that Harold Baines white socks That will be for TJ Poyer box two Giant boxes looks like looks like extra auto. All right, there's Peter Lonzo 31 out of 75 Mets are a number block team that'll go to New York Mets one. That'll be for Danny Carlton Fisk 46 out of 99 White Sox edition that will be for TJ Poyer in the white socks Byron bucks and mini diamonds for the twins up top And we got two autos here first one is Michael Grove rookie auto for the Dodgers 47 out of 99 Dodgers part of the number block team Dodgers 7 Danny and you can see the other name down there already Lenion Sosa 44 out of 50 TJ in the white socks sharp-looking set ladies and gentlemen There's the Byron bucks the mini diamonds 2 out of 50 twins that'll be for Ben All right gold frame auto Gold frame autograph We're talking about redemptions Here it is. All right, let's use a Let's use a Jaspie branded blank Right here to slow play the hit Congratulations, somebody you are due to receive a tops gallery of gold autograph ruby parallel What are the ruby parallels numbered to does anyone know off the top of their heads? Looking up the checklist Carboconnection.com gilded That's tops gallery of gold gallery of gold search for that Autograph set checklist ruby is out of five Ruby is out of five ruby ruby ruby ruby ruby We got F and N Is it New York Francisco Alvarez New York Mets Mets are a number block team And that goes to David with the number zero and according to Carboconnection.com that's out of five so All aboard the big head Express four boxes ago. We just got this started Why is that not live? Usually science Sorry Danny We got we got plenty of boxes to go. We got we got one of ones to look for for you Take a super Yeah, Danny's also got dime-backed up on mojo, so Tony Glenn cut signature Have not seen a cut auto yet Garrett Cole to 75 Yankee six that will be for David Speaking of Tony Glenn. There he is 59 out of 99 Padres nine That will be four day Behind Tanner B. B is a Jose Ramirez autograph 20 out of 75 Howard with the Guardians And you'll get the Tanner B. B as well to one at 99 the frame is Dave Winfield 23 out of 50 Padres are a number block team Padres three Danny All right three boxes in three more to go. All right There's Yuri Perez to one 99 for Miami That'll be for Miami to Danny you got Stan the man museum 79 out of 99 Cardinals EA and Then behind Cal Ripken is Bobby Whit jr. 92 out of 99 Royals Francis with the Royals and the Cal Ripken will go to Lance and the O's 28 out of 99 The frame good luck It is Edgar Martinez 24 out of 50 Seattle a number block team Seattle for For Danny right two more to go Survey to the coolest city is not Los Angeles. Why does everyone want to move here then? Get out of here. There's the auto back there We got Aaron judge to 75 Yankees three Danny William A's three out of 99 Giants Steven with the Giants and The auto behind a Fujinami to 50 will go to Francis is Austin Riley 44 out of 50 Atlanta is a number block team Atlanta for is Danny and the second to last frame is Andy Pettit four out of 50 Astros edition, which will go to Danny in the number four America's coolest city They got New York one Miami Vegas, Chicago and five is San Francisco Last box No, uh, no LA a little box ladies and gentlemen Hydration there. All right, Danny and David. Thank you for filling up that random number block appreciate it Thanks everybody for grabbing your team straight up Thanks for your patience on this break. We finally got it done finally got it across the finish line All right one auto here We got let's play two Ernie Banks nine out of 75 John with the Cubs Leova Paguerro 39 out of 99 pirates for Larry You'll also get that Roberto Clemente Larry and behind him. I like that old pirates logo bring that back behind him is Ken Waldichick 48 I think always a Ken Waldichick in here somewhere Francis it's supposed to be Everywhere in in 2023 product 48 out of 99 and the final frame. Good luck, everybody We got more gilded in the store jasky's case breaks calm Final frame an expo. That's Tim Reigns 44 out of 99 Cassandra with the nationals And there you go ladies and gentlemen Gilded six box pick your team eight in the books. We got another case in the store So check that out jasky's case breaks calm. I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next break. Bye


Hey, everyone. So this time, I'm going to start my talk for real. No kidding around. We're going to hear about a crack-by-construction blockchain consensus protocol. And I hope you're all excited to be here. And I hope you're all aware that I'm starting to speak, and so are coming into the room. But I don't have time to wait. So here we go. So firstly, let's do a basic introduction. Consensus protocols are kind of fundamentally about deciding nodes on a distributed network, making the same decisions, even though they might have different views of the network. And those decisions, you can think of them as being on values. But normally, we think about, in our context, replicating a virtual machine or some kind of state machine. So traditional consensus protocols decide on one block of transactions at a time. Whereas they do it with irreversible finality, with every single block. You come to a Byzantine quorum, you sign the block, and every block is created, and then there's never any forks. And this usually requires, on the order of the number of validators, messages for every block to accomplish this, because you have to come to consensus before you make every block, essentially. Improve work consensus, on the other hand, we don't come to consensus on every block before we make it. Instead, we have this kind of forking phenomenon where we just try to put the block on there. But if we fail, it might leave. But somehow, if we wait long enough, we feel like, oh, it's never gonna leave the blockchain. And these protocols have a much lower overhead. So basically, the thing that I'm gonna show you today is this consensus protocol cast with a friendly ghost, which finalizes every block with a synchronous, Byzantine fault tolerant consensus safety, the way that traditional consensus protocols do, but is able to do this with the overhead of proof work blockchains. So it kind of represents some of the best of both worlds, right? Both finalized decisions and also hyper low network overhead. And the reason why this is cool is because it kind of provides us a unified way for thinking about both of these things.  So the consensus safety proof is this thing that all of the consensus protocols that are cracked by construction process satisfy. And then I'm gonna specify some of these things, and then I'm gonna talk about maybe live this a little bit and then give some experimental observations where we're gonna see this kind of network efficiency that I'm talking about. So let's get started. So the consensus safety proof is probably the most important thing that you understand in order to grok this whole process. So we need a few things for this thing to be fine. We have protocol states and state transitions, and we have an estimator and this thing called estimate safety. I'm gonna define them in a second. And then we have this theorem, this result, that if nodes have a common future state in the protocol, then they have consensus safety on decisions that have estimate safety. So if I decide on something with estimate safety, then I'm gonna get consensus safety for free if we have a common future. And so basically protocol states are just like things in a group and state transitions are kind of paths between them, right? An estimator takes these protocol states and maps them to in the binary consensus, like a zero or one, and the blockchain consensus, like a whole blockchain. So it's kind of our fork choice rule mechanic, right? A little guess. An estimator's not a decision, it just guesses. Oh, looks like we have laggy. So an estimate is safe. Basically, if the estimator, for all future possible protocol states that can be accessed from that state, the estimator returns a value like one or has a blockchain that will always have that block in the chain. So a block is safe. If all future blockchain fork choices have that block in the chain and a bit is safe, if all future estimators have that bit. So if two estimates are safe at two states and those states have a state in common, then because those things are, the estimates hold for all future states and they have one in common, they both hold in that one state that they have in common, and that means that they have to be consistent because you can't have the block be in the fork and not at the same thing. So that was kind of the first part of the proof. Basically it says if nodes have a common future, then they have consensus safety. The next part basically is a construction to make sure that they will have a common future unless there's more than some number of Byzantine faults. And the way this works is basically we have protocol states which are messages. We have state transitions which corresponds to receiving messages or increasing like going to supersets of protocol messages. And if we count Byzantine faults and exclude the sets of messages that have too many faults, then we can guarantee that they have a common future unless there's that number of faults. Basically because first we allow all of them to have a common future no matter what, then we remove the states that have too many Byzantine faults. And so two states will have a common future unless there's too many Byzantine faults. And that gives us kind of our key result here which is that as long as there's not too many Byzantine faults and they have a common future and if they have a common future then they have consensus safety. And so this consensus safety proof basically says look as long as there's not too many Byzantine faults then we have consensus safety. And the cool thing about this is I had to say almost nothing about the consensus protocol, right? All I had to do was say it has protocol states and I mean I said nothing about the nature of the estimator, right? And so now we're gonna kind of see this, we're gonna see this thing happen. So I'm gonna define protocol messages and then the estimator, Byzantine fault detection, states and state transitions and then the end estimate safety for the binary consensus. And then we're gonna do a tiny change and generate the blockchain consensus and a tiny change and do validator rotation and a tiny change and remove fault tolerance thresholds from the protocol. And that'll kind of demonstrate the power of the approach here. So for the binary consensus we have protocol messages that are bits, sorry they have three parts, a bit for the estimate, sender which is like the node who sent it and a justification which is a set of messages. The protocol message is dependency of the other if it's like in the justification or in those justifications basically if there's pre-block pointers or pre-hash pointers to it then it's a dependency. The latest message is one which is kind of, there's no, there's nothing earlier, right? So a dependency is earlier, if you're not a dependency then you're later and a latest message is kind of extreme on there. So the way that the binary consensus works is you look at all the validator's latest messages, if more of them by weight have zero, then you pick zero and if more of them by weight have one then you pick zero, then you pick one. So basically if this, so the score of an estimate is the sum of the validator's who have latest messages who have that estimate. And if the score on zero is more than zero one, the estimator returns zero, otherwise it returns one, otherwise, and if it's a tie, then it returns this kind of exception. So that's kind of our definition of estimator and that's kind of gonna be necessary for us to have the concept of deciding on safe estimates. So Byzantine faults are kind of this interesting and tricky thing. Basically each of these nodes are making messages where they attest to what they've seen from other nodes. And if it's ever the case that I have a set of messages where different nodes attest to having seen some node make messages that could never have possibly been made by a single node, then we have a Byzantine fault. Because basically single nodes, the way they're characterized is that they follow protocol executions according to the protocol executions in the state. So here, equivocation is this property that two nodes that a node isn't actually a single threaded. And it means that they've made two messages, neither of which are in the dependency of the other. So rather than including their messages in each other and having a single thread, it's multi-threaded. And we basically are gonna be able to identify Byzantine nodes by their equivocations and we can count them all up. We can measure their weight. And then we can define protocol states as all of the sets of messages that evidence less than some of the faults. Then we can define protocol executions just as supersets in those things. And then we're basically done. The binary estimate safety basically means that the, so it's estimated is safe. It gives them fault tolerance in some state. If for all future states that estimate is also the estimator in the future states. So there's like a disinvariance, right? All future states will return zero or all future states will return one. And because of the way we constructed this, this satisfies our safety proof. They all have future states unless there's T faults. If they have future states, they have consensus safety. And so we have a binary consensus protocol with safety. And this is kind of where we can relax because that was most of the hard work. Now we're gonna find the blockchain consensus protocol and it's really gonna be a lot easier because we've already done most of the work. So the blocks kind of look very similar to the messages for the binary consensus only instead of having a bit, there's another block in the estimate spot. So every block kind of has a pre-block, a sender and justification. And there's this thing called the Genesis block. And this is kind of the heights of the blocks. So this is me defining all of the blocks, being all the blocks at all the heights. So there's a couple more definitions that we need. Basically, instead of having the estimate just be the same, we're gonna have the estimate be a member of the blockchain and that's what this represents. So like block one is in the blockchain of block two. And then the score of a block is the weight of validators whose latest messages have the block in their block chains. So if five weight of the validators have block A in their latest block chains and three of the weight have block B in the latest block chains and block A will have a higher score. So then we can have this fork choice rule. It's called the greedy heaviest observer subtree. You start at the Genesis block, you look at the children of the Genesis block which are the blocks that have a pre-block pointer to the Genesis block and you ask what are their scores and their scores are given by whether or not or how much of the weight of the validators latest messages are on those block chains and then you pick the best child and then you kind of repeat the process where again you calculate the scores for each of the blocks by looking at the latest messages and seeing if whose validators latest messages are on those blocks and then you pick the block with the highest score until at some point you get to a block with no children and that kind of represents the whole fork choice. The cool thing here is that protocol states and state transitions are defined exactly as before. There is literally no change, right? We just like the tech business defaults is exactly the same way. Define protocol states and sets of messages with less than some faults and state transitions as supersets and then we can define estimate safety for the block chain and basically it's very similar. It means that for all future protocol states, this block is in the block chain that we're gonna choose in those future states. So a block is safe. If in all future fork choice rules that you make, that block will be in there. So that and that was actually it, right? Cause all the other stuff and the specification is really kind of like done there because and we got to benefit from all of the work we did earlier from the safety proof and the binary consensus. We got to like pretty much reuse most of those, most of those, most of that work and only had to redefine, you only had to define the message type, the score of blocks, the fork choice rule and safety. So that's pretty cool. We were able to go from the binary consensus to the block chain consensus with a minimum change. Safety oracles, this is kind of important. It's kind of important that we are able to detect safety. I'm not sure we're having this slide. So an, no, like what I've shown so far is that if you were to make estimate decisions on safe estimates, then it would be consensus safe but you need a way, we might actually need a way to figure out if that's the case. So we have a couple of definitions here and this I'm gonna give like a simple way to do this. So a validator sees another validator agreeing on an estimate if the latest, in the latest message of validator I in their justification, the latest message they see from validator J has an estimate that agrees with the estimate that we're trying to say is safe. An agreement in the binary consensus means that they are the same bit and the blockchain consensus means that they are in the block chain of the other block. So VI sees VJ means that the validator I sees the latest message from validator J that agrees. And there's another definition here that's cropped out and it basically says that VI can't see VJ disagree which means that there's no new latest message from VJ that they could see that doesn't agree with the estimate. And so basically, if there's a set of validators who can't, who see each other agree and can't see each other disagree, turns out that if they have some number of weight, some amount of weight, and that weight is more than half the weight, then you can actually show that there's some amount of fault tolerance but our safety definition requires that we have T fault, we can tolerate up to T faults. However, there might already be some initial faults in our view, so we kind of subtract that. So basically, as long as the, this is kind of the overlap between two sets of validators that, like the overlap in weight of the validators in the clique, if that's more than the fault tolerance, then we have safety. It's very similar to a traditional kind of consensus safety proof, only it's working on these estimates instead. And the intuition's quite clear. Basically, in the clique, they can't convince each other that they've seen something else. And if they have more than half the weight, then whoever can convince them from outside the clique won't have enough weight to actually contribute. Great, so that actually was a hard part also, but we're getting through it, we're almost done. So, subjective fault tolerance thresholds is a pretty cool thing. Basically, if you have two protocols which have the same or are the same except for the fact that they operate at two different fault tolerance thresholds and one of them is small on the other, then consensus, the nodes who make decisions in these protocols will actually have consensus safety as long as the number of faults exhibited in their union and their views is less than the smallest of their fault tolerance thresholds. And this is really cool because having fault tolerance thresholds in the protocol makes it easier to attack and pose a bunch of economic problems that are kind of out of scope for this talk, but stuff about cartelization and focal points. Validator rotation, this is an exciting thing. So I'm gonna change the structure of the blockchain a little bit to add weights to the block, right? Before we had validator weights kind of via this global thing. Now we're gonna add weights to the justification. So the blocks are gonna be the same as before, like they have a block, a sender justification, and the justification now has this additional thing called the weights. And then we need to redefine the score of a block to use the weights of the parent's block in order to actually choose that block. If block A has weights, has a certain set of weights, then the children of block A, which are the blocks that have a pre-block pointed block A, need to be chosen according to those weights. And not a single one of the other definitions need to change. And so this is really like all that we need to do, to do consensus safety, sorry, to do validator rotation with consensus safety, basically because all of the definitions satisfy the abstract safety proof, because they have a common feature unless there's T faults. And they only decide on safe estimates. So liveness is an interesting thing. Liveness means a guarantee to eventually make a decision. This result in consensus literature called FLP and Possibility, that means you can't really be live and safe in an asynchronous network without using entropy or, oh no, without using entropy or cryptography. But actually we have kind of a bigger issue than just FLP and Possibility, which is that we never said anything about when validators were actually meant to send blocks. They actually, we just haven't specified that yet, because all we've really talked about is safety. And so, however, we're gonna see in our experimental results in just a second, that there are sets of messages that they could get to which are safe. And that means that as long as we can make those shapes, then we can have liveness. But, and we kind of know that in a synchronous network or in a partially synchronous network, nodes can use timeouts to make this kind of message shape, you know, up to some number of faults.  But, you know, we're not really gonna do that. We're just gonna leave liveness out of the story for now. So I'm gonna, this is kind of the, maybe the more exciting part of the talk. So this is, we're gonna look at actually and try to see what this looks like. So these are three validators running the binary consensus. And they, the color here means that they've reached safety with some amount of fault tolerance. And kind of, the numbers in here, you see there's ones and that one's a zero, it's maybe a little bit hard to see. The numbers are their estimates and they need to have the estimate be the max weight of the latest messages they've seen in the justifications. These arrows, these lines are the point to the messages that are included in the justification. Remember the data structure is estimate, which is a bit, sender, which is like validator one, validator two, validator three, and the justification which is encoded with this structure. Showing, you know, a few more nodes coming to consensus on a bit here. So the darker color means that they have more fault tolerance. This is kind of cool because it illustrates the flexibility that we have about the order of message passing because we haven't said really anything at all actually about that. Now the blockchain consensus protocol is a little bit more complicated to think about because it's got these things called pre-block pointers. So there's dotted lines, these thin ones are justification pointers, these are pre-block pointers, the blue ones are the latest fork choice by the validators, and the red one is our fork choice. So basically like, the way the fork choice works is okay, so validator one has the most weight, so from the Genesis block we go to validator one, and here it only has one parent, and here we could have went that way or this way, but actually the latest messages are here, there, and there, and all of them have their weight here, and so the weight is all on this fork and not on that one, and so we go left. And then here, you know, there's a pre-block pointer here and also another one there, and if you look at the latest messages, there's more of them here, and so that's why we're gonna go there. And what this kind of shows you here is that validator three has more weight than validator one. Right, so the reason why we initially chose this actually wasn't because validator zero had more weight, it's because all of their latest messages are on this one. So here we go. So this is kind of the blockchain consensus kind of in action for three notes. They're gonna use the greedy heaviest observed fork choice rule, where every choice in the road, like first we went that way, and now we went that way and more validators made blocks there. Here we fork, right, there's forking on the top, and then here we achieve safety, right? This kind of, when these things get colored, they have asynchronous Byzantine fault tolerance safety. And notice that they fork at the top and they have safety at the bottom, and the way we calculate safety here, you know, is using the safety oracle that I described earlier where you look at these cliques which see each other agree and can't see each other disagree. Now we can watch more notes kind of go faster, and here's where you see some interesting stuff where like a bunch of blocks will get finalized at the same time sometimes, right? Because every, this is the thing to kind of realize, like blocks can contribute to the finality of many, many blocks. And basically because every block you have will like agree and disagree with other blocks, large number of them, and which blocks you disagree with and agree with actually will determine how the safety oracle turns up. And so remember the colors, not forking, up here at the top, lots of forking, like look at the red line, it kind of goes and changes, right? Like you don't really know if these blocks are confirmed or if there are gonna be consensus, but the ones down here are, right? So it's very much like a forky thing, it's a kind of a blockchain like thing. But this is really what I'm talking about. This is kind of what I was saying when I say that I can achieve asynchronous business default tolerant consensus with the overhead of Nakamoto consensus. If they do manage to send the messages around Robin, then eventually you get to a point where every additional message finalized an additional block. And this kind of overhead for finality of consensus at every block, like one message per block for finality at any level of fault tolerant threshold is like theoretically optimal because you can't really get lower than one message per block. And this is kind of a little interesting here. You see that this validator has more weight than these two. This is why the fourth choice rule, this validator, even though you saw that block, would have preferred to build on his like initial block than these ones because these two guys have less weight than this one. And so this is kind of what I mean when I say that like we can achieve really, really efficient asynchronous consensus safety. So somehow, I know it's like a bit much, but I shared consensus safety proof that talks about these local determinations of estimate safety and how they're related to consensus safety. We were able to define a blockchain consensus protocol through like basically by first defining the binary consensus protocol that satisfies the safety proof and making a really like minor change that doesn't affect the safety proof at all. And then we were able to actually add validator rotation and remove finality thresholds also with very minimal changes to the protocol. And the reason why we can do this and why it's like so little work is because of the fact that the proofs that we're relying on are not changing while we're making these changes. We have like abstract safety proofs, concrete protocols which we can tweak without changing the safety proof. And we were able to achieve this really nice kind of latency numbers. So I think that this is hopefully gonna be educational, hopefully gonna lead to new consensus protocols. We actually have a bunch of consensus protocols that were mentioned here that were derived according to this process, replicating things like concurrent block structures instead of sequential ones or like an integer could be useful maybe for time snapping. So here's a little secret. Just now, I published the prototype for the binary consensus and the blockchain consensus and also like a specification in very much detail of all of this stuff. And more incomplete description of the correct by construction process given at a very, very high level of abstraction, much higher than I even hinted at today. So this kind of represents the state of the work today. And I'm excited for you guys to check it out and to take a look at the correct by construction consensus protocols and see if you find them as easy to reason about as I do. Some acknowledgments and then we're done, right? So Nate and Danny worked really hard to help me get ready for DevCon and get the code published, get the papers ready. Million thanks to them. Carl who just spoke last was the first person to really actually the first developer on the correct by construction Casper. Greg Meredith who is here somewhere but I haven't seen him yet has really introduced me to the correct by construction process and helped me really formalize and take this mathematical approach. Finally Vitalik has been working with me on this stuff for years, like three years more. So thanks a lot for everyone and thanks to you for listening.


I want to point out she's doing a bizarre English accent for some reason during this performance. She is an anthropomorphic cat, too, but I still would. She's still a snack. This is the worst song in the movie so far. Macavity Cat. Macavity Cat. There's no one quite like our Macavity Cat. Macavity Shat. Macavity Splat. Macavity Miss Famimimapapapatat.


And it is now time for oral questions. I recognize the member for Brampton Center. Thank you and good morning Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, throughout this pandemic the Conservative government could have applied penalties and fines to long-term care operators where inspections clearly revealed that they had broken the rules. We know that in 2018 the Liberals brought in penalties but never got around to actually proclaiming them into law. And to make matters worse, this government, after more than three years, still hasn't proclaimed those penalties into law either. So Speaker, after nearly 4,000 deaths in long-term care, why won't this government proclaim the laws that are already on the books and hold these for-profit homes accountable? I think I think the member will know that yesterday we, of course, announced a significant increase in inspections across the province of Ontario for the long-term care sector. Speaker, the member is quite correct that over 15 years the Liberals certainly did not do the work that was needed to ensure that we had a strong long-term care sector. And we saw some of the results and the impacts of that at the early stages of the pandemic. But honestly, that's why we moved so quickly to ensure that we increased the amount of homes or the amount of beds, increasing it to 30,000 over the next number of years. That's why we are increasing the amount of inspectors, a significant increase in the amount of inspectors. That's why we are moving to the highest standard of care in North America, Mr. Speaker, with four hours of daily care. That's why we are hiring 27,000 additional PSWs paying for the education of PSWs, hiring thousands... Spawns? Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. The Liberals did let us down in that regard, but we are moving very quickly to ensure that we have a stable, strong long-term care system for the people. Supplementary question. And, you know, the government house leader is correct. The Liberals certainly did let us down, but this government had three years to act and they did nothing, Speaker. They could have proclaimed these laws on day one, but they chose not to. In her April 2020 report on long-term care, the auditor general said she was not impressed by this government's lack of action to move forward with penalties that are already on the books. The auditor general said this government, and I'll quote, decided to not implement any fines or penalties, end quote, and they raised serious concerns about significant delays in this government's action and the government's decision to take a very supportive role in supporting these bad actors. The Premier has no issue using extraordinary powers to serve his own political purposes, but when it comes to protecting senior Speaker, they did nothing. So they could have proclaimed these laws, but they chose not to. So, Speaker, why is this government rewarding the for-profit operators with new beds, 30-year contracts, instead of enforcing penalties that are already on the books? Mr. Applied Minister of Long-Term Care. Thank the member for the question, and Mr. Speaker, this government from day one started to address the problems left by the previous government by committing to build new beds. Mr. Speaker, from day one, this government took a proactive approach to addressing the issues in long-term care, but very specifically to the member's question. Mr. Speaker, we've acknowledged and identified listening to the Long-Term Care Commission, listening to the Auditor General, listening to frontline workers and listening to the residents and families of long-term care homes that there need to be changes in the Long-Term Care Act. And that's why, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we'll be introducing new legislation and we'll look forward to the feedback from the member when we look at introducing more transparency, when we look at introducing more accountability. But yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we announced the doubling of the number of inspectors. So I'd ask the member, are you in favour of more enforcement? Are you in favour of the increased powers for inspectors? We know what you're against, but clearly you must think that increasing the number of inspectors and doubling those inspectors is a good thing. So Mr. Speaker, the final supplement, please. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, Minister, I know he's still relatively new to the role. There are inspection reports that clearly outline that there are bad actors. What this government is doing is actually rewarding those bad actors with more contracts and public taxpayers' dollars. So the Liberals didn't proclaim these laws and penalties and they didn't build enough beds either, Speaker, causing the problems that we have in Long-Term Care. But the horrors in Long-Term Care were exacerbated by this government's inaction. As the Financial Accountability Office's report in May of this year indicates, this government isn't even going to meet their own targets for new beds. Even when they hand contract after contract billions of public taxpayers' dollars to the for-profit sector, they are going to miss their own target by nearly 7,000 beds, Speaker. So is the government's plan to provide zero accountability for bad actors and accountability and transparency to Ontarians and then hand these contracts over to these for-profit providers? And so, Speaker, my question again to the Premier is why is this government never willing to do the right thing to protect seniors and why are they constantly rewarding their friends and insiders? Mr. Speaker, and the member chose not to talk about the double of inspectors. Mr. Speaker, Smokey Thomas yesterday, the head of Opsu, said this is a government that's listening. Doris Greenspan said this is a government that's listening from the RNAO. But Mr. Speaker, on the topic of beds, we understand this is why there is an opposition, different sides of the aisle. The opposition, the NDP, they have an ideological aversion to the 140 construction projects that are going on right now, including, including in Oakville, the building of 340 beds, including those beds that will be culturally specific to the Sikh and Hindu community. They'd rather see that project stop, stop right now. Mr. Speaker, we don't want to see that project stop. We want to see those 140 beds built. We don't want to spend billions of dollars expropriating the assets of private companies, which is what the NDP would do. We want to spend billions of dollars building new beds, $3 billion, Mr. Speaker. We want to spend $4.9 billion adding four hours of staffing, something they've talked about over there, but we're doing. Mr. Speaker, we're going to spend the money protecting seniors, building beds, and making sure accountability is in place. The next question, that's again the member for Granton Center. Thank you, Speaker. And my next question is also to the Premier. The same companies running for-profit homes, where some of the worst outbreaks and deaths were found, are actually getting more rewards from this government. At Siena Senior Living, for example, which operates the Woodbridge Vista Care Facility and the Altamount Care Home, 84 seniors passed away in the pandemic. The government didn't issue any penalties to those homes. In fact, the government is giving Siena millions of dollars, of taxpayers' dollars, as a reward. Speaker, why would the government reward Siena with millions in lucrative contracts when that company hasn't been able to even safely operate the homes that they already have contracts for? Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of what happened, the COVID-19, is something that we all witnessed. Mr. Speaker, we understand the challenges that happened not just in long-term care homes here in Ontario, but across Canada and around the world. That is why we appointed a commission, Mr. Speaker, and that commission looked very specifically at issues across the long-term care sector. And they provided recommendations, Mr. Speaker. Recommendations like increasing the number of inspectors, recommendations like making sure those inspectors have more authority. Mr. Speaker, recommendations that related to accountability, transparency, and the importance of making sure that enforcement is in place. But, Mr. Speaker, that commission, led by a former judge, also talked about the need for more and new beds. Mr. Speaker, the previous government, at one point supported in its minority by the opposition, allowed 611 beds to be built, only 611 beds over the period of seven years. Mr. Speaker, we are fixing long-term care. That does involve building new beds. That does involve putting more accountability in place. And it does involve a plan that's working. Mr. Speaker, the government knows just how badly Sienna operated their own homes. Professionals from the William Ossler Health System had to actually step in to help manage Woodbridge-Vista home. And at the ultimate home, the Canadian Armed Forces were required to step up. And what they found was a home in disrepair, dirty and damaged walls, overworked staff, and a huge maintenance backlog. But instead of issuing a single penalty to Sienna, this Premier brought out the checkbook and offered new lucrative contracts to this for-profit provider. Sienna wasn't capable of managing the homes that they already had licenses for, Speaker. So why would the Premier reward Sienna with new contracts when they weren't even able to properly manage the long-term care homes that they already had? Mr. Blanchard here. Mr. Speaker, under the previous government, again at times supported by this government, Mr. Speaker, of the 611 beds built, none were built, for example, in Brampton. Mr. Speaker, this government has committed to 680 new beds and 120 upgraded beds, just in the community of Brampton. Mr. Speaker, the shareholders of the company that the member is talking about are probably rooting her on because they know that what the NDP wants to do is make sure that billions of taxpayers of dollars go to pay them for their company. We're not in the business of expropriating companies. We're not in the business of putting billions of dollars just to take ownership away from those operators. We're in the business of putting billions of dollars to work, and that's what we're doing, providing more care, four hours of care, 27,000 new staff, providing more beds, 30,000 beds, Mr. Speaker. That's how we will spend the taxpayers' money. That's how we will protect seniors, and that's how we will fix long-term care. And the final supplement, please. Speaker, this could have been an opportunity for this province to do better. This could have been an opportunity to move away from for-profit long-term care systems that liberals and conservatives both prefer. We could have homes where seniors live and die in dignity. Instead, we have licenses going to an operator where inspectors found a resident not drinking enough fluids. And instead of being offered a glass of water, the senior was given medication that caused further dehydration. That resident later died. Inspectors found that Sienna lacked a staffing plan. And instead of a penalty, this government offered Sienna new contracts to make even more money. But when asked yesterday by the media what the minister's possible justification would be, he refused to answer. So I'll ask again, why won't the government do the right thing? Stop rewarding their buddies and the private shareholders in for-profit long-term care with lucrative contracts and start protecting seniors and people with disabilities in long-term care. Mr. Long-term care. Mr. Speaker, this government is the first government in decades to take the actions necessary to protect seniors. And Mr. Speaker, it comes in three parts. Building more beds, 30,000 beds, 20,000 of them are already underway. That's 220 construction projects, 140 which the member would have a stop today. Mr. Speaker, that's $4.9 billion for four hours of care. 27,000 new staff. And the minister of colleges and universities offering another $100 million to bridge RPMs and PSWs into nursing jobs. $100 million today. $14,000 new nurses. Surely you support that. And Mr. Speaker, more accountability, more enforcement, doubling the number of inspectors. The member likes to talk about inspectors. Would she not think it would be better if there would be more of them? Could she say that? No. Mr. Speaker, ideologically driven, want to put billions of dollars to work to support seniors. We're going to fix long-term care in the front. Next question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is for the Premier. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario Science Table released a new report on strategies for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake for children and youth. Among other strategies, the research is very clear that school-based vaccination strategies are key. And they call them, and I want to quote, a high-impact and effective approach for increasing uptake that addresses many practical issues including reach, convenience, visibility, accessibility, and equity. Speaker, parents want kids vaccinated as quickly and as efficiently as possible. School boards are already running school-based vaccination clinics for other childhood vaccines. They're just waiting for direction from this government. Approval from Health Canada could come at any moment. Are we still waiting for a clear vaccination plan from this government for our 5 to 11-year-olds? Deputy Premier and Minister of Health. Thank you very much, Speaker. We have been working on a vaccination plan for children aged 5 to 11 for months now. We recognize that Health Canada approval may be forthcoming very quickly. We have been in contact with our 34 public health units. They have submitted their plans. We are finalizing them with public health units. Many of those vaccination programs will be carried out in schools, perhaps not during school hours but after hours and on weekends. Given the fact that we've already had tremendous success with our adult vaccination campaign, we reached 88% of people aged 12 and older having received their first dose. This is a significant achievement and based on the achievement of our adult program, we are going to replicate our Children's Program for Children aged 5 to 11. Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. The science table report is crystal clear. It says that boosting the uptake of vaccination among children and youth is going to depend on building and leveraging trust, especially by those in positions of authority. But yesterday, the Premier himself sowed more doubts about vaccines for kids. I also understand if parents don't want to get their 5-year-old or 6-year-old vaccinated. Our younger children are the last segment of our population waiting to be vaccinated. When is this Premier going to stop pandering and start planning to get our kids the protection that they need? Order. Thank you, Speaker. Our government has said since the very beginning when vaccines became available who was able to receive the vaccine should get the vaccine. The vast majority of people have with 88% of people aged 12 and over already vaccinated with their first dose and over 84% having received the second doses as well. This will apply to children as well. There may be some children who might not be able to for medical reasons. However, we are encouraging all parents to have their children vaccinated aged 5 to 11 as soon as it becomes available by Health Canada's approval. We will be ready to supply those vaccines. We have the orders in. We have the capability to do it and we are ready to deliver just as we've had successfully done with adults, we will successfully do with children as well. The Member for Scarborough Aging Court. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With this year's flu season approaching, I know many in the Scarborough Aging Court have questions surrounding how and where they can get flu shot. Here in Ontario, the flu shot is provided free of charge to everyone. Six months of age and older who lives, works and attends school. As we continue to live with COVID-19 it is more important than ever to get the vaccine when it is your turn. I have heard from constituents who are eager to get the flu shots as soon as possible. Speaker, through you could the Minister of Health tell us how our government is planning to roll out the flu vaccine this year. Thank you. Mr. Health. Thank you to the member from Scarborough Aging Court for the question and for your superb work on behalf of all of your constituents. Our government is proud to say that this year will mark the largest seasonal flu shot program in Ontario's history. Building on last year's success Ontario is investing over $89 million to purchase over 7.6 million flu shots this year which is 1.4 million more than last year. This includes a total of 1.8 million high dose vaccines specifically for seniors. Over 5 million doses of the 1.6 million doses ordered have already arrived in Ontario and are being distributed around the province. To protect the most vulnerable Ontario's initial supply of flu vaccine was prioritized for long-term care home residents and hospital patients beginning in September and flu shots are now available for seniors and others most at risk for complications from the flu. Flu shots for all Ontarians will be available next week through doctor and nurse practitioner officers at participating pharmacies and public health units. Thank you Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the Minister for that response. It is great to hear that we are preparing for a strong demand of flu shots this year and that we have focused on prioritizing available. I personally look forward to booking my flu shot at any local pharmacy when they come available starting next week. Last year we saw some delays in distribution due to the significant turnout at flu vaccine clinics. So Speaker to the Minister through you with such high demand this year what is the Minister doing is more than enough supply available in Ontario. Mr. Health Thank you and Speaker I'm very pleased to report that there are no delays in vaccine shipments by manufacturers. We ordered more doses this year as a result of the increased uptake last season and in recognition of the importance of the flu shot in ending hallway healthcare and protecting hospital capacity as the province continues to respond to COVID-19. We are being clear that there will be a sufficient supply of flu shots for any Ontarian who wants one. As Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Moore has said the annual flu shot is the best defense against the flu this season. As we head into the fall and begin gathering indoors more often with family and friends it is even more important to get your flu shot in addition to following public health and those around you. So Speaker I encourage everyone to get their flu shot as soon as they can and I'd like to remind all Ontarians that it is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and the flu shot at the same time. So if you're receiving your flu shot and have yet to receive a first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine please do so as soon as you can. Thank you. Next question remember from Niagara Center. Thank you Speaker. Premier the Center for Future Work has shown that a universal early learning and child care program phased in over 10 years would facilitate increased labour force participation and employment of up to 725,000 Canadian women in prime parenting years create over 200,000 jobs in child care centers increase the Canadian GDP by between 64 and 107 billion dollars and add 17 to 29 billion dollars to provincial and federal revenues more than covering the cost of the program. Ontario's astronomical child care costs are the highest in Canada yet this government continues to drag its feet and squabble with the federal government. Will this government stop their theatrics and bring in universal high-quality public and not-for-profit $10 day child care for the people of Ontario yes or no? Minister of Education. I want to thank the member officer for the question. We agree child care is too expensive it was an inherited legacy out of the former Liberal government where child care rose by 40%. Now with that said Speaker the province in the nation that regrettably has the worst metric when it comes to pricing is the new democratic province of BC. We believe as progressive conservatives we can make child care affordable and accessible through a better deal with the federal government. The member officer used the word theatrics I mean we're negotiating for a better deal when we're talking about potential leaving as much as $3 billion on the table. I mean thank goodness the new Democrats Liberals were on the driver's seat in this negotiation they would have caved the federal Liberals immediately. We're extracting the best deal the longest and more sustainable deal to ensure those fees are reduced not just in year one but over the course of our mandate to ensure the program is there for moms and dads when they need it so they could afford child care in this province for good. Speaker seven provinces in one territory have signed the deal to provide $10 per day child care. And as the Ford government drags its feet on the child care deal municipalities are stepping up to fill the gap. Last week Niagara Regional Council passed a motion asking staff to investigate the potential for them to enter into a direct agreement with the federal government to participate in the national child care strategy. Niagara is prepared to treat the child care crisis with the urgency it requires. Municipalities know we need to start a universal affordable quality child care system right away. Will the premier stop his ideological dithering and say yes to child care? Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. It's this premier that's investing $2 billion this year alone to build a more accessible child care system. Investing $1 billion specifically to build 30,000 spaces which the former government couldn't get done. It's this premier that's investing $1 billion to reduce child care costs given that they rose by 40%. I agree with the member. Absolutely unacceptable by any standard. And what did the premier do in his first year? Introduce a tax credit which was then enriched providing roughly $1,500 per child in savings. It will help make a difference but we recognize there's more we can do which is why we're at the table with the federal government. But we're standing up to this federal government to make a difference and to the liberals to cave to Justin Trudeau to a demand that this province gets the best possible deal long term sustainable funding that moms and dads this province deserve. Next question. Member for Orly And. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the premier. For almost 25 years the residents of Orleans and Ottawa have been stuck with the cash cow that is highway 174. Highways 174 and 17 function as an enormous regional highway with thousands of commuters each and every day. And as we know Mr. Speaker previous conservative governments downloaded highway 174 onto the backs of Ottawa property taxpayers and never looked back.  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I introduced bill 26 uploading highways 174 and 17 act. Now Mr. Speaker you can't watch a sporting event without seeing the premier say that he wants to say yes. Saying yes to bill 26 will help commuters in Orleans and across eastern Ontario. So Mr. Speaker, will the premier say yes? Will this government support bill 26 and upload highways 174 and 17? The associate minister of transportation. You know just when you think you've heard it all from the liberals it's this incredible speaker from Iran in question. First of all the liberals had 15 years to do something about this and they did nothing at all. But it doesn't stop there Speaker in 2016 the then transportation minister Stephen Del Duca announced plans to widen parts of highway 17 but said no when it came to widening highway 174 in Ottawa. In fact it was the member from Orleans Speaker an Ottawa city councillor at the time that told the CBC quote what's going to happen is you're going to have a four-lane road in Rockland cramped down to a two-lane road that's what Rockland residents want but somehow I doubt it. Speaker the liberals are hot then cold yes then no and while they're busy making up their minds we're going to invest in transit and transportation across this entire province. Stop the clock. Order. Restart the clock. The supplementary question. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Well I appreciate the answer from the junior member from Willowdale my question was for the premier. Mr. Speaker for nearly 25 years the conservatives have kept highway 174 and 17 with municipal taxpayers in eastern Ontario and ever since those highways have been sucking tens of millions of property tax dollars out of road maintenance out of winter snow clearing out of other cycling facilities and pedestrian facilities for residents in Ottawa and the counties. Conservatives used to understand the error of their ways Mr. Speaker in 2014 the leader of the Ontario Conservatives promised to upload highway 174 to Mayor Watson. Let me quote the letter Mr. Speaker in our first 100 days in office we will begin negotiations to upload highway 174 thereby removing the cost of this route from the city and integrating it into the provinces highway planning Mr. Speaker it has been 1,216 days since this government took office 1,216 days Mr. Speaker and there has been no action. The premier the premier likes to say yes stop the clock okay government house leader will come to order minister of economic development will come to order solicitor general will come to order member for Kitchener Conestoga will come to order restart the clock please conclude your question. Thank you Mr. Speaker the premier likes to say yes so I would like to hear a yes from the premier the premier minister will finally say yes to the residents of Oxbury and say yes to Alfred residents to the residents of Rockland to the residents of Ottawa will the premier finally say yes to the residents of Orleans and upload bill or approve bill 26 and upload highways 174 and 17. The associate minister of transportation Mr. Speaker thank you Speaker so the member wants to talk about history let's talk about history in fact these challenges for the great people of Ottawa are not new in 2007 the liberal government under Dalton McGinty and conservative government under Stephen Harper made the first commitment to fund 40 million dollars toward the widening of highway 174 and county road 17 but guess what Speaker the city of Ottawa member for Orleans come to order allow the minister to answer the question associate minister. Speaker the city of Ottawa said no to that plan but almost a full decade later the plan was revived by then liberal transportation minister Stephen Dalduca but as a counselor the member from Orleans said no Speaker and this is this is incredible here that the member of Orleans tried to get the last liberal government to upload the highway but they said no to him too so Speaker the Liberal party can't seem to decide what is yes which is no whether they agree with their own members or not so this government will not take lessons from then but continue expanding transit and transportation across the entire province including the great city of Ottawa the member for Eglinton Lawrence Thank you Speaker my question is to the minister of children and women's issues Speaker every October children's aid societies across Ontario raise awareness about the role we must all play in supporting vulnerable children youth and families in our province and this is done through our Dress Purple Day campaign. Speaker families today are dealing with a multitude of challenges including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic which continues to create additional stresses for some families for vulnerable children and youth these times with the most increased risk for their well-being and safety. Can the minister please tell this House how we are helping to raise awareness for vulnerable children youth and their families on Dress Purple Day Thank you Speaker I'd like to thank the member from Eglinton Lawrence for this important question keeping children and youth safe is a responsibility that our government takes very seriously along with our children's aid society everyone in Ontario has a role to play in the well-being of children youth and families through Dress Purple Day we remind Ontarians that together with other social service providers children's aid societies and their help to children, youth and families who may be facing challenges Speaker Dress Purple Day is an opportunity to raise awareness for all of us among children and youth about their right to safety and well-being in all spaces Speaker on Dress Purple Day we celebrate communities and families and remind them that help is available and no one is alone Speaker Thank you Speaker and back to the minister as you can see members on all sides of this House are dressed in purple to show their support for vulnerable children, youth and families and while dressing in purple demonstrates our support for this important campaign and helps to raise awareness of everyone's role in supporting children there's more that can be done to help address some of the challenges vulnerable children and youth are facing in addition to the partnership with service providers and Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies Dress Purple Day campaign could the minister please advise this House about some of the actions taken by this government to not only protect vulnerable children but to also ensure that they feel supported Thank you Speaker the member is quite right our focus is not only on protection we are also working to change the culture of the child welfare system to one that focuses on prevention and early intervention at the core of our plan to redesign the child welfare system is our goal to strengthen families and community Speaker we're working to make children and family services safe culturally appropriate and responsive to the needs of children, youth and families I'd also like to recognize the efforts of those who work at Children's Aid Societies we all face many challenges and pressures we couldn't have imagined Speaker 18 months ago I want to take a moment to thank those who are dedicating their lives to support children and youth in our province every child in Ontario should feel empowered and supported because when they feel safe and supported we all benefit Speaker Thank you Speaker my question to the Premier the investment by this Premier and his minister to their buddies at Face Drive just stinks the products the Premier and his minister proclaimed with help on Terrians aren't even in use anymore and no one can find any actual jobs created by the millions in grants some have said that the millions the company received may have contributed to helping the company drive up a stock only to see it come crashing down while company executives sold off shares for millions of dollars but that's not all Face Drive's executive vice president kicked thousands of dollars into the PC coffers last year just after the government gave the company millions in public dollars to the Premier what jobs in Ontario did this multi-million investment create and how many of the Face Drive products were actually made in Ontario to date thanks for the economic development job creation and trade the depths of the pandemic when Ontario had almost no PPE capacity our government launched the 50 million dollar Ontario Together Fund now this helped local companies retool their operations to produce PPE, critical supplies and develop technology driven solutions and services now like all submissions to the Ontario Together Fund this proposal was assessed by ministry officials using internal experts as well as external independent and third party institution additionally in this case this also included two university professors who provided their expertise now in order to ensure value for money the ministry has safeguards against a company's performance and that includes a hold back of funding, covenants around project completion and a requirement to have an independent auditor confirm that the investment was made in accordance with the funding agreement the company falls short and the ministry can take appropriate action thank you speaker again to the premier it's not just us who are raising concerns about this investment speaker on the government's promo video for base drive which the company posted on social media the Ottawa Centre Progressive Conservatives weighed in they wrote on February 24th of this year on the government's quote investment investment in air quotes speaker because no one believes that this was a good investment to create jobs and keep Ontarians safe and even the government's own party members are wondering what return on investment taxpayers got for the millions that the premier dumped into their coffers so what did Ontarians get out of this cash to the premier's corporate buddies besides a bunch of trackers to reduce the company bought off the shelf in China minister of economic development day one our government has been focused on keeping the people of Ontario safe and that's why we introduced programs like the Ontario Together Fund the intention is to lower the hurdle for domestic companies to begin to support Ontario's ongoing response to the pandemic the program supported 45 projects and leveraged more than 187 million dollars in private sector investments and that has allowed us to reduce our dependence on unreliable supply chains in fact before the pandemic very little PPE was made here in the province of Ontario and as of today 74% of our PPE is purchased domestically and most of it here in the province of Ontario and it's unfortunate that the member and his party voted against the second round of 50 million dollars for essential goods that are made in Canada they said no to supporting critical manufacturers in places like Hamilton and Scarborough it's only our government speaker the member for Orlean the member for Davenport the next question the next question Speaker it's perfectly reasonable for families to expect that the person who is carrying for a loved one at their bedside in a hospital or in home care that that person has been vaccinated it's a perfectly reasonable expectation does the Premier agree yes or no Mr. Applier Deputy Premier and Minister of Health What people should expect is that they will be protected against COVID-19 I said that from the beginning that the health and welfare of all Ontarians is our primary goal we've had a very successful vaccination campaign as I indicated earlier 88% of people aged 12 and older in Ontario have received at least a first dose and 84% have received a second dose we expect and we are asking everyone Ontario who is able to receive the vaccine to do so and as indicated the vast majority of people have as have the vast majority however as the member knows there are other concerns that we have to be thinking about as we make this decision with respect to mandatory vaccination or not and that is with respect to the number of people who are not being vaccinated they will though they still have to be tested on a regular basis before they go into work to make sure that everyone is safety and health safe and healthy we still need to be concerned about the number of people who would leave if we brought in forward a mandatory vaccination program and that is why the premier has written to hospitals has written to healthcare organizations to understand the ramifications of such a decision we appreciate yes or no from somebody on that side the premier is unwilling to answer that question so speaker what's unreasonable is the delay this government has taken the argument the minister is making their minister of long-term care says we need mandatory vaccinations to prevent outbreaks so we won't have staff shortages and that far outweighs losing any staff that same principle applies in hospitals in home care in schools it's not any different so the position that the government is taking and the premier has taken is unreasonable unreasonable the delay is incredible and of those organizations that have adopted mandatory hospitals have adopted mandatory vaccinations in my writing CHEO 99% QUEENSRAE CARLTON 97 here where we are UHN 97 and you know why it works because they took action early on and they did the work they needed to to get there but this government can't figure that out you haven't been able to figure it out through the whole pandemic so I just need an answer to the question premier yes or no is it reasonable for families to expect that and why the members to make the comment should be clear and every step possible during the course of this pandemic to protect the health and welfare of all Ontarians the member is correct that there have been some particularly pediatric hospitals where they have required vaccination because of the fact that children cannot be vaccinated right now the vast majority of their patients are not vaccinated the situation is different in hospitals that anybody who is working in a hospital who is not vaccinated also has to be tested very regularly but still the principle remains the same that we need to understand and look at the evidence look at what's happening in all the hospitals in all the health care organizations across Ontario to make a proper decision to ensure that we will have sufficient numbers of health care professionals that would stay on if a mandatory vaccination program were brought in to make sure that we can continue to care for the people who already need care in our hospitals and in home care we need to look at the evidence members for Ottawa South come to order the next question the member for Sarnia Lampton thank you speaker and to you and to you to the solicitor general it's great to be back at Queens Park after spending a productive legislative recess in my community of Sarnia Lampton and my constituents and share how our government is working for the people of the right as our government continues this last mile of our vaccination strategy we know there are more steps that we can take to reach the unvaccinated and community across Ontario but we're going to need to be even more creative and strategic in offering Ontario is the most convenient experience when receiving their shot so to the solicitor general how is our government going to innovate as we vaccinate the solicitor general well thank you to the member from Sarnia Lampton you know we have been very innovative and I'm very pleased as the Minister of Health has said a number of times today we have achieved 88% first dose vaccines for 12 and above which and 84% double-vaxxed so fully vaccinated that amounts to 21 million doses given out in the province of Ontario it's an incredible achievement that we have been able to do with partners like the govax bus which is one of the last mile innovations it's a Metrolinx partnership they have retrofitted the buses and we are now visiting smaller communities that have not had the opportunity to have those larger mass immunization clinics and we're getting the job done we've now achieved over 10,000 people have been vaccinated first and second dose through the govax bus system thank you and a supplementary question thank you speaker and to you and to you again to the solicitor general thank you for that response I know that we all agree about the importance of getting vaccinated in Ontario especially our most vulnerable my community of Sarnia Lampton looks forward to the opportunity to see this community focused vaccination role can the solicitor general please share when my local community of Sarnia Lampton might expect to visit from the govax bus and the solicitor general absolutely speaker we've actually just begun a south western tour with the govax bus so specifically in Sarnia Lampton on October 29th the govax bus will be at the Lampton mall on October 30th it will be at Food Basics on Indian Road and October 31st it will be at the Moortown complex in Moortown finally on November 1st you can visit the govax bus at the Petroleum Farmers Market Pavilion you know I know the member from Sarnia Lampton has been critically important leader in his community encouraging people to go out and get those vaccines ready with the govax system so thank you very much next question the member for University Rosedale thank you speaker my question is about it's to the Premier and my question is about Tien Tien lives in a rental home in Clarington Ontario he's lived in his rental home for only a year and a half but he now faces a rent increase of $1,100 starting January 1 now he's facing that rent increase of 57% because this government cut rent control and buildings built after 2018 it's been three years since this government has been in power and housing affordability during this time has gone from bad to worse nearly half of Ontarians pay rent they cannot afford renters like Tien don't know what to do they can't afford to stay in their rental homes but they also can't afford to stay so this is my question to the Premier what is your plan to make homes more affordable for renters now good question as I mentioned yesterday of course we started on this path the moment we were elected into government because we knew how expensive it was for renters we knew that we had to unleash opportunity in more areas of the province to bring on new supply onto the market ultimately by adding more supply and more opportunities we will find that rents will continue to go down that was something another one of these failures consistent failures that we had from the previous Liberal government there was just no supply that was brought online speaker and that has caused rents to go up now of course rent controls are still in place Mr. Speaker of course during the pandemic we stayed evictions and I think that was very important but we understand how important it is to continue down this path of making life more affordable I think that tenant and the people of the province of Ontario understand that it is this side of the house that will work on making life more affordable for them and certainly the other side of the house my question is back to the Premier a new report recently came out revealing that multiple property owners make up the largest segment of home buyers in today's utterly unaffordable housing market now this report came out in the back of recent controversy about core development group this company is buying up a billion dollars worth of single family homes only to rent them out to the very same segment of people that will prefer to own them people want to pay off their own mortgage they don't want to pay off someone else's mortgage so our housing sector very clearly is now catering to investors intent on profit over first time home buyers who have scrimped and saved for years for a down payment only to find a down payment in this market is never big enough so this really gets that question of supply because we can't build new homes without addressing the issue of who is buying the homes that we build so this is my question to the Premier what is your plan to clamp down on investor led housing speculation so first time home buyers have a shot again Mr Speaker the heart of the matter is whether it's long term care whether it's housing whether it's investments for small, medium and large job creators what you hear is the NDP are against any type of investment anybody who wants to make an investment to help our economy grow to help people get ahead the NDP will be against that investment I'm not against people who want to invest in the province of Ontario who want to bring on new housing supply I'm not against them I want to encourage them to build in Ontario because if we bring more supply online housing will be less expensive there will be more opportunities for people to rent and ultimately the people that I know that rent want to one day own their own home and they have to be able to do that here in the province of Ontario and that is why we have been working since day one to ensure that happens transit oriented communities in particular is a way of doing this Mr Speaker they of course voted against that but as I said we continue to invest in things like transit oriented communities so we can bring more supply online and so that renter can one day be a homeowner Thank you Mr President 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago 3 years ago with these ideological commissioner cuts. I said it many times in the House. We invested a lot for Francophones. Thanks to this government, like I said, last week, it is just the question of having a flag. We are talking about investment. And the Ministry of Francophone Affairs started a new initiative for small Francophone businesses. It's about making investments that are important in the community. As I said on a number of occasions, the issues that face the Francophone community are the same issues that face all Ontarians, as well as jobs, economic growth, Mr. Speaker. And on every measure that matters, not only to the Francophone community, but to all Ontarians, we are making progress. And I appreciate the member's question. But later on today, there will be another opportunity to support the Francophone community. And I hope the member's response will vote in favor of that motion. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honestly, we are not going to pretend that the government has made progress in these areas. Another matter that makes no sense. Mr. Speaker, the government has not signed an agreement with the federal government regarding childcare services at $10 per day. Why is the government still refusing to sign a deal with the federal government? Why does this conservative government insist on keeping women at home, pushing their ideology to the detriment of women all across Ontario and the economy? Mr. Speaker, what is abundantly clear is that the provincial liberal government would have caved to a deal that is not in keeping with the best interests of families. It's quite obvious you would not have stood up to Justin Trudeau. You would have taken the first deal available to the province. And this Premier and government is standing up for the people we are to present to get a better deal, a larger investment over a longer period of time that families in this province deserve. Member for Ottawa. This question, the Member for Ottawa Centre. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. It's been exactly a thousand days since the government received the report on the third review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, written by the Honourable David Onley. The Onley report is scathing in its indictment of Ontario's glacial progress on accessibility. Onley writes in the introduction, quote, Ontario is full of soul-crushing barriers for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities. They confront those every day. But instead of treating the Onley report like the wake-up call it is, the government has let this report collect dust on the shelf. They haven't released a plan to implement its recommendations, including building accessibility standards, accessibility training for design professionals, and making sure that public money is never again used to create barriers for people with disabilities. But most insultingly, Speaker, when I tabled a May 2019 motion to create an action plan, this government's members called that plan red tape. People with disabilities remain insulted by the lack of momentum on this report. Can we expect an imminent and urgent plan to implement the Honourable David Onley's recommendations? Thank you. Government House Leader? Thank you very much. I appreciate the question from the Honourable Member. It's an important question. It is something that I know the minister has been seized with since day one. It again highlights, as so many of the questions today have done, highlights the ineptitude of 15 years of Liberal government that preceded this government, and the amount of hard work that has to be done to bring Ontario back to a place where we can all be proud of what we've accomplished. Now, I agree with the Honourable Member. David Onley, in particular, a Speaker who is a Lieutenant Governor who broke boundaries in this province. And the report is a very important one. We all want to ensure that we do better for those persons with disabilities, Mr. Speaker. I know that, again, as I said, the minister has been working very closely with the community. I know that he values the advice of the Honourable Member opposite. And my understanding is that he has reached out to him off to Mr. Speaker. Again, it's not really a partisan issue. I know the members agree with that. It's something that we have to work on together as a legislature, Mr. Speaker. And it has to involve partnerships with our friends at the municipal level as well as the federal level. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that response, but the government has an opportunity today to clear up a glaring problem. And that is that the last time we had a fulsome debate on this in this House, in May 2019, members of this government called a task plan, a plan of action, red tape. I invite the government today to clarify that that was a mistake, to clarify that having an action plan on the Honourable David Onley's recommendations is essential and to make sure that it's important to say yes to people with disabilities. So not no in making people on ODSP continue to live in poverty. Not no in refusing to mandate accessible housing in our marketplace. Not no in telling people with disabilities they have to shelter in their homes because their apartments and their living conditions are not accessible. We need yes for people with disabilities. Can I please have a clear, certain, absolute answer from this government that people with disabilities and their needs are not red tape. Can I please? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The costs of the climate crisis are escalating. The tornado that hit Bury this summer caused $75 million worth of damages. A rainstorm, three hours in the City of Toronto in 2018, $80 million. Six First Nations communities were evacuated this summer due to forest fires. Poor air quality across the province threatened people's health. Yet climate pollution is going up, not down in Ontario. Pivotal climate negotiations begin next week and it's vital that Canada's largest province show leadership. So Speaker, will the Premier commit to sending his minister to COP26 to commit Ontario to cutting the climate pollution in half by 2030 and being net zero by 2045 so we can meet our climate obligations and attract investment in jobs in the green economy? I'm saying all of them. The Parliamentary Assistant, members of Bury and the South. Thank you, Speaker. There's a lot in that question, but more importantly, I wanted to talk about his question about the tornado that hit Bury, which is, of course, the community that I'm very humbling and honoured to represent. My heart goes out to all those families that were affected. I know this government worked day in and day out to help those residents. I was on the ground doing multiple cleanups. We had the Premier come in. Thank you to the Minister General and our Attorney General who came to the forefront as well to help those families. But that is why at the very beginning we talked about the need for a climate impact assessment because every community is very different. And we know that Bury is prone to tornadoes and that shows the importance of the climate impact assessment, which is the first of its kind in the province of Ontario. And we're working with all municipalities in order to get that climate impact assessment up and going because we understand in this government that we need to be investing in our future.  We have $3.7 billion we're putting green bonds to help with such infrastructure. But unfortunately, the member voted against that type of investment. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Speaker, of course, we need to study the impact of the climate crisis. Of course our hearts go out to the people in Bury, the people in Northern Ontario, the people have been affected by flooding. Of course our hearts go out to all those people, but we have an obligation, Speaker, to make the necessary investments in reducing climate pollution so we avoid the climate impacts the government wants to assess. But instead, this government has ripped up charging stations. They're ramping up gas plants and climate pollution. They're supercharging sprawl with Highway 413. So Speaker, I'm going to ask the government to make a commitment on the eve of pivotal international negotiations to say no to Highway 413 and yes, to reducing climate pollution. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Speaker. We have said yes every step of the way to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, which is why we're building transit, getting transit-oriented communities and also getting more people on transit, creating different opportunities for the way transit works, whether someone wants to take a GO train or they want to charge their EV vehicle. We have a Minister of Economic Development that's working on an incredible strategy to use the natural resources we have in this province, whether it's to Miscommon that's going to be building our culvert, whether it's going to be Red Lake that has a lithium. We both have an economic strategy and an environment strategy on the side of the house. But every time and time again, when we're trying to get things like more cars off the road, the member opposite opposes it. We know that 80% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the transit sector alone. And we know how much idling contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, which is why we know the very importance of investing in clean infrastructure, as well as supporting our highway. We're, of course, many ministers will attend and they do a lot of tree planting along that highway. Speaker, we're balancing the economy and the environment. Thank you. The next question. Member for Spadina, Fort York. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions for the Premier Jack Nigro recently moved into a condo and my riding is Spadina, Fort York. And he's doing his part for the environment he owns an electric vehicle. But he's found the cost of installing an electric vehicle charging station into his condo parking spot prohibitively expensive. The Ontario NDP is committed to providing houses with $600 to install a charging station at home. We've committed to mandating vehicle charging capacity in new homes. And we've committed to building charging stations at GOES stations and along roadways in this province. Since the Conservative government was elected, they have canceled the electric car rebate. They have ripped electric vehicle charging stations from GOES stations. And they have passed legislation that outlaws most e-bikes currently on the road in Ontario. Their policies have led to a 50% decline in the sales of electric vehicles in this province and the loss of solar businesses like Ubiquiti Solar. Does the Premier realize that its anti-environmental policies are not only making it difficult for residents to convert to electric vehicles, they are also harming our environment, costing Ontarians thousands of jobs and a chance to be a global leader in the green economy. The Minister of Economic Development to respond. Thank you, Speaker. I just want to be able to use this opportunity to talk about the exciting investments that we are making here in the province in Ontario, not only in the critical mineral sector, which is going to be producing the cobalt and the lithium and all of the elements, including nickel from Sudbury, in manufacturing. Our dream will be, of course, Premier to manufacture electric vehicle batteries here in the province of Ontario. We've made a $295 million investment into Ford, into their electric vehicles. You know that General Motors has made announcements of their electric vehicle program in Ingersoll. Stellantis has made one and a half billion dollar investment announcement that they've just reaffirmed in Windsor. We are going to be the electric vehicle hub right across North America, Speaker. Thank you very much. Thank you for your question, Premier. Member for Ottawa South has a point of order. Thank you, Speaker. I'd like to correct my record. I meant to mention this morning in my question that the province of Quebec has made vaccinations mandatory for all education workers. Thank you. Pursuant to Standing Order 36A, the Member for Ottawa Center has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the government host leader concerning the Onley Report, and this matter will be debated today following private members' public business. There being no further business at this time, this host stands in recess until 3 p.m.


Hi, I'm Karina and I'm from Ukraine. I have completed several courses with ITTT. Being a young teacher, I found these courses very useful for my professional development. I've studied much new information that I use while holding my own classes. I liked the way of studying in my own pace and I really appreciated the help and support I had after my course completion. At the moment I'm teaching abroad and I'm really thankful for helping me on my way to become a professional in the sphere of English teaching. It is said, who dares to teach shall never cease to learn. So if you're considering trainings for teachers, then those suggested by ITTT will definitely be a valuable experience.