There being none, it is now time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. This is for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party formed government in 2003, they were handed a model for winter road maintenance. That model kept Ontario roads safe and was cost effective. Then Minister of Transportation Jim Bradley and subsequently Minister Wynn abandoned that model. As the Auditor General noted, the Premier, as transportation minister, quote, chose contractors on the basis of the lowest priced bid. Premier, you made the decision to put Ontarians lives at risk to save a few bucks. Well, you now take responsibility for the dangerous winter roads created under your watch and apologize to the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, and I know the Minister of Transportation is going to want to comment on the details, but let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I will... The member for Renfrew, come to order. The member for Nephi and Carlton, come to order. And I did quite get the one on this side. Thank you. Say to the member opposite that we're very grateful to the Auditor General for her recommendations, Mr. Speaker. And in fact, internal review had already begun. And, Mr. Speaker, there were already changes that were in the works, Mr. Speaker. Following the internal review, the Minister of Transportation and its maintenance contractors have been working together to improve the quality. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as far back as when I was the Minister of Transportation, I was asking questions about the standards, Mr. Speaker. I was asking questions about the adequacy of the contract. And we were looking at whether there were changes that needed to be made. Those changes are being made and we accept the Auditor General's recommendations, Mr. Speaker. And to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The companies the Premier picked to clear the roads, use less equipment, less material, patrolled less often, and were unable to meet even the minimum requirements. When the opposition brought this important issue to the government's attention, the entire Liberal Caucus shrugged it off. Minister Murray blamed the traffic accidents on snow-covered highways as an act of God. Minister Bradley said, it's the weather. But now we know ministry staff brought their serious concerns to the Premier's attention. Serious concerns which the Premier ignored and put people's lives in danger. Yep, people died. Premier, how many people's lives were you willing to risk to save a few bucks in the winter months? Ten of them are north. Premier. Minister of Transportation. Minister of Transportation. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier mentioned in the response to the first question, prior to the Public Accounts Committee asking for the auditor to go in and conduct her review, back in 2013, the Ministry of Transportation undertook an internal review. I mentioned this last week when I responded to questions on this very subject. As a result of the internal review, and I want to stress this occurred before the auditor was even asked to go and do her work. Combined, we brought 105 new pieces of equipment to both Northern and Southern Ontario. We appointed a director of maintenance, five area engineers, 20 area inspectors. We expanded our winter safe driving campaign. And also, Speaker, we reached out to the area maintenance contractors to make sure that they understood exactly what the contractual obligations were. We thank the auditor for her report. We'll move forward with all eight of her recommendations. And I look forward to having a chance to respond to additional questions. Thank you. Premier, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when questioned about the Liberal government's road maintenance contracts, Minister after Minister ignored the problem. Minister Murray told this House, quote, we get good value for our tax dollars. And the quote. Minister Shirelli said our contractors are required to meet ministry standards. We monitor their work. Well, the auditor general made it clear this government made our roads less safe, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal government has had five ministers of transportation since 2010. And yet I've yet to hear one of them apologize to the families who lost loved ones on Ontario highways in accidents that could have been prevented if this government had been doing its job. So Premier, why won't you take responsibility and apologize for your government's dismal record and putting Ontario in its lives at risk? Thank you. Minister? Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the leader for that question. In addition to what I responded to or what I said in the initial question, as a result of some of the other steps that we've taken, Speaker, for next winter season, 28 more roadside cameras will be in place to monitor road conditions. We'll provide dedicated funding to increase the use of de-icing liquids as appropriate. Minister, the member from Timmins James Bay will come to order. Carry on. Subject to approvals, because these were measures that were brought forward in budget 2015, will have new equipment and... No, we're going to do it again. Member from Essex. Carry on. We will also work with our contractors to add dedicated spreaders for sand and salt, both in selected areas of northern Ontario as needed, and also in congested urban areas. Speaker, I'd also point out that in fact it was my immediate predecessor, the member from Toronto Centre, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, that actually asked for the internal review in 2013 before... Thank you. My questions to the Premier. Premier, last week's auditor's report on winter road maintenance points directly at the continued lack of accountability being shown by your government and more specifically by yourself. For five years, your government knowingly risked the lives of Ontario motors to save a few bucks. For five years, continued lax standards meant unclear roads that were the direct result of your government's flawed, cost-cutting contracts. Premier, you were Minister of Transportation for two of those five years. Admit it, you knew about it and you did nothing about it. Can you tell those families forever impacted by your government's lack of oversight when you as Transportation Minister first knew about the impacts and why you failed to act? Premier? You know, Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is absolutely not accurate. The member from Laddard? The fact is, Mr. Speaker... The member from Laddard come to order. The member from Stormbyte come to order. And the member from Oxford come to order. Carry on. Just to put this in perspective, when I first became Minister of Transportation, one of the things I did was I visited area offices and I asked questions about the contracts, Mr. Speaker. And quite frankly, I asked questions of our staff to make sure that the standards that had been in place before the Conservative government put their new model in place were the same standards that we were using after the contracts were put in place, Mr. Speaker. That was a fundamental question that I asked repeatedly. There were concerns that were raised, Mr. Speaker, and the reason that there was a review that was begun in 2013 was that we had started to ask questions about whether there needed to be changes made to make sure that the system that had been put in place by them was actually working, Mr. Speaker. Premier, you changed the standards. You warded them down to the point where you put on turnings lives at risk. You asked the questions, but you failed to actually listen to the people. I'll tell you why. What's most concerning is, in fact, your government did know the auditor's report uncovers the fact that ministry staff were sounding the warning bells, but government failed to listen. Page 26 of the report provides a list of some of the concerns from ministry staff. Here are three. The equipment complement does not appear to be adequate. There is insufficient equipment to service all lanes. Root may have insufficient equipment to plow all lanes and shoulders on 401. Premier, how many of these concerns were raised and then to then, Transportation Minister Kathleen Lynn, and why did you fail to act? Mr. Speaker, I know the minister of transportation is going to want to speak to some specifics, but the member opposite will recognize that the very reason that we had been, we were buying more equipment, we were putting more inspectors in place, Mr. Speaker, is because we wanted to make sure that our record of having the safest roads in North America. The member from Land Arc, second time. The member from Timmins, James Bay, second time. Carry on, please. Mr. Speaker, that more equipment was bought, that there was an internal review begun, was to make sure that we retained our record of having the safest roads in North America, because, Mr. Speaker, we knew, we knew that we were capable of having that standard in place, and that's the standard that we will retain, Mr. Speaker. Five years, way too late, way too late. We're talking about the safety of Ontario motors. We're talking about preventable fatalities that government failed to guard against. November 3, 2010, you boasted in this house, quote, we obviously work with regional offices to make sure that the oversight of those contracts is in place. So why weren't you listening when those same regional offices told you they just weren't working? Again, you stood in the house and told us we wouldn't be doing this if safety were at question. We wouldn't be doing it if quality was going to go down. Well, last week, the auditor made it very clear quality did go down, and the safety of Ontario motors were in fact put at risk. Premier, I'll give you one more chance. Come clean today. What did you know, and why did you fail to act? Thanks very much, Speaker. I thank the member for that question. In addition to what I said earlier in response to his leader, with respect to the internal review from 2013, which led to the 105 additional pieces of equipment and all those other positive steps that we took, which, by the way, Speaker, were acknowledged in the auditor's report last week with respect to showing progress. In addition to that, Speaker, last week I announced that within 60 days I will report back on additional findings from an internal review that we're conducting. And secondly, Speaker, in order to make sure that we drive accountability on this, because it is an important issue, I have asked the auditor to come back within one year at the end of winter 15-16 and provide an update so as to gauge all of our progress. Thanks very much, Speaker. Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The Premier and her government have hit a new level of arrogance in this province. Debate on the sale of Hydro-1 has just begun. There's not been a minute of committee hearing, and the Premier hasn't asked a single Ontarian what they think about her plan. And yet, the Premier has handed out the first tranche of shares already.  Now, will the Premier explain how it is that she has already begun the sale of Hydro-1 without any concern of what happens in this house or for what Ontarians have to say? Bring it up. Well, Mr. Speaker, again, let me just say to the leader of the third party that she knows full well that there will be consultations on the budget document, Mr. Speaker. That she knows full well that there will be standard committee hearings and there will be a discussion about what is in the budget around the province. She also knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a very robust discussion about the need for investment in infrastructure in this province. And that's what underpins our decision. It underpinned our decision to review the assets of this province, Mr. Speaker. It underpins our decision to broaden the ownership in Hydro-1 so that we can invest in the roads and the bridges and the transit that are needed around this province, Mr. Speaker. We know that if we're going to thrive economically, we need that infrastructure to bring business to Ontario so that businesses can move their goods and so that people can get home and spend time with their families. That's not the underpinning of our decision, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, supplementary. Don't wonder the Premier wants to ram the budget through committee. The Premier has no intention of listening to anything that is actually said there. No interest in what any thing that any Ontario thinks about this deal. New Democrats have been asking Ontarians what they think. More than 20,000 Ontarians have sent the Premier a message that they don't want to pay the price for this bad decision. In fact, Cory Campbell, the Vice-President of the Huron-Bruce Liberal Riding Association, has an online petition of his own with 30,000 signatures calling to keep Hydro-1 public. Will the Premier commit to hearing from all Ontarians, take the committee hearings outside of this city and abandon her plan to ram through her Harper-style, omnibus budget through the committee? Mr. Speaker. The facts here. People have to have an opportunity to speak to the budget. That's why there's been a proposal to both Opposition House leaders that we would increase the standard committee consideration for six to six days, Mr. Speaker. But what I really want to do is I want to show I want to talk about what has happened in the past. In 2002, under the PC government, there were zero days of consideration for the budget, Mr. Speaker. In 2000, there were two days, Mr. Speaker. In 1997, there were two days. In 1996, there were two days. All of those under the PCs, Mr. Speaker. Under the NDP, in both 1991 and 1992, there was one day of committee. Six days more than the norm, Mr. Speaker. So we want to hear from the people. Well, Speaker. Not specific, but I did hear something on parliamentary, and I'd like the member to stand and withdraw. If not, you've got my message. Here we are. Speaker, for someone who promised to be open and transparent, inclusive and consultative, this Premier ought to be ashamed of herself. This level of arrogance and contempt for Ontarians is unprecedented in this province. The Premier has said she will exhaustively study where she can sell a 12 of Bud Light. Should it be the LCBO? Should it be Walmart? How many bottles should be in the case? Where on the shelf should that case be situated? I can see how these are very weighty questions that must keep the Premier up every single night, but will the Premier commit to take the same amount of time, the same due diligence to study and consult with the people across this province before she sells off their Hydro One? Just on top of what I said about the need to hear from people in committee hearings on the budget, which we are doing in a much more complete way than the previous parties have done, we also ran on a plan. It was in our platform, it was in our budget, and we said that we need to build infrastructure in this province. We took that to the people of the province and we said, do you think you need new roads and bridges and transit, Mr. Speaker? We asked that question for how long was our campaign? 42 days. We talked about those issues across the province, Mr. Speaker, and we said in order to do that, we have to review the assets of this province. We have to leverage them in order to make sure we don't ask that question to the people of Ontario. They said, yes, we need infrastructure. They said, yes, go ahead and make those decisions because without that infrastructure, this province is not going to thrive. Thank you. Final supplementary. No, I'm sorry, this is my second question, Speaker. Thank you. My next question is for the Premier as well, Speaker. You know, the Liberals have been claiming this now, in fact, the Premier just did it again a moment ago, that all the money from the privatisation of hydro will go to build infrastructure and transit. True. Yet the first shares are out the door and not one of them, none of that money is going to go towards the construction of a single kilometre of road or a single subway tunnel. The Premier didn't need that money for the sale of hydro one to build transit and she knows that she doesn't have to sell off any of hydro one to build infrastructure. So will she stop the charade, Speaker, stop the spin, stop the wrong-headed sale of hydro one once and for all? Leader of the third party, then to enlighten us on how we would go ahead with the projects that we've laid out in our budget, Mr. Speaker, how exactly would she suggest that we electrify the go transit system, Mr. Speaker, and that we increase service to full-time two-way go, Mr. Speaker? How exactly would she suggest that we fund and execute the Hamilton LR team, Mr. Speaker? How exactly would she suggest that we get started on extending gas, natural gas access for people in our rural communities, Mr. Speaker? The fact is the money that we are going to be able to leverage by going over our assets, Mr. Speaker, and making the very difficult decisions that we have made, whether it's the selling of GM shares, the selling of real estate, or whether it's the broadening the ownership of hydro one, that money is going into those infrastructure bills, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to know what her plan is. I've made it clear that when I stand, it does get quiet, and when we get quiet, we allow the person to put the question. So I'm going to tell the member from Beaches East York to come to order. Carry on. The fact is that there's nothing in the Premier's budget bill to guarantee that the money from the sale of hydro one goes into transit and infrastructure. And the Premier has said, don't worry, just trust me, you have my word. In fact, I would recommend the backbenchers actually read the budget bill because it does not guarantee that that money go into transit and infrastructure. So while she's standing there making that very promise, her ministers are off handing out shares to settle a collective agreement. Now why is the Premier claiming that she's selling hydro one to build transit and infrastructure when we can see that that's not what's happening? Thank you. Actually, Mr. Speaker, actually what you can see is the projects that are being built around this province right now, Mr. Speaker. You can see that the union of Seglinton, Mr. Speaker, is across the country, Mr. Speaker. The member from Essex, the member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke, and the member from Lanark, member from Lanark two times. No. Sorry, you're warned. The member from Renfrew has two. The member from Essex has two. You see the 407, Mr. Speaker, that's going into its second phase. It's going to go out to 35 115. And I can tell you, when I was in Peterborough last week, Mr. Speaker, the people in Peterborough are very, very happy about that road being built, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Final supplementary. I was in Kingston, the Islands. The people there had no idea that their MPP was running on the sale off of Hydro One. That's what I can tell you. Now, this is not about transit and it isn't about infrastructure. The actions of this government make it clear that they don't need that 3% on the sale of Hydro One. It's also to contribute to that 10-year, $130 billion promise that they've made. She doesn't even have the money yet. Please continue. She doesn't even have the money yet, Speaker. And the Premier is already spending it on things other than transit and infrastructure. Selling Hydro One will mean higher bills for families and businesses. It doesn't improve reliability. It's going to cost the province billions in lost revenues. Families don't like this plan. Even Liberal Party activists oppose this plan. The Premier is showing by her actions that this isn't about transit and infrastructure. She pulled the plug before it's too late. Thank you. Can you see this, please? Can you see this, please? Before I move to the Premier, just in case that you didn't hear the Minister of Economic Development is warned. Here we are. Mr. Speaker, let's just be clear. The leader of the third party is saying that when she talks about pulling the plug, she is saying pull the plug on building infrastructure around this province. That's what she's saying, Mr. Speaker, because the fact is she ran on the plan that we ran on, Mr. Speaker. She ran on a plan to review assets in order to have the money to reinvest in the assets that we need for the 21st century. And it would be, you know, it would be the easiest thing in the world for a party in opposition to just say don't do that, just stop, don't do anything. That's not what government does, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility of government is to move this province forward, is to make the tough decisions that are not always popular. I get that. But if we don't build infrastructure now, if we don't work with Hamilton and build that LRT, make sure that we get that infrastructure in place, Mr. Speaker, then the boom that's happening in Hamilton can't continue. I'm not going to stand by and let that happen. We're going to make that happen. And we'll put a stop to that quickly, too. New question. A member from Risker, Owen Sound. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, after six months of flip-flopping on SAMS, your mismanagement continues to negatively impact the lives of 900,000 vulnerable interns. The SAMS implementation that you and your Premier assured everybody was pretty seamless and a small glitch. And what you like in rebooting your BlackBerry also continues to snowball into a costlier mess by the day. From Windsor, London, Hamilton, and Waterloo to Ottawa, municipalities everywhere are racking up millions of dollars in extra cost because you failed to successfully implement SAMS. But we have yet to hear you commit to fully reimbursing municipalities for the day-to-day operating fiascos of your new social assistance program. Minister, will you issue reimbursements to municipalities? Yes or no? Thank you. Minister of Community and Social Services. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that we received late last week. And it's 19 recommendations which our ministry will be adopting. In fact, I'm meeting with PWC later today. Certainly in that report, they made quite clear that in fact, SAMS is functioning in a way that we have been able to produce some four million payments to vulnerable Ontarians over the last five months. It is functioning in a way that is a basis for our reform of social assistance going forward. Of course, we did have some completely obsolete technology previously, the SDMT system that again was reviewed by the Auditor General many, many times. And I think that I might be interested to hear that in fact, the Conservative government introduced that computer system in 2001 at a cost of $400 million. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and back to the minister. Sadly, minister, recommendations don't put food on the table or pay the exorbitant hydro bills of our most vulnerable. Let me remind you, a pretty seamless roller, a small glitch, an all-inclusive $240 million cost. With all due respect, the key facts you told us and the Ontario public to date about the SAMS implementation have been untrue. So far, you've dumped an additional $30 million. The member will withdraw. Let's drop. So far, you've dumped an additional $30 million into the system to cover up your failures. Minister, Ontario families can't afford to keep bailing you and your Liberal government out for your mistakes. Will you set the record straight here and now? What is the total cost of this failed effort going to cost the taxpayer? And where is the money going to come from and what cuts will you have to make to take place to make up for it? Minister? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm sure the member does know that we've reimbursed municipalities to the tune of some $15 million to date. And in terms of the way forward, which is what this is all about, we have been given a very clear roadmap by PWC. We will be taking their recommendations very seriously on the governance issue, the structure of the project, through the transition as we move towards business as usual. We're putting together a new communication plan for our frontline workers. I want to thank them again. I know they've had some difficulty in terms of the technology and some of the communication tools and the training tools that we use. But we intend going forward to make this system far more user friendly for them and we're on the path towards that as PWC has confirmed. Thank you. Thank you. The member from Toronto, Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Premier. Speaker, this government is planning a fire sale of Hydro One. Six months after this budget has passed, Hydro One will be stripped of oversight from the Auditor General, the Integrity and the Ombudsman. Ontarians will also be stripped of their right to request information from Hydro One under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It's clear that this government wants to leave Ontarians in the dark. Speaker, will the Premier admit that she has no interest in being accountable and transparent to Ontarians? Good. Thank you. You know, the member opposite understands that a publicly traded company has different mechanisms for oversight. He understands that. We've made it very clear that Hydro One will remain regulated. We've made it very clear that the way prices are set now by the Ontario Energy Board is the way prices will be set after this broadening of the ownership. He also knows that Hydro One will continue to be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Ontario Securities Act. So he knows all that. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this party that is supposed to support the environment, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to support public transportation, Mr. Speaker, is basically saying don't build infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. They're saying don't break the decisions that are necessary to be able to build transit in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area, Mr. Speaker. They're saying stop all that, which I think Mr. Speaker would be a big mistake for this province. Thank you, supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. It's clear to Ontarians that this liberal government has embarked on a campaign to undermine and discredit the officers of the House. We've heard this story before and we know how it ends. It's bad enough that she's selling our public assets without any mandate to do so. Speaker, why is this government more interested in covering its tracks than ensuring accountability and oversight? Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I would say to the third party why are they not interested in building new tracks? Why are they not interested in investing in the infrastructure that they know full well is needed by their constituents and the businesses that reside in their writings, Mr. Speaker? Why are they not interested in making the investments that will bring business to this province, Mr. Speaker? Will update our infrastructure, will modernize our infrastructure and will invest in the assets that are needed for the 21st century? Why are they not interested in doing that? Especially, Mr. Speaker, when they ran on the same plan, our same fiscal framework, Mr. Speaker, that said we were going to review the assets of this province and make sure that we were investing in the new assets that are needed in the 21st century. That's the question I think we have to call the same, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Many of my constituents in Sudbury have expressed significant concerns about the news that the OPP has decided to move its search and rescue helicopter in Sudbury to Aurelia. They're concerned about what this means for safety for our community officers, search and rescue officers, doctors and nurses, city officials along with average citizens. They're all saying the same thing that the OPP's decision to move this helicopter to Aurelia will have significant impacts on the health and safety of Northerners. So, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister provide to this House more information as to how the OPP reached this decision? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm a member from Sudbury for advocating for the Safety and Security Office community. I'm glad to have the opportunity to stand in the legislature and discuss this very important issue. The safety and security of every Ontarian is the number one priority of the Ministry and of the Government. It's also the most important consideration for the Ontario Provincial Police. Given the questions being raised about this locally, I have sought for more information about how Sudbury is served by aircraft in search and rescue operations. The OPP are mandated to provide certain police services across the province including aviation support. The OPP have a responsibility to communicate their decisions effectively so that all communities in Ontario get the information they need to feel and be safe. Therefore, Speaker, we encourage the OPP to be able to communicate with the people of Sudbury so that they and all Northerners can be assured that the safety and aviation support in the North is maintained. Thank you. While I realize the OPP makes their own operational decisions, I and many constituents still have significant concerns about what this means for public safety. For example, we have an aging population in Northern Ontario and one of our seniors goes missing time is of the essence. Adding an additional hour of flight time to get to Sudbury let alone any other Northern community is very concerning. Mr Speaker, we understand that this is an OPP decision so can the minister outline what is this government going to do in order to protect the safety of the public in Sudbury and right across Northern Ontario. Thank you, Minister. I thank the member from Sudbury. I have full confidence in the OPP to make the necessary decisions to keep all Ontarians safe. As I previously mentioned, I have requested more information from my Deputy Minister about this decision to better understand how it will continue to best serve the people of Northern Ontario. My most important priority is ensuring the safety and security of every Ontarian. I know, Speaker, the OPP, along with using their own aircraft, work with other ministries, local police forces and the military to support certain rescue operations across Ontario. For example, the OPP has a 40-year history of working closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry who offer planes and helicopters primarily in the North, including Dryden, Sousa Marie, Timmins, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Muscova. This practice has been used effectively in the Northwest and throughout Northern parts of the province. Speaker, the OPP, like all police services in Ontario, have a responsibility to make decisions in the best interest of public safety. Thank you. No question. The member from Renfrew, Nipissi, come back. My question is for the Premier. When you make public opposition to your plan to sell Hydro-1, you seem unwilling to change your tactics and provide Ontarians with information. As in the past, liberals say one thing and do another. In 2002 then liberal energy critic Sean Conway said, and I quote, the provincial government has no mandate to sell off the grid. It is unbelievable that it is being sold off without any discussion or debate. But now that you have a majority government, you seem perfectly religious that. Premier, will you open up the back rooms? Put any deal for Hydro-1 in front of the Auditor General and financial accountability officer, subject it to a value for money audit so Ontarians can see whether or not they're getting a fair deal. As the member opposite knows the whole reason that we undertook a review of our assets was to invest in infrastructure and the fact is that the party opposite doesn't support that. So it's understandable that they are going to work to undermine any investments in infrastructure that we would make. However, Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite knows full well that, for example, reinstating the Connecting Links program that will help rural and small towns across this province, Mr. Speaker, to maintain roles that they have not been able to maintain, that they have not been able to upgrade. I think that member knows that that investment in infrastructure transit across the north is a very important thing to do, Mr. Speaker. We're not going to be able to do that unless we have the resources to do it. I think the member opposite also knows that investing in infrastructure transit in our urban centres so that our economy can grow, that that's also important, Mr. Speaker, and that's the investment we're going to make. Thank you. Premier, the reason that so many Ontarians are opposed to your plan to sell off Hydro-1 is because of answers like that. Rape payers deserve openness, transparency and accountability because if you mess up this sale, they will be the ones who pay for it through higher hydro bills. Over a decade ago, Dalton McGuindy said this, and I quote, the Tories don't have a mandate to go ahead with this sale. The people have never had their say on this, not in an election, not even in public hearings. So Premier, is this not just another case that I say, not as I do, behaviour? And won't the rate payers of Ontario be the ones to suffer for your crass political hypocrisy? They always do. Will the member withdraw, please? The question is no, Mr. Speaker, because one of the starting points that we had for this discussion of assets was let's look at how the 407 was dealt with, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at how the party opposite made a decision when they were in government to sell a public asset, Mr. Speaker, completely to not continue to regulate that asset, Mr. Speaker, to get rid of all of the revenue, Mr. Speaker, to make sure there was no future benefit to the people of the province, Mr. Speaker. We looked at that as a model and we said we're going to do the opposite. We're going to make sure we retain ownership, Mr. Speaker. We're going to make sure that there is a future benefit to the people of the province, Mr. Speaker. And we're going to ensure that we have an efficient, well-run company, Mr. Speaker, that will continue to return a dividend to the people of the province. All things, Mr. Speaker, that the party opposite did not do. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Premier. Using public dollars for partisan advertising is wrong. It's wrong when it's Stephen Harper. It's wrong when it's the Liberal Premier of Ontario. In fact, even the Liberal leader in Ottawa seems to think it's wrong to run partisan ads on the public dime. But the Liberal leader at Queen's Park is gutting the rules so she can run partisan ads on the public dime. Can the Premier explain why she sent the fees from Stephen Harper so she can run partisan ads on public dollars in the province of Ontario? Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the member opposite just to consider that we're the first in the own jurisdiction in Canada that has such legislation, Mr. Speaker. We need to have legislation that will ban partisan advertising. That legislation will stay in place and in fact we're broadening that, Mr. Speaker. We're proposing that we broaden that legislation to make sure that in the digital realm, Mr. Speaker, the same rules apply. The fact is that we agree, Mr. Speaker, that we should strengthen this legislation. We also agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be an important part of this legislation, this initiative to look at the third party advertising, Mr. Speaker, and to see if there are some limits that we need to put on third party advertising. I suggest that those are things that the third party might want to support. Selling Hydro-1 is the wrong decision. People don't like it and it's going to be the people of Ontario who are paying the price for that decision. The auditor says by gutting the rules about partisan advertising and I quote the government could flood the province with self-congratulatory and self-promotional advertising. It's clear that the people oppose the sell-off of Hydro-1, even liberal activists oppose the sell-off. The plan is good for consultants and it's good for bankers, but it's bad for families and businesses in this province. Is the premier gutting the rules about partisan advertising so that she can run ads to try and sell the sell-off of Hydro-1? Typically, the third party is using language that really doesn't apply to what we're doing. We're changing the legislation. We are. We are proposing changes to the legislation. But let's talk about the changes that we're proposing. We're proposing that we give the auditor general oversight of digital advertising as well as transit and movie theater ads. The auditor general has called for this. We're proposing that we do that. The legislation would also be amended to provide a clear definition of partisan advertising, require the government to submit a preliminary version of the ad to the AG for review and reinforce rules around government advertising during general elections. Mr. Speaker, yes, we're proposing changes, but Mr. Speaker, the legislation banning partisan advertising would remain in place and would in fact be strengthened and clarified. Thank you. Mr. President, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In that there was an important expansion of our mental health strategy that will help us improve access to services, reduce wait times and close the gaps in our system. The residents of my riding of Arualea have been asking me about the new mental health and addiction leadership advisory council and its plan to advise government on how to provide better access, better quality and better value. I inform my constituents that the council is shared by Susan Pigott and the members of the council represent diverse sectors that work on mental health and addictions issue. I know that the council will provide expert advice on strategies investment promote collaboration across sectors and reports annually on strategies progress. Through you Mr. Speaker, as the Minister what are the priorities of this council? Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the member. We actually have two council members in our gallery today. Camille Quinville and Arthur Galant and they'll be joining me after question period on the steps of the legislature for the launch of the mental health bus. It's a mobile program for youth across this province and Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of this house to join us for a group photo in support of mental health week. The council members will be providing important advice as we move forward with these two of our mental health strategy. The priorities of that strategy include expanding programs and schools in the workplace ensuring early identification and intervention for those with mental illness and addictions expanding housing and employment supports and initiatives to reduce contact with the criminal justice system improving that transition from child to youth mental health services and establishing a new funding model that will be linked to population need quality improvement and service integration. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you Minister for that response. I will make sure to let my constituents know about the priorities of the mental health council as they work in collaboration with sector partners to accomplish the bold goals set forward in phase two of the mental health strategy. I know my constituents and Ontarians want access to mental health care outside of a clinical hospital sitting. They want services that are in the support of the factory that could be a great way to contribute to the development of the situation in the future and the vision for a better future for the future of mental health and the entire future to home. Mr. Speaker I was at a bullet fundraiser yesterday for James Osborne who committed suicide at 18. The third annual James strike back bowling for youth mental health funds initiatives and service for those Mr. Speaker to deliver on our bull plan more work needs to be done. Can the minister tell this House how is mental health leadership advisory council plans to deliver on these initiatives. Thank you minister. Well Mr. Speaker this $138 million of new funding this is an important investment and it's the role of the mental health council the advisory council to guide our implementation ensuring that we're using those dollars most effectively inefficiently the council has established five different working groups and they include the promotion prevention and early intervention working group to provide expert advice on promoting mental health well-being prevention of mental illness or addiction and early intervention for Ontarians who are experiencing mental illness we have a youth addictions working group as well providing advice on delivering services and supports to youth with addictions we have a community mental health and addictions funding reform working group that will provide us with advice as we look to implement a new funding formula a strategic alignment and capacity working group providing advice on a range of system level issues and the support of housing working group that will provide us with advice as we develop our strategy to create a thousand new supportive housing units as part of the power production strategy. Even the Toronto Star agrees with the Ontario PC caucus that your scheme to give away hydro one-stock to power workers including those who work at OPG an entirely different corporate entity as they say is puzzling not only have details been scarce but the optics are horrible a fire sale of a public asset a promise to fund more infrastructure when new money isn't even included in the budget not to mention your LRT musings today a rich pension plan that gives employees a four-to-one benefit of taxpayer dollars to personal investment and this government's delusion of what zero net zero budgeting really means I think it's time that the Premier came clean with Ontario families on what this fire sale of hydro one for infrastructure really is well she admit today in order for her to pay off public sector pensions there are a number of issues that the member opposite is wound into that question you know we're very pleased that that there's a tentative net zero agreement that's been reached with the power workers union and and employers between the power worker union and employers mr. Speaker that agreement has not been ratified yet mr. Speaker so we're not going to be talk about we're not going to talk about the specifics we're going to be respectful to the process of ratification but mr. Speaker I'm you know I'm pleased that the leadership of the power workers expressed support for the the hydro one proposal mr. Speaker because they understand they understand that this can be a strong company mr. Speaker I think they also understand that the need to invest in infrastructure mr. Speaker is critical to the health of the country and so we have made that commitment we are going to continue along that road mr. Speaker because we know those investments thank you supplementary back to the Premier this is ridiculous you spent that money from the hydro one sale that hasn't even occurred at least three times if the government believes they can pay off their debt build infrastructure including today a new Hamilton our LRT as you said in question period and provide valuable stock options to power workers unions you have not been forthcoming with the details it makes the rest of us wonder what you're hiding it's the precisely the back of the nap plan planning that got this government into the trouble with the one billion dollar Oakville and Mississauga power plants this is getting out of hand the Premier assigned the Treasury board president to scale back spending maximize assets and bring sanity back to public sector wages and pensions yet it's this type of sleight of hand that continues to build up our debt and our deficit and erode our infrastructure in the province my colleague from Renfrew Nipissing Pembroke asked you earlier will you put this before the auditor general and will you put this sale of assets before the Parliamentary Budget Officer so that the people of this province will know what you're waiting for. Premier, thank you Mr. Speaker we're doing much more than that in terms of making this accessible and accountable and transparent to the people of Ontario we brought it forward to 2014 budget we brought it forward in the economic statement we brought it forward in our program in our platform and we did it again in 2015 we ain't had a lock-up specifically around this issue and we're going to continue moving forward this deal that make that the opposition is making reference to is a net zero deal with the power workers union and we're going to be respectful of its ratification process so that we get the details understood by their membership but let me quote Don McKinnon the president of the power workers union said this and I quote the power workers union welcomes and supports decision by government to keep hydro one whole in an IPO process that would in partnership with government broaden the ownership structure if I do work this will position the company to grow and provide further high-skilled quality jobs for Ontarians the idea is to grow the company increase our dividends and support the work thank you thank you mr. president my question for the premier my question is for the premier in peel have joined their colleagues at the rainbow board in my writing as well as educators in Durham and are now on strike speaker 42,000 speaker our students are unable to attend classes in peel a total of 67,000 students are out across the province meanwhile the premier in her government refused to take responsibility for this Mike Harris 2.0 labor unrest considering that negotiation at the central table have also broken down we know that these are not simply local issues will the premier finally admit that her austerity agenda is forcing students and families to pay the price yes thank you very much and in fact what I would like to report to people is that people were working very hard over the weekend I know that that when they finished up last night it was a well after midnight so the I once what I would say is that all three parties the school boards the unions the government are continuing to work yes people have stepped away from the table at some time after midnight last night but we continue to be determined to go back and to get that negotiated agreement because we know that the only way we're going to end all of the strikes and get all of our students back to the table sir in fact to negotiate and to reach an agreement that all three parties the unions the boards and the government that we can all agree thank you thank you speaker back to the premier the premier claims to have cut her teeth in education however she's refusing to take responsibility for the fact that secondary student could soon lose their school year to make matters worse Ontario 76,000 public elementary teacher will be in a legal strike position on May 10th and English Catholic teachers recently voted by more than 94% in favor of a strike speaker why our student and families being forced to pay the price for liberal flip-flopping on class sizes and mismanaging of our mismanagement of our education sector thank you yes thank you and and I I think it's it's important to note that we actually have been working with our colleges and universities we've been working with our school boards we know that students are concerned in fact I spent some time on the phone this morning with representatives of the Ontario Student Trustees Association talking about the situation with them but what we do know is that in every board of the in the province including Durham and Rainbow and peel that all the interim marks have been submitted to the colleges and universities and that the college and university admission processes is unfolding as it would normally we've been working with the boards in all three of the areas where there's strikes to make sure that there are online materials and we've been working very closely with them one of the beauties of modern tech thank you thank you speaker my question is for the associate minister of health and long-term care now last Thursday the Canadian Cancer Society held its MPP education day at Queens Park and I was proud that day as we're all members to wear the daffodil pin to show our support for Canadians living with cancer and to help raise awareness of cancer related issues now speaker the International Agency on research on cancer has concluded that excessive tanning bed use increases the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer malignant melanoma and that risk is 75% higher if tanning bed use begins before the age of 35 now that we are heading into the intense Sun season and in beaches East York we have many beaches to enjoy the Sun I wish to remind the house that just last Friday was the first year anniversary of our tanning bed legislation coming into force and this is a good time to remind everyone who risks associated with excessive use of tanning bed speaker will the minister remind the house of the details of this important piece of legislation associate minister long-term care I'd like to begin by thanking the member from beaches East York for this very important question speaker cancer in any form can take a terrible toll on individuals and families and I dare say that every single one of us in this house has or can relate to a story of cancer the Canadian Cancer Society's daffodil pin is a symbol of strength and courage in the fight against cancer and I was proud to wear the pin and meet with volunteers and representatives of the society on Thursday the dangers associated with exposure to artificial ultraviolet radiation at a young age have been well documented the WHO has classified tanning beds in its highest risk category along with tobacco the WHO reports that the risk of skin cancer increases by 75% when tanning beds are used that is why our government took strong action to protect Ontario teens from the dangers associated with tanning bed use I'm proud that our government legislation to restrict supplementary well thank you speaker and thank you to the minister for the excellent work she's doing to protect the youth of Ontario speaker I too am very proud that our governments are taking strong action on this file and in her first in her question to my her answer to my first question the minister reference the World Health Organization's classification tanning beds as a one of the highest cancerous categories along with tobacco now I know the associate minister in charge of wellness is hard at work protecting our youth and promoting healthy lifestyles for our children and I think we all agree that prevention is the strongest protection for our youth against the dangers of tobacco tobacco is the leading cause of preventable disease and premature death in Ontario and kills upwards of 13,000 people a year our governments bill 45 seeks to further protect our youth from the dangers of smoking and I know the parents in my riding of beaches East York are holding that bill 45 will quickly pass so speaker through you will the minister please update the House on the status of bill 45 the making healthier choices act thanks again to the member for beaches East York who does such a wonderful job of representing his constituents we know that flavor tobacco speaker we know that flavor tobacco products have proved to be a gateway to tobacco use and addiction for our youth we know that one in four high school students who report smoking have smoked mental cigarettes in the last days and we also know that electronic cigarettes is a new product and we will not know the full health impact of this new technology for some time and that is why we have proposed bill 45 which have passed will ban the sale of all flavor tobacco here including mental and regulate electronic cigarettes speaker bill 45 is now back in the house and I look forward to its speedy passage because after that begins the real work of writing regulations that's where the rubber hits the road speaker and we want to ensure that we listen to us stakeholders and write our regular that makes sense and it's fair to all thank you the question the member from thank you very much my question is for the minister of education minister Durham school board has 24,000 students not in school today now their 11th day rainbow school board has 50 is 5,000 students not in school today and that's their sixth day and now 42,000 students at the field board are not in school today in fact we have about seven members from the young people from the Toronto the field school board that are here with us today to watch your answer that's almost 72,000 students not in our school today your bill 122 two tier collective bargaining act is failing students and their families minister what steps are you taking to assure parents and students that their school year is not in jeopardy please answer for these young people that are in the audience yes thank you and and as I said in my previous answer I'm obviously disappointed that we didn't conclude an agreement yesterday but I do want people to know that the negotiators at the central table the school board associations the government the unions we're working all weekend until very late well actually not technically not last night till sometime this morning trying to reach resolution I know that in terms of the local talks I know that both the board and the union in Peel where they're all weekend trying to reach agreements so people we all understand both locally at Peel and at Rainbow and at Durham that the thing that we need to do both centrally and locally is to reach collective agreements because it is a learning through reaching agreement that we can get all the strikes to and and get the young people back in class thank you want them back in class supplementary well thank you Mr. Speaker and I don't think these young people were very impressed with that answer okay because I'm certainly not minister you have huge problems with bill 122 and you have to contend with them it is very clear that following a dozen years of liberal mismanagement your bill 122 two-tiered collective bargaining is failing students and their families next Monday there's a strong possibility chance that 817,000 second elementary students will be impacted in a very very negative way you've been quoted I quote I am not waiting until September as long as I am in this seat I will try and expedite it as quickly as possible end of quote so minister exactly what are you doing to ensure that school proms class trips and above all graduations are not impacted by your current liberal mismanagement as I just said we know that the college and university application process is ongoing my ministry officials are in constant touch with all of the boards that have been affected by strikes or that may be affected by strikes we're in constant contact with the colleges and universities and I am confident that young people will be graduating this spring but I do have to point out that the way that they were going to handle this was ugly to get rid of 22,700 teachers and education workers and I would suggest to you speaker that firing people and laying them off and cutting them is not a labor piece thank you mr. Speaker and my question is for the Premier after years of warning last week it was announced that GM's Camaro line in Oshawa would be shipped to the US and with it a thousand jobs in the plant and nearly 10 times that in supply chain industries in our community today we see reports that the province plans to appoint an auto industry advisor but that's after 1.1 billion invested and a week too late speaker I know you shouldn't put the cart before the horse but this government just let the cart get shipped out of town will the Premier please explain to the thousand workers about to lose their jobs and to the 10,000 others whose livelihoods depend on them why she waited until the week after the announcement to make this appointment when she's known in coming for years wow infrastructure thank you very much mr. Speaker and this decision of course was made two and a half years ago we were disappointed then we remain disappointed today our thoughts are always with the workers that are impacted and that's why we're relentlessly working with GM Unifor and the federal government to ensure that there is a mandate that's landed in in Oshawa after 2016 but I can tell you what the member opposite can do she's the member for Oshawa her leader wants to bring in a party that would jack up corporate tax rates she says she's gonna jack up corporate tax rates to pay off the deficit mr. Speaker that would be a 12% increase that would kill any opportunity for us to get investment anywhere in this province so talk your leader down from an irresponsible position to jack up corporate tax rates work with us to to land this investment in Oshawa it's our single number one priority as a government time for question period is over the Premier on a point of order thank you very much mr. Speaker mr. Speaker and one of my answers I referenced the Hamilton LRT when I was talking about projects I conflated two lines are in the budget mr. Speaker I should have said either the Huron main LRT or Hamilton rapid transit mr. Speaker just wanted to crack his mother's here today Lorna Gore so I just like to welcome her thank you there are no deferred votes this has stance recess until 1 p.m. this afternoon


Yeah, so my name is Kirsten Troff and my talk today is called building a chat-ups framework. A bit about myself, so my name is Kier, I work at the developer acceleration team at Shopify. I'll talk more about this team in my talk. I live in Canada, it's where Shopify is based. And we may probably have worked together on some open source projects like Rails, Capistrano, Rudebench. And that's me with the cat. So let's start with chat-ups. Please raise your hand if you heard about that. Cool. So with chat-ups you can move your technical and business operations into chat, into a conversation with your team. And this term was first introduced by GitHub. And they first started to talk about that on conferences. They first made a chat-ups framework. And yeah, it also connected to a term, a conversation-driven development. As you probably heard, there is test-driven development, behavior-driven development, and many other kind of driven developments. And with chat-ups and conversation-driven development, you can bring all of that into a chat with your team. And a bit about Shopify. We have quite a lot of developers, more than 300. Yeah, so if you don't know about Shopify, it's an e-commerce platform for a small and medium business. And when you have so many developers, you need to build tools for those developers. So the developers could be productive. And my team, where I work, is called developer acceleration. And we built internal tools for our developers to make their productivity better. And chat-ups and all that kind of automation is one of the things that developer acceleration team is working on. So for you to have a better idea how all of that looks, let's start with an example. So in Shopify, every developer is responsible for shipping his or her own features. That means we don't have any kind of release engineers who push comments of other people. So if you made a feature, you're responsible to deploy this feature to see that it works. And if it doesn't work, to roll it back or do something about that. So imagine you made a pull request. You are about to merge it. You merge it if everything is okay with the CI.  And you tell about, okay, let's ship it. And in the group channel in Slack, we use Slack, everyone will see that you're deploying something. What comments do you deploy? And also the result of this deployment. So it's usually succeeded, but it can also fail. Like on this slide. And this is how deploy work. So right after the deploy or after you committed something, sometimes it happens that we have an accident. For instance, if signup is down, for example, someone comes to this, the same chat and starts an incident. An incident is a special procedure to manage some kind of bad thing that happens in production. And it includes actions like updating status by page and investigating what's wrong. And we also have a chat command for all of that. Another example is monitoring the most heavy SQL queries or the most heavy customers who bring a lot of load on our service. And another example of automation is creating new repositories. So if you work in a small company, in a small team, you probably have a CTO or someone who is admin in your GitHub organization who can create a new repo for you. But if you have hundreds of people, there can be no special person who has a responsibility to create a new repo for someone. And another aspect is that as a developer you don't even know who to ask to create a repo for you. We have special events called hack days where we have a lot of internal hackathons at Shopify. And on these days we create 100 new repositories during a couple of days. So this is an action that should be automated as well. And speaking about chat ops, it's also about the interface. If we would take another path, we would probably create a web interface in Bootstrap or something else and to give developers all actions, to give developers ability to trigger all those actions and script that automate it. But with chat ops it's just another interface which is chat, which has a lot of advantages. For example, your team will see what's happening and what actions are you taking to do something. Now we come to the next part of my talk, which is about frameworks. About chat ops frameworks that exist and about our own kind of framework that we wrote and reasons why we wrote it. The first framework is called Hubot. It's the framework invented by GitHub that I mentioned. Hubot is written in coffee script, which means it's in JavaScript in Node.js.  And there are many Ruby developers who don't like JavaScript. But in case of chat ops framework, JavaScript may be a good thing because it brings a lot of asynchronous support to your code, which is important in case of chat ops framework because comments have to be asynchronous. And one heavy comment shouldn't block comments from other people. Another framework is called Lita. It's written in Ruby and it's very well extendable. It's a few years old, a very good framework. And it's fair to mention that both of these frameworks have different adapters to every chat provider. We use Slack, so Slack is the only adapter we use. But if you use some very rare chat solution, you can find existing adapter or write your own adapter. Let's see how chat scripts and how DSL looks like. So this is the Lita DSL. You just define a small Ruby class which has a macro code root.  So with this handler, if I go to Slack and write echo something, the bot will catch this phrase and reply with the second word that comes after echo. And the Hubot syntax is very similar to Lita. You also define the regular expression that the bot should wait for and send a reply. If we take a closer look, we will see that both of these DSLs are based on regular expressions. And you should write a regular expression to tell the bot what comments to detect. And why regular expressions? It is the easiest way to tell the bot what comment to watch. And this approach has a few disadvantages. Like it cannot detect typos. It cannot reply with this comment was not found, maybe meant something else. It also cannot do input validation. Like if the comment was right, but the argument was wrong. And that argument may have not matched by the regular expression and this comment won't be found. And having regular expressions in your chatbot means that all developers should be really good in regular expressions. And it's always easy to make a mistake and find a regular expression that will conflict with a different script regular expression. So we thought that maybe we could do something else without regular expressions. And here is an example. The first option to write the common syntax with a regular expression. And the second one is to write it with some kind of pattern language. And with echo, the difference is not that big. But with a bigger comment like github add user name to team name, the regular expression becomes quite long. And it's quite easy to make a mistake there, as I said. So we thought that maybe we can improve that experience of writing chat handlers. And what we wanted to have from that solution. We want to be friendly for both developers and the user. By being friendly for developer, it means that developer wouldn't need to write a regular expression. And friendly for user means that we would suggest right comment if user made a mistake. We also have a lot of Ruby infrastructure code written in Ruby at Shopify. So we decided that we want to stick with Ruby. After we tried both Lita and Hubot in production. And we wanted simpler and more powerful GSL that would provide better argument support. So our solution, we decided to make it on top of Lita with a custom common router and custom DSL. And this is how this DSL looks like. First of all, it's very similar to Lita. But instead of defining the regular expression, here you define a special pattern. And you also define a help. And right after this pattern is matched, it's dispatched to Ruby method with a keyword argument. And in this case, it's very simple handler. It will reply with the same command. So let's take a look on a bit more complex handler. It has two arguments. One of them is, yeah, this handler is for displaying some chart from your lake. The first variable is application name. And the second is format. A format is Yenom field. It can detect daily or hourly value and help. And it should be converted into a calling of Ruby method, which is kind of simple. So this pattern would match all the following user inputs. It can be my app. So hourly is the default value for the format variable. You can override it here and here. And you can also define it in the explicit way, which is useful when you have more arguments. And maybe you don't remember the order of them. So we also wanted to have the explicit format. And to be able to work without regular expressions, we tokenize this pattern with different kind of tokens. First, to our static tokens. So the user input should start with a neural egg and chart. And then there is a simple variable. And then there is a variable with default. It looks like this. So this command consists of four tokens. Our next goal is to convert the user input of neural egg chart my app daily into calling a Ruby method. Actually, yeah, instantiating the neural egg handler and calling that method with those keyword arguments. And this may seem as a task, as a difficult task, until we discovered the class in Ruby standard library, which is called string scanner. Yeah, it's a class in a Ruby standard library. Please raise your hand if you heard about that class. Yeah, so not too many people. So string scanner works as a scanner. I'll have an example now. So you initiate an object with a string. In this case, string is the user input. And there is a method called scan. And you give just the token to that scan command. And yeah, so it scans. And if this user input would start from something else, it wouldn't scan the string at all. So if it would start with GitHub or some other command, it wouldn't scan. Then we have the next token, which is chart, static token. It is also scanned so we can go further. Then we scan for a variable. So it's scanned. And then the next variable. And we get the values for those variables. So it wouldn't be honest. So it's not very honest to say that we completely got rid of regular expressions. But the end developer of a handler doesn't have to write a regular expression. But we use some regular expressions under the hood. So more than that, we have type coercion. So when defining a handler, you can declare the type of variable. For instance, the target. This is the command used to tell to the infrastructure that some server will go to downtime. That means that maybe we're going to restart the server or repair it somehow. And there are two arguments. One of them is a target, which is a Chef node. It should be a valid Chef node address. And then duration. Duration can be one minute or one second or one hour or just any duration. And we also declare that. So the first one types Chef node, second types duration. And when the Ruby method receives... So when we call this Ruby method inside this method, you'll have duration as active support duration. And the target will be a valid Chef node. So we can be sure in this method that both of these arguments are valid. So this command will be valid for the first input. But for the second input, it won't be valid. And it will return an error. And this method won't be called at all. So when writing code in that method, you will be sure that you get the right input. After shipping this DSL to our developers, many developers could write their own chat handlers to automate their workflows. And we got to the number of more than 200 bot scripts handlers and more than 600 command invocations on a busy day in Slack. So this became a part of infrastructure that we had to scale. As I mentioned, we based our framework on Lita. So it was just the next on top of Lita. So Lita is written in Ruby. That means that it didn't have any support for asynchronous workflow, which meant that if you ask a bot for some command that takes a minute, it's working on commands from other users. So the bot was blocked for that minute, and it couldn't accept commands from other users, which was super bad, especially in the scale. So we decided that we will, as one option, we can make a new thread on every command to not block receiving new commands from Slack. And Ruby threads are not so good in most kind of operations, but in our case, when most of the handlers for chatbot were only making HTTP queries, or they were invoking some other kinds of systems, they didn't do any calculations on the bot side, so they just requested data from other systems. So in this case, Ruby threads were quite efficient, and this approach helped. But we thought that maybe there is some other approach, and we went with the master process and Redis, and when the master process received a command from Slack, it pushed that command to Redis, and we had a pool of workers, and we could have multiple machines that work as workers, so we could scale that horizontally, and it works the same as a sidekick or delay job worker queue. Having that approach, we could have active and passive instances of the bot server running, and Slack would make a callback to a load balancer with the message for a bot, and then the load balancer could determine which machine to route the message, and that comes to the availability problem. So if you remember, at the beginning of this year, GitHub was down for like three or four hours. That was a pretty big downtime, and one of the reasons for such a long downtime was that GitHub is heavily based on their chat ops scripts, but chat ops was down as well because of some network failure, so they couldn't use any of the chat ops scripts to recover the system because chat ops setup was down as well. And we know that problem at Shopify, we also had this problem when our bot was unavailable or Slack was down, and in this case we couldn't do anything. So we decided that we'll build a special offline or rescue mode in our bot, so if you have this bot locally on your laptop, you just launch it with a special beam command, and you will have exactly the same interface in your command line as you would have interface for a bot in chat, but it works even if Slack or something else is down. Summary, this is very important. So probably you learned a bit about chat ops and how it can automate things, and you thought, okay, cool, I'm going to try that in my team, in my company. But I would like to say that it only makes sense if you have a very big team, because when I worked in smaller teams in smaller companies, I would say that we didn't need all of that just because it wasn't on such scale that we needed to automate things with chat ops. And in this case it's really easier to come to your CTO and ask to create a new repo for you instead of bringing more code and more infrastructure to keep the chat ops running. So if you're interested in working on such a big scale systems, you're welcome to check Shopify careers. And I have mentioned a lot of projects in Ruby, a lot of gems and some other things. So you can go to my Twitter. And the last tweet is a gist with all links that I mentioned today. I wish you're welcome to check. Thank you. Thank you very much here. Any questions for him? How many of you use some form of bots on your favorite tool? My favorite slack bot is the flip table bot. So whatever you type in, it inverts it with a raging guy. So if there are no questions for Kier, round of applause again for him please.


The Ruger PC Charger, nine millimeter sub gun that I've had since its initial launch. I've really liked it. Six and a half inch threaded barrel. It has an MSRP of 899. It's coming with this hand stop right there. It's ambidextrous as well. It has a lever right there.  That will lock the bolt back. Now it is an M-Lock 4M that it takes AR grips. Vortex Spark AR, love the optic. It has a adapter there to switch out for Glock Mags. I did that. Larger firearm with a nine millimeter creates accuracy. But there's something about this PC charger I just really enjoy. And I think I made my case for it because I mentioned a lot about it.


Hey everybody, Drew with GeoWarm and I'm here to talk to you about the M2M Mn02-LTE, whether it be the AT&T or Verizon model, it does not matter, they both wire in the exact same. We are going to talk about a few things here today on this video, primarily we're going to talk about getting your communicator wired into the panel for both non-interactive and interactive services. So prior to getting any of this done, you want to ensure that your security system is actually powered down. You want to make sure that you've disconnected power to both the power supply and the battery. So this panel is definitely powered down, it has no power at all actually. So what we're going to be doing first is we're going to be going over the documentation itself. So this documentation is very important for those of you that will be using the interactive app specifically because your login credentials will be located directly on this, located right here it'll say user and pass. So make sure that you save this documentation for those of you that are using the interactive app and even those of you that aren't, just make sure you save this because it's got some useful information on it. We're going to go ahead and put this to the side, we're going to get it started on getting this wired in. The first things you're going to see here are the antenna itself and the M2M modules. So the antenna sometimes comes disassembled with this piece off of the actual antenna itself. So you just want to go ahead and make sure to get that screwed on, very, very easy. And then after you do that, you know, those of you guys are probably going to be putting this outside of the box or wherever you're going to put it. So you're going to be probably going through these holes or feeding it out. In this case, what I'm going to be doing is I'm just going to do it straight on, you know, on top of here so you guys can see this. This antenna, by the way, is pretty neat because it's magnetic so it'll stick right to the box. So in this case, we'll just get this thing screwed on real quick. Make sure it's nice and snug on there. Okay. See that? It just connects. Very easy. Now we're going to go ahead and get the connections to the panel made. These first connections I'm going to make here are for those of you that are not going to be using the R-Control app to control it from your smartphone. This is for strictly, just for communications only. Just trying to get a signal to central station and that's all you're worried about. So here we go. The first two wires you're going to do here, for those of you doing this for communications only, you're going to be taking the red wire and going to AUX plus like so. Then you're going to be taking the black wire and going to AUX negative, which is located directly to the right of the terminal of the one you just went into. So AUX minus for black. So we have our connections made for both AUX plus and AUX minus, which is red and black respectively. All right. Now the next thing we're going to be doing here is we're going to go ahead and get the green and yellow wires wired in. Green is going to be for the ring. So you're going to take green and go into what's labeled A ring right here and then go ahead and get that screwed down like so. Okay. Got our green connection made. Now you're going to be taking the yellow wire and you're going to be going into tip, which is located directly to the right of the terminal that you just wired into. So B tip. Screw that down. Now there may have been wires in these terminals prior to you getting this installed. You want to make sure that there are no wires in A, B, C or D. These should be the only two wires making connection down there. So now you have your connections for both power for this device and now you have communications. So this device is completely configured at this point for communications only. So those of you that are not using the interactive app, you're good to go and you're ready to rock. And now continuing for those of you that are wanting to get this wired in for interactive through the key bus. It's actually pretty easy to do here. What you're going to be doing is you are going to be taking this orange wire that is hanging because there's only two left, orange and white.   And then at that point, this panel is ready for the power to be reapplied and for you to give us a call to get this thing activated. Don't forget to document the actual serial number on this M2M which is located right here on the front. It's a six-digit number. That's what we're going to need to get this going for you. Make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page and click the Show More tab underneath the video where you can view valuable links pertaining to this product, similar how-to videos and our low-cost, no-contract alarm monitoring services.


Hello, and welcome to this session. This is Professor Farhad. In this session, we would look at an actual CPA simulation that was released by the AI CPA. Those simulations are the real deal. Why it's the real deal? Because the CPA is administered by the AI CPA. And specifically, this simulation will cover BEC. As always, I would like to remind you to connect with me on LinkedIn if you haven't done so. YouTube is where you would need to subscribe. I have 1,500 plus accounting, auditing finance and tax lectures. For example, for BEC, I have a whole course of managerial accounting, a whole course in cost accounting, a whole course in finance that applies to BEC. And I have hundreds of CPA questions that I work about BEC. On my website, you will find additional resources such as true, false, multiple choice, PowerPoint slides, notes about the BEC, and 2,000 plus CPA questions. I strongly suggest you visit my website. What I'm gonna do next is pull the simulation and we'll go over the simulation together.  Okay, let's take a look at this simulation. Once again, the simulations are no more than multiple choice questions in a different format. It's gonna be a lot of multiple choice question, more than one, but nevertheless, it's the same topics and the same thing that you learned in the multiple choice. So the first thing you wanna do is first read the simulation, read what's given real quick, just to get an idea. Now, without even reading, I can tell you, you'll need to compute the quick ratio, the total debt ratio, the times interest ratio, return on equity, but you wanna read what's required. So Oil Inc. a privately owned oil field services company borrowed from TH Bank in year five. The controller has asked you to calculate key matrices to determine compliance with loan covenants. And by the way, if you work in a CPA firm and you're preparing a review, most of the time, the sole purpose of the review is to compute those matrices and to determine whether they are not, the loan is in compliance. And when I was in practice, I did this a lot, maybe a lot mean four to five companies on a quarterly basis. So it's a lot throughout the year. The company generated 2,050,000 in cash flow from operating in year five. Use the information included in the exhibit above. So we have some exhibits, the table below for the year end of December 31st, year five, calculate the required financial matrices and identified in column A, which I already told you we have to do that and enter the associate respond rounder to two decimal spaces in column B. The information and analytics deficient exhibit must be used for any financial ratio. So simply put, they're telling us in the exhibit, they're giving us the ratios. In column C, select the option list provided to indicate whether each of the financial matrices calculated in column B is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the debt covenant and the loan, and the debt covenant and the loan covenant. We can look at the exhibit. So basically column C is basically yes or no. Are they in compliance or are they not in compliance? So the first thing look is the, look at the financial statement position, AKA the balance sheet. This is the balance sheet. That's fine. We're going to need this information. They're giving us a statement of operation, which is the income statement. We're going to need this. Remember, we're working with year five. Guess what? They are giving you the analytical, analytics definitions. They're giving you the ratios. You don't have to memorize anything for this problem. Now it doesn't mean you don't have to memorize them for the multiple choice, but happen for this problem they're giving you the ratio. So you need to know, you need to understand the ratio. So although they're given here, I'm not going to say that don't memorize them. I'm going to say understand them and be familiar with them. At least the most common ones, okay? But if you understand them, they're easy. And this is the bank loan covenant. And this is part of it. Okay, we have to read this carefully because this is what we need to do. TH Bank, the lender is pleased to enter into a loan agreement with oil company to provide financing for investment project. Clear enough, the terms of the loan agreement are documented separately. In the term sheets, the purpose for this letter is to disclose the loan governance pursuant to the loan agreement with TH Bank. Until the commitment have expired or been terminated and the loan principle interest in all fees payable has been paid in full. The company covenant and agrees as to itself and its subsidiaries will the lender that. So here are the terms of the agreement. The company will furnish the lender as soon as available in any event within 95 days after each of physical year of the company is audited financial statements, blah, blah, blah, all the financial statements. So you have to provide financial statements 95 days after the end of the fiscal year. Usually when I was in practice, they ask you like after every quarter. Most of the bank, they ask you, depending on the loan too. The loan is too large or too small. Well, yes, but they need those financial statements. A, 1.2. The company will not permit a quick ratio less than 1.5. The company will not permit a total debt ratio to exceed 0.8 so that that ratio cannot exceed 0.8. The company will not permit the operating cash flow ratio calculated as the ratio of cash flow from operating to ending liabilities to be less than 0.2. So telling exactly how you would need to compute this. The company will not permit the interest earned ratio calculated as the ratio of income before interest and expenses, which is EBIT, to interest expense to be less than 10. So you have to keep the times interest earned above 10. The company will not permit the return on equity to be less than 0.1. And we're gonna see how we compute the return on equity. The company will not permit profit margin to be less than 0.05. And the profit margin cannot be less than 5%. So we are, okay, we are giving what we need to do. Basically now we're gonna compute the quick ratio. Once again, you don't have to remember how to compute the quick ratio, but you need to know. The quick ratio are the quick assets divided by current liabilities. So let's take a look. So here we go. The quick ratio is, let's see what the quick ratio is, current, quick ratio is quick assets, which is cash and cash equivalent, short-term marketable securities and receivable divided by current liabilities. So simply put, we have to look at the balance sheet, the statement of financial position. So we look at the statement of financial position and look, we're looking at year five. Okay, be careful because we're computing for year five. So we take cash and cash equivalent plus account receivable. That's it. We don't include inventory. We don't include prepaid and we don't have short-term investments. So simply put, we are going to take cash and cash equivalent.  You will take cash and cash equivalent, 2,570,000 plus 3,300,000. This is your current ratio. I'm sorry, those are your quick assets and divide them by current liabilities. Current liabilities is given as 5,000,000 divided by 5,230,000. And the ratio is 1.12, so we're done with the first ratio. That's it. You are giving everything, you just have to put it together. It doesn't get any easier than this. Now 1.12, round to two decimal point, except. Now we need to determine whether this ratio is in compliance or not. And this is where the hand-twisting start gets into place in the real world. So there we go. The quick ratio cannot be less than 1.5. We're in violation of the debt covenant, okay? So select an option. No, we are not in compliance. We are in violation, which is not good. And you know what happened in the real world? I'll tell you what happened because I dealt with this a lot. One company's in particular. They will go back and ask you to recompute, to look into the current assets and the current liability. See if you have too many liabilities somewhere. But this is basically the quick ratio. The second ratio is the debt ratio. Once again, the good thing is you don't have to you don't have to remember it, but it's total liabilities divided by total asset. Something you have to know, okay? So total liabilities, so since the balance sheet is open, we have, we should have total liabilities. Total liabilities, remember, total liabilities. So total liabilities, 25,810 divided by total asset, 45,930. I think we should be in good shape for this, but you don't, you know, in good shape. It means we are in compliance, but let's, they want the number exactly. So clear your tape and you're gonna take liabilities, 25,810, I don't need the three zeros, divided by total asset, 45,930, oops, divide by 45,930, and that's gonna give us 0.49, that I do this right, total liabilities, 25 million divided by total asset, up 25, not 22. Okay, let's, I made a mistake. You have to be careful, 25,810 divided by 45,930, 0.5619, 0.56, 0.56. So 0.56 is the answer. Are we in compliance? Well, I think it's 0.8. So it has to be less than 0.8, I remember this. So we are in compliance, we say yes for this. Now we need to compute the times interest earned. Well, this ratio is EBIT, earning before interest and taxes, so we don't need the financial position divided by interest expense. So let's go back to see if EBIT is giving. So let's look at the statement of operation. We are giving, again, you're working with year five. So you are giving interest expense, you are giving taxes, you are giving net income. So simply put, EBIT is not given clearly. Actually, let's see. We are giving income before taxes, now, right here. So this income here, income from operation, is income before interest expense and before taxes. So this is EBIT right there. EBIT is, EBIT, sorry, give me one second please. My son just removed his, his, his headphone. Sorry about that, just my son took his headsets out. Now let's back, back on. Okay, so this is EBIT, earning before interest. You're not going to see this on the CPA exam for sure, right? So this is EBIT, earnings before interest and taxes divided by interest expense, and let's do this, get the calculator and let's see what we have. And I think we should be in good shape. It's going to be more than 10 because it's more than 10. So 4,320 divided by 260. If you're going to not use the zeros, not use them for both. So we're 16.6153, 16.62. So the answer will be 16.616.2 and we're in good shape. We are in good shape. Yes, we are in compliance because it has to be more than 10, okay? Now we need to compute return on equity, return on equity. Every time you hear the word return, it's net income. Every time you hear the word on, it means divide. And every time you hear the word equity, duh, it's equity. But you have to be very careful when you compute return on equity. Why? Because return on equity, the numerator is an income statement account and the denominator is a balance sheet account. What does that mean? It means when you divide an income statement account by the balance sheet account, you have to be careful because the income statement is a number that represent the whole year. So notice the income statement is 2,730,000 but this number is generated throughout the whole year. So it's for a period of time. When you divide an income statement number by a balance sheet number, the balance sheet number is only a point in time. So let's keep this open. Let's get the statement of financial position here. Let's look at total equity. So total equity is 20 million for year five, 20 million, 120, 17 million, 739, 700, 17 million, 390,004 year two. What we have to do because it's a balance sheet account, we have to find the average. Simply put, we have to find the average. So first let's find the average, clear your tape, find the average, 20 million. I'm not gonna use the three zeros, 20 million, 120, plus 17,390, that's 37,510, divide that by two and that's your average. You wanna write it down in case, 18,755. Now I'm gonna take net income which is 2,730, 2,730, again I'm not using the last three zeros divided by 18,755 which is the average equity.  I don't remember what the requirement for this, but it's 0.1, 0.1, 0.15. I need to know what's the, I don't memorize that number. So let's go back to the loan covenant here and return on equity is a requirement for that. Yes, cannot be less than 0.1, we're in good shape. So we return on equity is 0.15. So we are in compliance here as well. Operating cash flow. Remember what they said, they said operating cash flow is cash flow from operation divided by current liabilities. And I believe cash flow from operating was given to us right here. I believe it was giving someplace clearly, not here. Oh, right here. Cash flow from operation is 2 million and 50,000 and we have current liabilities. It means how much do we have cash flow from operating that we could cover current liabilities? Current liabilities are current liabilities. Current liabilities are total current liabilities, 5 million, 230,000. So simply put I'm gonna take cash flow from operation 2 million and 50,000 divided by 5,230,000, which is current liabilities. And that's gonna give me 0.3919, which is 0.39, 0.39, 0.39, which is 39. It means from our cash from operation can cover 39% of our current liabilities. And what's the requirement for this? Let's take a look at the requirement. The company to see operating cash flow cannot be, cannot be less than 1.2. Wow, we're in trouble here, right? We're in trouble here. The client is in trouble. So yes, it is way less than 1.2, which is that's a lot. I mean, I believe in the real world, this is a big burden to overcome. It means from cash from operation has to cover your liabilities 1.2 times. Wow, that's a high ratio to meet, okay? So they're failing in this rate. No, they're not in compliance. They're not in compliance. They're failing here, so no. So they're not in compliance. And the last one is profit margin. It has to be, it cannot be less than 5% 0.05. And profit margin is net income divided by sales. You need to know this, net income. Again, it's given. You don't have to memorize this, but the point is you gotta know it. If you don't know what profit margin is or net profit margin, well, it's the bottom line divided by the top line to determine for every dollar in sales, how much do you keep in profit? So let's find out. Think it's close, 2,730 divided by 39,500. That's 0.69113, almost 0.07, so it's 7%. So the profit margin is 0.07, whoops, 0.07. Are we in compliance? Yes, we are, because it's more than 0.5. So simply put, as you can see, this VEC simulation, I consider to a great degree easy, straightforward easy simulation. Although at the beginning it might look intimidating, it might look, you have so many things to look at, but it boils down to ratios. If you know your ratios, you don't even have to know them. They even, they gave you. Just you need to know how to put them together and stay calm and don't panic, and that's all what's to it. Again, I would like to remind you to go to my website. I have a lot of lessons, exercises, practices about ratios, explanation. Subscribe, you study once for your CPA exam. I'm here to help you. Good luck and invest in your career.