The next item of business is a statement by Angela Constance on social security benefits. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I would ask members who wish to speak or to press their request to speak buttons and I call on Angela Constance. I will outline plans for the first social security benefits to be delivered by the Scottish Government. Those include the new best start grant, funeral expense assistance and the supplement to carers allowance. This is the next milestone in building Scotland's new social security system, and those are the first benefits that our new social security agency will deliver. This is the largest, most complex programme of change in the history of devolution, and we have made excellent progress since the last election. We are building on four years experience of delivering the Scottish welfare fund and using discretionary housing payments to mitigate the bedroom tax. We are also building on experience of the smooth devolution of DHPs at the beginning of April, and we have made progress with DWP to agree the implementation of universal credit flexibilities. We have already announced that we will create a new social security agency with an efficient central function and a strong local presence across Scotland. We held a wide range in consultation exercise last year, hearing from people about what they need from a social security system. People with lived experience will keep informing our decisions and our deeds at every step of our journey. That is why we invited people to join our experience panels, and I am delighted to say that around 2,300 people have volunteered. We have also appointed the Disability and Carers Benefits Expert advisory group. They will advise Scottish ministers on policy options on disability and carers benefits and actions that will change lives for the better. As the Minister for Social Security told Parliament in her recent statement about the social security agency, there will be no contracting with the private sector to undertake assessment for disability benefits. Building on this momentum, my announcement today sets the timescale for delivering the first devolved benefits. During this Parliament, 10 benefits will transfer to us. DHPs have already transferred successfully and are delivered by local authorities. Our top priority is that people receive the right payments at the right time. That is a big task. Once all the benefits are devolved, we will make more payments each week than the Scottish Government currently makes in a year. We need to get this right. It is one of the most important things that people have told us through the consultation and our other engagement. One of the lessons from previous social security changes by the UK Government is that arbitrary target dates without a clear plan to meet them will lead to failure, as we have seen with universal credit. We have always been clear that the devolution of social security powers is a phased approach, with many incremental steps to the safe and secure transition of powers as opposed to a one-off event. Let me start with our plans for the best start grant and funeral expense assistance. Those are early benefits and they will make an immediate difference to people and fulfil commitments that are set out in our manifesto. We will start delivering of Scotland's first new benefit to the new best start grant by summer 2019. The replacement to the Shure Start Maternity Grant is a substantial investment in the child's early years. As part of our wider work aimed at giving each child the best start in life, it will contribute to tackling child poverty, improving health and raising attainment. The current UK Government Shure Start grant is a single payment of £500 to families on low incomes. We will increase that to £600 for the first child, recognising that the UK rate has not increased in over a decade. We will also reintroduce payments of £300 for second and subsequent children, a cut made by the UK Government in 2011. We will make no judgment on the number of children people decide to have and we will place no limit on the number of children we help in any qualifying family. We will also provide two payments of £250 during a child's early years, around the time that they start nursery and before starting school. That means that qualified families will receive £1100 over the course of the early years of their first child's life, compared to just £500 at present, plus further support for additional children. For a two-child family, that means an additional £1400. We have started work on the application process for best start grant. From the earliest stage, we are working with parents who would be eligible. We have shared and tested a draft application form, making changes based on feedback from the people who will need it to be sure that it is clear, simple and easy to follow. We will reach more people by making the application process easier to follow and joining up support with the services that parents use day to day. That includes linking with healthy start food vouchers that provide nutritional support to pregnant women and young children. Take-up of the sure start maternity grant is low—it is around 50 per cent—so improving take-up and increasing the support provided will make an immediate impact on low-income families in Scotland. We will also deliver the new funeral expense assistance by summer 2019, providing critical support to people at a difficult time. We heard through our consultation about the stress caused by the complexity of the application process and time taken to make payments. We have already committed that we will aim to process applications within 10 working days of receipt of a completed application. As with best start grant, a key area of work is developing an application process that is easier to understand. We will listen to people with experience of the current system and seek expert opinions, including from the funeral payment reference group. Simplifying this process and increasing awareness will increase take-up from its current level of around 60 per cent. I now want to turn to carers allowance. We are all agreed on the vital contribution that carers make to Scotland. It is not right that people with caring responsibilities receive less support than others. That is why the First Minister committed in October 2015 to increasing the level of carers allowance to that of jobseekers allowance. We have been working hard with DWP to investigate how to increase the support as quickly as we can. I thank them for their constructive and collaborative support in helping us to achieve that commitment as early as possible. I can announce to the chamber today that we will do so from next summer. As an interim arrangement to get this done as early as possible, people in Scotland will continue receiving carers allowance from DWP, but they will receive the increase from our social security agency and they will receive that support twice a year. While the first payments will be in the summer of 2018, they will cover from April 2018, so carers can be assured that they will get funding that covers all of the 2018-19 financial year. We will invest more than £30 million a year in increasing the support. I am delighted that the policy will now be delivered by the Scottish Government, and I look forward to seeing a future UK Government follow our lead. All of that, of course, is subject to the consideration of Parliament. When we introduce the social security bill next month, I hope that the support that we have had today within and outwith Parliament to its approach to social security will continue. Our plans for the first wave of benefits show the difference that we can make to the people of Scotland through our new social security powers. Best start grant, our first new benefit, will greatly improve the support that we provide and better aligns with our other work to support children and families. Funeral expense assistance will make important changes to the way that we support people with the cost of funerals, providing more certainty and clarity for people at a difficult time. We are working as quickly as possible to give carers in Scotland more money. It is right that the first new act of the agency will be to address the unfairness of the current system where carers receive less support than others. The benefits that we will deliver may be different in nature, but there is one common thread that binds, and that is an investment in the people of Scotland. The changes that we will make are changes that we know are needed because we are listening to people with the lived experience and responding to what they say, ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect. Those are the principles that we set out for social security last year, and the timetable that I set out today shows our determination to bring those to life as quickly as possible. I encourage members who have not pressed their request-to-seat buttons to speak or ask a question to do so, and I will now press their request-to-seat buttons. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of first statement today. Since before last year's Scottish parliamentary election, we have been calling on the Scottish Government to get on with the job of delivering on the substantial array of social security powers devolved under David Cameron's Conservative Government, so it would be childish of me not to welcome this statement even if it comes some months later than it should have done. Even now, however, much of today's statement merely reheats things that we have known for a long time, like the fact that the Scottish ministers simply cannot deliver devolved social security without the on-going help and assistance of the UK's DWP, help and assistance that we on these benches warmly welcome. Yet even now, significant holes remain in the cabinet secretary's account. She talks with the new Scottish Social Security Agency but says nothing about where it is to be located, about how many DWP and other job losses there will be as the new agency takes on its responsibilities, or about how its eye-watering £150 million a year annual running cost has been calculated or, indeed, how that figure is to be paid for. Let me ask this. On best start, the value of the grant for the first child is to go up, the value of the grant for second and subsequent children is to go up, and, in addition, there are now to be two further payments to children in eligible families. Over the course of this Parliament, what will this cost, assuming that ministers are successful in increasing the grant's uptake as they wish to be? Presiding Officer, of course it is too much to expect the Tories to give a whole-hearted welcome of the progress that we have made, actually collectively, over the past year. Of course, I have to remind the member that the tranche 2 of the regulations only commenced last month, so here I am less than a month later on my feet in Parliament, keeping Parliament as I should, informed of every milestone and every step of the way. This is a journey that we will travel together, and this Government will be proactive in informing all members of the chamber and those who utilise the services, whether they are reserved services or devolved. We will ensure that their views inform our deeds and our actions. Of course, it is too much to expect the Tories to welcome the progress that we are making that is starting from next year. We will be putting money into the pockets of hard-pressed families that are bereaved and those people who are caring for a loved one. Those are the families and the people who are most impacted by Tory austerity. Those are the people who are paying the price for Tory cuts, paying the price for Tory cruelty and paying the price for Tory complexity in the current system. With regard to his specific questions around best start grud, that will be £20 million, Mr Tomkins. You may recall that, not that long ago, the Minister for Social Security came to the chamber and made a full statement on the operating model of the Social Security Agency, and in that statement said that there would be a further appraisals option to go through before we made a statement on the location of the agency this autumn. With regard to the costs of the agency, I would have thought that Mr Tomkins, the good professor, would have by now read the outline business case that was published on 27 April that he would have read it cover to cover and would now be standing in this chamber reciting it backwards in Latin. Colleen McNeill, to be followed by Sandra White. Scottish Labour welcomes the announcement of the first social security benefits, and we particularly welcome the plans for best start grant, introduced in summer 2019 replacing the sure start maternity grant, an important measure in tackling child poverty. I want to begin by asking the cabinet secretary in relation to the best start grant, an important measure for low-income families. If she is able to say now or write to me about how many families will be helped by this, I am interested in that information, as I am sure that she will agree that the high levels of in-work poverty I think require measures that include those low-income families who are in work. Furthermore, does the cabinet secretary agree that, given the uptake of this benefit, it is only at 50 per cent that it needs to be a very high priority in improving this situation? A radical approach is required, I would suggest, including a commitment to an advertising campaign or a promotional campaign encouraging people to apply for those benefits. Will the cabinet secretary also consider that, in relation to that benefit, working with local authorities on automating benefits, given that many of them are linked to eligibility in the benefit system? I agree that a more radical approach is needed. If we do not do that, it is important that the transfer of the social security budget from the UK Government to the Scottish Government will determine the budget for the future. It is important to begin that work now. I thank Ms McNeill for the tone and tenor of her question. She is right to point out the impact of the new best start grant on the additional income that it can get to low-income families throughout the course of a child's early years. I know that later on in the week we will be debating the child poverty bill, but it is important to stress that the new best start grant can make a very positive contribution to things such as material deprivation, as well as improving the general life, health and educational attainment of children. On the expected claimant or the head count, we expect 62,000 claimants to be benefiting from the best start grant. She is right to say that we have work to do to improve take-up. We are looking at the issue of automation. Of course, the point that she makes linking the benefit take-up campaign with the budget and the resource that will be transferred from Westminster is important. Although, like me, she will be aware that Westminster has this habit of changing the goalposts before resources are transferred. I am sure that we will all be ever vigilant to that. I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement. In particular, the announcement that carers allowance will be increased for Scottish carers, which brings in much-needed additional support to carers who do, I think that we all agree, so much to support families and friends. Can the cabinet secretary tell me and Parliament how many people will benefit from the increase when it is introduced? I am delighted to say that the increase will benefit almost 70,000 carers in Scotland, and the increase will cover the whole of the next financial year in 2018. It has been a long standing policy of our party and government to make this increase, and I am delighted that we are making this announcement and that it is our Scottish Government that is proceeding with this. As I said earlier, I hope that the next UK Government will follow our suit. It should be remembered by Opposition members in particular that our progress is dependent on the Scottish parliamentary timetable, which is not in the hands of the Government but, rightly, in the hands of the members of this Parliament. UK regulations that transfer competence for carers allows to the Scottish Parliament came into force this month. The next stage is, of course, legislation, which is a vital part of our democratic process. I am confident that we will work together as the social security bill goes through its legislative stages so that we are in a position to deliver the benefit from next year. Gordon Lindhurst, to be followed by Ruth McWire. The cabinet secretary has said in her statement that the Scottish Government has invited people with lived recent experience of benefits to join experience panels to help inform decisions as it moves forward with its development of the Scottish social security system. I welcome that, because my understanding is that the stated intention is to ensure that the system works. My question for the cabinet secretary is the following. What is the Scottish Government doing to bring into consideration, in a similar fashion, the experience of individuals who work to deliver the services in question from the other side of the equation, as it were? If I could make clear, I am talking about the individuals rather than their representatives, whether trade unions or otherwise, whom the Government, no doubt, will have consulted with or spoken to. I thank Mr Lindhurst for his question and for his endorsement of the importance of the experience panels. It is a great success that around 2,300 people are volunteering their time and their expertise to ensure that, as we progress in this journey together, that we get every stage, that we get every milestone and every detail absolutely right. He raises an important point about the experience of those who currently work within DWP. Indeed, we have former employees of the DWP now working within the Scottish Government. He is right that we do indeed laze with employee representatives through PCS and will continue to do so. We are open to different forms of communication about how we laze with those who are currently working in the coalface under quite difficult circumstances in terms of the austerity agenda and the massive challenges that the UK Government is currently facing in terms of roll-out of universal credit. That coalface experience of DWP staff is indeed important to listen to, but it is also the experience of voluntary sector staff who work in their advice services and who are also seeing first-hand the impact of some of the most cruelest cuts and uncaring aspects of the current reserved service. Ruth Begwar to be followed by Richard Leonard. The cabinet secretary said that the take-up for sure start and funeral assistance is low, and therefore people have not been getting the financial support that they are eligible for. Can the cabinet secretary clarify that, when the Scottish Government has successfully increased take-up, what additional resources the UK Government could provide to further encourage people to take up benefits that they are eligible for and entitled to, but who are not currently making claims? It is a good point, because under the fiscal framework, the UK Government will not provide the Scottish Government with additional resources if benefit take-up rates in Scotland are higher than the rest of the UK. Nonetheless, that will not stop us and our duty to increase some of the abysmal rates of take-up of benefits that people are eligible for. The UK Government today has done, in my view, very little to encourage benefit take-up, or indeed to help people with the application process by simplifying the process. I think that it is ridiculous that it is quite a dammin indictment of the current system that we talk about people having to navigate their way through the benefits system. Get the financial support that you are entitled to can make a huge difference to people's lives, and I see that as a key role of Government. Unfortunately, the Tories do not see that as a key responsibility of Government. Richard Leonard is followed by George Adam. Can I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to make the application process for funeral expense assistance more straightforward and to provide a timious response to applicants for that assistance? Those are two of the key recommendations of the February 2016 Citizens Advice Scotland report. Will she recognise that the other key recommendation in that section of the report was that the payment should be set at a level to allow for the full payment of a basic funeral in any part of Scotland? Can she confirm if she has come to a conclusion on that? I thank Mr Leonard for his thoughtful question. I know that he and his colleague Mark Griffin have done a lot of work around the issue of funeral payments and the broader issue of funeral poverty. I hope that it will be some assurance to Mr Leonard and his colleagues that the work that we are taking forward around funeral expense assistance is at an advanced stage, but it must not be out of tandem with the broader work that we are doing to address funeral poverty. We have other commitments whereby we are working with the funeral industry, working with local authorities and working with those advice services. During the summer, I hope to make a further announcement around our commitments around a funeral cost plan. Although we are still to finalise the exact eligibility criteria, there are a number of issues about process, about payments and about what we could agree to in principle. There is a recognition that there is quite an uncertainty in complex details that we need to remove from the system. We are looking at that all in detail. That work is at an advanced stage. Take the member's views on board. We know that there is a real issue with funeral poverty in this country. We will do or damned us to address it, but cut through the complexity and give more certainty to applicants as well as the broader issues of addressing the rising cost of funerals, which, over the past 10 years on average, has risen by 92 per cent. George Adam will be followed by Alison Johnstone. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that, with the Tory's determined to treat children as unequal and no longer supporting the third or subsequent child of low-income families through the capping of child tax credits, that larger low-income families will be significantly worse off no matter what the outcome of next week's election? Can the cabinet secretary explain the difference that the new best start grant can make to low-income families with three or more children? As perhaps by way of example, I can reiterate that our best start grant will provide the first child and a family with three payments totaling £1100 over their early years. Every subsequent children will receive payments totaling £800. For a family with three children, that means a financial investment of £2,700 during their early years. For a family with four children, that is an investment of £3,500. That, of course, compares with just £500 per family for the UK Government's current sure start maternity grant. As we see income being taken away from poorer families by the Tories through major changes to universal credit and other benefits, we know that many families—large women in particular—will be struggling to manage. Although it might feel like we are fighting poverty with one hand tied behind our back in the face of austerity, we are nonetheless determined to provide a better future for low-income families through a number of measures, including our new best start grant. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement and welcome the announcement that carers allowance will increase to the GSA level in 2018. However, there is evidence to suggest that the allowance is used to meet the costs of caring, as well as to replace lost income through not working. That would not be covered by the increased proposed. I ask the cabinet secretary what assessment of the costs of caring she is undertaking in determining the increase and whether the cabinet secretary is considering a premium for carers who care for more than one person incurring extra costs. The member will be aware that we are certainly considering and have a manifesto commitment to provide carers allowance for people who are caring for more than one disabled child. That, in addition to the matters that she raises, will be for the consideration of the carer benefit advisory group, who will give us expert advice. She will know from her engagement with the Minister for Social Security that we work very closely with health colleagues so that we are looking at the needs of carers and the support that they need in the most holistic response. It is also important, once again, to express the importance of the experience panel, those 2,300 volunteers who will walk the journey with us all and who will indeed be advising us of the issues that Ms Johnson has raised today and, indeed, on other occasions. Alex Cole-Hamilton will be filled by Ben Macpherson. I thank the cabinet secretary for her early statement. I echo much of the praise that has been given to her in its regard. I want to particularly focus on the welcome that I have for the funeral expense assistance. How we help those in grief as a measure of a civilised society. I was recently contacted by a constituent, who is very sadly widowed in her 30s. She is part of an organisation called Widowed and Young. She brought my attention to the fact that, following changes to the widowed parents allowance, newly bereaved spouses could miss out on as much as 17 years' worth of financial support. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what representations the Scottish Government has made to Westminster on that regard? Has it looked into options to use new powers coming to this place to ensure that vulnerable families do not miss out on support that they should be entitled to following such a time of loss? I assure Mr Cole-Hamilton that the Minister for Social Security quickly wrote to the UK Government when it became apparent that they were withdrawn significantly by financial support to bereaved parents and, indeed, their children. They went against the grain of what they had said previously. Previously, they said that they would be looking at reform, but the reform would not involve a cuts. Of course, we have heard all that before. The point that he makes about how we support people in their time of need and their time of bereavement when they are working through grief is very well made. We are making representations to the UK Government. We have received representations from concerned citizens in Scotland. The broader point that he makes in and around mitigation is that we can and do mitigate. We will continue to have that very lively debate. However, our ability to mitigate is not an excuse for a callous Tory Government just to proceed and do whatever it likes. We have to recognise that we will have 15 per cent of welfare spending due course. That gives us enormous opportunities, but it will not necessarily address all the inherent and fairness in the remaining 85 per cent. Of course, we are alive to all the debates in this matter. I also welcome the progress and measures that are outlined in the statement, but I am concerned whether the cabinet secretary anticipates any UK Government cuts to funding for the benefits that she mentioned before the point of transfer, especially given that, if the Conservatives get back into power at Westminster, we may face cuts to the winter fuel allowance. What would be the impact of such a cut? As we have seen with the winter fuel payment that Mr McPherson mentioned, no benefit is safe in the hands of the Tories. Any cut in benefits that are due to be devolved that is carried out in advance of the funding being transferred will automatically mean a cut in resources transferred to Scotland. Of course, the Tories have a track record in that regard when they cut by 87 per cent employability funding before the employability programmes were transferred to Scotland. We, of course, see social security as an investment in our people. The most recent and uncosted announcement by the Tory Government in terms of their manifesto is nothing short of an assault on pensioners at a time when pensioner poverty is rising. It just demonstrates that the nasty party is back in town. Funeral poverty is a huge issue. Has the Scottish Government assessed the cost of the new funeral expense assistance? Given that there is such a wide variation in fees charged by councils and funeral directors across Scotland, willy assistants cover all the costs wherever they are incurred, with the cost of a basic burial varying from £701 in the Western Isles to £2,253 in Edinburgh, and cremations ranging from £552 in Inverclyde to £849 in Highlands, has work been done to ensure that those in the most expensive areas do not lose out? Of course, Mr Simpson raised his very important matters. There are issues for our colleagues in local government. He is perhaps not aware, obviously, by the tone of his question, that at the end of last year I held a funeral poverty conference, and prior to that, chaired three roundtables—one with local government, the other with advice services and other experts—and the third round table was indeed with the funeral industry, because there is a huge variation in costs across the country. We will continue to have that dialogue with COSLA as we move forward. I want to be making progress over the summer months with our commitment to announce a funeral costs plan. It is important that the worker and funeral expense assistance is not seen in isolation from that broader work, and that work needs to be connected and will be done in tandem. There has been discussion around the timetable of all that introduction. I wonder how she feels that compares to previous major changes such as when Labour brought in the child tax credits, Tories brought in universal credit and can she commit to keeping to the timetable that she has laid out? I remain very confident that we will deliver on our timetable, because what we have not done as the current Tory UK Government has done is that we have not been pushed into making arbitrary or unreachable promises on dates. That is particularly important when we have to work closely with the DWP to ensure the smooth delivery of benefits for the people of Scotland. As John Mason rightly states, other benefits that we have seen implemented by the UK Government—whether for good or ill—have taken much longer, and that is with an existing infrastructure in place. We are building Scotland's social security system from scratch, and that infrastructure is very necessary alongside the other essential component that we need, which is the legislation that I spoke about earlier. We are confident that we can deliver on the timetable that we announced today. That concludes our statement on social security benefits. We are now moving on to a statement from Minister Shirley-Anne Somerville on widening access to education. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.


OK, thank you, everyone. Here is my presentation to introduce how to fight against the censorship using Japan languages. And it's alternative into other than for first and self introduction. I'm an arm holder, basically, and for the Japan install, to a few arm-based NASA devices. So maybe you already hear the talk that Vigran gave the other day that when doing full porting, usually it's related to some patches to the kernel and some patches to the devane installer itself. And in order to make it easier to port the GNOME screen to the devane installer, because it only has the theory concept of SSH connection during the install, so maybe when we like read it. I already did the talk last day talk. And second, I'm a package maintainer. I maintain a few packages like Shadow, Sox, EV, and these dependencies, some libraries. Today I'm going to talk about the package by maintainer. And here I want to say I'm not a security expert, so maybe there is some flow in the protocol or in the code. Just a shout out and the eye and the upstream maintainer can help. I want to say the problem to solve, the session, right? The session should have a few sets. Some is like a very large session, like you go into the cafe or restaurant just connected to the Wi-Fi, and you find your internet is hijacked. You are going to visit Google, but actually it's not Google. The data is through the other website, and then it has to go Google. So this is one kind of. The other kind of is when you travel to some certain countries, some countries in the middle or far east block there, just like Google, Gmail, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, social network. Basically it doesn't work there. Here the real problem, why we cannot use those sites and why the internet is hijacked in the cafe. So the real problem is the DNS quality. You get the DNS, the result is not correct. The result is timed by the DNS server at the cafe or restaurant. And the second is the IP address of certain sites are blocked in some countries. And previously we know the problem and how to resolve it. Maybe you think we can use Tor. We just use Tor. But here is the standard for Tor. Tor is great because it can protect you from the privacy. It's not anonymous. And there is no required to reduce the account. And it's free of charge, which is great. But there are some problems on the Tor. It's slow, right? I confirmed with the Tor members here in their comment. And the Tor member told me, actually, Tor is not that slow. It just has some latency problem. But for video streaming 1080 HD should be OK. I tried, yes. In Canada, it's OK. But maybe in some countries, like heavily used package loss, QoS, the environment, it's not so good. So the video streaming maybe is the problem. And some Tor IP address are blocked in some part of this planet. For this case, Tor invented the bridge. But the end user need to collect the bridge. IP address of bridge themselves, I think, is not that positive for the real user. Let's talk about the scenario that Tor works well for some text-based application like Wikipedia or messaging, an email, and search engine Tor works quite good. But for Wikipedia editing or the video is not so good. So I'm going to talk about alternative ways to Tor. So if you buy a VPS account, which is very cheap currently, about five or $10 each month, so when you have the VPS account, now you can set up the accession term. I think maybe you have already tried that. Can I know how many of you have already tried the SSH channel? Oh, nearly half of you have already tried it. So this is very convenient, but this works only for the laptop or PC, not for mobile device like mobile phone or iPad. We have the second choice, it's OpenVPN. OpenVPN has some problems, like there's fingerprint in the negotiation stage, because the client and the server need to handshake. When handshake, they need to disclose some information in plain text, not equipped, like which cyber they use, which IP address. So it's not so IU way. And the last one is the Shadow Socks I'm going to talk about. Shadow Socks is basically the soft spot proxy. Traditional soft spot proxy is very simple, but here we can separate, we can split the server and the client. So you can install the server on the VPS, and on the client, on your PC, it connects to the server. You're using its own protocol and it's encrypted data. And you browse internet through the browser, right? So you set up the soft spot proxy in the browser. Because the cypher is pretty fine on both server and the client. It's pretty fine in the configuration part. It's no need to handshake. So there's no problem, as I said previously, about the OpenVPN. OpenVPN has a problem when handshake. So Shadow Socks just avoid that problem by not handshake at all. And originally, the Shadow Socks implementation was in Python. And now, it has a live EV port. So it's written in C language. So it's currently most widely used and used in PC, and even in the Wi-Fi router, the OpenWLT, and Android. And about one year ago, someone for the implementation to go language. So now, it's even on the windows. Support OS, the next, of course, OpenWLT, yes, and Android. For the iOS, they are an exception, because there is some application supported. But it's not open source. So if you want to volunteer your time, you can implement open source at the time. And there, I heard a story about the Shadow Socks because it's so effective by passing the network restriction. And the user base increased quickly. So some governments don't like it. And the agents want to kill the project by contacting to the author of the app. So the code author, by telling them, please shut down the code in the GitHub. So you can still see a message of code removed due to regulation on the GitHub page. You can check the project there. And now, the original Python implementation and the EVE port, Retain C, is already and enters Debian Archon. So I'm not afraid of losing the software now. And so the Debian is not a platform to include the Tor and the Shadow Socks to fight with censorship, but also an infrastructure to protect the software itself. So thank you very much, EVE. There are some advanced use about the Shadow Socks, like gate the script around the gateway, like open WIT, and some extension to work better on the package logs from the environment network. I'm going to skip this. Because we are running out of time. And the project is still growing. And we welcome new contributors, such as, I already mentioned, open source IOS client. And I think maybe you can help on the source for the order like any flaws in the protocol or any security fault in code. As I know, TrueCrypt already passed the code order. OK, thank you very much. Thanks very much, Monster. What's the distribution model for the Socks proxies addresses? Is it like something that's spread in private forums, stuff like that, and people share a single proxy? Or is it something where users are expected to set up their own proxy in a VPS that we train themselves? OK, this is a software. So you need to buy your own VPS and install that software on that VPS. So presumably, the target user base is rather tech-savvy, correct? Because if we run that service, the IP address is easy to get blocked. I think it's a merit, not a disadvantage. OK, thanks. OK, thank you. Questions? Not well. Please thank Roger for his talk. OK, thank you very much.


is now time for a question period, the leader of Her Majesty's Royal Office. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The Premier has failed to hold herself to the highest standard expected from the Premier's office. The Premier has failed to hold the staff to the highest standard that Ontario deserves. Two-thirds of Ontarians believe her Deputy Chief of Staff, Pat Sabara, should resign because of the alleged bribery. Mr. Sabara is on take tallying Mr. Olivier that if he stepped down as the Sudbury candidate, the government would be very open to a job in the Kistit office for him. Sabara also said whether it's a full-time... Sorry, for the interruption, there are debates going on between both sides and it needs to stop while the question and the answers are being put. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sabara also said whether it's a full-time or part-time job in the Kistit, whether it's appointments, supports or commissions, there are a lot of options. Mr. Speaker, did the Premier instruct Pat Sabara to offer Olivier an array of options? Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to the... Excuse me. We will be starting quickly with individuals. It stops. Carry on, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And as I have said in this legislature a number of times, Mr. Speaker, I have been open with the legislature. I've been open with the media, Mr. Speaker. I've been open with the public about the allegations related to the Sudbury by-election. I have answered 102 questions on the subject in this House. I've addressed those questions in dozens of interactions with the media, Mr. Speaker. There is an issue that is now going forward to Mr. Speaker, and we're going to let that process unfold as it should. Thank you, supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, the Premier has stated over and over again there won't be criminal charges to Pat Sabara. Member for Beaches East Shore. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, that's nothing to celebrate, because the people of Ontario already know and they've reached their own conclusions after listening to those tapes. After hearing Mr. Sabara say, you're being asked to do this favour, I guess to make the sacrifice this time. And that this can also go a long way in terms of opening up options. Mr. Speaker, we'll stop asking the questions if the Premier actually says yes or no. Did the Premier instruct Pat Sabara yes or no to ask Mr. Olivier to step aside for those options? Thank you. I did not ask for any comments when I asked you to be seated. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, just so that we're clear. The member for Renfrew and the member for Leeds and Prendall. That she will not be facing any criminal charges. I understand that the elections in Ontario investigation is ongoing. We have cooperated with the investigation. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. But I would refer the leader of the opposition to Hansard, Mr. Speaker, between February 17th and April 2nd, Mr. Speaker. I answered questions over and over again. I have now answered questions 100. The member from Leeds and Prendall is warned. Finish, please. I answered questions 102 times. But again, I referred the leader of the opposition between February 17th and April 2nd of this year, Mr. Speaker. Answer. He answered is there. He can see my comments. Thank you. I understand the seriousness of this situation. And I'm going to try to make sure that we get questions and answers put properly. And for those that are trying to signal to others to continue to make the house even more raucous, I will name you. I want this place to have those questions and answers done properly. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. If Pat Sabara isn't being charged criminally, then there's no excuse for evading these questions. We know the Premier called Andrew Olivier on December 11th. We know Pat Sabara called Andrew Olivier on December 12th. We know that on December 10th, Pat Sabara called the Deputy Director of HR in the Premier's office responsible for public appointments. Mr. Speaker, it's clear the Premier will not answer any questions of the House about the rules in the scandal. So, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier at least confirm if she's subpoenaed at a trial? If you're not going to answer here, will you answer into the trial of the criminal corruption of your office? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have answered questions in this House. I've answered questions in the media. I will continue to cooperate with authorities as I have done. There is a matter before the courts, and I'm not going to comment further on it, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question. Leader of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. On the many municipal resolutions passed with regard to the proposed sale of Hydro-1, one reads as follows. Deputy House Leader. Whereas in spite of widespread public concern about the impact on tarot citizens on privatizing Hydro-1, the Government of Ontario will go ahead with the sale. Whereas residents of Ottawa depend on Hydro-1 for their supply of electricity, there is general public interest in retaining Hydro-1 as a publicly owned asset. Therefore, be it resolved the City of Ottawa expresses concern to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Environment, the energy about the negative consequences of privatizing Hydro-1. The Minister of Energy supported this resolution in Ottawa as Mayor in 2002. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why he's no longer prepared to stand up and fight for the people of Ottawa about their concern over this fire sale? Minister of Energy. Mr. Speaker, comparing the effort that the Progressive Conservatives did in 2002 to try to privatize Hydro-1 to what we're doing now is trying to compare a pig to an angel, Mr. Speaker. The reality is, they did it illegally. They got shut down because they did it illegally. Secondly, they were doing it 100% of it. And 100% of control was being given away, Mr. Speaker. It's absolutely different from what we're doing now. Mr. Speaker, what we're doing now, we're doing it in a way that is responsible. We are doing it in a way that's protecting the public interest, Mr. Speaker. And we're doing it in a way, Mr. Speaker, that will invest in infrastructure. Mr. Speaker. Minister, please. That government in 2002, Mr. Speaker, was invested. That government in 2002 was investing $2 billion a year average in infrastructure. We have been investing $11.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the Minister of Energy believes his own answer. So let's go a little further. The story doesn't end there. The fact that resolution was also supported by the Attorney General, who was an Ottawa City Councilor at the time. And the resolution to speak specifically to the resolution says, be it further resolved that the City of Ottawa urged the Government of Ontario not to proceed with any further proposals relating to the sale of provincially owned electricity assets before there's been an opportunity, and hear this, an opportunity for full and public debate on this issue before both in the legislature and outside. So, Mr. Speaker, we all know there's been no consultation outside the legislature this time around. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy explain why previously he supported public consultation outside the legislature and he does it today? Thank you. Mr. Energy. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe the words coming out of the mouth, the leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker. I want to recreate some words that came out of his mouth, Mr. Speaker. Number one, I generally believe that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector, Mr. Speaker. The conditions would be helpful for a lot of the government agencies, Mr. Speaker. And for the member from Carleton, Mississippi Mills, we need to look seriously at privatizing the delivery of electricity, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, they also, his predecessor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hudak, in effect adopted a policy, a white paper on the energy sector, Mr. Speaker. That white paper proposed broadening the ownership of Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One, Mr. Speaker. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it said that they would rely on the Ontario Energy Board to protect rates, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Energy, because I appreciate his words so much on this topic, I'll read further on this resolution. Be it further resolved, the City of Ottawa urged the Government of Ontario to conduct a broad public consultation on the process of the sale of a provincially owned electricity assets. That this consultation process include the views of municipalities, which depend on Hydro One for their transmission of power and the result of this consultation be known to the public before the provincial government proceeds with any further plans. Well, Mr. Speaker, despite the pledge of the former Mayor of Ottawa to include and engage municipalities, 166 municipalities have passed resolutions opposing the sale largely because of lack of public consultation. Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Energy say engage and consult municipalities and today say you don't care? Thank you. Minister. Mr. Speaker, if my government was trying to privatize Hydro One the way they were trying to privatize Hydro One, Mr. Speaker, I would object too, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have been very open, very transparent in terms of what our agenda is. And again, I will say, Mr. Speaker, we have made it very, very clear that we are going to repurpose our assets, including energy assets and Hydro One, Mr. Speaker. And moving forward, we are going to do exactly that for the right reason, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that every municipality across Canada is in an infrastructure deficit, Mr. Speaker. And our Premier, with a 10-year program of $130 billion of which the proceeds will contribute, Mr. Speaker, is a smart thing to do for our community, for our quality of life and to keep our economy competitive, Mr. Speaker. New question in the later of the third part. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions to the Premier. The Premier has said that Mr. Lougheed, quote, is not government or Liberal Party staff. He speaks for himself, end quote. But when Mr. Lougheed in a recorded conversation said, I quote, I come to you on behalf of the Premier, there certainly seems to be more to the story, Speaker. This statement by the Premier is already on the public record, so there's no reason why she can't answer the question as to whether or not she still stands by that statement. That Mr. Lougheed wasn't acting on her instructions or the instructions of anybody else in her office. So my question to the Premier is, does she still stand by that statement, Speaker? Wow. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I will say again that I refer the leader of the third party to, Hansard. I have answered 102. I guess it's 105 questions now on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to cooperate with the authorities. But the fact is, this is a matter that is now before the courts, and I'm not going to comment further. Well, Premier said yesterday as well that she's answered all the questions that she's been asked by the opposition, but there have always been giant holes in her story, Speaker. The Premier says that Mr. Lougheed was a rogue operative, but the tapes of conversations with Mr. Lougheed and the Premier's Deputy Chief of Staff tell a story of backroom liberal conversations that involved the Premier and the member for Sudbury. Does this Premier still stand by her statement that Mr. Lougheed was not acting on her instructions or the instructions of anybody else in her office? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, there is a process that is taking place outside of this place. This is a matter now that is before the courts, and I'm not going to comment further. Thank you. If we look back through political history, we see time and time again that it isn't the crime that gets the politician in trouble, Speaker. It's the cover-up. The Premier didn't used to be so shy about absolving herself of any responsibility, but now she might be sworn in before a judge. She doesn't seem so sure anymore, Speaker. The Premier shouldn't have to hide behind the courts to tell the people of Ontario that nothing her office did was illegal. Will the Premier tell Ontario, Speaker, that nothing she or members of her staff did were against the law, or is she worried that this would be proven to be untrue in a court of law, Speaker? Although I'm not asking for this, I just want to caution about the word usage, and I know that it was in a general sense, but it was close, so I just remind the member. Premier. Leader. Thank you very much, Speaker. And again, Speaker, I'm going to remind the leader of the third party, in fact, all members in this House, not to solicit members in the legislature to interfere in a judicial proceeding. Now, I know, Speaker, the leader of the third party takes offence of me telling her what the rules are, but these are constitutional rules, and we should abide by them. And I refer her to a Supreme Court decision from 1997, the Tobias case, and this is what the Supreme Court noted in that decision. I, Speaker, a well-known rule of parliamentary practice holds that no member of the House, of Commons, should comment upon any matter that is pending before the courts. And, of course, Speaker. Speaker, she may not take my word for it. She should take the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada and should not interfere in a matter which is pending before the courts. Thank you. Thank you. Good question, the leader of the third party. Next question is also for the Premier. The Premier promised Ontarians that the process of selling off Hydro-1 would be, quote, transparent, professional, and independently validated, unquote. And yet they've removed all oversight of the process and refused to provide any evidence whatsoever that the sale will actually benefit Ontarians. It was bad enough that the Premier wasn't up front about her plan to sell off Hydro-1 with the public, but now she's refusing to be transparent, refusing to be professional, and refusing independent validation that she had promised Ontarians. Will this Premier actually be transparent and allow for public consultations and an independent review of the sale off of Hydro-1 before the first tranche is sold? Thank you. Thank you. So I think it's very important to be clear about how we are broadening the ownership of Hydro-1 and the transparency and oversight that we've put in place. So I just want to go through that, Mr. Speaker. This plan was included in our 2014 budget and the 2014 platform, Mr. Speaker. The advisory council issued an interim report and a final report. Both were publicly available, Mr. Speaker. We held a technical briefing for both opposition parties and the media. We, to further ensure transparency, Mr. Speaker, we brought in Denny Dezotel, who's the former AG of Canada, to oversee the IPO, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite knows that publicly traded companies are subject to different oversight rules and mechanisms than Crown corporations, and that Hydro-1 will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act, and the Ontario Energy Board, Mr. Speaker. So there are protections in place in terms of oversight, and we have provided for transparency. This Premier in this chamber promised to be open and transparent, but not only do we have the same old Liberal behaviour, but this Premier has taken arrogance to new heights in the province of Ontario. The Attorney-General, the Ombudsman, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the five other independent officers of the Legislature all criticised the sell-off of Hydro-1 because the Premier has removed the sale from public scrutiny. This is an unprecedented action, unprecedented action, Speaker, by Ontarians Watch Dogs, and it's been completely ignored by this arrogant Premier. Will the Premier allow for public consultations and an independent review of the sell-off of Hydro-1 before the first tranche goes on to the market? Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the third party actually knows that there are different mechanisms in place for the new Hydro-1 company because it's a different kind of company, Mr. Speaker. It will be regulated differently. It will continue to be regulated by the Ontario Energy Board, but it will also be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act. They will have to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission and they will have to disclose information in accordance with that, Mr. Speaker. But as I say, the Ontario Energy Board will continue to have oversight and will approve electricity rates, Mr. Speaker. So the leader of the third party I know is not happy with this move, but the leader of the third party has absolutely no plan. She has put forward no proposals for how she would build the infrastructure that we are building, Mr. Speaker, as a result of taking this action and others. And we know that every municipality, every community in this province needs infrastructure building, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're moving on this. The premier of this province should not have to cover the sale of Hydro-1 behind such a veil of secrecy. If she believes that the sell-off will benefit Ontario families and businesses, then she should be comfortable giving Ontarians the transparency that she had promised them. But since the premier has removed all independent oversight, it's not surprising that the people of Ontario are fearful that they're getting a raw deal with this sale, Speaker. Whether it's the Sudbury bribery scandal or the sell-off of Hydro-1, it seems that this premier does all of her governing in a liberal back room away from public scrutiny, rather. Will this premier do the right thing and allow for public consultation or an independent review of the sell-off of Hydro-1 before it's sold? So, Mr. Speaker, I've gone through the measures we took to be clear with the people of Ontario that we were going to be looking at assets, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to be repurposing assets in order to be able to invest in infrastructure. Please finish. Mr. Speaker, apparently what we said and did was clear enough that even the leader of the third party understood what was being contemplated. She said on July 6, 2014, she said, the budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, including Crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-1, and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. She knew, Mr. Speaker, that there was a continuum of possibilities that we were looking at. And that is exactly what we looked at possibilities and we made a decision, Mr. Speaker. And in fact, the leader of the third party ran on the fiscal plan that we had put forward, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. The minister in the House and in committee yesterday stated repeatedly that the government would retain control over Hydro-1. However, when the minister was asked about Ontario jobs that could be lost to overseas companies due to the Hydro-1 sale, his answer was that he couldn't speculate on what the new board at Hydro-1 or what the future boards at Hydro-1 would do. So when Ontarians are worried about rate hikes, the minister will say he'll brag about how much control the province has. When he's pressed about potential job losses, suddenly the board has all the control at Hydro-1. Mr. Speaker, either the minister has the control to save these people's jobs from executives that have a history of offshoring jobs to other countries, or he doesn't have the control that he keeps telling the House and committee that he has. Why is he trying to have it both ways? Mr. Speaker, the government has taken the necessary steps to ensure that Hydro-1 jobs remain here in Ontario. While Hydro-1 will operate like any other public company, reporting to its board of directors and shareholders as part of Budget 2014, our government amended the Electricity Act, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that head office, control centres, operation of transmission and distribution systems remain right here in Ontario. The infrastructure investment that has become possible as a result of broadening ownership, Mr. Speaker, will support 110,000 jobs per year, right here in the province, with projects such as roads, bridges, transit systems, schools and hospitals across the province. In addition, Mr. Speaker, Bill 112, which I understand that party is going to support, perhaps with some amendments, gives additional power to the Ontario Energy Board to protect the interests of the people of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Minister, that's a bogus answer, and you know it. And what's happened in other jurisdictions where the CEO has come in, he's cleaned out the headquarters. Sure, the shell remains. It's a skeleton crew that remains at that headquarters building while IT jobs are shipped overseas. The Hydro One sale terminates the province's offshoring agreement that protects the jobs of hundreds of people at Energy in London, in Markham and right here in Toronto. Before the sale is even closed, the province is directive that their jobs must stay in Ontario is history. It's gone. It's a good middle-class jobs on the block because this government can't sell Hydro One fast enough. Speaker, why is the government in such a hurry to let Hydro One's new high-priced executives, making $4 million a year in compensation, move a bunch of good-pay, middle-class jobs out of this province, possibly even to other countries? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I really want to focus on his words saying so much in a hurry. Mr. Speaker, in 2013 we made it very, very clear before the election that we were going to repurpose assets. There was a good reason for that, Mr. Speaker. That's because there is an asset infrastructure deficit across the country, Mr. Speaker. It's about $120 billion. In Ontario, this premier is going to solve that problem, Mr. Speaker. With a 10-year program, $130 billion, and the repurposing of Hydro One with billions of dollars will be invested in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. That's billions of dollars that will not come from borrowing, that will not come from taxes, Mr. Speaker. I will not come from reducing programs. It's responsible fiscal management, Mr. Speaker, and I support it 100%. Thank you. My question through you, Speaker, is to the premier. When you read the transcripts of both Sabara and Law Heat, it is pretty clear that there are conversations going on within the premier's office about how to approach Mr. Olivier in regards to getting him to step down from running as a candidate. Mr. Law Heat is clear, Mrs. Sabara is clear, and you're implicated in regards to what they have to say about what happened. So here's the question. Can you confirm yes or no that you're involved in this particular issue, and you're actually the one who ordered these people to go and make the approach to Mr. Olivier and ask him to step down? Well, Speaker, again, the member from Timmins James Bay can try it every which way to interfere in a court proceeding. We're not going to engage in that unconstitutional practice. As I mentioned earlier, Speaker, the Supreme Court have noted that there is a parliamentary practice not to speak to matters that are pending before the courts. But let me quote the Honourable Mark Rosenberg, Speaker, from his academic article entitled The Attorney General and the Prosecution Function in the 21st Century. And this is what he said, Speaker, and I quote, the parameters of independence in the prosecution function are also firmly established and have achieved the status of a constitutional convention. And as Professor John Anvers said, Speaker, it is now well-recognized that any practice is a savering of political pressure either by the executive or parliament being brought to bear upon the law officers when engaged in reaching a decision in any particular case is unconstitutional and is to be avoided at all costs. Speaker, I urge the member to avoid this unconstitutional urge at all costs. Thank you. Supplementary. Well, again, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, it is pretty clear that Mrs. Sabara said that the Premier didn't want Mr. Olivier to think that he was in glen shadow. So she turned around and offered Mr. Olivier whatever it is that he would most want to do, just like Mr. Lawheed had done just before that. We know that the Premier, Mr. Sabara, Mr. Lawheed and the member from Sudbury were all making plans behind the scenes. The recordings say that too. To me, this was a coordinated plan to excuse, to execute, sorry, say that again. To me, this was a coordinated plan executed from out of the Premier's office. So my question to the Premier is this, who gave the order to offer Mr. Olivier a bribe? I find it ironic the opposition often accuses government not answering the question. And here, they're not listening to the answer and still continuing on with their prepared notes and urging the members of this House to break a constitutional convention, Speaker. Once again, this matters before the courts. We're not going to engage in trying to answer questions. This is not a court of law, Speaker. This matter has to be decided by the judge and these issues will come there. Let me just also, Speaker, refer to you what Justice Linden said in the Improvation Query. And I quote, governments should not be allowed to influence specific law enforcement decisions or specific operational decisions of the police. These decisions are legitimately within the scope of police expertise and discretion. Government intervention in these areas risks both the appearance and reality of partisan or inappropriate political influences affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law. I once again urge the members opposite not to ask these questions because they're unconstitutional. Thank you. Any questions? Member from Beaches East York. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And my question is to the Minister of Labor. Now, Ontarians across the province continue to advocate for greater support for low and middle income earners. Minimum wage earners in my community of Beaches East York are working hard to provide for their needs each and every day and they want to continue to be able to do so. But minimum wage earners are particularly hard hit by inflationary pressures in Ontario and they are trying to keep up. Now, I know that many of my community, of my constituents, were pleased with the increase in the minimum wage of $11 in 2014 and others have argued for immediate increases to even $15. But I understand there will be changes to Ontario's minimum wage very shortly based on the very predictable changes we introduced last year. So, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister please give us an update on any changes that are coming to the minimum wage in Ontario? Thank you. Minister Blake. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the member for that excellent question. Speaker, you'll know that before we came into power the minimum wage was frozen in this province at $6.85 for eight long years. We knew we could do better than that. As a member knows, I was proud to announce last year that we took the politics out of determining Ontario's minimum wage. And we did this, Speaker, by annually tying that minimum wage increase to the weight of inflation. The first increase following this legislation comes into effect tomorrow, Speaker, Thursday, October the 1st. The general minimum wage will increase in this province from $11 to $11.25 making it the highest minimum wage of any province in this country. The minimum wage for students, for liquor service, hunting and fishing guides, home workers will also increase. Yes, sir. This is a ninth minimum wage increase since 2003 and is part of our plan to make sure we have a fair society in this province. Well, thank you, Speaker. This is, of course, extremely good news for all Ontario. And I want to say I'm extremely proud of the work that this Minister is doing in order to balance the different interests between employers and employees. He's striking the right balance and we should all be supportive of that. Now, I'm also particularly proud of the work that our government has done, the hard work for those communities and those individuals who work very hard for themselves and their families because these increases to minimum wage do impact Ontarians across the province and will assist them in more ways than one. As the Minister mentioned, I remember when the minimum wage was stuck at $6.85 for over eight years. I was a consultant in labor relations back in those days. And now we've come a long way since then. Thursday, the change represents a 64% increase since those days and some are still calling for additional change. So, Minister, through you to the Ministers, Speaker, how was this method of increasing the minimum wage arrived at? And what makes it such a preferable method for going forward? Speaker, by thanks again to the member for the question. Speaker, we've heard from experts. We've heard from workers. We've heard from business. They want stable and they want predictable increases to the minimum wage in this province. We've had recommendations to the minimum wage advisory panel and they advise the government on the best approach to tie future minimum wage increases to inflation and that's exactly what we've done. What that means, Speaker, is that each and every year our government will announce a new minimum wage on April 1st. Businesses then have six months to prepare for that for the new minimum wage, which comes into effect on October 1st, the same year as it's doing this year. Speaker, by doing this we're helping the vulnerable workers in our society cope with increases in their own cost of living, but we're providing predictability for Ontario businesses to plan for those payroll changes and ensuring we still have a strong economy in this province, Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is the Minister of Energy. Despite massive public opposition to your plan to sell Hydro One, you seem unwilling to change your direction and provide Ontarians with the information they have every right to. Your government claims to be open and transparent, but the way you've conducted this sell-off of the crown jewel of our electricity system has shown that your words are empty and hollow. Minister, you're nearing Damascus. You still have a chance to redeem yourself. Will you commit to the people of Ontario, the actual owners of Hydro One, to hold off on this fire sale so that they can thoroughly examine this deal and render their judgment at the ballot box? Thank you. First of all, Mr. Speaker, they did render their judgment at the ballot box. We won the last election on the basis of repurposing our assets, Mr. Speaker. In terms of in terms of the information, Mr. Speaker, the opposition, the public, in fact, Mr. Speaker, has been provided a 320-page perspective, which actually sets out more detail than anybody has ever seen, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Hydro One. We actually are going to estimates, Mr. Speaker, where every dollar that's been spent in the ministry is under review and analysis by the opposition. Much of that has to do with the preparation and lead up, Mr. Speaker, for the Hydro One project. Ed Clark, chair of the Assets Committee, has made himself available for extensive media interviews, Mr. Speaker, and answered all the questions five or six times, Mr. Speaker, in the minutest detail. We have been sharing information. People knew that it was part of our agenda and we're implementing a mandate that we have, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for the minister to imply that they received the mandate to sell Hydro One in the 2014 election how hopelessly arrogant this government has become. Minister, the only reason you're going to sell the Hydro One in the auction block is because the Premier has maxed out the provincial credit cards and she can't pay for infrastructure the way that every other Premier before her paid for infrastructure. That's why the people of Ontario universally Finish, please. That's why the people of Ontario universally oppose their plan to sell Hydro One. It does not pass the smell test. If it did, they would have campaigned vigorously on it during the 2014 general election. But they didn't because they knew it would be a bad deal for Ontario rate payers. Minister, if you're not willing to hold off in this fire cell, will you at least heed the call of our leader and the opposition. Release all the reports and financial analysis to justify your dismantling of this vital public asset. Minister. Mr. Speaker, the member mentions the level of spending for infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I indicated in an earlier answer that that government averaged $2 billion per year investment in infrastructure over the last three or four years of their term. We have been investing $11.5 billion. When it comes to the electricity sector Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the electricity sector, they left us with a deficit of electricity Mr. Speaker, they left us with a deficit declining amount of generation and transmission Mr. Speaker and we had to invest $34 billion to fix the mess that they left us with Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Today there's a media report that suggests this government has another SAM outsourced computer problem on its hands. You'll recall that the SAM's program sent out incorrect social service payment amounts or none at all, disrupting thousands of Ontarians lives, people who badly need the assistance. And you'll also recall Mr. Speaker that the minister responsible referred to the problem as a small glitch and the Premier likened the fix to rebooting your Blackberry and astonishing answer. Well today we learned that the computer formatting error prevented the province from collecting sales tax on used cars sales last May resulting in lost revenue of almost over $2 million. So let's consider that the government outsourced failed again. Is this government's appetite for privatizing government services so great that it can continue to make these costly mistakes? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Unfortunately there was an error that was created and as a result unreported taxes occurred and certain individuals didn't pay their fair share. Some Ontarians prior to the error did pay their full share, certainly thereafter they did and as a result we've taken measures to inform those that were affected. We're going to have a number of individuals that are going to be available to them directly and we've already taken those necessary steps to correct it so it doesn't happen again. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. Already the minister responsible is saying that he has full confidence in the private services sector and that this was an isolated incident. Meanwhile anyone in good faith who purchased a used vehicle last May is now left on the hook. How many of these so-called isolated incidents does the public need to suffer from this government? Will this government demand accountability from its friends in the private sector or will the government have a new excuse for what went wrong here or will the minister's excuse be a gently used one? Mr. Government Services Mr. Government Thank you Mr. Speaker and we're obviously aware of the issue and we've worked to correct that immediately and the member opposite is referencing third party providers. The reality is that the Ontario government doesn't determine the value of used vehicles in the province of Ontario. That's determined by industry and industry standards. We get that information on the value of these vehicles in terms of what we're supposed to be charging for tax for used vehicles in the province of Ontario. That information is given to us through industry. It's provided to the Ministry of Finance there's an assessment made and that is entered into the computer database so that when individuals come in to purchase vehicles register them that we are ensuring that they're paying the appropriate tax. This has been done for a brief period during the month of May. It was corrected immediately and we're reaching out to resolve this issue. Good answer. Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. My question is for the Minister responsible for women's issues. Speaker earlier this week the Canadian Securities Administrators released a report on the number of women on the boards of TSX listed corporation and in executive roles. They found that while we have seen some progress on this important matter since January company are still under utilizing the significant talent of women. Mr. Speaker can the Minister please update the house on the measures the women's directorate is taking to promote female leadership in the private sector. Thank you Speaker and I want to thank the member from Ottawa Orleans because it's an important question and she's done tremendous work herself on boards and in the private sector so I know she realizes the immense value of having women in corporate boards so thank you for that. Speaker as I think we all know last December Ontario became the first Canadian jurisdiction to introduce comply or explain regulation for companies listed on the TSX and we did this Speaker to ensure that women are adequately represented in the executive suite but we also know Speaker this is very good for business. Companies without women on boards are missing out on a significant part of the talent pool and research actually tells us as well Speaker that gender diversity in corporate leadership is linked to improve governance and stronger performance on both the financial and non-financial measures and just yesterday I was so pleased to hear the CIBC announcing their own targets increased women on board. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the minister for her answer. On the Toronto Stock Exchange have adopted a formal policy for improving their proportion of women's on boards. Out of the 772 companies 65% decided to not adopt a written diversity policy. The remaining 21% either have an unwritten policy a general policy without provision that relates to women. As a woman, a former business woman and someone who sat on numerous boards I found this very troubling. Minister I also know that just yesterday there was a round table to discuss progress on the representation of women's on boards held by the Ontario Secretary of Commission. Mr. Speaker can the minister outline the current approach that our government is taking to ensure positive change with respect to women's on boards? Minister of Finance Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the minister responsible women's issue and the minister for Ottawa Orleans for their leadership. We appreciate Monday's report from the Canadian Securities Administrators and the leadership of the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to yesterday's round table. We know that more work needs to be done to enhance the quality in corporate boards. Ontario in fact is the first jurisdiction to develop the comply or explain regulation and several other provinces have followed our lead since its introduction in December of 2014. It's because of this approach that we have finally have better information on the number of women in corporate board positions which will help us create policies to promote equality. Our government is proud of the transparency this brings to corporate boardrooms and we look forward to tracking further progress through future annual reports. Mr. Speaker, we know that diversity and gender quality increase in boards and in senior positions of management is not only good for our economy it's best for the company as well. Thank you. Do you have a question for the member from Lipperson? Thank you Speaker. My question is for the energy minister nowhere have the effects of your unaffordable energy policy been felt more than northern Ontario. Our winters are longer and colder and those who rely on electric heat are now paying hundreds of dollars more per month in order to stay warm. In some cases northerners are paying more for their hydro bill than for their mortgage. And for some it's literally a choice of whether to heat or eat. Now the hydro one sale threatens to force those unaffordable hydro rates even higher. How can this government with any measure of conscience be willing to force even more northerners into energy poverty? Thank you. Mr. Speaker the member knows that hydro one cannot raise its own rates. He like the third party have been crossing the province saying rates are going to skyrocket because of the broadening of ownership of hydro one Mr. Speaker the Ontario energy board controls rates we've gone that over and over and over again last week Mr. Speaker the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the extent of the power that the Ontario energy board has over rates. The rates are controlled for every LDC for every utility including hydro one Ontario power generation union gas and bridge Mr. Speaker the control sector is controlled the Supreme Court was very very clear Mr. Speaker the Supreme Court have held the right Ontario energy board to ensure consumers pay just and reasonable rates for electricity even if that means challenging Ontario power generation or any other utility on expenditures like collective bargaining labour agreement. Thank you supplementary. Thank you Mr. Speaker nothing the minister just said but his words are cold comfort to northerners struggling to keep the lights on because of this government's disastrous energy policy municipal councils all over the north including several in my riding have passed resolutions opposing the hydro one sale the news we revealed yesterday that this government lost 61 million dollars on the Ontario sale gives northerners no confidence that this government can be trusted with the hydro one sale Speaker will the minister disclose all of the reports and financial analysis used to justify the hydro one sale and provide proof it won't send high rates of northerners any higher. Mr. Speaker in a previous answer I indicated those areas where there's been exposure and information provided I referred to the mandate that this government has to repurpose assets including the energy agencies Mr. Speaker there are programs for northern Ontario energy support Mr. Speaker including the northern Ontario energy credit I wonder how many times the member has referred his constituents to that program Mr. Speaker there's also very significant support and northern Ontario on the industrial sector has among the lowest rates in North America Mr. Speaker Ontario Mr. Speaker is in the middle of the pack in North America jurisdictions in terms of energy prices Mr. Speaker including Mr. Speaker higher higher jurisdiction rates Mr. Speaker include Prince Edward Island Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Florida Massachusetts Your time is up and the member from Renfrew and Nipissing Pembroke is warned New question the member from Niagara Falls Mr. Speaker my question is to the premier on September 19th the OLG locked out 1,000 workers across the province who are represented by Unifor workers at slots and sub-buried downs as well as workers at Woodbine and Bramford have been locked out they have been negotiating with OLG to make sure that they get the pensions they paid for Mr. Speaker as this government moves ahead with more privatization this time at OLG instead of hydro what these workers want is simple they want to know that their pensions they have been paying into for so long will be protected the pensions they provide in the premier's own words a secure and predictable income in retirement Mr. Speaker I want to know the same thing from the premier why is your government allowing an attack on these Unifor workers existing pensions you have moved ahead with more reckless privatization schemes okay thank you Mr. Speaker and I appreciate the question OLG respects the collective bargaining process and of course we did endeavor to treat all employees fairly and respectfully that's going to be appreciated the OLG modernization is complex transformation both the government and OLG are focused on getting it right in order to benefit all Ontarians we require that the new service providers keep the employees for a period of 12 months and that their current locations and their current positions and at the same rate of pay OLG is also requiring the service provider to continue to provide the same pension and benefits and also to provide a registered pension plan for eligible employees after the 12 month period Mr. Speaker OLG is prepared to go back to the bargaining table we want to make certain and remain hopeful that all outstanding issues will be resolved as soon as possible Mr. Speaker to the member OLG locked them out let's be clear on that that this Premier talks a good game about supporting unions and the importance of pensions but under her watch we have seen nothing but disrespect for the pensions of hard work and Ontarians Mr. Speaker we are now seeing the same thing coming out of OLG a refusal to recognize that these workers deserve to be treated fairly this is after Premier said and I quote the reward for the lifetime of hard work should not be poverty in your golden years this lockout is having a devastating impact on these 1,000 families and their communities when is the Premier going to step up and ensure that the OLG honors its pensions obligations and don't try to sell its workers down the rivers with reckless privatizing schemes and I don't believe this is funny Mr. Speaker Minister of Labour Thank you, thank you Speaker and thank you to the member for that excellent question Ontario as he will know has an excellent record of dispute resolution dispute resolution negotiations by their nature Speaker are tough but in Ontario 90% of all agreements without either strike or a lockouts we encourage the employer in this case and the union Unifor to make every effort to resolve their differences at the bargaining table we're confident still that by working together the parties can reach a settlement including the issues that the members raised Speaker the Minister of Labour has a mediator involved in this issue and he's going to remain available to assist the parties at the bargaining table with the hopes of achieving a resolution to these issues where they belong Thank you Speaker Thank you Speaker My question is for the minister of natural resources and forestry Speaker Ontario was in many ways built by the forest industry many heritage buildings in my writing of Cambridge were built from local pine and oak stands the sector continues to play a key role in Ontario's economy in fact MNRF employs fire rangers to protect Ontario's forests Forestry supports 170,000 working families across Ontario and contributes 11 billion to Ontario's economy each year I know that the forestry industry was one of the industries hardest hit by the recession and that since then the forestry industry has been working to transform their operations to continue to meet the needs of an ever evolving market Through you Speaker can the minister please explain what his ministry is doing what his support are Ontario's forestry industry Thank you very much and I want to thank the member for the question speaker she's right that in 2005-2006 this particular industry was hammered by a series of variables that really did bring the industry to its knees for quite some time right in my home city of Thunder Bay five or six mills right within the municipal boundary of the city of Thunder Bay closed it had been long time contributors to the economy of Thunder Bay both pulp and paper and sawmills Speaker there is some positive news now industry is coming back we're harvesting about three million more cubic meters of fiber than we were some time ago although it is still an industry that I would say is very much challenged but over the span of that last eight or ten years speaker we have done a great deal to support the industry of reference one example in the time allotted to me in the first question and only one where we have provided this year back up to 60 million dollars of funding for roads programs and insurance of Ontario for forest industry that brings that total to over 600 million dollars just one program of support that we have brought for this particular industry Thank you speaker and thank you minister for your answer and your work on this file speaker and the minister's mandate later from the premier the minister was tasked with working with the forest industry first nations communities and other partners to ensure that crown forest resources are being put to their best use in an economically, socially environmentally sustainable fashion speaker Ontario ranks among the leaders in the world on sustainable forest management and approximately 80% of Ontario's forests are certified which means that customers can have confidence that Ontario wood products meet third party ecological, economic and social standards this is important to cherry forest products and puzzling near my community of Cambridge which employs over 100,000 people speaker could the minister please explain what his ministry is doing to help promote Ontario forest products both inside and outside our province Thank you minister Thank you very much and this is an important and timely question and I very much want to thank the member for raising it speaker when our industry is challenged in regard to how they are harvesting forests in the province of Ontario because if they are saying that industry is not harvesting sustainably they are saying that they are breaking the laws that exist in the province of Ontario we have regulation and legislation in the province of Ontario that is very significant in fact we would say speaker that we are a world leader when it comes to how we harvest our forests here in the province of Ontario almost 80% of the forest in Ontario are third party certified we are a leader in the province of Ontario we are working with the customer base in New York City in Vancouver and other jurisdictions in Minneapolis to ensure that the customer base is aware of how sustainably we are managing and harvesting our forests here in the province of Ontario Thank you speaker my question is for the minister responsible for seniors in May 2002 there was a member who stood in this legislature and said I want to remind the premier today to hold on to this precious public resource and for once it has gone back for once it has gone back to private hands the public will never get it back it is my call to the premier not to privatize hydro one could the minister tell us who said that and whether for the sake of Ontario seniors he still believes it minister responsible for seniors this is a good question speaker but let me give the fact speaker that in 2002 we were addressing a particular issue raised in the house by former premier McGindy with respect to the sale by the PC government of 100% of Ontario hydro which would have meant another 407 style sale and I was speaking and I was speaking against that entire motion what we are trying to do today speaker it's completely different than what the PC government was willing to do in 2002 selling a fire sale of Ontario hydro this is totally different and I was referring exactly to that Mr. Speaker Thank you supplementary Thank you speaker back to the minister for seniors the minister didn't stop there he repeated the statement in a press release he called the sale of hydro one a grave mistake today the minister will speak on the international day of older persons if he wanted to show seniors he cared he would stand by his statements about hydro one instead the Liberals policies mean that seniors will have to choose between heating and eating when will this minister apologize to Ontario seniors Thank goodness speaker that because of our effort as working from the opposition the government of Ontario the PC government did not go through with the sale of hydro two arguments going on on both sides is not helpful and it will stop Speaker thank goodness we didn't go through with the sale of hydro the way they wanted to otherwise would have been another 99 years style of photo seven sale which today we are paying to our no speaker what we are planning to do today speaker it's completely different than what the PC government was doing in 2002 speaker I was speaking in opposition to what they wanted to do selling completely hydro without the reservation or concern for the people of Ontario this is what I was speaking about I was speaking on behalf of all the people of Ontario I was speaking on behalf of the seniors of Ontario and you did new question the member from London west thank you speaker I thank the members for their advice I'll take care of the house thank you speaker my question is to the premier speaker experts experts and community leaders are sounding the alarm that recent changes to the partner assault response program made without any meaningful consultation are putting women and children at risk these changes run counter to the 2009 report of the domestic violence advisory council which recommended that par be strengthened not watered down will the premier stop ignoring the advice of experts and community leaders will she place a moratorium on any further cuts to par and instead start listening to the voices of survivors par providers community service agencies and criminal justice professionals in reviewing the par program thank you thank you first of all let me say that the funding for the program has not been changed and has not been reduced our government is really really determined to address seriously the domestic violence and the partner response program is one part of our response to domestic violence it provides court mandated group education and counseling service for domestic violence offender what has changed Mr. Speaker it's that now it's 12 session it's a 12 session model allows the program to serve an additional 2200 offenders per year which is an increase in program capacity of more than 22% and this amendment has been done after wide consultation Mr. Speaker thank you very much Mr. Speaker the 2009 report of the domestic violence advisory council which I mentioned earlier also recommends that par include differentiated responses to intervention instead of a one size fits all this would help screen out violent offenders who shouldn't be in the program and it would also provide access to abusers who voluntarily want to change government choose to completely ignore the advice that was received in 2009 from experts and community leaders about ensuring that par would be an essential part of a coordinated and integrated response to violence against women thank you Mr. Speaker minister responsible for women's issues minister responsible for women's issues thank you speaker and as Attorney General mentioned domestic violence is a very serious problem in Ontario and the par program is a component of our coordinated response to domestic violence speaker and I take this issue very seriously as the minister responsible for women's issues and I want to highlight speaker a number of initiatives that this government has implemented since 2004 to raise awareness of domestic violence and strengthen support for the victims and most recently speaker as we all know adopted a permanent round table on sexual violence and assault and harassment and we have all sectors of domestic violence and sexual violence at that table helping to guide the sexual violence action plan speaker we've also had a number of other specific initiatives related to domestic violence around public education training for frontline professionals and employment training program for abused women and a language interpreter program service thank you the member for on a point of order a point of order I'd like respectfully speaker to invite all members of the house to join with me and saying farewell and goodbye and good luck to one of our very able table officers Tamara Pomansky has served ably to this legislature for many years leaving I believe this week for Winnipeg she has helped me in my responsibilities as chair of justice policy I think we are now both veterans of almost 100 meetings and today I believe is her last day sitting at the table in the legislature of Ontario even though that's actually not a point of order we really do welcome that and congratulations on behalf of all of us and we thank all our staff for the great work that they do and minister of finance on a point of order I just want to take an opportunity to congratulate our page captain today Duham Mohamed who is here today with her mother Nora Hindie witness thank you very much there are no deferred votes therefore this house stands recess until 3pm this afternoon