Good morning dear friends and Sachin R. Gengze, Professor and Head, Department of Electronics Engineering at Vulture Institute of Technology, Singapore. In today's short lecture, we are going to have a look at different electrical characteristics of ideal op-ed. The learning outcome of this session will be, after completing this session, the student will be able to explain different important electrical characteristics of ideal op-ed. The content of this session, first we are going to discuss about what is an op-ed and secondly we are going to discuss about what are important electrical characteristics of an ideal op-ed. Let us start with first knowing what is an operational amplifier or which is popularly called as an op-amp. As we already know, op-amp is a directly coupled high gain amplifier. So it has different stages which are directly coupled without any capacitor coupling. Op-amp is available as a single integrated circuit or IC. Different op-amps are available, different ICs are available. And most importantly, op-amp is a very versatile device that can be used to amplify and process DC as well as AC signals. Op-amp can be also used to perform different mathematical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, integration on analog signals. Furthermore, we can design different circuits like oscillators or filters, comparators, regulators using op-amp. So as you can see, op-amp can find numerous applications in analog signal processing. Just to have a look how the op-amp has evolved, I think that the first op-amp was introduced in year 1953 and then that op-amp was designed using vacuum tubes. Then the op-amp was designed using solid state discrete component. Then in 1962, it was available as a potted module and then a modern day mini op-amp is available as a DIP IC. Let us have a look at the logical symbol of an op-amp. Op-amp consists of two inputs. One is of course, this is especially this symbol is for op-amp 741, but almost all op-amp will have similar kind of input and output signal. So let us look at the IC 741, what it has. Pin number 2 is an inverting input, pin number 3 is a non-inverting input. So the op-amp has two input, one called as an inverting input and the other one is called as a non-inverting input. Pin number 6 is an output, which is a single ended output. We can take the output with respect to ground and as we know op-amp require two power supply plus VCC and minus VEE. So this is what is a logical symbol or pin diagram for IC 741. So what is an ideal op-amp? An ideal op-amp has a perfect condition to allow it to function as an op-amp with an 100% efficiency. But as we know in real life, no ideal component is available and similarly no ideal op-amp exists. However, if we can get an op-amp, which is performing or showing the characteristic as close as possible to that of an ideal op-amp, then we can use this op-amp to design more efficient circuits for the real world application. So rather we require a practical op-amp, which is as close as an ideal op-amp. So if we want to know what is this ideal op-amp, let us have a look at some of the electrical characteristics of an ideal op-amp. The very first electrical characteristic of an ideal op-amp is that it has infinite input resistance. As we know, the input impedance is the ratio of input voltage to the input current and in case of ideal op-amp, this input impedance is infinite. It means that no current enters into the op-amp and as no current op-amp enters, enters into the op-amp, op-amp do not draw any current and then this avoids the loading effect of the previous stage, that is the stage which is driving an ideal op-amp. So the very first characteristic of ideal op-amp is that its input impedance is infinite. So again, the same thing can be shown like that if the input impedance is infinite, then I1, which is a current entering into the non-inverting terminal, I2, which is current entering into the inverting terminal, both of these terminals, both of these currents are ideally supposed to be zero. Same characteristic of ideal op-amp is that its output resistance is or output impedance is zero. The output impedance is assumed to be zero and then that op-amp is acting as a perfect internal voltage source with no internal resistance so that whatever the output is given by the op-amp, the entire output appears across the load and then in other words, the op-amp can supply as much current necessary into the loop. The another way to look at this characteristic that the output voltage V0 is independent of the current drawn from the output, hence the output can drive infinite other devices. Of course, this is only an ideal characteristic and practically we know that there no device can drive infinite other devices. The third characteristic of an ideal op-amp is that the open loop voltage gain of an ideal op-amp is infinite. As we know, op-amp always try to amplify the differential voltage VD, which is nothing but the voltage difference between inverting and non-inverting input of an op-amp. Now if the voltage, open loop voltage gain of an op-amp is infinite, it simply means that when the output voltage is some finite voltage, the differential voltage input voltage must be 0. So in that case, we can say also that the inverting and non-inverting terminals of op-amp are always at the same voltage. So this is very important electrical characteristic of an ideal op-amp that the open loop voltage gain of an op-amp is infinite. Practically it is not infinite, but it is having very high value. Now we can pause the video for a while and can answer this question. We always think that an amplifier for any amplifier, we should have a very high gain. So now let us assume that I have an amplifier, an ideal op-amp operational amplifier which has an infinite gain. So do you really think, dear student, do you really think that is it useful to have any amplifier like an ideal op-amp which is having an infinite gain? Can we design any circuit or can we find any practical application of an amplifier which is having an infinite gain? So you can pause the video for a while and answer this question. I think you must have found out answer whether if I have an amplifier which is having an infinite gain, can I find any practical application for that? Let us move to the next characteristic of an ideal op-amp and we can say that ideal op-amp has infinite bandwidth and zero phase shift. Now we know that what is a bandwidth is the range of the frequencies for which the amplifier can offer a constant gain. So when I say that an ideal operational amplifier has an infinite bandwidth, it means that an op-amp can amplify any signal with the frequency right from DC to the highest AC with the same gain. So op-amp will offer the same gain for entire spectrum right from DC to the highest AC. So regardless of the frequency of the input signal applied to the op-amp, the gain offered by the op-amp is going to be constant for all these signals. Secondly, the phase shift is zero. It simply means that the input signal and output signal, the input signal applied to the op-amp and output of the op-amp are in phase. The next characteristic of an op-amp is called as a zero offset voltage. Zero offset voltage simply means that when I apply the inverting input and non-inverting input to zero, in other words, if I make the inverting input and non-inverting input to the zero, the output of the op-amp is also zero. So let us come to the end of the session and you can discuss about two questions. Is it possible to have an ideal op-amp? Can we design an ideal op-amp? And if no, why? And even if a real op-amp is available, will it be useful as an amplifier? So in real, if we have an ideal op-amp, can we use it for any of the practical application? So these are the two references which you can refer to and thank you very much.


I'm Maya. Welcome to my kitchen. Today I'd like to show you how to make something called idlies.  My children call them fluffy clouds for short and they're just delicious and chewy and I think your kids will like them too. So the first thing you need is something called an egg poacher and it's a very simple contraption that has a bottom section where you can put water in and then six little cups that you could use to poach eggs, but I use them for idlies and for many other steamed things. So I've put some water in the bottom of this steamer already and I'm just going to slide it over onto a nice hot element and we're going to let that boil while we mix together our idly ingredients and they're very simple ingredients. We've got some rice flour which happens to be gluten-free. This whole dish is gluten-free and then we're going to add some desiccated coconut. You can use sweetened or unsweetened, but if you do use sweetened coconut you might want to reduce the amount of sugar in your recipe and then we're going to add a little bit of sugar. I've used unsweetened desiccated coconut so I'm going to add about a third of a cup of sugar and then we need some raising agents so baking powder and a little bit of baking soda and then so this is the best part this is a spice called cardamom and it's kind of like cinnamon but a little bit more exotic smelling and it comes in these tiny little pods so the first thing you have to do if you're using real cardamom like this is you have to crack the pods open and then just ease the little black seeds out from the inside into your mortar and pestle and then you throw away the husk. So I've used three little cardamom pods for one batch of idlies. Depending on how big your cardamom pods are you might want to use three or four pods. If you're short of time please feel free to use the stuff that you buy you know ready ground like this from Whole Foods or from a supermarket because this is just as good this gives a slightly more pungent flavor to your idlies I'm just going to pound it up now and once your cardamom is finally ground like this you can just add it to your mix. Then I'm going to mix up my dry ingredients you don't even need a whisk to do this breakfast and it's so tastes so homemade and fresh the last thing I'm going to add is some just Russian style plain yogurt so this is unsweetened yogurt and it adds a little bit of a sour taste to the idlies but it kind of balances the coconut and the sweetness and then I'm going to just lift the yogurt into the dry mix so I'm not going to really whip it together I'm just going to kind of incorporate the wet mix into the dry mix until I have a thick paste. My mom used to say you're supposed to keep the air in not whip the air out. I think there's some kind of chemical reaction that happens between the acidity of the yogurt and the raising agents that actually causes this to start to rise in your bowl and there we go. Now luckily my poacher is boiling already and I'm just going to use something to lift up the lid so I don't burn myself and I'm going to put a tiny little piece of butter at the bottom of each egg poaching dish. This is both for flavor and so that the idlies don't stick. Most of these egg poaching pans are kind of they have a non-stick lining anyway so I guess it's mostly for flavor but if you can add a tiny bit of butter for your children's breakfast why not. Okay now I'm going to scoop the idly mixture into these little cups and I'll fill them about three quarters of the way more in that one and then we're going to cover this up and just let it steam for about five to seven minutes and we've got fluffy clouds. What more could you ask for? That's it. So our idlies have just finished steaming. Our first customer of the day is here this is Misha he's the guy who coined the term fluffy cloud and I'm going to serve him one right now and we'll see what he has to say. Okay so we're going to use some tongs to lift these little poaching cups up and then we're going to tip them out and Mish just wait till it cools down a bit and see they just pop right out and then what we're going to do if you can get your children to hold off for a minute we're just going to slice it in half just be careful because it's a little bit hot and it's we're going to cut it in half like this we're going to put a little bit of butter on both sides and the butter melts right in there. They get so excited just by the smell of this it smells like coconut and cardamom and all sorts of good things okay okay wait hold on one sec Mish and now I'm just going to take a tiny bit of sugar and I'm just going to sort of nudge my spoon so that a little bit of the sugar falls onto the top of the butter melted butter with a tiny bit of sugar on top get a child on camera this is what happened okay Mish look these are for your brothers and yours is going to be ready in one minute when it cools down I think it's ready you want to try it so those are idlies very easy to make you can serve them with some fresh fruit and maybe a scrambled bit of scrambled egg on the side or a sunny side up egg and you've got a complete breakfast I'm Maya thanks for joining us hope to see you again soon


, raised the issue of a lack of data. We should not just be getting our data from police. I think that we should be getting data from railway staff as well. I think that what the minister has just said is extremely useful if we can have an on-going campaign, because that is what we need. Having this debate is fine, but I will probably get very little attention. We just need to keep it going to raise that awareness. I would not assume that having a debate in our country's national parliament would not get attention, but it is important that we use this opportunity to give impetus to the work that has been carried out by Transport Scotland. The next step is the summit. I think that Mr Simpson's point about data sharing is well made. We need that data from all of our transport providers to inform policy, to make sure that it works better for women, because we know that it is just not working at the current time. Neil Bibby touched on the impact of men's behaviour on women on public transport, and I agree with him that it is absolutely cultural. He also gave examples, I think, from his constituent in relation to public transport. If he is able to share some details of those with me in confidence, I would be more than happy to look at that and see how it might be able to inform our work going forward. In relation to the alcohol ban, which a few members touched on, when we are discussing women's safety on public transport, we need to be cognisant of the role that alcohol plays in relation to making women often feel unsafe. I accept the point on enforcement, but that is addressed by the third recommendation, which talks about increased penalties. Fundamentally, of course, the issue will be addressed through the national conversation. However, I would also point members to some of the experiences of women that have contributed to the report. There is an example here from one of the contributors who says, if you know someone's drunk, it throws in a wild card because you do not know what they are going to do if they are drunk or if they are going to attack you. How are you going to manage the situation? The option there is just to get as far away from them as possible. That is why alcohol on public transport impacts on women's safety. I think that we all need to be cognisant of that. Beatrice Wishart mentioned institutionalised gender balance needs to be addressed, and I very much agree with that. She talked about having more women working in our transport sector, for example. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I cannot tell you the number of meetings that I attend as transport minister, where I am the only woman in the room. That is important because it affects policy and how organisations engage with more than half the population. She also spoke about the importance of education, which I fundamentally agree with and support in that bystander approach, as I outlined in my earlier contribution. Jackie Dunbar spoke about the importance of transport providers, and I agree that, in that respect, lo the embassy's stagecoach and ScotRail were engaged in our stakeholder workshop. Just for Ms Clark's information, the SCUC were also engaged as part of our scoping work in relation to the consultation that has been published today. Jackie Dunbar also asked for women's aid to be engaged in the planned summit, and I am more than happy to ensure that that does happen. That was a very reasonable and important request. Sharon Dowey raised some appalling examples of women's experiences when things are not safe. As she knows, the overarching theme from the report is that women are scared, and she is right. She is also right that men need to change. She also mentioned the importance of training, and I was struck by that point. I think that there is a need for a more collegiate approach across the transport sector to ensure the necessary skills and experience are there to tackle that behaviour as and when it appears on our public transport networks. Karen Adam gave an example from a quote from somebody called Sally about her experiences of travelling on public transport in Scotland. No women should feel that way simply because they are using the train or the bus, and I think that it is really important that we learn from those women's experiences. Similarly, Karen Watkin used a quote, men are born with entitlement to Rome, which I thought was really quite compelling. She also pointed to the fact that women's concerns about their safety are often diminished, and instead there is a focus put on their behaviour. I think that that was a critique levied by Ms Clark and her concluding remarks, which I would, to some extent, agree with. Men, of course, are able to go on with their day-to-day activities, and women have to deal with the consequences of their actions. We need to look at that urgently, and I am really committed to working on that very point via the work of the summit to ensure that we can take that forward. Maggie Chapman talked about the safety on public transport being greater than it is if you travel privately by car, and she rightly points to the fact that it would be a tragedy if more women felt compelled to avoid public transport simply because they are scared to take the train or the bus. Christine Grahame shared a really powerful testimony with us this afternoon, and that feeling of not being believed or taken seriously is one that has permeated the results of the research. Depressingly, what she outlined is reflected absolutely in that research, and it is true to say that women feel that they cannot report, and if they do report, they do not think that anything is going to happen, and that fundamentally needs to change. I think that that links into the importance of why we need better reporting systems, which is a key finding from the research. Ross McCall spoke about her experiences travelling by train, and the behaviour during her commute has forced her to go back to her car. That is not really welcome news. We need to be encouraging more women to take public transport on a regular basis. She spoke about her girls travelling home after a night out in a taxi looking at the displayable information sign that all drivers have in their cars. I am happy to take that forward as a suggestion from today's debate when we meet at the summit with transport providers to see if that can give a degree of greater transparency to the public when they are travelling. Jim Fairlie again spoke about his own daughter and his behavioural adaptations, texting to check-in on her as she boarded the train and at the other end. It strikes me that throughout this afternoon, we have heard powerful personal testimony on the extent of the problem. We all know where it exists and within our public transport system. Mr Fairlie is right, men are central to changing and improving women's safety, too. Siobhan Brown touched on the importance of the data gap that exists. We heard similarly from Mr Simpson a moment ago, particularly in relation to the under-reporting of whether it is criminal behaviour or inappropriate behaviour. I am hopeful that the research starts to plug that gap, but it is obviously not the end of the journey. Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted the way in which I am more than happy to do so. I have raised with the minister before about the data gap that exists on the number of bus service cancellations. Obviously, leaving passengers, many women stranded because buses are not turning up on time or not turning up at all, we need to understand fully the extent of the number of bus cancellations across Scotland. Will the minister commit to working with the bus companies to finding that data and publishing that data? I listened to Mr Bibby earlier on. Of course, I wrote to Mr Bibby just last month on this very point because the traffic commissioner recalls all the details of the cancellations. I am not necessarily sure that Mr Bibby is looking for additionality in that that is published already by the traffic commissioner. Certainly that was my response to him in February. If he believes there is something more the Government can add in that respect, I am more than happy. The traffic commissioner is talking about bus withdrawals and withdrawals of whole services. I think that the issue here is when buses are cancelled at short notice and without notice, passengers are left stranded at bus stops. We need to understand how that is happening on a daily basis. I also encourage members who have come into the chamber to desist from quite chitchat at the back of the chamber. I think that more broadly the member makes that a fair point. I will certainly take that way as an action for the summit, because I take the point about women's safety being impacted potentially by short notice cancellation, which is something that we of course need to guard against. Finally, Pam Duncan Glancy highlighted the way in which women adapt their behaviour to feel safe. That impacts on how and when we engage with public transport. Crucially, it can also put women off travelling at all on public transport. She also shared more powerful testimony of her own experiences of being followed home by a man just while travelling on her own home from a night in town, which I found really compelling. However, I have to say deeply depressing this afternoon that the number of colleagues who have shared their experiences of travelling on public transport and the impact that it has had on their behaviour too. The research that is published today has highlighted the lived experiences of women and girls in using and working on public transport in Scotland. I thought that the division between women's experiences of public transport and women who work in public transport was well made by the report. This research is the first time that the Scottish Government has undertaken specific research on the issue. I want to thank everyone for the contributions that we have received. The report will serve as a key document for now and the future, but it is also important that we move forward now in relation to the planned summit.  When doing something just as simple as catching the bus or a train, the collective voice on that has to be louder, so I am pleased that this afternoon's debate has been largely consensual to that extent. I very much welcome the recommendations that are set out in the report today. Of course, those range from a number of practical actions that we can take to improve the passenger experience for women and girls on the transport network, but also to shifting attitudes and behaviour to fostering a much more fundamental change in what is considered acceptable behaviour towards women and girls. I think that that is some of the reflections that we have heard from members today in relation to the bystander approach. I think that, as we have heard from Dolfitz Patrick, there do not be that guy campaign, which has been an exemplar campaign that is used by Police Scotland, is certainly one that I would be keen to take forward at the summit in relation to public transport and how we can go about tackling male behaviour on public transport and improving women's experiences more generally. The broader issues include the consideration of alcohol consumption on public transport, as I have mentioned, and greater visibility of staff on board it and its stations. I am also calling out inappropriate male behaviour, which can be challenging, but it is not something that we should shy away from. The motion today asks that operators, police authorities and other stakeholders adopt the recommendations put forward by the report, but it also commits the Government to work with stakeholders to make Scotland's public transport safer for women and girls. Through the publication of the report, it signifies the conclusion of the research that we have undertaken, but that is not the end of the road. As previously mentioned, I met with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament last Friday to discuss the role that they can play in taking this work forward. SYP carried out their own research with young people across Scotland back in 2018, which echoes our own research findings that safety on public transport is a greater concern for women and girls compared to men. More of those types of conversations are needed, and I have already tasked officials to develop plans for the summit, as I mentioned on that issue. That will bring together stakeholders, but we are also members from the chamber and, more importantly, the women and girls whose experiences we are going to improve to discuss how, collectively, we have put into practice the recommendations from this research. As noted, it is only through that collective action and a co-ordinated approach that we can tackle the problems and concerns that we have discussed here today. That is not just an issue for the Scottish Government to resolve, but we can, and we will, work towards creating the conditions for a vastly improved experience for women and girls on our public transport network. I would like to close the debate by stating my commitment as transport minister to tackling the issue. I hope that I can count on support from members in this chamber to garner that cross-party consensus to develop actions in response to the recommendations that are contained within the report. Thank you very much indeed, minister. That concludes the debate on women and girls' safety on public transport. It is time to move on to the next item of business, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice. Under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, the decision time will be brought forward to now, and I invite the minister to move such a motion. Minister, are we all agreed? We are all agreed, and we move on. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is the amendment 812.2, in the name of Graham Simpson, which seeks to amend motion 812, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on women and girls' safety on public transport. Be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The next question is that amendment 812.1, in the name of Neil Bibby, which seeks to amend motion 812.2, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on women and girls' safety on public transport. Be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and there will be a brief suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.


No further introductions. It is now time for Question Period, the leader of Her Majesty's Royal Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Since the Auditor General's report about the Winter Road maintenance contracts, the government has done nothing but brag about buying new equipment to prop up the failed agreements. The Minister of Transportation said they have supplied over 100 new pieces of equipment to clear the roads. Yet yesterday his press secretary said the province never purchased any equipment for road maintenance contractors. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier clarify, did the government pay for the sanders and the plows, and how many did the government pay for? Thanks very much, Speaker. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I've had the opportunity on a number of occasions over the last few months to speak here in the legislature about this important topic, Speaker. And of course, I believe the Leader of that party would know that when the auditor produced her report a number of months ago she had eight recommendations regarding how we can improve the winter maintenance program that the ministry runs, Speaker. In addition to that, what I've pointed out repeatedly in this House is that prior to the auditor being called in to conduct her investigation by the Standing Committee, there were over the course of two winter seasons prior to that, Speaker. 105 pieces of equipment that were added to both Northern and Southern Ontario area maintenance contract, Speaker. 105 pieces of equipment. So, for example, Speaker, in the north, in the north that equipment helped with truck climbing and passing lanes, and in the south that equipment helped. 50 or 55 pieces helped with clearing road control. There's quicker, Speaker. I look forward to the follow-up. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, I can't seem to get an answer from the Minister of Transportation. On April 29th, the minister tweeted, 50, the number of additional winter maintenance vehicles added to Southern Ontario's road since 2012. Another tweet, 55, the number of additional winter maintenance vehicles added to Northern Ontario since 2012. A third tweet summed it up. MTO has added more than 100 pieces of snow clearing equipment since 2012. Mr. Speaker, where are those 105 pieces of equipment? The minister claims MTO added. If the Ministry of Transportation and, therefore, the taxpayers paid for those specific pieces, why do we not own them? Why were they given away? The member from the PN Carlton will come to order, and I'm waiting for silence so that I can hear the answer. Please. Speaker, again I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition on this important topic. So I'm going to try to be as clear as I possibly can. In winter 2012-2013, the member from Oxford, the member from Brussels, everyone sounds, contractors added 55 pieces of equipment, Speaker. In winter season 2013-14, we added another 50 pieces of equipment across the province of Ontario. And in the year after, in the year since the Auditor General's report, we've added, I think it's in the neighbourhood, it's 37 plus 16, so another 53 pieces of equipment that we've added. So in total, Speaker, from winter 2012-2013 until today, we've added 158 pieces of equipment across the province of Ontario. Like all of the equipment that's deployed, both that which we've added since 2012 and that which existed and all of our area maintenance contractors, Speaker. Of course, we work with our contractors to make sure that it goes out on the roads and highways of the province. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, straight from the Auditor General's report, the total cost to the Ministry of Additional Units of Equipment negotiated with the contractors was $15 million a year. And again I repeat, yesterday the government said they never purchased a new piece of equipment. This Liberal government has a history of not asking for receipts when they give away millions of dollars. Did the Minister here do the same thing the Minister of Education did? Mr. Speaker, did the contractors give him receipts? Pictures? Has he even seen the vehicles? Or did the Minister just hand over millions of dollars? What did you do? Mr. Speaker, please. Minister. Speaker, it's a little bit difficult for me to understand exactly what the leader of the opposition is trying to get at here. So again, I'll be very clear, going back over the last couple of years, Speaker, we have now added both prior to the Auditor's report and since we have now added cumulatively 158 pieces of equipment, Speaker. What happens, what happens with the way that our contracts are structured is that we effectively pay our contractors for service. They are required to fulfill their equipment complement to provide that service, which means that we pay a contract price to the contractor. They in turn purchase or lease the equipment itself to satisfy what's required, Speaker. There is nothing that should be confusing about this, but fundamentally, fundamentally, Speaker, fundamentally, Speaker, we are delivering... The Member from Lanark come to order. Do you have a wrap-up, please? Just as I was saying, Speaker, 158 new pieces of equipment across all of Ontario since winter 2012-2013, which working with our contractors means that we'll continue to provide the winter maintenance program, Speaker. Happy to have a conversation with the leader offline if he wants a better understanding of why he's confused about this topic. Thank you. New question. The leader of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, since the Minister of Transportation won't answer a simple question. The Auditor General was able to show us the government paid $1.7 million to buy 13 pieces of equipment for the lowest bidder on a $700,000 contract. We've now learned that four similar road maintenance contracts have failed. So the government spins this by denying they bought any new equipment, but then they say they gave money to these companies to buy new plows. If it wasn't a loan, grant or subsidy, it was simply trying to hide the government's failures. Mr. Speaker, will the government ask to be repaid for the equipment or will the equipment be returned? You can't simply give the money away and see no proof for it. What will the government do? Mr. Speaker, transportation will want to once more answer the detailed question that the leader of the opposition is asking. But Mr. Speaker, at the base of this question should be a concern about keeping our roads in Ontario the safest in North America, which is what they are, Mr. Speaker, year after... The Member from Renfrew and Epising, Pembroke, come to order. Finish, please. Mr. Speaker, year after year, our roads are among the safest in North America at the top, first or second, Mr. Speaker, and the standards and the standards that we have in place, Mr. Speaker, are the highest possible. We work... Member from Renfrew, second time. Carry on. We work with the contractors, Mr. Speaker, and I would think that the leader of the opposition would want to see... Answer. New equipment where it's necessary, would want to see that equipment deployed, Mr. Speaker, in order to keep those high standards in place. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. In 2009, the Liberal government decided to switch the procurement process. Regardless of whether they had the equipment to do the job, the lowest bidder got the deal. Then the government would bail them out if they didn't have equipment. As a direct result of the switch, Ontario's lives were put at risk. That's what this is about. In an effort to cover their tracks, the Liberals handed out millions of dollars worth of vehicles. Mr. Speaker, will the Liberals switch back to the PC model of contracting winter road maintenance before they have to bail out another company with taxpayer dollars? Minister of Transportation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Premier and her answer just a second ago, I think cited the statistic that's very important for everybody to remember. Over the last 13 years, Ontario's roads and highways have ranked first or second across all North American jurisdictions. Prior to the Auditor General coming in to do her investigation, the Ministry of Transportation had already embarked on adding equipment and improving the winter maintenance program. And since the Auditor released her recommendations, all eight of them, Speaker, have been accepted by the Ministry. We continue to work with our contractors. We're adding equipment. We're improving service. And we're giving people the... Thanks very much, Speaker. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, we don't need a snow job from the Ministry of Transportation. Under progressive conservative standards, road clearing times were down to little over two hours. When the Liberals switched to the lowest bidder wins the contracts, road clearing times more than doubled. In fact, six of the 20 contract areas didn't even meet the generous and lenient provincial standards. In typical fashion, this government tried to throw money at their problem without a real solution. Well, I have a solution. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, why won't the government return to the PC procurement model that kept roads clear and Ontarians safe? Thanks very much, Speaker. It is regrettable, but I guess not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition would decide to scout off corny slogans and play a little bit of politics with an important issue. What I've said consistently over the last number of months is that this Premier and this government, accepting all eight recommendations that were released by the auditor, are moving forward. We are deploying in conjunction with our contractors more equipment. We have more liquid materials out there on our highway speaker, and everybody is ready to take on the winter season that we find ourselves in right now, Speaker. And again, I would stress that over the last 13 years, here in the province of Ontario, our roads and highways through all season speaker have ranked first and second across North America for safety speaker. It doesn't mean that our work ends. It means that we keep working hard with our contractors, with our municipal partners, and through all communities to make sure we deliver highway maintenance winter, fall, summer, and spring that the people of Ontario deserve. Thanks very much, Speaker. Question, the Leader of the Third Party. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The Premier needs to come clean with Ontarians and tell them where the money from the sell-off of Hydro-1 is actually going. First, she said she's using that money for infrastructure. Now her fall economic statement says the government is using that money for a one-time improvement in the deficit numbers. Will the Premier and her government be breaking the promise that they made to Ontarians to build transit just so they can balance the budget, Speaker? Thank you. The Leader of the Third Party knows full well that the money that we will realise by broadening the ownership of Hydro-1 is being invested in transportation infrastructure. She knows that. She knows that the projects that are being built around the province are critical to the communities in this province. She knows that there is more that needs to be done, whether it's roads, whether it's bridges in our Northern and rural communities, whether it's wastewater systems, or whether it is transit projects. I will say to the Leader of the Third Party that I would have thought given that the Paris conference is going on right now, and there is a global conversation about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that she would have been supportive of the investment in transit infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, that will help us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions will help us to develop innovative technology that we can export to the world so that we can work to save this planet, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Selling Hydro-1 is short-sighted. It doesn't build transit. At least people paying more. It puts the brakes on job creation in this province. The fall economic statement says, and I quote, the province's total revenue projection is $1.2 billion higher than in the 2015 budget forecast. This increase largely reflects the recent Hydro-1 initial public offering. But then the minister stood up in this legislature and said, we are not relying on assets in order to manage our deficit. My question is simple. When this government continues to say one thing and do the other, how can Ontarians trust what they're saying about the sell-off of Hydro-1? The minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order. Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that we were broadening the ownership of Hydro-1 as part of a plan to have the revenue to be able to invest in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. We've been very clear about that. We ran on it, Mr. Speaker. We are now implementing that plan, Mr. Speaker. And we've been very, very clear that we understand the needs for investment in infrastructure across this province. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the need for investment in infrastructure across the country. But Ontario has put forward a plan that will allow us to do our part. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of the third party wants to encourage people to take advantage of the economic rates, about electricity rates that simply are not the case. The fact is, the Ontario Energy Board that sets rates now will set rates after the broadening of the ownership of Hydro-1. She knows that, Mr. Speaker. And she knows we need those investments in infrastructure. Thank you. Final supplementary. Whether it's the more than half a billion dollars in debt retirement charges that didn't retire debt that the Liberals are counting once for infrastructure and a second time against the debt, I can't blame Ontarians for losing trust that this government has their best interests at heart. Will the Premier and her government take a step towards rebuilding the trust of Ontarians and commit to not sell any more of Hydro-1? Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that the Trillium Trust exists, that the funds from the Government of Hydro-1 will go into the Trillium Trust and that that money will be invested in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the kind of transparency that we promise to the people of Ontario and we are delivering. But, Mr. Speaker, there are people in every community in this province, not just the municipal leaders, not just the elected officials, but the people living in communities who know that they need investment in the infrastructure in their communities. They know that the roads are inadequate, Mr. Speaker. And they know that they, in their municipalities, do not necessarily have the resources to make those investments. And so, they look to the provincial government, they look to the federal government to work with their municipal leaders to make those investments. That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. And it has the benefit, that kind of infrastructure investment has the benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when we talk about transit in the community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is also for the Premier. The Liberals insist that selling off Hydro-1 will painlessly pay for transit. But the independent FAO says it won't raise the money that the Liberals insist that it will. The FAO says that it will leave this province in worse shape than it is today, losing money that could be invested in health care and education and all kinds of other important programs. Can this Premier explain why this government thinks that the FAO is wrong? Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to comment on that report. But the member, the leader of the third party, Mr. Speaker, knows full well that the FAO said we were on track to reduce our deficit, to eliminate our deficit, Mr. Speaker. And in fact, didn't take into account the revenues from the broadening of the ownership of Hydro-1. Mr. Speaker, we are on track to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. We are investing in infrastructure. There's building going on around the province. There will be more building, Mr. Speaker, because the needs are great. We are still catching up, Mr. Speaker, and we know that if we don't make those investments, we will not be competitive. Our communities will not be competitive in an economy that is global, Mr. Speaker. So we're going to make those investments in order to make sure that Ontario is competitive, as it can be on the global stage, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows, or ought to know, that the FAO in fact said the opposite, and this province will be in worse financial shape in the long run. That's what the FAO said. And he said that selling off a revenue-generating asset in order to pay for transit is the worst way to fund infrastructure in the province of Ontario Speaker. But yesterday, the Minister of Finance insisted that the Federal One would, quote, make more value for the province of Ontario. The FAO says, quote, the province's budget balance will be worse than it would have been without the sale. Can the Premier explain why people should believe the Liberals instead of the independent financial accountability officer for this province? Minister of Finance. So, Mr. Speaker, the FAO says the following, and I acknowledge that our plan to eliminate the deficit in 2017-2018, he says, is achievable. And he goes on to say in both 2013 and 2014 program spending was $1.2 billion lower each year than the original budget projection. He further states, and I quote, and as a result, it is reasonable to expect that our government will continue to manage program spending for 2015-16 below the original budget plan projection. He recognizes that the work that's being done as well as optimizing our assets to reinvestment into our economy will produce other revenues, and he recognizes that what we are doing now is achievable. He also states, by the way, that asset repurposing is not what's being dependent upon in terms of balancing the budget. He says that as well. So, Mr. Speaker, the member of the third party is wrong in her assessment. We are doing what's necessary to reinvest our economy and produce new assets. Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a game of cut and thrust in question, period. It is about the people of Ontario. People who are worried about whether or not they're going to be able to have their jobs going forward. Worried about whether they're going to pay their bills this year, and what they're going to do each and every year that private shareholders push those bills up and up and up. Worried about whether they can trust anything that they actually hear from this government across the way, Speaker. Minister of Economic Development We owe good faith to the people of this province, the people of Ontario, the 185 municipalities who have told them to stop the sale-off. The 80% of Ontarians that have said stop the sell-off. The Chamber of Commerce is worried about the impact of the sell-off on business in this province. Will she do the right thing and stop any further sell-off of shares of Hydro-1? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear Ontario's unemployment rate is now down at 6.8% below the national average. It was this party that provided index to minimum wage which that member opposite voted against. We have produced real jobs Mr. Speaker, 560,000 real jobs, thank you jobs since the recession. Furthermore, we are investing. We have investments concurrently underway. And the member opposite, I'm not sure what she would cancel. Is it the Hamilton LRT where she lives? Mr. Speaker, is it the GoEx Imagineer where her opposition, where her partner, where the investment lives? Mr. Speaker, is it the Excalibur from the secondary region? Is it the high-speed rail from London to Winchester being proposed right now? Is it the realignment of Highway 7 and Kitchener and Guelph? Mr. Speaker, we need to understand what it is the member opposite would cancel if we don't do what we're doing to repurpose our assets and reinvest in the very projects that are necessary for our economy. Thank you. Remember some of these, Grembel? Thanks, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Jerry Lahi Jr. is supposed to have another court date today in his role in the Sudbury by-election bribery scandal. I'm not going to ask about that because I don't need the government house leader to tell me that he can't answer because it's before the courts. But there is so much more to play. According to the Globe and Mail's Adrian Morrow, prosecutors agonized for months over whether to advise police to go ahead with charges against Pat Sorbera. It's not as clear as the government likes to make it out to be. Whether what Ms. Sorbera did was illegal, we may never know. But we certainly have a second time. And immoral. So Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering how hard it was for the Premier to disregard her integrity by supporting Sorbera and the alleged bribery. Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite understands that I have answered many, many questions on this subject in the house, outside of the house, Mr. Speaker. He also knows that there is a case before the courts, Mr. Speaker, and I have no further comment to make. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, Jerry Lawyer Jr. is still on trial. I know it's before the courts. Pat Sorbera is still under investigation for violations of the Election Act. I know it's an ongoing investigation. We've talked about those things endlessly. But something we don't talk often enough about is what happened on February 20th. That's the day the Premier marched into this building and threatened the opposition. She tried to silence us by accusing both parties of quid pro quo arrangements and trading seats for jobs. But we didn't waver because someone in this building stopped the call. The members will come to order. You won't know when I'm going to hit. Please finish. Again, Speaker, that didn't waver us because someone in this building has to have some integrity. That being said, Speaker, what is the Premier more embarrassed about trying to intimidate the opposition to drop the issue, her deputy chief of staff still being under investigation or the fact that a senior member is in court today on corruption charges? Please. Thank you. Premier. Well, Speaker, I've noticed a trend when the opposition always decides to talk about things that should not be discussed in this legislature is when they have, Speaker, nothing to talk about. Instead of talking about climate change and how we're going to fight climate change, instead of talking about, Speaker, by building public infrastructure, especially public transit across the province, they choose to speak about issues. Finish, please. Speaker, clearly when they have nothing to talk about issues that are important to the people of province, they choose to talk about issues that are before the course, which they know that they ... The member from Nipissing, the member from Leeds-Grenville, and the member that come to order, and the member from Nipi and Carlton's second time. Finish, please. Speaker, they continue to talk about issues that are not ... The progress in our province by ensuring that we tackle the issues around climate change, by ensuring that we're building Ontario by investing in our communities. Because, Speaker, they have no concrete, no positive ideas whatsoever. So they focus on what, Speaker? The member from Leeds-Grenville second time, the member from Stormont-Dundas in Southland, Gary, you're warned. Carry on. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the official option continues to focus on issues that are within the purview of the course, and should not be discussed in the legislature, and focusing on things that matter strongly. Thank you. New question. Member from Toronto, Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Premier. First, we learned that Ontario families were subsidizing the Hydro-1 IPO to the tune of $3 million. The fall economic statement showed that the public subsidy for the sell-off has ballooned to $63 million. How much more will Ontario families have to pay because of this government's short-sighted decision? How much more? Thank you, Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, you know, expect that the official opposition, the PCs, would ask a question about climate change, Mr. Speaker, because even though the leader of the opposition says that he got into politics because he has a social conscience, Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect that, Mr. Speaker, but I did expect that somewhere in the lead-off question or in the first three questions that the NDP might ask a question about climate change. There's a very important jurisdiction in this planet to work together to make sure that we don't increase the temperatures on this planet above 2% in two degrees increase, Mr. Speaker, but there is no question coming from the NDP shockingly, Mr. Speaker, given that they purport, Mr. Speaker. The member from Leeds Grandville second time, the member from Renfrew-Nepesing-Pembroke is warned. One sentence. Mr. Speaker, the assumption underlying the questions that the NDP are asking that we shouldn't be investing in infrastructure actually work against the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Speaker, I have to say that the use of the issue of climate change as a shield for this disgusting action in the government's part is reprehensible. The Premier's powerful friends are getting all the benefits from the Hydro-1 sell-off, but we are paying the bills. There's a question of fairness about who gets the benefits and who pays the costs, because on top of the $63 million that we're paying to subsidize the IPO, Ontario is going to lose $500 million a year from that sell-off. $500 million a year. Last year alone, Ontario received about $750 million from Hydro-1. Question. Now we're giving it up. On top of the losing steady revenues, how much more will Ontarians be paying to subsidize the sell-off if the government sells the rest? Mr. Speaker, costs are being recovered through the IPO, Mr. Speaker. He knows that the way that rates are set now is the way that rates will be set at the conclusion of this, but Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the people of Ontario that, in fact, this member who is a self-proclaimed environmentalist, Mr. Speaker, that he is actually using the discussion about Hydro-1 as a shield against the fact that climate change has no interest in talking about the future. New question. The member from Cambridge. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Our government has a strong record of supporting Ontario's 444 municipalities. We believe it's important to have a strong working relationship with our municipal partners. That's why when we came into power we reversed the cost... The member from Timmins James Bay come to order. Finish, please. That's why when we came into power we reversed the costly downloads by the former PC government. As a result of the combination of provincial uploads and other supports Ontario municipalities are receiving a combined benefit of more than $3.7 billion in 2015 alone. Recently there's been speculation about whether our government will be giving municipalities the option to put forward a municipal land transfer tax which is currently only active in Toronto. There's been lots of confusion on this matter. It's one Ontarians feel strongly about. Through you would the minister please provide some clarity on the province's position on expanding land transfer tax powers to other municipalities. I want to thank you and thank the honourable member from Cambridge, a great MPP. Premier the province has a strong record as the member noted of supporting and working with municipalities to ensure that they're able to provide the services that their communities need. We consulted with a wide range of stakeholders during our municipal act review period that ended October 31st. We are currently reviewing that feedback and can tell you there has been no call at all for a municipal land transfer tax. Nor is there any legislation before the house about this. Nor has it been our intent based on our extensive consultation to introduce legislation to put in place a municipal land transfer tax. Let me be clear, there will be no extension of the ability to have a land transfer tax to any municipality. For attention, I find that this place could use a little reminder that the debates escalate when we do not do the rules or follow the protocols that we've got in place that are very useful and the one I will remind you of and I will probably start ramping up my expectation of all the members is that you do not call members by anything else other than their title or their writing and I don't need editorials. We can elevate this together or if you want me to do it, it will not be joyous. Supplementary. Thank you to the minister for this answer and his thoughtful consideration of this issue. I know my constituents in Cambridge and North Dumfries and constituents across Ontario will be pleased to hear we will not be expanding the land transfer tax powers to other municipalities to reflect what we heard during the review of the municipal and closest relationship to the people in their communities. They provide transportation, garbage collection and recycling and recreational facilities. All Ontarians want strong, vibrant communities where they can live, work and raise families. I know that during the review of the municipal act you travelled across Ontario met with municipalities to discuss a variety of issues. Speaker through you will the minister please share with this house what issues were discussed as part of the review of the municipal act. Now that I have been absolutely clear about land transfer tax I am delighted to answer the second part of the question. When we consulted with municipalities we asked specifically whether there was sufficient accountability and transparency in their actions whether municipalities have the powers and tools to deliver services effectively like transit and waste diversion and what barriers municipalities face to provide. These are all important issues that our government takes very seriously as do our municipal partners. Our government speaker is already taking action to help municipalities receive more money to pay for transit services and waste diversion with the proposed smart growth for our communities act known as bill 73. If passed this important piece of legislation will help communities grow and provide for the important public services that they deliver to their people every second. New question. Member from Carlton Mississippi Mills Mr. Speaker my question is to the minister of natural resources and forestry we are all shocked by the bad news from horn pain where Havels rude saw mill has announced they will be shutting down and laying out 200 employees because they have not been able to secure a contract from the Ontario government for their cogeneration plants. These layoffs will have a devastating effect on the town of horn pain because they represent 50% of the total employment in the community and it comes just before Christmas. Forestry is the second largest industry in Ontario. The industry suffered a massive loss in 2008 resulting in a loss of 50% of the forestry jobs in Ontario. Recently there has been an increase in demand for wood products which represents hope for a turnaround in the industry. This bad news could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in horn pain. Mr. Speaker thank you minister of natural resources and forestry. I thank the member for the question and I know the minister of energy will want to wait in on this and I'll refer the supplementary to him. The member is right that forestry suffered a significant downturn 0506 and in fact the downturn suffered by this particular industry was a precursor to the greater recession that came in 2008. Speaker I would remind this member and all members in the house it was because of that downturn in 0506 that this government had a broad base of support programs for this particular industry in fact the broad base of supports and programs we put in place totaled somewhere in the order of magnitude of 1.3 billion dollars. Speaker I can tell you that even with this particular partner in the industry we provided specific supports of a very significant nature to this particular industry. We continue to work with them on this we're aware of the issue and as I've said earlier there's a lot of information on this particular situation in the supplementary. Thank you. Thank you very much speaker it is the energy policies of this government that have precipitated the problems in horn pain as they have in other communities all across northern Ontario and all across Ontario and until you make the changes and I ask the minister of national resources to stand with your cabinet colleague and fight for jobs in the north by getting your cabinet to reverse the disastrous energy policies that have sent crisis through the roof. That is why this company hope to mitigate some of the damage by selling some electricity back to the province. Now you shut them off on that. Will you stand today and say I'm in favour of keeping jobs in the north and talk to your energy minister to reverse these disastrous policies. Minister of natural resources. I want to compliment the member of government who has made representations in a professional way Mr. Speaker. We've had an ongoing dialogue. He has shown tremendous concern for this issue Mr. Speaker. We are working towards a solution Mr. Speaker. But the bottom line is Mr. Speaker that the power purchase contract which the operator has in hand right now is not economically viable Mr. Speaker. They're asking for a higher purchase price Mr. Speaker which will put pressure on prices we're asking all of the participants who are engaged and impacted on this to try to come up with a solution Mr. Speaker. We are mildly optimistic that we can come up with a solution Mr. Speaker. But in terms of advocacy from the opposition rather than yelling and screaming as we just heard I want to compliment the member for the effort that he's made in working with us towards a solution. There are people that have been warned in this house. New question from the member for Niagara Falls. Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question today is the minister of transportation. Minister in the internal general's scathing report of your privatized winter maintenance contracts we learned that your government spent millions of dollars to buy equipment for companies you had awarded contracts to like the Angelo brothers in Sudbury.  I would remind the member that props are not allowed to be used in the house if it happens again it will be taken. Thanks very much Speaker and I thank the member from Niagara Falls for the question I tried to explain this earlier to the official opposition so in the case of for example the canora contract which both the government of Ontario and transfield the former contractor that had responsibility for the canora contract as an example speaker when both parties mutually agreed a number of months ago to end the contract in question speaker we then went out to procurement and awarded that contract area for this winter season to another company that is in the canora area that actually has more pieces of equipment out being deployed over the course of this winter season versus what took place last winter season speaker. The way that our area maintenance contracts work with regard to the pieces of equipment speaker is that the government of Ontario is actually purchasing a service from the contractors not individual pieces of equipment. We don't buy the equipment the contractor purchases or leases the equipment and we pay for the service provided to the people in this case of canora or in the case of Sudbury speaker the contractor is required to thank you supplementary the concern Mr. Speaker was last year you awarded the contracts to companies that didn't have the equipment to provide the safety that the residents of Ontario should have had last year. People were injured and died on a road in the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker minister you can talk all you want both following the recommendations of the Ontario general's report but the fact of the matter is this your government awarded winter maintenance contracts to companies who didn't have the proper equipment and only had the residents of Ontario drive on unsafe roads last winter and Ontario continues to pay that price so minister I will ask you again who will own the equipment that the people of Ontario spent millions of our hard earned dollars to purchase now that these contracts have been cancelled Minister so again speaker I thank the member for Niagara Falls for his question again there seems to be a little bit of confusion with respect to how the contracts work speaker whether whether we're talking about the existing ongoing contracts or we're talking about additional equipment that's brought to bear so just to be clear on that speaker since 2012-2013 158 pieces of additional equipment have been deployed across the province of Ontario whether we're talking about the existing contracts or the additives the additions on top of those contracts for equipment speaker the contractors purchase or lease the equipment we pay them for the service that that equipment will deliver speaker in each of the cases again we followed all eight of the auditor's recommendations we have since 2012-2013 deployed with our contractors 158 additional pieces of equipment thank you very much thank you my question is to the minister of research and innovation minister millions of people around the world continue to suffer from an inadequate supply of clean and safe water according to the world health organization almost one in one billion people around the world lack access to an improved supply of clean water and more than 50 countries continue to report cases of cholera and other diseases as the result of dangerous contaminants and pollutants in their drinking water that is why it is imperative that our government continues to make investments in water technology that will ensure people have access to clean and safe water minister can you inform the members of the house on how our government is supporting Ontario companies commercialized technologies that will have a meaningful impact for people all around the world thank you minister of research and innovation I want to thank the member for that very good question our government recognizes the importance of investing in clean water technologies that will benefit both the people of Ontario and the people around the globe that's why investing in water technologies is a core pillar of Ontario's innovation agenda and the key area of strategic focus and investments with 23,000 people working in 900 companies across the province of Ontario I am proud to say that Ontario has emerged as a global leader in water technologies in the world since 2003 our government has committed nearly 50 million dollars in funding to more than 100 water related projects that will benefit people around the world my ministry will continue to support the development and commercialization of new and innovative water technologies through research and commercialization funding thank you thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the minister for that answer it is reassuring to know that our government recognizes the global and economic benefits of investing in water technologies I understand that the global market for water technologies is estimated to be 557 billion dollars and doubling to a trillion in 2020 I often hear about the positive impact that Ontario's water tech companies are having around the world thanks to the investments that have been made by our government minister I know that Ontario has led a number of successful international missions that have helped create new partnerships with other jurisdictions who are leaders in the water sector minister can you inform the members of the house on how our government is growing Ontario's water sector through these investments and international missions thank you minister Mr. Speaker again I want to thank the member for that very good question Mr. Speaker through Ontario's water sector strategy our government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Ontario remains a globally recognized leader for water technologies that's why my ministry has invested 6.5 million dollars in water tap an organization that is helping grow globally competitive companies and has emerged as Ontario's water champion just recently Mr. Speaker the premier was in California to promote the innovative solutions that Ontario companies can offer to tackle the ongoing water issues in California our government has also signed an MOU with Jiangsu province of China on clean water technologies Mr. Speaker my ministry will continue investing in innovative technologies that will give Ontario companies a competitive edge in the global water sector thank you Mr. Speaker any questions? Thanks Mr. Speaker my question is to the minister of transportation over the last few months we've seen a rash of tragic fatal accidents involving trucks that continue to raise concerns over this minister's commitment to public safety on Ontario roads today's Toronto star report indicating that would-be truckers are heading out of the GTA traffic to easy past testing facilities for the licenses only heightens those concerns given the tragic toll that trucking accidents have had on our roads it's the minister's responsibility to address the standards that meet Ontario highway traffic demands Speaker can the minister tell us why so many GTA truck drivers who will be driving in the GTA are getting their licenses in Bancroft and Clinton Thanks very much Speaker I thank the member for his question of course he knows everyone here knows I say this repeatedly that ensuring roads and highways here in the province of Ontario remain safe for all road drivers is perhaps my top priority certainly one of my most important priority speaker and again I said this earlier today for the last 13 years ranked first or second in North America that's the province of Ontario having said that speaker having said that the work at the ministry of transportation in terms of making sure we deliver that outcome for the people of Ontario doesn't stop at any point in time it's why a number of months ago speaker I made a commitment on behalf of the government that we continue to work on with the ministry of training colleges and universities and I anticipate that we'll begin to roll out that program in summer 2016 we will also take a look at the issue that's being raised in the Toronto Star today speaker and I look forward to working with members on all sides of this house to make sure that we continue to enhance our road and highway safety Back to the minister speaker over a year ago this minister promised us he would do something about unprepared truckers being licensed that was after it was revealed that provincial truck testing facilities weren't even taking potential truckers onto the 400 series of highways as they were mandated to do today we learn not only are truckers not learning on the 400 series they're earning licenses on traffic light rule roads it's been over a year and this minister fails to get the urgency of the need to have properly tested truckers on our major provincial highways speaker will the minister tell us when he will finally begin to take these very real issues of public safety on Ontario road seriously good question thanks very much speaker I thank the member for the follow up question he knows as well as everyone else in this house knows speaker that everyone on this side of the legislature takes these issues very seriously I mentioned just a moment ago in my initial answer speaker that we will roll out working closely with the ministry of training colleges mandatory entry level training for AZ licensees for potential licensees truck drivers speaker by summer of next year and will continue to work with everybody who provides in this particular realm speaker I should point out in addition to the fact that over the last 13 years Ontario is ranked first or second across North America for highway safety generally speaking speaker on the issue of truck drivers specifically since 1993 there has been a 79 percent increase in the number of large trucks used in Ontario and in that same period of time speaker there's been a reduction of 50 percent of the number of large truck fatalities that have taken place in the province of Ontario it doesn't mean speaker that are working but it means that the track record that we have is strong and we will continue to build on that going forward thank you very much speaker thank you speaker my question is to the premier speaker one month ago we learned that there are almost 16,000 kids waiting for essential ABA IBI therapies in Ontario the premier and her government have had a month to take action to help families and kids who are languishing on the waitlist in fact when the premier was running for the liberal leadership she said and I'll quote every Ontarian with autism deserves our support and has mine and of quote speaker families and kids with autism are reaching out to me and telling me that they feel hopeless and certainly don't have this government support families are being forced to re-mortgage their home they're moving to other provinces just to get their support that their children need speaker will the premier commit today to immediately ending the chronic waitlist for ABA IBI therapies thank you I need services thank you speaker and I want to thank the member for this very important question we know that the prevalence of autism is increasing speaker in Ontario it's gone from 1 in 100 children to 1 in 68 today and that's why speaker we've been increasing our investments in autism services to $190 million annually and we know that more has to be done I as a minister of children youth am equally concerned about waitlists however it is important to note that while kids are on wait lists there are supports available there's a range of services whether it's speech and language rehab services, respite services mental health services we continue to support families and we know there's more to be done and I'll be pleased to speak further about it in the supplementary thank you speaker I'd like to go back to the premier again speaker on my desk today I have letters from the demand bro family of Hamilton and from the Onofrio family in Whitby that are directed at the premier these letters are heart wrenching in the words of one parent with a non-verbal child with autism she said by denying my son therapy you are taking away his voice his only way to communicate with the world that is different from him end of quote the premier must acknowledge her failure on this file speaker this government should not be balancing the books on the backs of families and children with ASD speaker will the premier commit to responding personally to each of these letters that I'm going to deliver to her from parents and kids with ASD thank you speaker and you know I think it's important to acknowledge that probably many of us in this legislature have received letters from families who have children who are experiencing autism and we all do our best to respond to that and support these kids as we go forward I want to assure the member opposite and actually correct something you said earlier I want to assure this House that the number of children receiving IVI and ABA has increased in the last two years has not decreased the total number of children receiving IVI has increased by 4.5% I know we need to do more speaker and the number of children receiving ABA has increased these are the correct number speaker and it's very important that we frame these numbers properly not using point in time data that the third party has used speaker we'll continue our services for children with autism that's my priority I'm looking forward to bringing all of this House on the autism strategy thank you question, the member from Mrs. Sargrave Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure too many critics have been talking down our manufacturing sector yet the reality is manufacturing has been growing steadily since the recession in Ontario and with good reason Mr. Speaker as manufacturing firms count on our skilled workforce climate of innovation and our streamlined business environment to encourage global trade now Ontario is one of the global leaders in advanced manufacturing perhaps these and the advanced manufacturing program at Sheridan College in my riding which is a state of the art advanced manufacturing program are helping Mr. Speaker through you to the Minister what else is our government doing to support Ontario manufacturers in this precarious global situation Mr. Speaker and the Minister of Economic Development Employment and Infrastructure well thank you Mr. Speaker I want a timely question considering the Canadian manufacturers and exporters are here in the legislature today Jason Myers president and Ian Howcroft VP Ontario are in the building and will be meeting with members and will be having a reception later on and I think Mr. Speaker what they would tell us today in this legislature is manufacturing has to be down manufacturing and start talking it up because they're growing in Ontario and they're making exciting strides Mr. Speaker this government is working in partnership with our manufacturing sector our accelerated capital cost allowance is incenting them to reinvest in their plans reinvest in their equipment saving them to the tune of $290 million Mr. Speaker which is providing with the incentive they need to do that support programs and Mr. Speaker my time is running out I'll respond to that more in the supplementary thank you supplementary thank you Mr. for that answer Mr. Speaker the minister is absolutely right Ontario is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the future of manufacturing due to our ICT strengths but our strengths lie beyond what the minister has already mentioned for example Ontario is among the top jurisdictions for vehicle protection in North America in 2014 Ontario produced more vehicles than any other sub-national jurisdiction in North America sporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the province also our manufacturers are benefitting from a very successful recent trip to China by the minister the premier and other members of this legislature minister can you tell us what are the other ways by which we are ensuring our manufacturers remain globally competitive thank you minister Mr. Speaker there are so many areas that I could dive into to respond to that question but let me start with the premier's recent trip to China Mr. Speaker that trip alone generated $2.5 billion in trade deals and expecting about 1700 jobs that are going to emerge from that many of those Mr. Speaker in manufacturing Mr. Speaker to that I was in Japan with Ray Tange our special advisor on auto Mr. Speaker we met with many auto and aerospace companies over 25 of them talking to them about the competitiveness and growth and ingenuity and innovation happening here in Ontario Mr. Speaker we are becoming a global leader in advanced manufacturing we're becoming the place where manufacturers come to test their products to develop their first generation products this province is growing we have a proud manufacturing base Mr. Speaker it's back in growth but it's something all Ontarians can take pride in and work out of the government to work in partnership with that very important sector thank you thank you Mr. Speaker my question is the minister of health and long-term care Mr. Speaker we learned yesterday in committee that Ministry of Health had failed to consult with many stakeholders regarding bill 122 the Ministry failed to consult with the Ontario Medical Association the Coalition of Ontario Psychiatrists the Registered Nursing Association Legal Aid Canadian Civil Liberties Association in the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health during the creation of this bill each and every one of these groups represents individuals be affected by the change in this bill in fact the ministry didn't even open discussions with these groups until after second reading Mr. Speaker has the government been in power so long that they feel they no longer have to consult with Ontarians Thank you Mr. Speaker I appreciate the question from the member opposite and I think the member appreciates that due to the narrow scope of the amendments being proposed in the legislation that is currently before committee that's in fact the amendments are the result of a court decision here in Ontario that made some or asked for some changes to be made to the legislation I would hope that the member opposite would agree that large significant consultations that we normally undertake are not required however that being said we did consult with many many groups in the process of developing these proposed amendments which are still before committee and I'd be happy to speak to some of those entities that we did consult with appropriately despite the narrow focus and the court order that resulted in these changes Mr. Speaker Thank you Mr. Speaker the ministry spoke to maybe four or five groups and spoke to nobody between April and September however this flawed policy process this government has created is due in fact that they're not following any process whatsoever for instance this is not the first instance of not consulting with key stakeholders just last week the ministry announced that medical marijuana users were allowed to smoke or vape anywhere in Ontario yet 24 hours later they pulled a 180 and pulled back the exemption because they listened to the media they listened to the public and even the premier was against their regulation this government made the exemption without any consultation whatsoever Mr. Speaker it seems that the government isn't interested in hearing what Ontarians have to say anymore Mr. Speaker as the government forgotten who they represent Without at all Mr. Speaker and again given the decision by the Ontario court of appeals the narrow scope of that decision with reference to the act itself my ministry in partnership with the ministry of the Attorney General have reviewed the act and consulted with stakeholders and among the groups that we have consulted with who would be directly affected because we're just talking about involuntarily detained inpatients in psychiatric facilities but we've consulted with the Consented Capacity Board, the Mental Health Leadership Advisory Council in chief from CAMH from Waypoint from Royal Ottawa and Ontario Shores facilities with the Ontario Hospital Association and a number of others so we have done the appropriate thing here we've consulted despite the narrow framework the narrow context of the amendments in question Mr. Speaker Mr. Member from London West on a point of order Mr. Speaker I'd like to welcome three guests who have joined us this morning Dr. Katrina Scott a research chair in Family Violence Prevention and Intervention at the University of Toronto Tom Wolfe Executive Director at Hiatus House in Windsor and Harmony Mendoza Executive Director of Woman Abuse Council of Toronto also known as Woman Act Mr. Speaker I'd like to correct the record in answer to a question this morning I referred to the member from Algoma Manitoulin I would like to correct the record to read from Algoma Manitoulin the member from Sudbury and the Minister of Northern Development thank you Mr. Speaker I do have a point of order in regards to question period today and as you know during question period we're not allowed to raise points of order we have to wait till after so I'm doing it now earlier the Minister of Municipal Affairs made what was essentially a government announcement in the middle of question period we do know that there is a convention in this place that in fact doesn't happen that ministerial statements are used to make those type of announcements because otherwise what ends up happening is the opposition doesn't get an opportunity to be able to respond and I would ask you to rule on this because in fact that was a ministerial statement it was not a question as I suspected I'm not as the Speaker I'm not in a position to make a judgment on whether or not it is an announcement of policy or not policy but it has happened in the past where there have been obvious announcements that are being made in the answer to a question and it is a more appropriate place for it to be given during ministerial statements or in any other form in the House that's more appropriate other than a simple question so I would leave it at that to advise all members that when making any policy statement there's another place for it other than question period we have a deferred vote on the motion of second reading of bill 144 enact to implement budget measures and enact to amend certain other statutes calling the members this will be a five minute vote all members please take your seats on November the 23rd 2015 Mr. Sousa moved second reading of bill 144 all those in favor of the motion please rise one at a time be recognized by the clerk Mr. Sousa Mr. Sousa Mr. Bradley Mr. Shirelli Mr. Hoskins Mr. Dugas Mr. McCharles Mr. T'Carre Mr. Delaney Mr. Dillon Mr. Gravel Mr. McMeakin Mr. Moriti Mr. Coteau Mr. Flinn Mr. Zimmer Mr. Bacchuson Mr. Manga Mr. Crack Mr. Sergio Mr. Moral Mr. Del Ducca Mr. Darmela Mr. Frazer Mr. Anderson Mr. Baker Mr. Ballard Mr. Darm Mr. Hogarth Ms. Koala Ms. Molly Ms. Martin Ms. McGarry All those opposed please rise one at a time be recognized by the clerk Mr. Fidelis Mr. Harnam Mr. Harnam Mr. Wilson Mr. Jones Mr. Brown Mr. Clark Mr. Yacobusky Mr. Hillyard Mr. Miller-Perry Sound, Muskoka Mr. Thompson Mr. Barris Mr. McClaren Mr. Harris Mr. Nichols Mr. McDonnell Mr. Pettipiece Ms. Fife Mr. Singh Mr. Horvath Mr. Tabin Ms. Sattler Ms. Thompson Ms. Taylor Ms. Armstrong Ms. Forrester Mr. Montau Mr. Gates Mr. French The ayes are 53, the nays are 40 The ayes are 53, the nays being 40 I declare the motion carried Second meeting of the bill, does the election pose you to the one Pursuant to the order of the house dated November 26, 2015 The bill is ordered, referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs We have a deferred vote on the motion of third reading of bill 113 An act respecting police record checks Call on the members, this will be a five minute bill I can't proceed I can't proceed until you're in your seat Thank you On November 30, 2015 Mr. Balklinson moved Third reading of bill 113 All those in favor please rise one at a time be recognized by the clerk Mr. Nackley Mr. Bradley Mr. Shirelli Mr. Sousa Mr. Huskins Mr. Sandoz Mr. Dugas Mr. McCharles Mr. Gordonetti Mr. Dillon Mr. Gravel Mr. McMeakin Mr. Moriti Mr. Coteau Mr. Leel Mr. Flynn Mr. Zimmer Mr. Balklinson Mr. Albanese Mr. Prak Mr. Hunter Mr. Sergio Mr. Huang Mr. Fraser Mr. Anderson Mr. Baker Mr. Ballard Mr. Dung Mr. Hogar Mr. Koala Mr. Martin Mr. McGarry Mr. McMan Mr. Milchin Mr. Nidoo Harris Mr. Pot Mr. Jones Mr. Brown Mr. Fidelli Mr. Hillier Mr. Miller Mr. Thompson Mr. Barris Mr. Monroe Mr. McLaren Mr. Wauker Mr. Harris Mr. McDonnell Mr. Pettipies Mr. French Mr. Horvath Mr. Vantah Mr. Tabbins Mr. Taylor Mr. Natascha Ms. Armstrong Ms. Forster Mr. Montt Mr. Hatfield All those opposed please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk. The ayes are 93, the nays are 0. The ayes being 93 and the nays being 0 declare the motion carried. The third reading of the bill. The result that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion. We have a deferred vote on the motion of third reading bill 112, an act to amend the energy consumer protection act 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act 1998. Calling the members this will be a five minute bill. On November 26, 2015 Mr. Delaney moved third reading of bill 112 all those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk. Mr. Bulkelsen Ms. Albanese Ms. Mangat Ms. Mangat Mr. Crack Ms. Hunter Ms. Hunter Mr. Sergio Mr. Sergio Mr. Moro Mr. Moro Ms. Jassett Mr. Del Ducat Ms. Dommerle Ms. Dommerle Ms. Wong Mr. Frazer Mr. Frazer Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson Mr. Baker Mr. Baker Mr. Ballard Mr. Ballard Mr. Don Mr. Don Ms. Hogarth Ms. Hogarth Ms. Kuala Mr. Rinaldi Mr. Reneal Mr. Tebow Mr. Tebow Mr. Yacobusky Mr. Yacobusky Mr. Claude Mr. Wilson Mr. Jones Mr. Brown Mr. Brown Mr. Clark Mr. Fidelli Mr. Fidelli Mr. Hillier Mr. Miller Mr. Miller Mr. Miscoka Ms. Scott Ms. Thompson Mr. Thompson Mr. Barris Mr. Barris Mr. Monroe Mr. Monroe Mr. Yura Mr. McLaren Mr. McLaren Mr. Bailey Mr. McDonnell Mr. Pettipes Mr. Pettipes All those opposed, please rise one at a time. Be recognized by the court. Mr. Tabin Mr. Tabin Mr. Singh Ms. Horvath Ms. Horvath Ms. Horvath Mr. Beesong Mr. Beesong Mr. Vantah Mr. Vantah Ms. Sattler Ms. Taylor Ms. Taylor Mr. Natasha Ms. Natasha Ms. Armstrong Ms. Armstrong Ms. Angelina Ms. Angelina Ms. Fight Ms. Fight Ms. Forrester Ms. Forrester Ms. Furr Mr. Wiss Mr. 제일 Mr. O' pottery Mr. B Lambert Mr. Coste Mr.rike Mr. calculus Mr. glue The eyes being 77 and the knees being 16. I declare the motion carried. We are resolved and entitled as in the motion. Th■ite we have a deferred vote on the third reading of bill 85 Albinazi. Mangan. Craft. Hunter. Sergio. Tomorrow. Jass. Deluca. Domerla. Wong. Fraser. Anderson. Baker. Ballard. Dome. Hoga. Kuala. Moly. Martin. McGarry. McMahon. Milch. Nightoo Harris. Potts. Clawbill. Clara. Dackey. Mr. Pott, Mr. Renalde, Mr. Renalde, Mr. Reneal, Mr. Tebow, Mr. Hillyard, Mr. Hartamon, Mr. Harnamon, Mr. MacLeod, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown, Mr. Clark, Mr. Fidelli, Mr. Yakibusky, Mr. Miller-Perry Sound, Ms. Coco, Ms. Scott, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Monroe, Mr. Yurek, Mr. McLaren, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Walker, Mr. Harris, Mr. Nichols, Ms. Marteau, Mr. McDonnell, Mr. Pettipies, Mr. Singh, Ms. Horvath, Mr. Tavins, Ms. Sattler, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Nataschak, Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Angelina, Ms. Fight, Ms. Forrester, Ms. Shamantha, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Hatfield, Ms. Gates, Ms. French. All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk. The ayes are 93, the nays are 0. The ayes being 93 and the nays being 0, I declare the motion carried. Bill, 20. I'm not sure if the motion is allowed. Bill, you're now passed and be entitled as in the motion. We have a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 135 and act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning. Calling the members, this will be a five-minute bell. On November 3rd, 2015, Mr. Sharelli moved that second reading of Bill 135 and act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk. Mr. Sharelli. Mr. Nakme. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Namhaeyer. Mr. Sousa. Mr Sousa. His win. His win. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Hoskins. His sandals. His sandals. Mr. Duga. His MacCharles. Mr. Cuell. Mr. Cuell. Mr. Cuell. Mr. Cuell. Mr. Damelee. Mr. Challenge skinsis. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. 1918. Mr. narration skinsis. Mr. Quadry Mr. Balkasin Mr. Balkasin Mr. Albinaze Ms. Mangat Ms. Mangat Mr. Crack Mr. Crack Ms. Hunter Mr. Hunter Mr. Sergio Mr. Sergio Mr. Tomorrow Mr. Tomorrow Ms. Jassus Mr. Del Ducca Ms. Damerle Ms. Damerle Ms. Wong Ms. Wong Mr. Fraser Mr. Fraser Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson Mr. Baker Mr. Baker Mr. Ballor Mr. Ballor Mr. Dahl All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the court. Mr. Monroe, Mr. Euras, Mr. McLaren, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Walker, Mr. Harris, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Marteau, Mr. McDonnell, Mr. Pettipies, Mr. Tabin, Mr. Singh, Mr. Singh, Ms. Horvath, Ms. Horvath, Mr. Vantog, Ms. Sallert, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Natashak, Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Jelenault, Ms. Forrester, Mr. Montauk, Ms. Montauk, Ms. Hatfield, Mr. Gaines, Ms. French, Ms. French. The ayes are 53, the nays are 40. The ayes being 53, and the nays being 40, I declare the motion carried. Second reading of the bill. Does the lecture pose you the wrong? Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? The Minister of Energy. Speaker, I refer Bill 135 to the Standing Committee on General Government. Order. Just before we dismiss, I just want to give everyone, all members, when the process of voting is taking place, you are to remain in your place. You are not supposed to get out of your place at all for any reason. Thank you. There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.