It is now time for question period. The member from Nipissing. Thank you and good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. You claim to be open and transparent, but again, you say one thing and do the complete opposite. Under your budget, the moment you sell Hydro One, it is no longer deemed an agency of the Crown. No more oversight from the Auditor General, Financial Accountability Officer, Ombudsman, Integrity Commissioner. All gone. No more disclosure. No more freedom of information where this is the last time now we'll find out that you spent $7 million on consultants, including $24,000 for a speechwriter. No more sunshine lists. This is the last time we'll see Sandra Pupetello's six-figure salary or know that Carmine Michello made $728,000. All this will be done behind closed doors now, just the way you like it. Premier, tell the people of Ontario, what are you trying to hide this time? I will be as vigilant as always. When I stand before I get a chance to sit down, if I hear it, I'm going to nail it. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me just step back and again make it clear that we are unlocking the value of our assets to invest in major infrastructure projects, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that the party opposite is fundamentally opposed to that because they don't have a plan and they never had a plan and they don't want to invest in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. We're going to take HydroOne Public. It'll modernize the company. It'll make it more efficient. And the member opposite knows that officers of the legislature do not have jurisdiction over publicly traded companies. He knows that. But he also knows that a publicly traded company has different mechanisms of oversight, Mr. Speaker. And we're committed to making sure that HydroOne will remain regulated. And, you know, as we went through this process, Mr. Speaker, with Ed Park and his group, we made it clear that those protections needed to stay in place, the regulation and the price control, those will stay in place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Premier, in the forward of last year's budget, you wrote, quote, in total the government will invest for $130 billion in infrastructure. So the $130 billion you now tell as the crown jewel of the budget was actually announced last year, except last year's budget did not need the sale of the GM shares, the $9 billion from HydroOne, the LCBO building, the OP cheese offices and all these others to make it work. It only said you needed $3 billion. Now you're up to about a dozen billion. What happened? Why does it now take a massive fire sale of public assets just to make your budget numbers work? You say you're putting billions of new money into infrastructure, but you're quietly shithing existing money, money that was already in the budget just to reduce your deficit. A lot of back and forth going on while the question is being put out, ask both sides and forget pointing. It's an annoyance. All sides have to have my discipline sometimes. Please finish your question and wrap up quickly. Premier, isn't that money actually going to pay for your government's financial mismanagement? Thank you. Premier. Speaker, I think that the member opposite is mistaking what his party did with the 407. There was no future protection for the people of Ontario. There was no protection of that stream of revenue that has gone to a private company. There was no protection in terms of the regulation of that asset. And there was no investment in a future asset for the benefit of the economy going forward. So we actually used the 407 as a model of how not to do this, Mr. Speaker. The member from Essex, the member from Hamilton, East Tony Creek, and the member from Eglinton Lawrence, take it outside while I have a long memory. Just say, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of what we said when, in the text of the May 2014 budget on assets, on page 20, if the member would like to look it up, we said this, and I quote, the government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as Crown corporations. Thank you. That's the time is up, and the member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke will come to order. Second time. I'm still talking. The member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke is second time. Final supplementary. Premier, I'll remind you also on that same page it talks about it limited to $3.1 billion. At more than 12. So, the government continues to show no progress on our debt and deficit, but Moody's investor services told us they continue to quote, see risks in the province's budget. That your quote deficits have shown little progress in the past few years, and in fact have increased from 8.1% of revenue to 9.2% of revenue. Worst of all, they say that quote, provincial economic forecasts have tended to overestimate growth.  We can only imagine how much you fluffed this year's budget numbers. Is that why you're selling assets, increasing taxes, and raising our hydro bills? Premier, why are you asking seniors and families to pay for 12 years of mismanagement? Speaker, the member opposite asked the question, why are we selling assets? Why are we doing this? Why are we looking at our assets? Why did we in the May 2014 budget, I'm going to quote this because it's important in answering his question, what we said in the May 2014 budget on page 20, the government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, and the liquor control board of Ontario. But Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question that was embedded in his question was, why are we doing this? We're doing it, Mr. Speaker, because we need to invest in the infrastructure that is needed in the 21st century. That's the roads, the bridges, the transit projects, Mr. Speaker. All of that will not be done if we don't make these choices, Mr. Speaker. Good question. The member from the PNC. The member from the PNC.  My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Her mandate letter says, and I quote, you will drive efficiencies and reduce costs to achieve our commitment to eliminate the deficit by 2017-2018. Yet, the deficit increased by $400 million in this last year. And the only efficiencies Ontarians have seen is the rapid speed of light in bringing in new taxes, like the job-killing payroll tax, the carbon tax, and the fuel tax. Since she hasn't met her mandate letter, can the Treasury Board President now admit that the only way the liberals will be able to balance the budget by 2018 is to increase taxes and create new ones? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it is an absolute responsibility of mine to make sure that when we spend money, we get great value from all of that we spend. So with my colleagues on Treasury Board, we are going through the program review renewal and transformation where we are going line by line, program by program, ministry by ministry to make sure we're getting the best possible value, the best possible outcomes for people through that process, Speaker. I am enormously optimistic. Well, if you look at our health spender spending, we went from growing by 6% to 7% a year, Speaker, to about 2% increase per year. And we've done that well, continuing to improve services for people. Thank you. The minister knows full well her and her trusty assistant, the finance minister, are not capable of balancing the budget. For the third straight row, we have seen the deficit increase. It's going in the wrong direction, Treasury Board President. We have not seen the size, the scope or the cost of government go down. In fact, the sunshine list grew by 14% with over 100,000 people in Ontario on the public payroll making over $100,000. The government even had to pay Ed Clark $7 million to do the Treasury Board president's job. And all they have to offer when Ontarians are suffering and having a difficult time paying their hydro bill is a beer ombudsman, Speaker. How does she expect Ontario families to take this government seriously when they're more committed to having beer ombudsmen than they are about reducing the bills of everyday Ontarians? Thank you. President, you see the things? You see the things? Thank you. The member opposite is trying to create a narrative, but she's not basing it on the facts. If she would read the budget, if she would look at the budget, look at our spending, she will discover that our spending this past year was actually $1.6 billion less than we had anticipated, that we had budgeted for, Speaker. So we are making those hard decisions. We are doing it in a thoughtful way, in a way that protects the services that people rely on. But, Speaker, we are determined to continue to work to transform the way government services are delivered so that we can achieve the objective and get better services and better government in the end. Thank you. Here are the facts. And here is what we call your thoughtfulness, Minister. Teachers are striking, nurses are being fired, hydro bills are going up, taxes have been introduced and the government is selling off hydro and the deficit is going up, and your finance minister spends a day after the budget at a brewery. Come on, those aren't the priorities of the people of Ontario. They aren't the... Stop the clock. I'll make the comment that although the noise started to come from here, there were other comments coming while she was putting the question. It makes it difficult for me to stop one side or the other. So I'm stopping both. Please finish. The minister has failed to live up to her mandate letter. She had to bring in Ed Clark to do a fire sale of assets. And they celebrate over a pint while Ontario families are choosing whether they can heat their home or eat groceries in their refrigerator. I want to ask the Treasury Board President this. How does she expect us to believe she's doing her job when they cannot at all meet the deficit reduction targets? They have promised this house, they have promised the people of Ontario, yet they failed the... Thank you. Can you say that please? Thank you. Minister. Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board is doing a fantastic job. So costly. We've calibrated our spending by $1.6 billion. And we're moving ahead to balance the books. But don't take it from us.  They often refer to Don Drummond. They love the man. Here's what he said. First, the budget must be fiscal details for that year. Secondly, it must take reasonable economic assumption. Third, it must provide a congenerous contingency buffer. Fourth, it should be credible about its revenue projections. Fifth, its spending increases must be modest and controlled. Mr. Speaker, he says this, and I quote, on the basis of these five tests, the 2015 budgets plan to restore fiscal balance by 2017-18 is credible. He believes in us and so should the... chose today because we want to ensure this protects people of Ontario. You see that, please? You see that, please? Thank you. New question, the member from Brambley Gormont. Thank you very much, Mr. Premier. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Liberals insist it's okay to spend $7 million on high-priced consultants to make sure that they get the Hydra-1 sell-off, quote-unquote, right. Deputy House Leader, second time. Selling off Hydra-1 is simply wrong. And Ontarians are going to pay the price. The Premier was paying $2,500 for Paul Martin's speechwriters. What advice did they receive for Ontario families in terms of their Hydra bills and how they were going to afford those? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, you know, it's very important to us that as we make the investments in transit, as we do what's necessary to be able to do that, to invest in transportation infrastructure, to build infrastructure around the province, that as we make those decisions and we review the assets, that we do that in a way that's responsible, Mr. Speaker. That's why we brought in people like Ed Clark, like actuaries, Mr. Speaker, like people who have the experience in the private sector who understand the market, Mr. Speaker. We were very, very aware that we needed that expertise in order to be able to do the review of the assets that was necessary. We need to get this right, Mr. Speaker. And again, you know, I point to the 407 and the decisions that were made by the Conservatives. We were determined not to go down that path but to do this in a way that was responsible, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's not just Paul Martin's speechwriters. The Premier is sending Ontario families a tab for $974,000 so she can pay Dalton McGinty's consulting firm. The Premier is literally spending a million dollars, a million dollars so liberals can help liberals. The people want to know what this means for them. The people want to know what they paid $7 million of public money for. What do these consultants have to say about hydro bills and how the Premier would make up for millions of dollars of lost revenue due to this sale? Wow. Mr. Speaker, you know the member opposite asks good questions in terms of how would we make up the revenue, Mr. Speaker? How would we make sure that the asset would be valued properly in the market? Mr. Speaker, what would be the best way for the government to retain de facto control, Mr. Speaker, over major decisions? How would we make sure that the regulatory and price controls would stay in place, Mr. Speaker? Exactly why. Exactly why we needed to have expert advice, Mr. Speaker. It's exactly why the advisory panel has been open and transparent about the use of third parties, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, there were people who have ability in actuarial services, analytics. There were people who were able to support us in the negotiation in terms of the Council on Beverage Alcohol, Mr. Speaker. There were project management expertise, expert advice on energy regulation. Wow. Mr. Speaker, we believe that having expert advice is the right... Hello, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The plan to sell hydro-off is simply the wrong decision. The Premier has spent $7 million in public money on these consultants. Now, the people deserve to know what they paid for. They need to know what these consultants have had to say about reliability. What have they said about rates? What do they say about the billions in dollars of lost revenue? If the Premier claims to be an open and transparent government, then will the Premier table the reports from these consultants today? Good question. Mr. Speaker, you know, the member opposite knows that the decisions about what would be released and what would not be released is made by nonpartisan public servants and those decisions have been made. But, Mr. Speaker, you know, I really think that it is quite remarkable that the third party believes that to review the assets that are worth billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, that we would do that without expert advice. Now, maybe that's the way they would do it, Mr. Speaker. I mean, you look at their platform, Mr. Speaker, which was very, very thin. There clearly had been no due diligence done on how they would implement anything in their platform. No, she's not done. So our position is that having the expert advice was necessary. And, Mr. Speaker, had we not sought expert advice, imagine what they would be saying right now. Thank you. A new question. I'm Mr. Toronto Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Premier. The Premier is telling one story. She says she's selling 60% of Hydro-1 and the Liberals will keep 40%. But the legislation tells a very different story. The legislation specifically gets ready for the day when Ontario owns less than 10% of Hydro-1. Can the Premier explain why she's preparing for Ontario to own less than 10% of Hydro-1? Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite neglects to say is that we are building into this process and into this legislation decision-making authority, Mr. Speaker, that would protect the people of Ontario. So any decision of that kind of magnitude, Mr. Speaker, would require two-thirds majority of the Hydro-1 Board of Directors, Mr. Speaker, which means that having 40% ownership, Mr. Speaker, protects us. Let me read the restriction on the province's sale. Bill 91, the Building Ontario Up Act, and it's section 48.2. The minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario shall not sell, dispose of, or otherwise divest any common shares of Hydro-1 Inc. If the sale, disposal, or divestment would result in the minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario owning a number of common shares that is less than 40% of the outstanding number of common shares of Hydro-1 Inc. Before I move to the supplementary question, the dialogue back and forth is continuing while someone on that side is putting a question, the talk, and somebody on this side giving the answer, the talk. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. So the Premier has just set out her case, but, Speaker, the Premier has no mandate to sell Hydro-1. That's not stopping her. She says she'll keep 40% of the privatized company, but the legislation sends a clear message. The Premier is getting ready for the day when Ontarians own less than 10% of Hydro-1. Why is the Premier leaving the back door open so Ontarians could end up owning less than 10% of Hydro-1? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, let's just be clear that what underlies the question that the member has asked is an assumption that building transit and transportation infrastructure really isn't that important because he's not willing, and his party is not willing, to acknowledge that, A, they ran on reviewing the assets of the province, Mr. Speaker. It was part of their platform. It was part of their assumptions, Mr. Speaker. And the fact is we are implementing what we ran on and what they ran on. The Ontario government will nominate 40% of the Hydro-1. Board will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the Board, Mr. Speaker. That means that the government will have de facto veto on the Board for a decision like the dissolution of the shares. Mr. Speaker, that's the reality. We're doing this so we can build transit and transportation infrastructure around the province. Thank you. The Premier still doesn't answer the question as to why the potential is set up in this bill for the province to own less than 10% of the shares. The Liberals say they'll keep 40% of our privatized Hydro-1 but it's clear the Premier has left the door open to owning less than 10%. The Premier kept Ontarians in the dark about her plan to sell Hydro-1 during the last election. She doesn't have a mandate to sell off Hydro-1 whether it leaves us with 40% or 4%. It's the wrong plan and Ontarians are going to pay the price. Is the Premier trying to keep Ontarians in the dark about what her plan really means for Hydro-1 and for Ontario? Mr. Speaker, the member opposite once again is talking about the dilution of shares and I will just read again what I said. The fact is that the Ontario government will nominate 40% of the Hydro-1 board and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the board. Any decision like that in terms of the dilution of the shares would require a vote of 2 thirds of the board would require that supermajority vote. The fact is that that kind of decision would not be made if we would have 40% of the vote. But Mr. Speaker, the cost of not investing in infrastructure, the cost of not investing in assets that are needed for the 21st century, that is the cost that we have to focus on, Mr. Speaker. We ran on a plan to find a way to make those investments that are going to allow this province to thrive. They don't want to do that in the third party. The party opposite doesn't want to do that, Mr. Speaker. We said we were going to do it and that is exactly what we are doing. New question, the member from Kitchener, Conestoga. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Premier, today's Auditor General's report on winter road maintenance reads like a damning indictment of a government that has placed cost savings over the safety of Ontario motorists. Premier, when you were Minister of Transportation, you watched and did nothing while performance-based contracts your Liberal government introduced to save a few bucks caused winter road conditions to deteriorate across the province, placing the lives of Ontarians at risk. Well, I'm being challenged, so the Minister of Agriculture is warned and the member from the PN Carlton will come to order. Second time. Carry on. Premier, where are your priorities?  So Premier, is saving Liberal seats more important to your government than saving lives on our Ontarians? Thank you. Thanks very much, Speaker. I want to begin my answer today by publicly thanking the Auditor General and her team for the review, the very thorough review that they've conducted with respect to the Ministry of Transportation's winter maintenance program. I've said many times publicly and in this house that there is no more crucial responsibility that's part of my mandate than to make sure that Ontario's highways remain as they have been for the last 13 years, ranked amongst the first or second most safe in all of North America. But, Speaker, just because we've taken steps which I can highlight in the supplementary answer, just because we've taken significant steps since the internal review we conducted in 2013 does not mean, Speaker, that the work has ended. We will continue to work with our area maintenance contractors. We will continue to deploy additional resources. And I will personally work as hard as I can to make sure that going forward we continue to improve this already improving program. Thanks very much, Speaker. Back to the Premier. An apology perhaps would have been more appropriate. But I want to thank my colleague from Leeds-Grenville for actually asking the Auditor to do this in part. For five years, this government knowingly risked the lives of Ontario Motors to save a few dollars. For five years, you pointed the finger at contractors for unclear roads that were the direct result of your government's flawed cost-cutting contracts. You knew it and did nothing about it. So, Premier, I'll give you a chance to be honest with Ontarians today. Why did the ministry, a ministry you oversaw continue awarding obviously flawed contracts when you knew it was jeopardizing the safety of Ontario Motors? You knew it. In several times, the member from the PN Carleton while the question is being asked is now warned. The member from the Deputy House Leader is now warned. Minister of Transportation. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. So, again, I thank the member for his question and I will also say I do thank the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for asking the auditor to conduct this review. It is important to remember, Speaker, that in 2013, before the request that the committee put forward to the auditor, the recommendation conducted a comprehensive internal review with respect to our winter maintenance program, Speaker, and as a result of that review since that point in time we have deployed 105 additional pieces of equipment through two winters, winter 2013-14 and 14-15, 55 pieces of equipment mostly for Northern Ontario for truck climbing and passing lanes, 50 pieces of equipment in Southern Ontario for ramps and shoulders. We've appointed or we've retained the director of maintenance. We've added 20 new area inspectors. That's one per area to help us assist in the oversight of this program. Speaker, again, as I said in the original answer, that does not mean our work is done. When you have the track record as we do for having the safest highways in North America consistently, first or second safest for 13 years, it means the job is going well. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. The Premier created a loophole in her budget bill so that she can spend the money from the Hydro-1 sale on anything she wants instead of legally requiring the money to flow into the Trillium Trust for transit and transportation infrastructure. Thank you. I know that the Minister of Finance is going to want to speak to the details of this but let me just be clear, Mr. Speaker. The reason that we put in our budget and in our platform a review of assets, we are going forward with the partial sale of Hydro-1, Mr. Speaker. The reason that we sold GM shares, the reason that we sold real estate, Mr. Speaker, is so that we can invest in infrastructure that is needed in this province, Mr. Speaker. That money is going into the Trillium Trust and that money is then going to be used to make those investments, Mr. Speaker. That is what we ran on, that is what we are doing and that is what you will see in our balance sheet, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the Premier can make the same argument again and again but what it boils down to is this. The Premier has opened a loophole in her own legislation so she can spend her Hydro-1 money on anything that she wants and the idea that any money is earmarked for transit or infrastructure is liberal spin. There is nothing to back it up in this bill. After e-health, after the gas plants, after the Sudbury bribery scandal, after the 4 OPP investigations it is a bit rich for them to say just trust us. Nobody in the province trusts you. Will the Premier admit that her promises about the Trillium Trust are just liberal spin, pure and simple? Mr. Speaker, in a 2013 economic statement, we introduced the Trillium Trust to ensure that it's dedicated for the benefit of reinvesting dollar for dollar. Every net proceeds that we get from the sale of shares, sale of land, the broadening of ownership of our various account corporations we've made that commitment. We stated in the 2013 economic statement we stated in the 2014 budget which we introduced twice before this house we stated in the 2014 economic statement and we stated again in this very document in 2015 recognizing that this is a dedicated fund for the benefit of the people of Ontario. And Mr. Speaker that does not change. That is exactly what we're doing and the point being the opposition, both members of both sides have no plan no idea and they have yet to put forward any alternative by which to fund these opportunities that will be the equivalent of Ontario for future generations to come. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to give a hand to the Attorney General and the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. In Ontario we have close to 200,000 residents living with either total or partial vision loss that's close to 200,000 residents who face challenges being fully active and independent members of society. People who often struggle just to get around in their daily lives. Fortunately we have a number of organizations in Ontario The Lions Foundation of Canada dog guides, for example, is based out of Oakville and provides trained canine companions to help guide them safely around their communities. As I'm sure many of you know, today is International Guide Dog Day. When individuals in this province need specialized care, this government has been able to provide it. Speaker, could the Attorney General enlighten the House on the Blind Persons Rights Act and how it ensures that the people of Ontario have the proper services provided for them? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the member of Halton for her question, which is very appropriate today. It's International Guide Dog Day, and I will gladly tell this House how this government is ensuring services for Ontarians who need them. The Blind Persons Rights Act is an important piece of legislation that applies to guide dogs used by blind persons. The Act makes it an offense to deny a blind person, accompanied by a guide dog, access to accommodation, services, or facilities. The Act states that a person with a guide dog should not be discriminated against with respect to accommodation, services, or facilities, or the charges for their use.  Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Attorney General for that update. It is encouraging that our government took steps in 2007 to amend this legislation, giving the visually impaired a stronger tool. Fortunately, there are still barriers that prevent people with disabilities to fully integrate into society and into the workplace. In Halton, organisations like the Canadian National Institute for the Blind have made great efforts to break these barriers down. The CNIB provides community-based supports, teaches critical life skills, and offers counselling and training services to keep our visually impaired residents active and independent. But more can still be done. The Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure has been working with his partners to create a more accessible Ontario through the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Would the Minister please update the House on this implementation? Just by way of explanation to bring clarity, we always go to the Minister with the question, you don't direct it, they have to direct it, just to make sure everyone knows that. Attorney General. To the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about accessibility in this legislature, especially on International Guide Dog Day. We've made great strides in this province. Mr Speaker, Ontario is a global leader when it comes to accessibility. We're first in the world when it comes to being a modern regulatory regime that mandates accessibility. We're the first jurisdiction in the world that requires staff to be trained on accessibility. We're first in Canada with legislation that sets out clear goals and time frames. Mr Speaker, we're approaching the 10th anniversary of the AODA. It's an important time to recognize we've come a long way, but Mr Speaker, we also must recalibrate to achieve our goal of full accessibility by 2025, and this is a great time to do that. We must open up employment opportunities for people with disabilities. We must work with our business community to improve compliance. I'm looking forward to working with David. Thank you. New question to the member from Duffington County. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, as you know, earlier this year, Justice of the Peace era Messiah was found guilty by the Justice of the Peace Review Council for judicial misconduct due to sexual harassment for the second time. In 2012, he was found guilty of judicial misconduct for sexually harassing female staff in a Durham courthouse. Yesterday, the Justice of the Peace Review Council recommended that Messiah be removed from his position as a Justice of the Peace. Do you intend to accept that recommendation, Minister? Thank you, Attorney General. Mr Speaker, the recommendation was made by the Justice of the Peace Review Council, which is an independent from government and is mandated to receive and investigate complaints about the conduct of Justice of the Peace. I will not be commenting on the decision, but as required by law, I will convey the hearing panel's recommendation to Cabinet, and Cabinet will consider the hearing panel's recommendation at the first reasonable opportunity. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Supplementary. Minister, I can't believe you need even two minutes to think about this. For five years, Messiah has been collecting a salary of over $120,000, and for five years the only thing that he has been doing is figuring out ways to avoid this review panel. In 2012, when Messiah was found guilty of judicial misconduct for his treatment of female staff, you paid his legal fees to the tune of $123,000. Yesterday, he had the audacity to ask you to pay for his fees again. Messiah has been on administrative leave since 2010. Minister, you have an opportunity to show some leadership both as the Attorney General and as a Cabinet Minister who will defend workplace harassment. And with the victims, fire Aaron Messiah today and turn down his ridiculous offer for requests to pay his legal fees. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, please. Thank you. Attorney General. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Justice of the Peace Review Council is an independent body that investigates complaints about the conduct of justice of the peace and determine appropriate sanctions where necessary. On this side of the house, you know, we respect this process and we have not yet received any recommendation from the Justice of the Peace Review Committee. On the payment of legal fees. So we will be, I will be waiting for this recommendation. So if a recommendation is made, I can assure you that we will review the council recommendation carefully. And we have, as I said, we have not yet received a recommendation from the committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. The question. The member from Windsor West. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Premier Elementary School teachers have called your latest central offer offensive, not least of all because your government appears to be flip-flopping on class sizes. Teachers with the Catholic Board have voted overwhelmingly in favor of a strike. Secondary school teachers in the Peel region are just a few days away from joining Durham and Rainbow District educators who are already engaged in job action. While your government continues to dismiss their concerns and cause chaos in our schools, families and students are undoubtedly in crisis. The Minister of Economic Development is warm. How many more students need to miss class before the government finally takes responsibility for the havoc it is causing in our schools?  I want teachers and support staff in school. And I know that that's where they want to be, Mr. Speaker. I also know that in order for us to reach an agreement, Mr. Speaker, we have to go through the collective bargaining process. I would have thought that that party above all others would have understood that a strong collective bargaining process was what was necessary. So we have a new process in place, Mr. Speaker. There's a local component. And we're from Hamilton, East Holy Creek, second time. The central component of the bargaining process is ongoing, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, those decisions and those agreements have to be reached at the table. And that's where we're going to have the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. I'm just wondering if the Premier remembers Bill 115. While the Premier continues to skirt responsibility for the mess, her government's cuts are creating an hour education system. New Democrats have been standing with teachers in Pickering, Oshawa, Sudbury and Manitoulin. Families and education workers across Ontario are outraged by liberal cuts to education, forced school closures and broken promises to keep class sizes manageable. Ontarians know that the provincial government holds ultimate responsibility over our education system. When will this government finally stop dismissing the concerns of Ontarians and answer for their clear plan of education austerity?  Our kids compete with students from all over the country, all over North America. We're at the top, Mr. Speaker, in terms of literacy rates, in terms of the ability of our students. We have one of the best educated workforces in the world, Mr. Speaker. And the fact is that I know that having a strong collective bargaining process is necessary. That's why when I became the leader, we worked with the union leadership, with the federations, Mr. Speaker, to set up a new process. They had input into that process, Mr. Speaker, because we had actually learned from a process that had not worked as well as it should have. So that process is taking its course, Mr. Speaker. It's tough. It is tough bargaining. There is no doubt about that. Because we have said and we know that there is no new money to put into compensation. That makes the bargaining tough, but it's a collective bargaining process active. Thank you. Your question, the member from the Public Health Center. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, as you may know, I don't come from a community with a large agri-food sector, but I know that my constituents understand the importance of the agri-food sector to our economy, and they benefit from it every single day as they purchase the wonderful foods that our agri-food sector produces. Now, Minister, the Premier's Agri-food Growth Challenge is an opportunity to show our province and the world, I would say, the important contribution of our agri-food sector and the contribution it makes to our economy and our quality of life. As we know, expanding trade can be a key part of developing and strengthening Ontario industries at home and abroad, and building relationships with foreign governments and businesses helps Ontario showcase and increase our exports. China is one of those key partners, Minister. The Chinese market is growing rapidly, and currently Ontario's second largest agri-food export market. In 2014, agri-food sales to China reached 832 million. Minister, could you please inform the House on the trade mission to China that you participated in and how opportunities for agri-food sector in the Chinese... Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It's good to be back, and I'm working on by Cantonese. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Member for Optomical Centre for their question. Ontario agriculture commodities and products are known worldwide for their quality and safety. It is why more and more countries like China are looking to Ontario. While in China, Minister Chan and I aim to build successful Ontario agri-food exporters while introducing a new group of companies to this important market. Our delegation was made up of a diverse range of over 20 businesses and organizations representing the broad cross-section of Ontario's agri-food sector. Throughout our time in China, Minister Chan and I were able to help businesses and organizations identify and act on new export opportunities with the goal of receiving immediate results and building relationships with Chinese government and business leaders setting the stage for continued growth over the long term. Mr. Speaker, promoting increased trade investment of Ontario's agri-food sector will help me. Supplementary. Thank you, Minister. It's clear that your trade mission to China represents an important step forward for our agricultural and agri-food sector. I know that during your time there, or I understand at least, that you and Minister Chan and the delegates were able to promote trade opportunities in Ontario to over 300 Chinese agri-food companies and government officials who participated in seminars, roundtables, and other meetings of the like. And I understand that these actions obviously not only build relationships, but also support new businesses and organizations in identifying and acting on export opportunities. And this is really where the rubber hits the road for the agri-food sector here in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Minister, could you please inform the House of some of the agreements secured in China and how they will benefit Ontario's agri-food sector? Very good, sir. Minister. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the supplementary from my good friend, the member for MacTobokal Centre. Our mission has resulted in increased exports for Ontario products in China and new investment opportunities for Ontario agri-food companies. I'd just like to give you the list of our signed deals in China. A new deal that will see $2 million worth of Ontario maple syrup heading to China, doubling our annual maple syrup exports. Both papillary and viaduct estates have reached new agreements that will bring more Ontario ice-wide to China. The investment will establish a new vineyard and a new winery in Niagara on the lake. Ontario's vineyard estates winery announced a new wine retailing and distribution agreement. The agreement will see more than $1 million of the winery products sold in China in the coming year. Mr. Speaker, this mission represented an important step forward for Ontario's agri-food and agri-food sector. It allowed new businesses and organizations to build on the momentum. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Premier, we all know Jerry Lawheed called Andrew Olivier on December 11th. We all know Pat Sorbera called Mr. Olivier on December 12th. But what we didn't know was that Pat Sorbera called the Deputy Director of HR in the Premier's Office of Public Appointments and Human Resources on December 10th. That was just one day before Jerry Lawheed called Mr. Olivier appointments, jobs, or whatever. Premier was Pat Sorbera organizing a job or appointment for Andrew Olivier in exchange for stepping down. Well, Speaker, it feels like a little bit of deja vu at the moment. I think we're a very clear speaker as we've discussed in this matter in the House that there's an independent process that is going on outside this legislature. And we should respect that process. I don't know what changes now that the official opposition is asking the same questions again. The Premier has been very forthcoming. The Premier has said that she's going to cooperate with the investigation that is taking place and at an appropriate time she will do it. We in this House Speaker should not be engaging in those type of discussions and we should let our independent investigative authorities to do their work. Thank you. Supplementary. My question back to the Premier. You've stalled the OPP investigation for over three months.  The new information was only provided because of a freedom of information request.  Why was Pat Sorbera calling your office responsible for public appointments the day before Andrew Olivier was offered a bribe? Attorney General. Member from Leeds Grandville. I'm going to ask him to withdraw. There are moments in which I've made it clear when this has been going on that there are things I do not accept. This one's one of them. Would you please withdraw? Withdraw. Thank you. Premier. I mean, Government House Leader, sorry. Thank you, Speaker. And again, I think the Speaker and Member Opposite are just trying to show up a tale here. I think the facts are very clear, Speaker, that there's a process that is taking place and we should respect that process. I want to again remind Speaker all the members in this House that we have a principle of presumption of innocence. In this instance, no criminal charges have been laid or for that matter, no charges have been laid and I want to remind the members opposite again what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his report and I quote, I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone's guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges. End quote. Speaker, I remind members opposite again that none of us are either prosecutors or judges. We should respect their role. We should respect their responsibilities. Thank you. And let them do their work. Thank you. Good question to the Member from Tiddance, James Baker. My question is to the Premier. Premier, you have said to this House and you've said to the public that you will be meeting with the Ontario Provincial Police this April in order to go through the interview process that they need to go through in regards to the Mr. Olivier scandal. Can you confirm to this House if you've already met with the OPP, will you be meeting today or will you be meeting tomorrow, which is the last day of the month? Thank you. Speaker, as I said, I'll be meeting with the OPP before the end of the month and as I've said, I'll cooperate completely with the authorities outside of this House. Where the investigation is taking place. Thank you. Supplementary. Well, you know, what is really hard here for the public to accept is the Premier says that she's progressive and that she wants to govern from the progressive centre and here she is trying to stymie an OPP investigation. There is not a citizen in this province that would have the ability to say to the police, sorry, I'm busy, can't meet with you today. Sorry, I'm busy, can't meet with you next month. Sorry, I'm busy, maybe sometime in April. That doesn't cut it for anybody in this province. Why should it cut it for you? And will you confirm? We will be meeting with the OPP today or tomorrow. Thank you. Well, Speaker, this Premier has been cooperating with all agencies as the Premier has been very clear. She will be meeting with the OPP. That time has been determined. But Speaker, to say that this Premier has not been busy is a bit naive on the part of the opposite member. This is a Premier who is one of the most activist and progressive Premier that we've ever seen in this province, Speaker. This is a Premier who's been working hard to make sure that we are building Ontario up. This is the Premier who's put forward a budget speaker that ensures that we are building our talents and skills, that we're building infrastructure in this province, that we're making sure that we've got public infrastructure and transit infrastructure across the province. Though a party has no plan, Speaker, they're doing nothing but being obstructionist, re-support this Premier, re-support the plan, and we're building our talents up. Can you see the police? Can you see the police? New question. The member from Kingston in the audience. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for seniors' affairs. Speaker, the Minister often reminds this legislature that Ontarians are aging rapidly. In the next 25 years, the senior population is expected to grow to a staggering 4.5 million. Data from Statistics Canada indicates that life expectancy for women in Canada is 84 years compared to 80 for men. It is clear that as seniors age, the proportion of women increases dramatically. It is also important to note that since most workers retire at 65, Ontarians now enjoy 15 to 25 years of retirement living. My riding of Kingston in the Islands is one of Ontario's, indeed, Canada's primary retirement destinations. Seniors are impressed by our high quality healthcare, housing, transportation, culture and community services. Can the Minister please share with us what measures are being taken to deliver important services that address these key demographic shifts in our community? Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you to the members from Kingston and the Islands for the question. Speaker, believe me, we are very much aware that the women in our province are living longer than men, and also we continue to be very mindful of this very rapid shift in demographics. In fact, Speaker, in 2014, they were 42% more female than men over the age of 75 living in our province of Ontario. As well, Speaker, currently, women represent some 72% of all Canadians living with Alzheimer's disease. Speaker, in 2014, we launched the Ontario Action Plan for Seniors. Developing and delivering programs and initiatives supporting senior-friendly communities create better access to healthcare, increase quality resources for women and of seniors.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for his response. Recently, I attended Walk From Memories, an event held by the Alzheimer's Society chapter in my writing. Through funding allocated by the Ontario Senior Secretary at the Alzheimer's Society of Kingston Frontenac, Lenox and Addington is able to host meetings to promote finding your way, wandering prevention program. These meetings allow seniors, families, police services, cultural groups and health and community agencies to plan strategies for increasing awareness and education on dementia in Kingston and the island's area. Speaker, approximately 3,000 seniors, almost 10% of the seniors in my community live with dementia and most are women. Programs like Finding Your Way are essential to seniors in Ontario. Speaker, it is clear to see steps are already being taken to transform our programs and services to improve health. How can the Action Plan for Seniors continue to implement these changes? Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Speaker. And thanks again to the member from Kingston and the island. Speaker, I want to highlight that the progress that we are making speaks to the mandate letter that I have received from Premier Nguyen and it is perfectly in line with the goals we have set out in the Ontario Action Plan for Seniors. Since 2013, Speaker, we have put in place some 12 plans, programs and legislative initiative all in order to assist our seniors. For the first time, Speaker, our seniors can, living in retirement homes, can enjoy a very secure and safe living environment. The member has mentioned, Speaker, the Finding Your Way program supporting our people with dementia. $11.5 million annually, Speaker, supporting 265 elderly person-centered supporting our women and people with dementia and isolated seniors. Speaker, let me say that Ontario Seniors have a firm commitment to continue seeking innovative ways to provide the best quality of life. Thank you. New question to the member from Perth, Wellington. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. My constituent, Art Boone, is a decorated World War II veteran. He risked his life to help liberate Holland from Nazi occupation. And Holland has invited him back to join in the 70th anniversary celebrations of that momentous event. But, Speaker, he needs his son, Rick, to care for him. Rick is a teacher. He needs an unpaid leave to accompany his father, but his request was denied. So far, over 2,000 people have signed a petition demanding the school board change its decision, but they appear unwilling to budge. I've spoken twice with the family. They tell me, without Rick at his side, it would be extremely difficult for Art to attend. Will the Premier look into this matter before the Boone's plane leaves on Friday? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I want to say to the member opposite, at about 6 o'clock this morning when I was running, I saw a sun box and I saw this story on the front of the sun. And I don't know the details, Mr. Speaker. What I do know is that this is a school board decision. It has to be made at the level of the school board. We need to let that play out at the local school board, Mr. Speaker. But I have to say that as I, just on the face of it, as I looked at the story on the front of the sun, as I ran past, it seemed to me that it's something that should be able to be worked at, worked out at the school board level, and I hope it can be, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it has always been my hope that the school board would change the decision, but that hasn't happened. I fully respect our school board's role in the matter, including the responsibility for personnel decisions. But this is not a matter of personnel. It's about the public interest. It's in the public interest for his son, a teacher, to recount this experience to his students for years to come. It's in the public interest for ARC to attend this event. Does the Premier agree? My constituents want to know if the Premier, as a former trustee and Minister of Education, thinks the Board made the right call. Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know what I will say to the member opposite is that I will have a conversation with the Minister of Education about that, and I will ask her what she knows if anything about the situation. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the decision does need to be made at the school board level, and there's no doubt that it would be a terrific experience for this young man, but we respect the school board process. And my hope, again, I say to the member opposite, my hope is that it can be worked out at the school board level. Thank you. New question. A member from Windsor-DeCumseh. Good morning, Speaker. My question this morning is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier. As you know, there's a preschool program for challenged children with special needs at the John McGivney Center in Windsor. Families from as far away as Leamington rely on this one-of-a-kind program. A change in the provincial funding program leaves the McGivney Center with a financial shortfall of $360,000. The families who rely on this unique program cannot afford to pay this higher cost. Will you do the right thing, Premier, and step in and save this valuable and unique preschool program at the John McGivney Center? Thank you. Your children, new services. Minister of Children and new services. Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the member for the question, and I'm very happy to follow up with him and chat about the specifics of the case he's raising. And I thank him for the question as well, because as the member I think knows, we are in the midst of launching our special needs strategy that will make it easier for families and the children with special needs to access programs in the communities that they live in, that that be coordinated through a central body, but they receive great care from the local services and agencies. And part of that is also enhancing the screening program, too, to make sure we can get earlier screening done for children who need support and we're very happy with our investment and our strategy going forward. But as I said, copy to answer specifics of the case, perhaps we can chat after the question period. Thank you. A supplementary. The member for message. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the Premier. Premier, sometimes programs and services are so unique that they don't follow generic standards. The preschool program at John McGivney is such a program. It is special. It is designed for special children. Without this program, they cannot and will not receive the same care and attention if relocated to a regular program in a regular daycare center. They won't thrive and inevitably they will be lost in the system. Premier, if you have any semblance of compassion in your heart, will you commit to visiting this center, seeing firsthand the needs of these special children, meeting their family. You'll see that there can be no better investment in our communities, no more humane investment in our communities than investing in the programs that are delivered through the John McGivney Center. Question. Will you step up and save the program in Windsor at the John McGivney Center? Thank you. Minister. So, Speaker, when I was a parliamentary assistant to the then Minister Children Youth Services, it was my job to consult with families. It was my job to consult with service providers and researchers on the issues and opportunities facing families with special needs. And I can tell you there is a tremendous amount of compassion put in by our government to develop this wonderful strategy that's evolving now. And it's about making sure families have the right information, that they get the diagnosis as they need, that kids are supported through transitions. And we've invested more than 468.6 million annually to support children with special needs. And whether it's speech language and others, we do, we have tremendous programs for that. I'm always happy to talk about specific cases. I can't talk about specific families, as you know what it's about. But we are very proud of the work we're doing. I'm very proud of the work I did to build this strategy. And I'm very proud of our government that's invested heavily in our children with special needs and the future. Thank you. The time for question period is over. The Associate Minister of Finance on a point of order. If I have a point of order, I would like to welcome in the gallery today and those watching members of my team, Michael Koh, my Chief of Staff, Drew Davidson, Marilyn Preston, David Gordon, Clancy Zifman, and my legislative assistant, Tiffany Blair. I just thank them so much for all their hard work and dedication. Welcome, Dora. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. Last week I alluded to Maple Fest as being last Saturday. In fact, it's this Saturday at 9 a.m. And there's still time. And hopefully some of that maple syrup will end up in China. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Children and Youth Services on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome Debbie Thompson, a broker and past president from insurance brokers of Ontario. He's from my writing of Pickering Scarborough East. Thanks for being here, Debbie, today. Member from Prince Edward Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure if it was mentioned this morning, but Peter Sherman is actually with us for question period this week. That's another member I'm going to have to put on my list for stepping on my introductions. We have a deferred vote on the motion of third reading of Bill 56, an act that requires establishment of Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. Call on the members. This will be a five-minute bill. All members, please state their seats. All members, please state their seats. Thank you. Mr. Lille. Mr. Flint. Mr. Zimmer. Mr. Zimmer. Mr. Disksin. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Manga. Mr. Crafts. Mr. Moura. Mr. Seargeo. Mr. Morl. Mr. JA Secht. Mr. Del Ducar. Mr. Dammelaw. Mr. Danderlo. Mr. Fraser. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker. Mr. Ballard. Mr. Dymn. Mr. Dac Abdaw. Mr. Hougard. Mr. Hougard. Mr. McGarry, Mr. McMahon, Mr. Milchin, Mr. Nidu Harris, Mr. Potts, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. T-Bowl, Mr. T-Bowl, Mr. Beeson, Mr. Beeson, Mr. Sank, Mr. Miller, Hamilton, A. Stoney-Cree, Mr. Natascha, Mr. Natascha, Ms. Fife, Ms. Fife, Ms. Forrester, Mr. Mantha, Mr. Mantha, Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Hadfield, Ms. Gretzky, Mr. Gates, Mr. Gates. All those opposed, please rise one at a time. Be recognized by the court. Mr. Hardiman, Mr. McLeod, Mr. Fidele, Mr. Yacobusky, Mr. Clark, Mr. Miller-Parisan-Liskota, Mr. Jones, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Scott, Mr. Eurek, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Hillyard, Mr. Walker, Mr. Smith, Mr. Harris, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Marto, Mr. McDonnell, Mr. McLaren, Mr. Pettipies. The ayes are 65, the nays are 23. The ayes being 65, and the nays being 23, I declare the motion carried. Third meeting of the bill, Twasium lectured, Pro-Jean-Lewain. Be resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion. There are no further deferred votes. This house stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.


Good morning, everyone. My name is Hassan, and I organize with no one is illegal Toronto I want to begin by acknowledging that we're in the territories of the Mississaugas of the new credit Lands that have been defended by the Haudenosaunee people in the Wendat Nation. I Want to thank and I'm one of and I'm honored to be standing here with my sister Wanda and my brother Clayton to be followed Soon by my sister Milena Because these indigenous nations these indigenous warriors these indigenous people are walking this path of resilience This path of struggle this path of survival this path of defense of these lands and territories that have been ongoing For centuries and millenias and that the work that we do in our cities in our communities on this March in the days before And the days will follow have to be grounded in the reality of indigenous struggle of indigenous resurgence of indigenous world views and And and a real desire to actually decolonize to actually return to a place Not to return to a place but to move forward into a place of decolonization We're gonna see soon after that Naomi and Jerry speak about what it is the kind of world that we want to move towards What is the kind of transition that is needed to move forward? So I want to take a moment and acknowledge what is the world that we live in today because as we stand here Surrounded by glass towers. We need to name the system of injustice that system of impoverishment That system of destruction that's that's sociology and ideology and politics that says that the many must have all and that the rest of Us must must just be trodden upon right and that system has a name and that name is capitalism It's over here. This March is about a turning away There's not just this March but this movement our movements are about turning away from capitalism And as we sit here here between these glass towers We must remember that the real people of this city are in other parts that they are in Scarborough That they're in Rexdale that we are in Malvern that our communities are in the Philippines in Guatemala in Nepal And in the high-end province of Philippines, but therefore our indigenous nations are struggling against climate change Just as much as in the Athabas, Kachabon, First Nations The the indigenous communities the Kree sisters and brothers are fighting for clean water and clean air And so this march is also about turning away from racism Right, so it's about turning away from from capitalism and racism and then we need to acknowledge another process We need to acknowledge that our communities are forced out of our lands because there is because the Because the earth has been shattered so much that it will not give us food Because the air has been poisoned so much that we cannot breathe and because the water has been destroyed so much That the fish will not come and feed us and so we are forced to move in search for in search for jobs In search for justice in search for dignity and that dignity job that search for economic society forces us to move and become migrants And so this march is about understanding this global Responsibility that we have because we sit here on top of the mountain, right? Because there this this is the top of the mountain Right, this is where the mining corporations make the decisions to impoverish our people This is where the banks make the decision where money changes hands faster than the blink of the eye While we are barely surviving I'm barely surviving and every attempt at survival is met with repression with state violence with policing And so when we talk about capitalism racism and displacement We have to offer another world and the world we're offering is a world of caring Communities of resilient people who have survived a millennial Who's every day who's every day is about surviving climate collapse and posing a new world And so the question is not just on july 5th But every day before and every day after people of color indigenous people are paving the path of justice of just transition And so not only do people will some people be on the streets, but we will continue the fight in our city Thank you


In my last video, I discussed studies that show a single meal high in saturated fat can impair artery function in men, as measured in the arm, but what we're more concerned about is blood flow to the wall of the heart. Research has randomized men to eat either a high-fat meal that was more than 60% fat, half of it saturated, with more than an egg's worth of cholesterol, or a low-fat meal that was mostly carbs with less than 10% fat and 50 times less cholesterol. Here's a Doppler recording of the left anterior descending coronary artery known as the widowmaker before the high-fat meal. Nice, strong signal squeezed down within hours after eating. This was taken five hours after the high-fat meal. The coronary flow reserve decreased after a single high-fat meal, but not after a low-fat meal with the same number of calories. What does this coronary reserve mean? If part of a coronary artery is blocked, for any reason, the surrounding vessels expand. That extra expansion capacity is called the coronary flow reserve, and it's clamped down within hours of eating a fatty meal, undermining the heart's ability to compensate for clogged arteries. That's how a high-fat meal affects blood flow to the heart. In extreme cases, you can even witness it in the back of someone's eye. This is the before, see the sluggish, milky-colored vessels? And then after a low-fat diet and drugs to help clear the fat out of the bloodstream. Can you see the difference? Their blood before looked like a milkshake. What happens if you exercise though right after that high-fat meal? After the meal inflammation following the prolonged elevation of fat in the blood that occurs when you eat high-fat meals provides a likely explanation for increased cardiovascular disease, but substantial evidence has shown that acute exercise is an effective modality for clearing out some of that fat after a meal. However, the benefits of acute exercise for post-prandial lipemia for after-the-meal fatty blood appear to be relatively short-lived, going a few days for that exercise. It may completely negate any benefit, no matter how fit you are. The time window appears to be between 18 hours before the meal, up to around 90 minutes after the meal. And how much exercise do we need? About an hour of moderate intensity exercise should do it. In this study, though, it only took 20 minutes of stair-climbing, broken up into 5 minutes every hour for 4 hours after a McDonald's breakfast of hash browns, eggs, pancakes, muffin, sausage, and a milkshake. Following such a meal, artery function significantly decreased when the subjects just sat around after eating, but not when they did the hourly stair-climbing exercises. In conclusion, hourly exercise may attenuate the negative effects not only of prolonged sitting, but also of high-fat meal intake, suggesting that stair-climbing should be incorporated as an easily accessible lifestyle strategy to protect artery function. Of course, it goes without saying that the other way you can protect artery function is not the breakfast at McDonald's in the first place. Such a meal would also have more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium, more than the 1,500 the American Heart Association recommends you stay under for the entire day. Give someone a meal with even less salt, a third less, and that alone can still impair artery function within an hour of consumption, even independent of the increase in blood pressure.  Their blood pressure doesn't really depend much on their salt intake. So for these people, is salt okay? No. High dietary sodium intake reduces artery function regardless of whether your blood pressure is salt-sensitive or salt-resistant. Your artery function is impaired either way, going from a low-salt diet to a high-salt diet. See, there's an influence of dietary salt beyond blood pressure. In spite of the seemingly unanimous consensus, some researchers too often funded by the salt industry claim that it's actually not good to cut down on salt, but the evidence is against these dissenters. Like the saturated fat meat dairy and junk, the science indicates that sodium, not sodium, reduction is the real villain.