Welcome, Analoja. My name is Mark Schlaufe. I'm the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program. Today we're going to hear about Alex Jampel's voyage across the sea as a lawyer from Hawaii to Japan and back again. Alex Jampel's legal career began in Honolulu, but he ultimately ended up spending the last 17 years working as a foreign lawyer for a large international law firm in Tokyo. Alex has recently returned to Honolulu where he is now a senior counsel with the local Hawaii law firm of Chunkur LLP. I've asked Alex to join me today to talk about his voyage. Alex, welcome. Good to see you. Thank you. Thank you for welcoming me back, Mark. Yeah. And, you know, before we get into what happened in Tokyo, tell me how you got there.  Where did you grow up? How did you become a lawyer? And how did you start in Hawaii and then end up in Tokyo? What's your background and briefly give us that story? Before I started in Hawaii, I was actually in Tokyo for two years. And before that, in Los Angeles for about three years. As a lawyer. As a lawyer. But before that, where did you grow up? I grew up in Japan, was born and raised in Japan, went to an international school, visited Hawaii many, many times on vacation, and eventually thought I wanted to be here in Hawaii. But I went to school in Los Angeles, worked for a firm in Los Angeles first, and they opened an office in Tokyo. I see. So you started out, you went to law school in LA, and you had a background in Tokyo already. So you already were familiar with that and you grew up there? Basically? Yes, I did. Okay. And how was your family in Tokyo? What was the background? My father was sent to Japan in the 50s. He was drafted into the U.S. Army and he did his second of his two-year stint in Tokyo and decided to stay there since back then it was quite exotic and very cheap to live in Japan. Okay. So, and he got married? Got married, settled down. A local girl from Japan? Yes. I see. I see. Okay. And then, so you ultimately worked how long in LA before you moved to Tokyo and then came back? Three years in LA where I went to law school. And then to Tokyo, they opened a Tokyo office. Back then is when they were allowing foreign law firms to open up branches or shops in Tokyo or in Japan. Okay. What was that firm? That was Paul Hastings. It's an LA-based international firm. Okay. And then how long were you there? I was in Los Angeles for three years. Okay. And then they sent me to Tokyo for two years. Okay. And did you volunteer to go to Tokyo or was it because of your background or what? I volunteered and it was because of my background. They had a lot of Japanese clients that were investing in the U.S. Including Hawaii. And what time of, what year was that? I'm going to date myself but that was 1992 through 94 in Tokyo, my first stint. Okay. And then what happened? You decided you wanted to move or what? After two years, they asked me to move to their Atlanta office because a lot of small Japanese manufacturing companies were opening up shop in the Southeast. I said no. And while in Tokyo, I worked a lot on projects in Hawaii for Japanese investors and lenders. And I thought maybe Hawaii would be a better place than Atlanta. So I decided to move to Honolulu instead. I see. And so you kind of had the background growing up in Tokyo that you came every so often to Hawaii. You grew to like it. And then you had a change of career in a way. And decided to come to Hawaii. And how long were you here in Hawaii? My first stint was about almost ten years. Okay. And who did you work for? What were your first stint? I started out with McCourston. Back then it was M3. McCourston, Miller, Makai. Yeah. And then I moved over to Chun-Kur. Back then it was Chun-Kur, Dodd, Beeman, and Wong. Now it's Chun-Kur. Okay. And so what happened?  What happened? How did that come about? A lot of things were happening in Japan. My prior firm, Paul Hastings, was very active in Tokyo representing many, many U.S. and European funds acquiring Japanese non-performing loans in real estate. At that time the Japanese big bubble had burst the first time around. And there was a lot of financial opportunities but also crisis taking place. And the international firms, especially American firms were representing clients, U.S. clients, looking for investment opportunities in Japan because they were liquid, unlike Japanese lenders and Japanese investors. So what happened?  They were, they were looking for more, yeah, they were looking for more U.S. based lawyers with real estate and finance experience. And Paul Hastings again. So they were good to meet back. Please come. They forgave you for not going to Atlanta. They understood why I wanted to go to Honolulu and so they gave me another shot to go back to Tokyo with them. Okay. And you took it? I took it. And what happened? What was that like? In those days, what year was this approximately? I went back in 2002. Okay. All right. And so what was it like? What was the environment like? What were you doing?  Did you speak Japanese well enough to handle legal matters and that type of thing? Was that your background in Japanese? Most of the clients were English speaking clients, mainly the U.S. So it wasn't necessary, but it was very, very helpful because the counterparts were at oftentimes Japanese. But a lot of the documentation at that time that we worked on were English language documents because the clients were English speaking, U.S. funds mainly. And at that time, because of the liquidity crisis in Japan, they had the leverage to demand which language the documentation should be. That's interesting. So that was kind of a negotiation tool, if you will. I mean, they were able to get English as the contract language. Correct. Despite the governing law being oftentimes Japan. I'm just curious. Did you have to translate it too? I mean, did you have a counterpart agreement in Japanese or was it all English? It was primarily English back then except for certain mortgage and other official documents that had to be filed with the Japanese authorities. Okay. So you went back with Paul Hastings. What were you doing? I was doing mostly non-recourse, finance-related, non-performing loan and real estate acquisitions for the most part. Wow. I mean, that's amazing that that was the focus in those days. It has a lot. I mean, your whole experience deals with finance, really. Correct. I mean, everything that you've talked about so far has a relationship to investment in or out of Japan. And that was kind of what your career was, right? I mean, going into Japan, that's what you were doing. At various times, you were either helping Japanese go out or others come in. Correct. And in both cases, a lot of the investments were highly leveraged. And that's why they were able to, on the outbound from Japan, make a lot of investments all over. And also, the funds acquiring a lot of non-performing loans and real estate in Japan because they were able to access financing. And were your clients, the second time you're going into Japan as a lawyer, were your clients Americans mostly? Or was it all over the world? Or what was it? Mostly US funds sponsored by the major US securities companies quite often, but also European funds as well. Wow. And so, what did you do? I mean, what requirements were there of you? What did you have to pass a bar exam in Japan? Or could you do anything with Japanese law? Or what was life as a lawyer from the professional side like in Tokyo? Some international firms only had non-Japanese lawyers. And they worked with Japanese lawyers at other law firms, namely Japanese law firms, to work on transactions. Because at the end of the day, these were Japan-governed transactions and required some level of Japanese law support and expertise. You needed that side of the transaction in order to make it proper. Correct. Could you do any, I mean, what were you allowed to practice Japanese law at all? And what type of law did you practice? Paul Hastings had their own Japanese lawyers they hired. The Japanese legal regime was open quite a bit to allow for non-Japanese law firms to first hire Japanese lawyers and then have Japanese lawyers as their partners. So they've relaxed the regulations quite a bit to allow foreign law firms to fully participate in the Japanese legal market. And in my case, I would pair up with my colleagues, the Japanese lawyer colleagues, who would work together side by side to represent clients that are investing in Japan. And were you under any sort of restrictions on what you could do? Yes. What were they? As a non-Japanese lawyer, I'm admitted in Hawaii in California. I was able to only advise clients directly on Hawaii law and California law matters. And of course, it also included U.S. federal law issues because that's covered. However, when it comes to Japanese law matters, technically I'm not allowed to provide Japanese law advice. I would have to do that together with my Japanese lawyer counterparts. So you have to call in somebody from your firm? Correct. And oftentimes we staff. We're staffed together on projects. It's basically we're licensed as a foreign lawyer in Japan. And you didn't have to pass a bar exam or anything? No, no bar exams. Just a lot of paperwork to establish that you were admitted in the foreign jurisdiction that you have been admitted and also need to prove a certain number of years of actual practice, mainly in your home jurisdiction, but also sometimes it would allow, I think, up to one year's credit working in Japan for a foreign lawyer to gain that one year. I think the two-year experience now, one year, can be done in Japan. Oh, wow. And did you have to join a bar association or was there any type of requirement like that? In Japan, joining a bar association is mandatory. You can join, basically join the bar association where you will be practicing, where your office is. Tokyo Tent has three bar associations. And you just, at random, pick one. What did you pick and how did you choose that? I picked the first Tokyo Bar Association, I think mainly because my colleague was a member of that bar association and so he wanted to increase his bar association membership, so he suggested I join that. The Daiichi Tokyo Bar. Yes, Daiichi Tokyo Bar. Which coincidentally has a relationship with HBSA. Right, and we are trying to put together a trip in next April to meet with them in Tokyo. So I hope you'll be joining us for that. So you had to join a bar association, which you did, the Daiichi. And what was life like as a lawyer? I mean, was it in Tokyo, what was it? Did you go out? Did you deal with a lot of clients? Or what was the circumstances of just your professional personal life? My experience was not that different in terms of practicing in the US versus practicing in Japan. Japanese lawyers tend to work late, but they also tend to come into the office late. A typical day for a Japanese lawyer may be starting at 1030 or even 11, but they never go home. I tend to start early and go home. So you brought that to Japan. You brought your American or Hawaiian work schedule to Tokyo. So that didn't quite, not quite the same. Not quite the same, but I was fortunate in that many of my clients were non-Japanese clients. And so they didn't need 24-hour coverage. I see. And so, OK, all right. So we're going to take a break right now. And when we come back, I want to talk about you're finishing up in Tokyo and coming back to Hawaii and what that was all about. So we'll take a break right now, Alex, and be back in a minute. OK. Thank you. Aloha. I'm Gwen Harris, the host here at Think Tech Hawaii, a digital media company serving the people of Hawaii. We provide a video platform for citizen journalists to raise public awareness in Hawaii. We are a Hawaii nonprofit that depends on the generosity of the supporters to keep on going. We'd be grateful if you'd go to thinktechhawaii.com and make a donation to support us now. Thanks so much. Aloha. I'm Sharon Thomas Yarbrough, a host here at Think Tech Hawaii, a digital media company serving the people of Hawaii. We provide a video platform for citizen journalists to raise public awareness in Hawaii. We are a Hawaii nonprofit that depends on the generosity of the supporters to keep on going. We'd be grateful if you'd go to thinktechhawaii.com and make a donation to support us now. Thanks so much. Aloha. Welcome back, everybody. I am Mark Schlaufe, the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program. And I am with Alex Jampel. And we're talking about his voyage from Japan to Hawaii to LA to Hawaii to Japan again, Alex. So wow. A lot of voyages across the sea. A lot of voyages across the sea, my friend. You're practicing in Japan. You went back to the same firm. And then you changed firms. Correct. When did that happen, and what was that about? And did you do the same type of thing? Yeah, in Japan, while I was there, after about six or seven years, Japan got hit by another bubble burst, which was created in the US this time. It was the Lehman going bankrupt as well as Bear Stearns and some of the others. And the firm was very active in representing them. And so they decided to downsize. And I joined Baker McKenzie, which is a humongous international law firm. And in particular, I was interested in working on ex-Japan Asia projects as well. And they have quite an extensive number of offices throughout the Asia Pacific region. So again, we see your career is kind of shaped by these economic times. And you make a change. And now you went beyond Japan with Baker McKenzie. Your career or the type of things you did were not in Japan, or were they all over Asia? What did that? I stayed in Tokyo, but my practice expanded into various other Asian jurisdictions, namely Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Thailand. Wow. Did you have to travel to those places? We went as a firm and myself as well on a regular basis to a number of Asian cities every year. And it sounds like these are also driven by the economy. Correct. And was this money going into those places or coming into Japan mostly? The work I did, mainly real estate oriented, was inbound into Japan less from the US, less from Europe, a lot more from Asia, as their economy boomed. And also, some Japanese clients were expanding into Asia. And I worked on not only inbound, but also outbound projects. So all your experience over the years kind of helped you represent other countries, besides the United States, as a lawyer? Correct. OK. And what happened? What happened during that period of time with your life? What were you doing? Were you thinking about Hawaii at all? I know you came back quite a bit. You did a lot of athletic things, right? I've seen you come back for, I think, swim type things, swim events, and maybe some running events or two? I've done both. I kept up with swimming. And occasionally, I felt obliged to run. So I did my first marathon in Honolulu, first and only, and probably the only one ever a few years back. I've done some of the shorter runs here. But mainly, ocean swim races, which I really like, and the ocean here is much cleaner than the ones in Japan. Did you swim in Japan at all? I trained in a pool. I trained in a pool. I see. So you didn't do the seashore in Japan? That just wasn't there. No, it wasn't there, and it's not as clean. So is that what attracted you back here? What brought you back? What brought you back to Hawaii and to the same firm that you'd left? It really feels strange after 17 years to be back, not only in Honolulu, but back at the same firm. I always thought that I would be back eventually, then quite know exactly when. But the opportunity arose, and so I took it. I continued to keep in touch with my current firm, Chan Ker, worked on some projects together over the years, representing Japanese clients in Hawaii on their projects. And so I had a good rapport with them, kept up a good rapport, and they said, we have some extra offices. You want to come back? And we had some talk, discussions over a few years. And you keep coming to Tokyo to visit, and I thought, oh, maybe Hawaii is calling me back around now, and I decided to pick up my luggage and move over just about a month ago. OK. And so you always had this attraction, and there were certain things outside of the legal profession that drew you to Hawaii all the time. And then you continued this networking, but the networking with the local law firm is really what kept your connection alive. It kept the ability to go back and forth available to you. Luckily, it helped. Luckily, there was an opening. Luckily, they needed somebody like me to join the firm. And so it all worked out. But it wasn't by design. It was just by happenstance. Sometimes wonder about that, don't you? But anyway, so are you doing the same type of work? I mean, you have this background now of representation in Japan for quite a few years. And you're coming back here to Hawaii. Do you use that? Is it the same type of work? Or is there differences? Or what are you doing? Just like practicing in Japan, having experience as a US lawyer representing US companies in Japan is very helpful. Having the experience of having practice in Japan really adds another dimension to my ability to deal with Japanese clients who are looking to do business in Hawaii and elsewhere in the US. And so that really helped. And I think that's going to improve my ability to represent Japanese companies here in Hawaii. But also, strangely enough, some of my old-time local clients are still with the firm. So I reconnected with them. And I'll also be representing some Japanese clients at the firm that I did not have a prior relationship with. And also, I'm looking to do some outbound representation of US companies going into Japan and perhaps other places in Asia. And so you maintain your relationships in Japan also? Yes. And land on your feet, no matter where you are? I hope so. And I made a lot of good friends in many different places. My prior firms are all understanding of my decision to leave. And they were very supportive. And they, of course, want to find projects in Hawaii to work on. So I'm encouraging them to find projects in Hawaii and come visit. And they have a friend here, which is really important in the practice of law. I mean, you can't really overstate that. They have a person that you've worked with and are friends with. You can trust them. And you can just give them a call or email or whatever and boom, you're doing it. So that's a real advantage. That's something that's very helpful. Yeah, that's something I feel like it's a huge asset that I have that perhaps some others don't. And also, I'd like to keep in touch with my former colleague. So the best way to do that is we can work on projects together. What do you think is the future of foreign lawyers in Tokyo?  Or is the situation there financially? Is it making them look elsewhere? Or what do you think? Japan is a place where a lot of foreign lawyers are working. And I think there'll be a continuous demand for foreign lawyers, mainly because there are many foreign companies very active in Japan that feel comfortable working with foreign lawyers, in addition to with Japanese lawyers. And also, there's a lot of outbound work from Japan all over the world. The Japanese companies are very cash-rich. They have a source of cheap financing.  So the outbound work has increased quite a bit. And having lawyers from non-Japanese jurisdictions, overseas jurisdictions, having an expertise right there in Tokyo is very helpful. Did you find that most of the foreign lawyers were from the United States? Or was it from all over the world? Or where was the variety? What was it? All over, but particularly the US, the UK. And there are many Australian-qualified lawyers in both the UK and the US firms. Did the foreign lawyers get to know each other as a group? Or did they stick to themselves or their own country? Or did they mix it up? Just like here, some lawyers like to go out and mingle. And others like to just stay locked up in their office. Working their own schedule, I guess. OK, if I'm a young lawyer thinking about going to Tokyo, I like it. I'd like to work there. What's your advice? What do you tell them? I mean, what should they know? What should they do? How can they be successful? It's a big and exciting city with a lot of big companies that are doing all kinds of things, not only in Japan but all over the world. But first and foremost, I would suggest a young lawyer to become a good lawyer wherever they are admitted into US first and get three, four, five years of experience so they can have some expertise to bring with them when they go to Japan so that they can be an expert at some level of US, Hawaii, or California, whatever type of lawyer they are before going to Japan. Because if you go too early, you may not have the exposure to your law in the home country, and then you're not really a US lawyer in practice but just by name, which is not so helpful to the clients as well. OK, we have about a minute left. What have you learned from all your voyages back and forth between Hawaii and Japan? What have you learned about life and law? It's great if you can find the opportunities and if you are willing to move once or twice or even four times like myself. It is an adventure, but it's a very good learning adventure. And for those that want that sort of adventure, it's great. And not just Japan, a lot of foreign lawyers are in Singapore, in Hong Kong, even in London. So you don't have to limit yourself to just Japan, but Japan is definitely a place where many foreign lawyers are very active. And for you, that was enjoyable. That was a good voyage. Yes. You liked it. Yes. Are you home to stay? I think so, but I would like to still continue to keep going back and forth like I did when I was in Tokyo. Right, that's enjoyable. OK, well, Alex, Jim Pelf, thank you very much. I appreciate you're talking to us about your voyages as a lawyer and in life. And it's interesting how you're ended up now here in Hawaii. Welcome back. We're glad to have you. That concludes our show today, everybody. Thank you very much. Aloha.


It's time for oral questions. I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, my first question is to the Premier. The Premier's decision to scrap the updated sexual health curriculum and drag Ontario back to 1998 is not about doing what's right for students or about listening to parents. It's about doing favours for social conservatives like Charles McVidi and Tonya Granick-Allen. Why is the Premier more focused on keeping social conservatives happy instead of keeping students, young people and queer youth safe? Premier? Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question, Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, we traveled around Ontario. We consulted with thousands and tens of thousands of parents. We consulted with hundreds of teachers and not one single person, Mr. Speaker, came up to me and said they were consulted. We heard that they want a change when it comes to the sex ed curriculum. And I know the Leader of the Opposition. She would have heard the exact same thing on the campaign trail that I heard. Matter of fact, we're going to do the largest consultation in Ontario's history when it comes to the sex ed. Mr. Speaker, we know there was close to zero consultation. Matter of fact, out of the 14 million people, there was 1,638 people that were consulted, 0.00. Mr.  After spending all of yesterday trying to figure out what they were really doing, last night the conservatives confirmed they are dragging students back to the 1998 health curriculum this September. I have a simple question for the Premier. Will the same sex relationships and LGBTQ families be fully included and reflected in the curriculum this fall? Or does he have to ask permission of radical extremists like Charles McVidi and Tonya Allen? Mr. Speaker, we know that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to consult with parents. The Leader of the Opposition actually believes in the nanny state. They believe that the government knows best when it comes to our students. They know best when it comes to our children. They know best when it comes to our parents. We take a different approach, Mr. Speaker. We take approach that the best teachers are the parents. Not a group of special interests. Mr. Speaker, I will once again remind the Leader of the Opposition there is next to zero consultation. Out of people of 14 million people, 0.001% were consulted. That is disgusting, 0.001%. Final supplementary. What I know best, Speaker, is that it is 2018, not 1999's consent, online safety, gender identity, and LGBTQ families. That's the curriculum that this Premier and his radical extremist friends are dragging our kids back to. The Deputy Premier, Attorney General, and Minister of Children and Youth have all in the past expressed their support for keeping kids safe. Why is this Premier listening to radical extremists like Charles McVeedy and Tanya Brannick-Allen instead of his own cabinet and putting the safety of our young people at risk? Premier. Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty rich that the Leader of the Opposition would call us radical. Please come to order. Please come to order. Right across from us. The opposition had to steal a couple of our lines. My friends, we are going to make sure we have the largest consultation in Ontario's history. We're going to go to every single writing and consult with the parents. I know the Leader of the Opposition doesn't believe in consulting with parents. She believes the government should make the decision for each and every one of us. She doesn't believe in consultation. Thank you. Thank you. Next question, the Leader of the Opposition. My next question is also for the Premier. You know, the job of the Premier is not making bathroom deals with insiders. But that's what this Premier is already up to on sex ed and on hydro. He said the CEO of hydro was going to get zero, absolutely zero. But Mayo Schmidt will actually walk away with at least $9 million, maybe more. Only the Premier knows the real answer, Speaker. So will the Premier make the deal public today so that everyone, all Ontarians, all the people can see what he actually agreed to? Mr. Speaker, Leader of the Opposition knew exactly what the deal was. And I'll tell you the reason why the Leader of the Opposition knew exactly what the deal was. Because the Leader of the Opposition was down here for years propping up Hydro One, propping up the $6 million ban, propping up the board. The Opposition, Mr. Speaker, she's in favour of high hydro rates. She's in favour of the highest hydro rates in North America. She's in favour of putting the burden of carbon tax and cap and trade on the backs of the taxpayers and small businesses in this province. My friend, Leader of the Opposition. Okay, okay. I can tell you wrong there. Premier? Premier? Premier? I'll take your seat for a second. Premier? Yeah. The House has to come to order. I can't hear the Premier. The Speaker has to be able to hear what's being said by the member as the floor. The volume has to go down. Apologize to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition knew exactly the compensation package. She kept it under wraps. The Leader of the Opposition, I should say, kept it under wraps, not saying a word, knowing, knowing that he had stock options. I'll tell you, there's only one thing. One thing that the Hydro-1 CEO walked away with is the same package as anyone else would walk away with, with their benefits and their pension plan. Zero compensation. Thank you. Thank you. Because zero in this House is, and that's the knowledge that this Premier has. Leader of the Opposition. The bottom line is this. This Premier said that the CEO would get zero, absolutely zero. But it turns out whatever backroom deal that he cooked up with Mayo Schmidt will end up costing at least $9 million. Now that's what privatized electricity does. That's what it does. And that's what this party supports. When will the Premier actually come clean and fully disclose and release the deal that he cut with Mayo Schmidt? Thank you. Premier. Through you, Mr. Speaker. I can see the Leader of the Opposition. I understand she doesn't like losing. She wants to get personal. She wants to get personal, but I'm not going to get personal with the Leader of the Opposition. One thing. The CEO of Hydro-1 had zero, zero severance. I understand, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition worked hand in hand with the previous government, propping up the highest hydro rates in North America, propping up the highest gas prices in North America. She did. Wanting to have the highest carbon tax anywhere in the world. Matter of fact, one of our members said they want the highest carbon tax in the entire world. That's what they want. That is shameful. Speaker, no matter how much he wants to pretend he didn't say it, the Premier said the CEO's payout was zero. Absolutely zero. That the CEO would leave with more money than most families in this province earn in a lifetime. The Premier turned the $6 million man into a $9 million man. He knows exactly how much that secret deal really costs. And if the Premier refuses to come clean and refuses to make his backroom deal public, then any new bill on executive compensation and transparency is just a joke. So will this Premier agree to amend the bill that he tabled yesterday to include full disclosure of all payments to outgoing executives and board members of Hydro-1? Mr. Speaker, again, the CEO had a zero percent severance. I have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. Leader of the Opposition stood side by side beside the previous Premier. As they were getting outrageous, absolutely outrageous, $6 million, the Leader of the Opposition stood by. As board members worked seven days a year and was compensated $180,000 a year, the Leader of the Opposition stood by and did not say a word. When the previous Administration raised the Hydro rates, the highest in North America, the Leader of the Opposition did absolutely nothing to protect the taxpayers of this province. We were given a clear mandate from the people of Ontario, a clear mandate to reduce their Hydro rates by 12%, and that's exactly what we're going to do. Next question, Leader of the Opposition. My question is to the Premier, but I would ask him to look at the answer to get a real understanding of what we did as opposition here in the House. He needs to get a little bit of education. In his first week in office... I have to ask the government members to please come to order. I can't hear the Leader of the Opposition. Please come to order, Leader of the Opposition. In his first week in office, the Premier quietly stopped the implementation of the Special Investigations Unit Act, but he hasn't told us why. And that has people across Ontario very worried, Speaker. Is this Premier getting ready to open the door, wide open to carding and discriminatory police checks in our province again? Mr. Speaker, our party is going to give the tools to our police, all the tools they need to stop the gun violence that we've seen in the city. Mr. Speaker, we support our police. We support our police. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and unlike their party that are police-haters, military-haters, veteran-haters, copy-haters. First of all, you're cutting into the Premier's time when you do these standing ovations. First of all, secondly, I'm asking the Premier to withdraw. Withdraw. Not. Leader of the Opposition. What so you know? There is something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our country and this Premier needs to look it up. Ending an applaud and you're cutting into your Leader's time too. Leader of the Opposition. Sorry, Speaker. When the Premier slammed the brakes on the new police oversight rule, he ignored more than two years of consultations. He ignored the voices of Ontarians and he refuses to tell us why. And yesterday, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services couldn't tell us either, so I'm going to ask again, is this Premier going to drag Ontario backwards and start opening the door to carding once again in our province? Premier. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, our party supports the police. We don't have any members to reinforce that we will give the police all the tools they need to get their job done. But I'll tell you one thing because I wouldn't allow this. We didn't have any MPP, unlike the member from Brampton East that walked around running up and down the streets with a sign that says F the police.  Let's take your seats. Next question. The member for Eglinton Lawrence. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, as it is my first time rising in the House, I want to congratulate you on your election as Speaker and also thank the residents of my riding for electing me. My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Over the past number of months, Toronto has seen a sharp rise in guns and gang violence. And that violence has been shocking to residents in my community and across the greater Toronto area. Our police officers and emergency responders are on the front lines in our community helping to assuage the fears of residents, but they need more help. Can the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services please update the House on this important file? Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member of Eglinton Lawrence, who's been an important advocate on this file and others in her community. And I'd also like to add that I grew up in the Eglinton Lawrence and my mom still lives in that riding. Gun violence has no place in Toronto nor in any part of this province. Praising indiscriminate attacks have to stop. With the rising gun violence on our streets, it's clear that current strategies and anti-gun units in the City of Toronto are required and that we are dedicated to providing services and oversight. We're committed to police services across the province and to providing our officers with the tools and resources they need to keep communities safe. This isn't a partisan issue. Thank you. Thank you. Member for Eglinton Lawrence, supplemental. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And back to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, during the campaign, we made a number of commitments to our police and other first responders. This included making sure that we respect our frontline officers and the work that they do in our communities every day. Can you please update the House on what you've been working on? Sure. To the member for this important question, and safety of the public is our paramount concern. We've been clear from day one. We are going to make sure we are giving our frontline officers the tools they need to do their job. We're committed to fixing Bill 175 and treating our frontline officers with respect. This includes a full and thorough review of the legislation governing police services and police oversight. By consulting experts, police, services, and the public, we will accomplish this goal. Mr. Speaker, our police officers put themselves in harm's way every day and work to keep our communities safe. We're committed to listening and consulting with our frontline and ensuring they have the tools they work with. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Earlier this week, the Premier's close friend and avid supporter Charles McVity made his opinion about the repeal of the sexual health curriculum crystal clear. He said, the fruit of the poisonous tree has been cut down. McVity is a social conservative who lobbied hard for the modernized curriculum to be pulled out of schools, and this government was more than happy to make a deal with him. Does the Minister think that it is appropriate to allow social conservative activists like Charles McVity to drive Ontario's health and physical education program from the back room? Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Congratulations on your re-election to this place. It's a pleasure to be back with you. On behalf of my ministry, we're going to continue to stand up and protect children and youth. As the minister responsible for children and youth, I couldn't be more delighted to be in this ministry. Given my roots started as a children and youth critic 12 years ago with your now leader of the official opposition, I congratulate her as well. Let me be perfectly clear. You'd like to present one narrative.  Let me speak as a person who has watched as my daughter was confused with half of the things because it was not age appropriate. I don't know Charles McVity. He is not going to lead this process. The Minister of Education is going to lead this process, and the Minister of Education with parents will lead this process because the difference between us and you is you don't understand. Back to the member for London West. I think it's really different like dignity has got. Speaker, yesterday this government confirmed that the new sexual health curriculum would be rolled back while claiming that there is ample room to discuss consent, cyber safety and gender identity, even though the old curriculum is completely silent on these critical issues. Instead of catering to pressure from inflammatory far-right activists like Charles McVity, this government should be ensuring that young people have the accurate, up-to-date sexual health information and resources they need to protect themselves. Will this Minister confirm that her government rejects Charles McVity's comments about the current up-to-date curriculum and commit to having an inclusive, modern sexual health curriculum in place for this September? Minister? I guess you didn't listen. Charles McVity is not running the process. The Minister of Education is going to lead the process and we're going to include parents because when parents were standing on that side of the aisle and when they were coming in to talk at committee, everybody was, you know, in the former Liberal Administration ignoring them.  You're simply saying we're going to talk about... I'm going to remind the entire House you have to make your comments through the Chair and speak about other members if you speak about them in the third person. Minister? My apologies, Speaker. Let me just be perfectly clear. We're talking about being age-appropriate. I have personally in this House talked about suicide prevention, children's mental health. We have talked about concussions. We have talked about all sorts of other issues, including anti-bullying, which I have legislation in my own name on. That will not change. What will change is the respect that we will have for the parents of this province, through the Minister of Education, and through the parental process that will take place. Next question. Member for Bruce Gray, Owensown. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, as you know, Bruce Power provides 30% of Ontario's electricity to a low-cost producer of power for families and businesses. Over the next four years, they will invest private dollars into the long-term future of their facility to secure low-cost power through 2064 and an estimated 22,000 direct and indirect jobs. Minister, are you supportive of Bruce Power's role in Ontario Continuing? Minister of Energy. How you asked. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the members for Gray, Bruce Owensown for a strong representation of his constituents over the years and for standing up for Bruce Power. It's an important employer and producer of energy for our sector here in Ontario. Our government will always support the work of private organizations here in Ontario that are working to create good jobs, high-tech jobs, good union jobs in our province while providing safe and secure access to energy. We are especially supportive, Mr. Speaker, of companies that achieve these goals without the need for public funding. I'm proud to be part of a government that believes in these important principles as I know the member is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the Minister of Energy. Minister, that's great news for families and businesses who rely on this low-cost power and some 22,000 jobs in Bruce Gray Owensown and across the province. One of the key items, and here on Bruce, one of the key items that often doesn't get attention in its role, Bruce Power plays in supplying the world life-saving isotopes. This is an area you played a leadership role in during your tenure as Federal Natural Resources and Energy Minister. Minister, what does this mean to Ontario's leadership role as an isotope supplier? Minister? Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did face a pressing challenge to make sure that medical isotopes were available to people across Canada and especially here in Ontario. The private sector in Ontario in particular was challenged to step up to the plate and meet global isotope shortages. And I'm pleased that Bruce Power had demonstrated leadership in this area. By extending the life of the assets, they will not only generate low-cost, reliable power through 2064, but will continue to supply 40% of the world's cobalt 60. Used to keep hospitals, Mr. Speaker, and healthcare clean and be the largest producer of medical-grade cobalt used to treat brain tumors. We think that's important, Mr. Speaker, and we're going to stand up for Bruce. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Premier. Yesterday, the government tabled Bill 2. It should have been called the Bad Faith Act because this bill gives the government the power to break its own contracts which will have a chilling effect. From now on, businesses will either have to add a bad faith risk premium onto the price of government contracts driving up the price or they'll have to make sure that they have a special relationship with the Premier and his inner circle that protects him from these sorts of arbitrary actions. Why would any company do business with the Ontario government when the Premier is willing to suspend the rule of law when it comes to contracts he personally doesn't like? Mr. Energy. Mr. Energy. Mr. Speaker, we're in rarefied when the NDP start talking about cost savings, Mr. Speaker. But since they are, let's talk about their election platform. It sounded like a liberal version of the tax and spend buffet. Had they been listening to Ontarians, they would have heard that they wanted them to cut back on spending, lower hydro rates, Mr. Speaker. Look for cost savings to the tune of $790 million. Now, 76 progressive Conservative Party Ontario members are sitting in this place today because we were listening to what the people of Ontario were doing. Mr. Speaker, the difference we were for the people, they were for the problem. Mr. Speaker, thank you. Mr. Clemente. Thank you, Speaker. I gather the Premier doesn't want to answer the question. I'll try another tack. Bill 2 includes a bizarre clause that protects the government lawsuits from lawsuits that allege quote, misrepresentations within the meaning of applicable securities laws, unquote. Exactly what misrepresentations has the Premier been making recently that he needs a law to protect himself from lawsuits. You've been asked the member to withdraw. To withdraw. It's in the bill. You suggested the Premier was misrepresented. Asking the member to withdraw. Back to the Minister of Energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listen, it's been a great couple of weeks for rate payers and taxpayers. We started reducing hydro rates and we've taken a couple of important steps, Mr. Speaker. We're committed to reducing electricity bills by 12%, cutting them, Mr. Speaker. Not subsidizing them, not punting them down the road for future generations to bear those costs. Winding down 758 contracts is expected to avoid long-term costs of $790 million. This approach maximizes the benefits for rate payers. We're ending the contracts where the benefits outweigh the costs and we're safeguarding that with legislation to ensure that taxpayers realize even greater savings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Next question. I recognize the member for Guelph. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to rise for my first question and first I'd like to congratulate you on your election as speaker and congratulate all members of the 42nd Parliament. I'm looking forward to serving with each of you. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.  Fortunately, what is good for our planet is also good for our economy. The $7 trillion global clean economy is generating jobs and prosperity around the world but cancelling Ontario's plan to price pollution without an alternative plan sends the wrong signal to clean economy investors and companies. So my question to the Premier is does the government have an economic analysis on the effects of your decision to dismantle our climate change programs on clean tech investments and job creation? And if you have such an economic analysis will you make it public? To the Minister of Environment. To the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Mr. Speaker and congratulations as well to the member on his election. Mr. Speaker as the member knows Doug Ford, PC government was elected with a plan. The plan was to get rid of the aggressive cap and trade carbon tax program of previous government. This is a program that the opposition thought didn't go far enough. It was a program that was killing jobs and making life difficult for average Ontarians. We understand the importance of climate change. We agree that steps need to be taken and those steps will be forthcoming but they won't be steps that take the burden and put the burden on individual Ontarians. Mr. Speaker it is so important to have an economic analysis because the decision to dismantle programs like green on electric vehicle rebates and energy saving school repairs and building businesses, consumers and public facilities. It's a decision that takes money out of the pockets of people who want to lower their energy bills.  It makes it harder for schools to reduce their energy bills. It's a decision that hurts local businesses. Mr. Speaker I would like to redirect my question to the Premier. Premier I would like to see the Premier's decision to dismantle programs like green on electric vehicle rebates and build a plan with financial support for people, businesses and schools to make investments to save money by saving energy while lowering their carbon footprint. Thank you. Mr. Speaker and thank you for the question. We recognize the importance of dealing with emissions but we disagree with the government to make those choices for individual Ontarians. We will come forward with a responsible plan. A plan that tackles the issue of emissions but a plan that does not punish ordinary Ontarians. We would like the taxpayers to have the dollars in their pockets. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. In my writing Peter Brook-Worth, the organizers of the Peter Room Music Fest are anxiously waiting on grant money from the former government. They were approved for grant money before the election but payments were frozen to a number of festivals and events across Ontario. Without funding, the organizers will have to cancel a number of scheduled events and the City of Peter Brook will lose an enormous amount of tourism revenue. Can the Minister update this as to when this approved money will flow to Peter Brook Music Fest and other festivals and events across the province? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Thank you for your question. It is an honour to be able to serve with you and I know you will be an excellent constituency representative for your writing. The member is absolutely right. The festival and the Celebrate Ontario program was put on hold during the transition. We had to make sure that due diligence was done, that we ensured that the funds were promised, were accurate and needed and necessary and I can assure the member from Peter Brook, that you will get your money and I hope you enjoy the festival. Mr. Speaker, back to the Minister. I'd like to thank the Minister for the answer. I'd also like to congratulate the Minister on her reelection by the constituents of Dufferin Calvin. Mr. Speaker, it's clear that this government's mandate is for the people. I'd also like to know if there are any other initiatives that the Minister and the government are putting forward. Thank you. Minister. Thank you. There is no doubt that festivals like Peterborough Music Festival or the Timmins Rock on the River or the Beaches Jazz Festival in Toronto are critically important to our communities. We all understand it brings in tourism dollars. It makes what makes Ontario special. And enjoy those festivals that are across Ontario. As I said there are over 100 festivals that were lined up for the sorry, for the funding dollars and those have flowed. So enjoy your festivals. Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The last liberal government pushed Ontario hospitals to the break. Hallway medicine and painfully long wait times have become the norms in our hospital. But instead of taking urgent step to fix it, the Premier handed out a contract worth over one million dollars to one of his friends, the former president of the Conservative Party. Why was the Premier's first act in healthcare, an act of blatant political patronage? Thank you Minister of Health. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the question. The fact of the matter is that the state of hallway medicine in Ontario was so bad that we needed advice and the person who was providing that advice and leading an advisory council is going to be providing information on ending hallway medicine on innovation bringing more efficiencies into the system so that we can expand healthcare. This is going to be providing advice both to myself and to the Premier so that we can end this situation and improve healthcare so that we don't have hospitals operating at over 100% capacity virtually every day. In 2006 the hospitals run by Dr. Devlin had the second worst death rate in all of Canada. Nurses warn of chronic understaffing in all of his hospital. And then he shut down three Toronto hospitals and replaced them by P3 hospital. Now apparently he's contracted to fix the entire healthcare system. Why did the Premier hand out a million-dollar contract to his friend the former president of the Conservative Party? I was done because the state of affairs is so bad now and what happened before was not that person's responsibility but the government's responsibility so what we need to do is to create and the situation with hallway medicine because as bad as it is right now once we have flu season hit in a couple of months it's going to become worse if we don't take action right away. That's what the council is looking at and both the Premier and I are looking forward to their recommendations. Next question Member for Simcoe North. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the Minister of Energy tabled a bill that included the Hydro One Accountability Act 2018. The Hydro One Accountability Act 2018 would require the Board of Hydro One to establish a new compensation framework for the Board of Directors CEO and other executives in consultation with the province and the other five largest shareholders. The Act would also give Management Board of Cabinet authority to approve the compensation framework and any amendments to it as well as to issue directives governing the compensation of the directors, CEO and other executives. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why this is an important step in cleaning up the hydro mess left behind by the previous government? Thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to congratulate the member for Simcoe North on her election and welcome her to this magnificent place. Strong leadership of Premier Ford Mr. Speaker, we've moved quickly over the past couple of weeks to renew the leader set in place a process to renew the leadership of Hydro One. This is of critical importance to our province's electricity system and our government will be closely engaging in the leadership transition at Hydro One to ensure the stability of the system is preserved and customers are protected. That's why we've prepared legislation that if passed will improve transparency and accountability at Hydro One. The Hydro One Accountability Act 2018 will require the board to establish a new compensation framework for the board, CEO and other executives in consultation with the province and the other five largest shareholders, Mr. Speaker. This represents a renewal for a cleaner, better... Thank you very much. Supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, back to the Minister. Further yesterday's Act would amend the Ontario Energy Board Act 1998 to require the Ontario Energy Board to exclude any amount of compensation paid to the Chief Executive Officer and executives from consumer rates for Hydro One Limited or subsidiaries. In addition, the Act would require Hydro One to annually publish on its website a record of the total compensation of executives as prescribed by regulation. The Act would also require Hydro One to publish on its website any proposed changes to its compensation frameworks for this board, CEO or other executives at least 30 days prior to the date on which it seeks approval. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why these are important steps to restore trust and accountability at Hydro One and the energy sector? Minister? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the careful attention that this member has put to this piece of legislation. Public accountability is an important element of this legislation. The process that we're undertaking will enhance trust and accountability at Hydro One, but across the energy sector, Mr. Speaker. As the member rightly points out, this legislation requires Hydro One to publish any proposed changes to its compensation policies for the board, CEO and executives 30 days prior to seeking management board of cabinet approval. We will also require Hydro One to annually publish a record of the total annual compensation of the executives on their websites. Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates a clear and decisive set of actions that we're taking to ensure Hydro One is renewed leadership on the right path to reducing hydro rates for ratepayers across this great province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my questions to the acting Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier about our refugee crisis and federal funding. The Premier passed me off to the member from Nippian who did a lot of yelling and posturing about who's more Canadian than PC Caucus. But yesterday's hooting and hollering does nothing to solve this crisis and this government's lack of clarity is making things worse. Because of the lack of clarity, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration had to hold an emergency meeting on Parliament Hill yesterday. Conflating issues and collapsing ministries has been a running theme of this government and we're only in week one. So I'd like to ask the Premier again, why on earth would this government walk away for $11 million to help our cities? Is it because you haven't yet figured out how to redirect it into the pockets of your corporate friends? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have children community and social services. Thanks very much for the question to my colleague from Oshawa. She asked me why I would walk away for $11 million. Clearly, math is not the strong suit in the official opposition. The price tag is $175 million and growing. And I'm going to tell you something. My ministry is quite large. We look after children in care. We look after children who have autism. We look after children with developmental disabilities. We look after the welfare system. We look after ODSP. We look at women who are escaping domestic violence and we look after women who are being trafficked. So I ask you this and I hope you have a response from me. Where do you want to take the money from? Those vulnerable people or from the federal government who created the city. Thank you. Again to the acting premier. Yesterday during question period, the member from the people of New Pied hold were going to continue to welcome people to Ontario. And we're going to continue to support them. But at the same time, this government is neither welcoming nor supportive of asylum seekers in Ontario. And during the PC electoral campaign, a statement was issued that read, quote, while funding for refugees sure the city has the funding it needs." Primarily a federal issue means mostly, and I'll explain to the team it is also a provincial responsibility, both morally and legally. The people of Ontario and our municipalities are looking to the provincial government to do the right thing and help people who are seeking refuge. While you waste precious time going back and forth about which level of government should shoulder the expense, refugees and asylum seekers are suffering. I hope that the Premier will do the right thing. Will they provide the much needed housing to these families before the August 9th eviction date? The immigration and refugee policy is under the purview of the federal government. No one disputes that. The issue that we have today is we have $75 million in housing costs for the City of Toronto. We have an additional $11 million cost for the City of Ottawa where I live. We have a $90 million and growing social assistance cost as a result of this. You're telling me to take $0.06 on the dollar when I should be fighting for the people of this province. I'm going to once again ask the members and remind the members you have to speak through the chair and talk of other members in the third person. The member opposite is telling me that I should accept $0.06 of the dollar. I can't afford that, this province can't afford that and the people that I'm responsible for that I stay awake at night worrying about can't afford it. So she can either stand with me or against me in my fight with Ottawa to get fair compensation for this province. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next question. Member for King Vaughan. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labor. Minister, tens of thousands of students at York University from across the GTA have been adversely affected by months of inaction. Mr. Speaker, the York University strike has gone on for too long. I have received numerous calls from my constituents, from students at York U and members of their families who are very concerned about this ongoing strike which has kept them from the classroom. Our constituents want action. They want government to put students first. Minister, I was very pleased to learn through you, Mr. Speaker, Minister, I was pleased to learn that our new government is moving forward with one of our promises to the people of Ontario with the introduction of legislation that will finally end the strike at York University. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has indicated they intend to stall this important legislation and keep students out of the classroom. Minister, can you commit today to move forward with this legislation and get our students back in the classroom? Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member from King Vaughan on his election. He will represent his constituents well, and I want to congratulate the speaker on his election as Speaker of this legislature. The member from King Vaughan is exactly right. This is about getting students back to the classroom. Finding a resolution to this situation is one of our immediate priorities. There are more than 45,000 students affected by this strike. They're concerned about losing their school year and they're uncertain for their future. The strike has gone on for more than 100 days, Mr. Speaker. Going back to it, it started in March 5th, Mr. Speaker. So we have every indication that both sides are deadlocked. There is no resolution in sight. We need to get the two parties back to the table, and the priority is to get the students back to the classroom. Supplementary question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the minister. Minister, thank you for your leadership on this file, and thank you for moving with a sense of urgency for the sake of our young people. While we know the NDP is ill-prepared to put our students first under this minister, under this premier, under this government, we are governing for the people for the next generation and for those who want to work hard and get ahead in this province. Now, we know these students have been out of the classroom for four months, for far too long, so minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, could you elaborate on why it is so important that we get this legislation passed without delay? Let's get these kids back in the classroom. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, the students have suffered long enough. Over 45,000 students being affected, and they are frightened about the future of their education. They shouldn't have to face this uncertainty. You know, this is the longest strike in post-secondary education in Canada. It needs to be resolved. This is one of the media priorities that the premier and his government want to have is to get the students back to the classroom. This is why we've introduced legislation. We need to get the two parties back to the negotiating table, and we need to get the students back to the classroom, and that's what we, as the government, intend to do. Through you, Mr. Speaker, question is to the minister of education. For years, the parent-led group Fix Our Schools has been calling on the government to make urgent repairs to Ontario's schools. Days before the election, they circulated a pledge asking candidates to make a public commitment to finally eliminate the astonishing $16 billion repair backlog. I signed that pledge, and I indeed, many conservative MPPs, including our own minister of education, signed their names to that pledge. And yet, as soon as this government was sworn in, it turns around and quietly guts $100 million in funding for very urgent school repairs. Why is this government already breaking its promise to the students and families of Ontario? APPLAUSE Bob, the minister of education. Speak here to the minister of the environment. Environment. Mr. Speaker, through you, the member's referring to the funding that was being provided by the cap-and-trade carbon tax program. This government was exceptionally clear, this party was exceptionally clear, that it would eliminate that regressive tax, and as a result, we are working with our transfer partners to go through the orderly wind-down of the funding that came from that program. That's what you can expect from this government. We'll make a promise and we'll keep a promise. APPLAUSE Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, my question again to the minister of education who signed this pledge, the state of our schools in Ontario is appalling. They are crumbling. Across this province, they are literally falling apart. I know, I know after 15 years of liberal mismanagement. Don't get me wrong, I know that. But in my own riding, I have schools like Alexander Muir Gladstone, where the roof was so bad last year they had to use the kindergarten water tables to catch the leaks. They have an urgent repair list of 44 major repairs needed, in that one school alone. I want to hear this from the minister of education, please. You made a pledge. I don't care where you get it. You cut $100 million in repairs that we urgently need in our communities. Parents expect them. You talk about the importance of parents and how you're listening to them, listen to them now. Fix Our Schools is a parent-led organization. You signed the pledge. How many more students are going to have to go sit through the next year sitting in leaky classrooms wearing hats and mitts before you live up to your pledge? Mr. Secretary of the Environment? Mr. Secretary of Education? Mr. Secretary of Education? The occasion of our second day back in the 42nd Parliament to address this very serious issue that evolved under 15 years of mismanagement of the former liberal government. Mr. Secretary, during my seven years here it was the party opposite, the opposition party that propped this government up and allowed the continued disintegration of the schools. And so with that said, I'm pleased to share with you, Speaker, that we're working with our ministry officials because fixing our schools are very important. We're going to fix and address the issue that evolved under the former liberal government because our students deserve that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I rise. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family, my remarkable campaign team, and the great people of my community that elected me the first-ever MPP for the great riding of Northumberland, Peterborough South. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy tabled legislation. It included a portion that would enact the White Pines Win Project Termination Act 2018. This, if passed, would terminate this contract and any related regulatory approvals to the White Pines Win Project retroactive to July 10th, 2018. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy explain why cancelling this project required legislation? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to welcome the member for Northumberland, Peterborough South and for his immediate work on this file and also to the MPP for the Bay of Quinty who's also represented this project. Our government has been clear we would take action to reduce electricity bills immediately for Ontarians, Mr. Speaker. This includes cancelling any energy project that does not provide rate reductions for Ontarians. Due to the fact that this project face considerable local and public opposition, I'm pleased to announce that our government introduced legislation to terminate this contract and any regulatory approvals and permits for White Pines Win Project This legislation requires White Pines Win Incorporated to decommission their project in accordance with any regulations put forth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, back to the Minister of Energy Thank you for your swift action on this. Prince Edward County was an unwilling host. The support of this government is being celebrated across Prince Edward County and into my writing of Northumberland, Peterborough South. It was shocking to hear that this project would have been approved during this pandemic. It was clear the county didn't want the project, nor did the members that formed government. I understand care has been taken to protect Ontarian interest. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy explain how cancelling this project will benefit Ontarians? A smart guy, Mr. Speaker. Thinking about this project, our government is committed to cancelling contracts for Ontarians not simply that they don't need to be approved. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and that's exactly what we're doing. The previous Liberal government made their mission to expand renewable energy contracts that were unsustainable and unaffordable. They included solar and industrial wind turbines, Mr. Speaker. We're cancelling this project because we're going to protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers. We're going to protect Ontario people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Auto insurance premiums in Ontario are 55% higher than in the rest of Canada. That amounts to $4 billion that could be in the pockets of everyday Ontarians if our rates were at the rate of the national average. This is gouging Ontario drivers and it needs to stop. But last week, this Conservative government allowed premiums to increase by another 1.1%. This shows exactly who's interested the Conservative government have in mind and is not everyday working Ontario families. Will this government commit here and now to lowering auto insurance rates by 15%? Here are government and consumer services. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to the member opposite for the question here this morning. You know, it's interesting when you look back at what's happened over the last couple of years in this legislature. I've been here for seven years now. The members opposite supported the previous Liberal government when they said that they were going to reduce auto insurance rates by 15%. And then the previous Liberal government said that, well, that was just a stretch goal. You'll remember that, Mr. Speaker. But the members opposite supported the government anyway. They continued to prop up the government. You know, Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario said it loud and clear on June 7th that they've had enough of the empty promises. They've had enough of the stretch goals. They want a government that's going to look after their interest. A government that's going to put more money back in their pocket. A government that is going to clean up a county. That concludes the time we have for question period. That concludes the time we have for question period. I recognize that there's a great deal of enthusiasm in the House. It was being the first week where we've had a regular question period. But I would like to point out that there were numerous standing ovations on both sides of the House. And I point out that you're just cutting in your own time, which reduces the number of questions that might be asked in the House. And I ask you to consider that. The member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order. Very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to welcome some guests for my ceremonial swearing in today. In the House, I have my father, Mike Taylor and his wife, Pauline. I have one of my constituency assistants, Andrea Hogan, as well as one of my campaign volunteers, Aiden McGilvin. Later this afternoon we'll be joined by my mother, Barbara Piper, and my sister, Nicole Taylor. Welcome to Queen's Park. I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 98 C, changes have been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' votes. As such that Mr. Harris assumes ballot item number 94, Mrs. Fee assumes ballot item number 2, Mr. Usterhoff assumes ballot item number 3, and Ms. Kusendova assumes ballot item number 22. There being no deferred votes, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.


Going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards from in 23 community origins football hobby 8 box break number 12 random team style Here is gonna be a look at your random results. There they are There's a look again at your random results as always can find those on the website under the results tab as well as the link in Chat so good luck everybody. Let's do it again 13 to go now on mega dual case everyone 13 to go 13 to go. We are almost there guys. I Know I know I saw that I saw that Kyle just brought it in for us dude. It looks awesome. So cool, man All right mega dual case up next. We also have nine to go on flawless random team style and Then just 15 to go on choice three breaks with spots tonight everybody to 149 Russell Wilson and to 125 Marvin Mims got Aaron Jones and Quentin Johnson Cedric Tillman rookie Jersey to 99 For the Browns For the Raiders Aiden O'Connell nice one there on the rookie auto on a cod on a cad Troy s mega dual case spot down to 12 everybody 12 to go Yeah, did you play with Steve or no? Go into the Chiefs for she writes. That's why he's ducking us today. Yeah, he's seen all day Rishi rice Chat To 50 CMC and tonight and I'm CD land Seyquan and Quentin Johnson again. We're giving away seal Certain breaks are getting a gold pack per spot certain breaks are gonna silver pack per spot card King 249 is think Bigsby Grats on that one Jaguars. I know Steve might have to go to number one for that Yeah, Dalton Kincaid rookie auto for the bills Steve. No views Dorian Thompson Robinson going to the Browns rookie Jersey auto nice one there rookie jumbo Jersey on To 125 Jalen waddle and a 149 John Mechie all yours is I Be all over The energy has over Gunner Anderson Stetson Bennett to 49 No build God. No build Joshua. No build. Yeah 12 to go on mega 11 to go on mega dual case 11 ago on mega dual case Nick a with a spot. Thank you Nick down to 11 11 to go on mega dual case Rishi rice rookie auto go into the Chiefs No, your DS was good, man Mack Jones to 49 for the Patriots who has this team Going to Jonathan a Anthony Richardson Jumbo rookie patch auto booklet 31 of 49 congrats on that one Jonathan. There you go, buddy. Very nice. Yeah, Josh It's the only way to play it man. At this point. No builds is Michael Wilson to 149 and 125 Travis ETN, Jr he's a damn year and Luke Shoemaker rookie and Origin story Jordan Addison case hit going to the Vikings Congrats, Thomas G with Minnesota 99 Clayton tune Pralyn Sanders going to the Dolphins RPA to 99 Anthony Richardson. There we go again, man Let's go Congrats on that. We'll mag this one as well Would you say do I remember that? Mike Evans and Sean Clifford Jalen Carter to 75 and to 99 Dorian Thompson Robinson This one's freaking cool for the Raiders Ray Guy some punter mojo four of 25 Nice one there. Well, probably the greatest punter to ever do it got Sean Clifford rookie auto for the Packers nice one Green Bay and a Stetson Bennett rookie jumbo patch autograph blue going to the Rams Nice one there at Rams That's pretty wild That's pretty cool though To 149 Matt Jones and to 75 Jonathan Mingo Will Leviss rookie and Zach Sharpen a on the rookie as well two rookies there got Anthony Richardson jumbo Jersey to 199 A lot of Anthony Richardson in this half case not too bad honestly We've got Jonathan Mingo rookie auto for the Panthers Congrats on that and Cedric Tillman rookie Jersey auto going to the Browns Congrats Browns Nice one there again guys Mega dual case at 11 to go 11 to go on mega dual case Two left here everyone Najee Harris to 50 and Buddha Baker to 99 Miles Sanders Tyler Scott Got Tim Brown nice one there to 99 Hall of Fame Jersey card for the Raiders Ryan B with a mega dual case spot. Thank you, Ryan. We're down to 10 almost in a single digits on that everybody Cedric Tillman rookie auto for the Browns nice one there Cleveland and Redemption is gonna be Michael Meyer rookie pat jumbo patch autograph turquoise to 25 for the Raiders Congrats Raiders Michael Meyer box of the break everybody. Good luck 10 to go mega dual case And to go 9 to go on flawless 15 to go on prism choice prism draft choice everyone Got Devon Achan to 1 49 and to 125 Devonte Smith Buddha Baker and Taijai Spears got Jersey to 199 Jordan Addison Jordan Addison Zach Charbonnet to 49 silver ink auto nice one there congrats to the Seahawks there you go Seattle and Tradesocker to 99 on the red two-colored RPA Congrats on that one. We've got a Recap Jordan Addison Tim Brown Anthony Richardson Ray Guy Clayton June Stetson Bennett Tank Bigsby and Cedric Tillman autos we've got Geez man. That's kind of insane Trey Tucker Zach Charbonnet Michael Meyer Cedric Tillman Jonathan Mingo Cedric Tillman Stetson Bennett Sean Clifford Braylon Sanders Anthony Richardson Mack Jones Rishi Rice Dalton Kincaid Doreen Thompson Robinson Rishi Rice Aiden O'Connell Magg cards were an Anthony Richardson to 99 and A origin story of Jordan Addison on the case hit. I'll do it for the break everybody. Thanks again for the fill up next We're gonna do archives next


Hello everyone, thanks to Nina and everyone at Biohack Village for having me. My name is Anthony DeFranco and I'm one of the founders of the open insulin project. And I'd like to tell you a little bit about the general problem that we're addressing and how we're approaching it and how you all can maybe get involved if you're interested. So let me begin. The basic fact is that worldwide 50% of the people who need insulin to survive don't have access to it. And when we take that figure into account and also look at the population of people worldwide with diabetes and some bounds that we have on the death rate that's directly attributed to it. And we also look at the insulin access statistic here and we put all of the information we have together to get a rough estimate of what the impact of this situation is where fully half of people who need insulin to survive can't get it. A very rough order of magnitude estimate is that about 20 million people, 10 to 20 million people a year are dying due to lack of access to insulin worldwide. And just with that in perspective, 12 million people per year was the rate that people were dying due to World War two from all causes, which was the deadliest conflict in history. So this situation where half of the people in the world lack access to insulin is really a crisis. On a historic level, you know, it's something that it's hard to find anything that compares to this. However, unlike a war or, you know, very kind of complex problem like that. The fundamental technical realities of making insulin and getting it to people are fairly simple. So we're going to look a little bit at why, despite that, there is a problem of this magnitude and how we can try to approach and how we are trying to approach it in the open insulin project. So that that's kind of the worldwide situation in here in America where the many people in the project are based. We know a little bit more. Now the worldwide situation is largely due to, you know, supply chain issues and the kind of geopolitics around different countries access to markets. So those issues don't really exist within the US. The US has plenty of infrastructure to get insulin to people, you know, the technology to produce as well established here. So it's a little even even more puzzling to note that there's still a significant problem in the US. So we want to look a little bit at that. So here are some figures on just the prevalence of diabetes in the US. You know, almost half of people have either diabetes or a risk of developing it in fairly short term. Just diagnosed diabetes alone is a over $300 billion a year cost for everyone. Having diabetes significantly increases overall health care costs. And there's a bit more detail on how diabetes is contributing to the global death rate. So this is another kind of data point, a little bit more specific about what we were talking about earlier where, you know, we can actually say that the deaths are directly attributable to diabetes also quite significant. So, you know, why, why is this eminently treatable disease still causing so many deaths and why is lack of treatment even in an industrialized advanced technologically and infrastructurally country like the US? You know, why is this disease still causing so much harm and so much clearly preventable death? Well, one of the factors is that the, you know, supply of insulin, even though it's very easy to make it empirically speaking just has a lot of trouble reaching the people who need it. And the first step in that process is the manufacture of it and globally three manufacturers control almost the entire supply of insulin. And that is true in the US as well as true everywhere. So, you know, already we're seeing that at the very first step in the supply there is a kind of a restriction that may prove significant. And as a result, the list of prices have risen, you know, roughly exponential trajectory. So, this has been part of a pattern of all of the major manufacturers raising their prices at about the same time by about the same increment for decades. And, you know, this has resulted in the list price becoming unaffordable for many people. And because of the complexities in the US for instance, you know, the US kind of has a strange health care system where, you know, some aspects of the prices are subsidized in various ways by different parties who negotiate amongst themselves and there's a very complex system involving insurers and manufacturers and pharmacy benefits managers and pharmacies. And there's a set of complex and mostly secret agreements among them as to, you know, what people are actually paying but anyone who doesn't have insurance, which, you know, is tied to having a job largely in the US, you know, they're likely to have to pay that list price and to be unable to afford it. So this is, you know, implicated in what the problem may be as we come to understand it more. And then the results of that has been that one in four people with diabetes in the US have reported rashing their insulin and not taking as much insulin as you need puts you immediately a much greater risk of the complications of diabetes. In the short term, you can develop diabetic ketoacidosis which is potentially deadly within hours or days. In the longer term, if you're not taking as much insulin as you need, you can develop the longer term complications and diabetes which are many of which are listed here. You know, blindness, cardiovascular disease and amputations, for example. So it's a rather grim situation but it's kind of difficult to understand why this would be the case since insulin in some form or another has been produced as a medicine for almost a century. And even the state of the art forms of insulin, you know, the most modern forms that we have are largely off patent. So why is it that there's still this access crisis why are only, you know, three manufacturers still controlling almost the entire market and able to price the insulin out of reach of many people. So there have been some investigations into this, where people have looked at the price increase patterns and are, you know, finding evidence that there may be collusion so, you know, some of these cases are still in progress here. But, you know, the fundamental reality is that, you know, whether or not there is explicit collusion here. There is this pattern of price increases and it has become unaffordable and at the technical level there's really not that much of a challenge to making insulin so that's what we're focusing on now in our project is how to make insulin. So, this is part of a broader problem in health care and the economy around medicine is, you know, thought to what the kind of dominant philosophy and how to manage it is. There was a kind of economic theory that gained credibility and policy circles in the mid 20th century that said that, you know, making medicine is, is kind of different from other economic activities and that subsidies are needed to do all of the research involved and that a monopoly is an expedient form of subsidy so that, you know, that would be a sensible policy is to tolerate and even encourage monopolies are on medicine. And, and these claims actually collapse fairly quickly under scrutiny. You know, most of the R&D involved in making medicines is already done with public money and universities and the companies themselves spend much more of their own budgets on on other things like marketing and executive compensation that they do on R&D. And also this belief that monopolies are essentially harmless has been, you know, around the debunked since then. But nonetheless, that's the system that we've inherited. So, the result of this is that, you know, we've had this complex system of agreements grow up around it, you know, with the all of those other, you know, parties like pharmacy benefits managers that look a little bit more at later in the presentation and you know, they kind of partition up the market and it's very difficult to do anything outside of one of these these kind of proprietary partitions, or to go between them, you know, even to the point that some people who are allergic or don't tolerate one brand of insulin are unable to get it covered by their insurance because the insurance only covers one brand at the, you know, preferred tier. So even when there's clear medical necessity, it still doesn't matter in this system. So, you know, it's kind of a, it's not much of an economy in the end because it's so thoroughly so thoroughly, you know, shot through with monopolies and monopolistic arrangements. And we see the problems that are typically associated with this.  And so curing them doesn't make any sense if people don't have an any alternative. And so that's kind of the unfortunate result of this. And this is something that many have researched this one of my favorite theorists of this is Mr. Schmidt said Minneapolis Fed so, you know, he has looked at how monopolies actually do cause the harms that we've discussed. And in the case of medicine, the harms aren't just economic they are directly related to you know, lost lives and, you know, really tragic and tragically avoidable health consequences for people. So one of the things that is noted in general that we've seen in an insulin is in the case of insulin in particular is that you know, we have seen people, you know, turning to crowdfunding because the cost of insulin when they lose health insurance or health coverage of some sort is, you know, more than many people make in a month. It could be many thousands of dollars a month. So this is really quite a egregious example of how you know, people get priced out of the market fairly quickly.  So just to make that a little bit more concrete, the cost of manufacture of insulin is about $5 per vial, but the list prices have risen to the point where they're around $300 to $600 per vial in some cases. And, you know, these conditions have persisted for decades and they've only gotten worse. There hasn't been any successful pushback against them yet. So what we are trying to do is kind of invert everything that we've observed in our project. So instead of relying on proprietary development and mechanisms of monopoly, we are sharing everything that we develop in a commons, and we are looking to produce insulin in low overhead distributed networks of small scale manufacturing sites. And instead of having this really strong conflict of interest between the producers who are motivated by profits and to deliver profits to investors, instead we're looking to have the people who use the insulin actually be directly involved in the governance of the organizations that are making the insulin so that they'll be able to make decisions as to how everything is managed in the interests of themselves and each other and the people using the insulin. And a helpful side effect of this will hopefully be that we'll be able to be a lot more nimble and, you know, actually make a lot more improvements and not be incentivized to keep old things around just because they're already profitable and actually, you know, move things forward and hopefully make progress towards a cure that, you know, might not be economically feasible otherwise. And in part we're inspired by other successes in the diabetes community. So although we're the first effort I know of to make insulin itself open source, for about 10 years now people have been working on artificial pancreas systems, which is essentially a software algorithm that controls an insulin pump to determine the timing and the amount of the dose of insulin automatically usually based on feedback from a continuous glucose monitor. And this is something that was already possible with technology from the 80s but the manufacturers just never seem to be able to bring it to market for whatever reason. But once the technology to do this became more widespread, you know, once embedded computers became cheaper and easier to work with and knowledge of software and how to write these kinds of algorithms became more widespread. Individual diabetics and small groups were able to just pick up this work and bring it to completion within the space of a few years and now for almost a decade there have been DIY artificial pancreas systems that, you know, many people have been relying on and trusting with their own lives and the lives of their children and, you know, they're working very well. And this was done without any, you know, large R&D budgets or institutional overhead, it was just people collaborating in these horizontal networks to solve their own problems in each other's problems. So we're working on enabling this for the insulin itself so that we can kind of complete the open source economy for treating diabetes. And it turns out that the same trends that made the DIY artificial pancreas systems possible are also going to help us. The, you know, more pervasive and cheap computing technology is going to play some role in letting us automate different aspects of the production and purification and it also just makes it easier for us to collaborate with each other. And so we're seeing signs that we can reproduce this kind of success. And, you know, the result of that will be ideally to move this activity from these proprietary fiefdoms and into the commons and this is something that is good for people. It's very good for business as well, you know, judging by how it's gone with, you know, open source software businesses. But, you know, a major difference is that it actually respects and promotes competition and innovation instead of sabotaging it and, you know, causing everything to stagnate. And people to go on needlessly suffering and dying for no reason. So that's our goal. And we're working on developing both the technology and the organizational forms that are associated with this to, you know, create a comprehensive alternative for the status quo. And we're trying to prioritize the people who currently lack insulin and need it most in how we develop things so that we can most directly address the most urgent problems that people in society have. So this is a closer look at the existing supply chain, just so that we can contrast it with what we're setting up. So I mentioned earlier that there are, you know, these multiple middlemen who operate in these complex networks in between the manufacturer and the consumer. And so I won't even really try to go through this in any detail, but you can see that there are, you know, quite a few complex patterns of interrelationship among them. And most of these are done secret, so there's no transparency into how this works in any detail. And, you know, it involves kickbacks being passed up and down the chain and, you know, all kinds of things that just are in themselves a great challenge to making any sense of things. And so when the system produces the nonsensical result of, you know, denying people insulin that they need to survive that costs very little to make. You know, this is kind of how that is able to grow and that kind of problem can grow and sustain itself in this environment of artificial complexity. So we're going to address that by making things as simple and as direct as possible. So right now we're working in our community labs to develop the microbes and the technology, and then we're going to publish the information associated with them. And then using that public information about how the technology works, we're looking at setting up a system of cooperatives where the insulin users can participate directly in the ownership and the governance of those organizations. And we may also be partnering with hospitals and local pharmacies that already do work that is similar in some technical aspects to this. And they already have, you know, people who would need the insulin and have relationships with them. And we may also be looking at collaborating with local and state governments and, you know, aside from these fairly small and simple low overhead organizations, it's going to be as direct to the users as possible. So a closer look at some of the technical work that we're doing. And this is, you know, this is just a general look at how protein production purification works and how this applies to insulin. So right now we've designed some genetic modifications to some microbes. We have actually three systems we're working on now. This is two of them. But we have two yeast based systems for producing insulin, which is a long acting insulin and one E. coli based for producing list pro, which is a rapid acting insulin. And so we are have ongoing work with the micro engineering. Some of it has has produced some small yields already, but we're working on getting the production to be reliable in the yields to practical level. And then once the microbes are engineered, we're going to focus on a small scale purification system, initially using proprietary equipment, but we're also working on making open source equipment for that. And we've also, excuse me, we've also started to look at the verification and quality assurance questions of making that product suitable for use as a medicine. And so once we've got all of these aspects in place, we've got all of the technical problems for making insulin in a small scale setting solved. So here's a look at a kind of demonstration version of a bioreactor. So it is essentially just a bit of plumbing and aside from having to keep it sterile, there isn't anything terribly technically complex about it. You're going to have some, you know, some pumps and some valves and temperature sensors, pH sensors and that sort of thing.  But for the most part, this is something that, you know, you can, as these people have for this demonstration unit, they fit everything you need to do it onto tabletop. So, you know, we can work in a similar envelope, you know, the corner of a room could be enough to produce insulin for, you know, a small city. We are, you know, running at a reasonable efficiency. And as a result, we can bring the cost of insulin back down to what the cost of production already is. So our own projections for what our cost of production be are in line with what they are for the large scale production that dominates right now. So, based on our preliminary model, we could be providing us to people for seven dollars a vial, which is, you know, very close to the three to five dollars a vial that it's usually produced for. So, you know, we're seeing that there isn't really any economy of scale here and that, you know, there isn't any kind of actual technical or economic justification for the limited supply that we see right now. So, as I mentioned, we are still working on the microengineering but we have started to work on the open hardware as well so we're making progress on the technical aspects of this process and we're looking forward to reaching some of the milestones on that fairly soon. And we've, you know, begun working not just on the open hardware but also on some of the regulatory and organizational research to make that hypothetical system of cooperatively organized production a reality. You know, that's going to involve some outside of the box thinking and we're, you know, getting into looking at a lot of interesting precedents like ideas from personalized medicine and other forms of cooperative medicine and health care and state level frameworks for things like direct public offerings, you know, financial mechanisms and so it's really taking us on both a deep and a broad look at a lot of very promising alternative ways of doing things that we hope will apply not just to insulin but to perhaps medicine in general and business in general in the near future as well. So here's a closer look at the bioreactor design that we have just recently just recently completed the first look at so as you can see the bioreactor we break it down to the specifics as I was saying before it's kind of some pumps and some sensors and you know an air pump and some heating pads and this is a design that was based on one that another fellow in the community Sebastian Kosiova is working on so he was kind of enough to show us around his design and we have a group of interns that's working on this right now. So this was made by Paige Hanoka and it took her just a couple of weeks to come up with this and the bill of materials for this comes out to $115.80 so this would have a capacity of a few liters and a capacity of a few liters if you run it fairly close to continuously that can supply insulin for a few thousand people so you know this is still leaving out the purification and the QA aspects but you know those don't add an order of magnitude more cost to this so you can see that the you know capital requirements for doing this are negligible so we've talked a bit about how we're looking to organize the production ultimately but we are also organizing the R&D work that we're doing right now in a similar way so we're a fairly horizontal open source oriented organization we're taking cues from other open source foundations that are stewards of different kinds of technology so we have groups working on the the WETLAB R&D the hardware supporting software for our organization developing the business plans doing legal and policy research and doing communications with our supporters and touching on fundraising as well and here a few folks from the team you know we are a loosely organized network of volunteers so people kind of come in and out we weren't able to list everyone but here are a few of the more regularly involved folks you know Jan is our chief scientist working on the microbe stuff and David and Max are also working on that here in our Oakland lab Alex Hay recently developed an open source thermometer which we have a blog post up on our blog about which is very interesting Nicole has been helping us with the legal work that we're doing if a software Luisa's work on communications and fundraising with the interns Jessica is also working on the microbe engineering in the WETLAB and with an intern group as well Rami has helped us with some collaborations and Kadi is actually one of our international collaborators in Senegal who is getting her lab set up now to join us and perhaps help us look at some new possibilities involving plant-based production so very interesting potential there within our group we fairly horizontal as I said so you know we kind of go on the open source credo of you know loose consensus and working protocols we could say and just take on tasks on our initiative for the most part so we've had to collaborate remotely so you know we're doing things in online meetings which anyone is welcome to join and you know if anyone is interested in that you can go to our website openinsulin.org and we have some posts up there that will give you some contact information information about the meetings so you know with that I'd be happy to hear from many of you if you're interested in learning more about what we're doing or helping with any aspect of this and the more the merrier and the more people are helping out the faster we're going to be able to solve this very urgent problem so it would be a pleasure to hear from you and again thank you for having me here and thanks to Nina and the Bowhack Village folks