It is now time for question period Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition Leader. Thank you all for my question for the Premier. Premier, today the Ontario Chamber of Commerce released a letter outlining needed changes to your payroll pension tax. Over 150 businesses, including 57 local chambers of commerce and some of the province's largest employers have signed that letter.  These employers outlined many of the same concerns that we raised back in April as part of our five budget asks. Premier, anyone reading the chamber's letter would come to the same conclusion we came to long ago, that your pension plan is the wrong way to go. So I ask you, will you do the right thing and withdraw your damaging pension payroll tax? Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well you know it's interesting because I read that article and I understand that there are questions being asked but I also know that a fundamental part of the development of this plan is conversation with businesses and individuals around the province and our Associate Minister of Finance has been doing that work because it is written by listening to the people who are on the front lines listening to the businesses who understand what the impacts will be but at the end of the day Mr Speaker it is extremely important that people in Ontario and I would argue across this country have security in their retirement that they do not work their lifetime and then retire into poverty Mr Speaker that's what our Ontario retirement pension plan is about is providing that security for people when they are finished their work life. Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker currently the Ontario registered pension plan won't exempt employers who offer a defined contribution plan or group RRSP's even though both plans provide a far higher rate of return. Instead you're going to punish business owners who already look after their employees' retirements by forcing them to pay yet another burdensome task. Employers can't afford to pay both. We all know they'll cancel the only one they're allowed to cancel the higher paying plan they already offer. So again Premier remember from Prince Edward Hastings will you walk away from the ORPP Mr Speaker I know that the Associate Minister of Finance is going to want to comment in the supplementary but Mr Speaker the fact is that the vast majority of Ontarians 77% of Ontarians support an increase in pension benefits. They know Mr Speaker that what they are being presented with in their retirement and as they look forward to the retirement of their children and their grandchildren which is why organisations like CARP Mr Speaker are supportive of first of all an enhancement of the Canada pension plan which the federal government has decided not to do Mr Speaker but secondly if that's not possible they're supportive of the Ontario government stepping up and taking that action. And Mr Speaker those people are living in every riding in this province.  Minister of Agriculture final supplementary Yes thank you Mr Speaker this isn't just a message from the opposition bench these are some of the Ontario's largest employers who have signed this letter. General Motors Ford, Canadian Tire, Wal-Mart, MAGNA the list goes on. There are associations ranging from mining to hospitality from manufacturers to farmers. There is across the board opposition to the liberal payroll tax. Between sky rocketing energy rates, alluming carbon tax and your payroll tax the cost of doing business in Ontario is far too high and is costing jobs. Employers in Ontario Minister of Economic Development enough is enough. Premier why won't you listen and withdraw the ORPP Thank you Minister of Finance Thank you Speaker and I want to thank the members opposite for the question In fact Mr Speaker we are very much engaged with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and its members. We've met with dozens of companies and the associations representing those companies because we know Mr Speaker that pensions are very important that we know that retirement security is a very important issue in this province. As the Premier has said 77% of Ontarians believe that enhancements are needed to retirement benefits and Mr Speaker we're taking leadership on this issue. Through the consultations that we've done across this province we have heard differing views on what is going to be deemed as comparable. Some folks would prefer universality while others would prefer a narrower definition. What's important Mr Speaker is that we're analyzing this feedback and we're going to be making the best decisions for the people of this province Back to the Premier The auto industry has been the backbone of Ontario's economy for decades. When you took power almost one in five Ontarians were employed in parts manufacturing industry. As your government's energy policies and many other policies have driven jobs out of the economy it's now only one in eight. Ontario needs to remain competitive in the auto industry. The industry won't be able to survive if your mandatory pension plan makes our economy even less competitive. The Premier will you at the very least expand the comparable pension definition to help Ontario industry as they've asked in the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have asked in their letter today. I know the Minister of Economic Development and Employment is going to want to speak specifically to the auto sector but Mr Speaker I would just again repeat to the leader of the third party that it is extremely important that the people of this province no matter where they work Mr Speaker no matter what sector they work in that they have the prospect in their retirement of a secure retirement. We know that there are many people Mr Speaker many young people who are not able to save enough that is why we have made the Ontario retirement pension plan a fundamental pillar of our of our economic plan because that kind of security is important for individuals and families. It's also important for society because those very businesses Mr Speaker if in a number of years they are confronting a society where there is a generation of people who don't have the wherewithal. Everyone will have to deal with that reality so we are thinking ahead and we are putting in place the supports that we know people will need. My question is also for the Premier. In a letter addressed to the Premier which was made public today the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and a large coalition of companies including General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are urging the Premier to allow defined contribution plans to be considered as comparable plans and allow them to be exempted from the Ontario retirement pension plan. Defined contribution plans are more affordable for employers but still offer some measure of retirement security for employees. Mr Speaker the auto industry needs to have the option to switch to defined contribution pension plans for their workers in the future so they can remain competitive and continue to assemble vehicles in Ontario over the long term. Will the Premier commit to making defined contribution plans comparable? Thank you Speaker and I want to thank the member opposite for the question. We've actually met with many members of the auto sector to talk about the Ontario retirement pension plan and the plans that they currently have and Mr Speaker we know that there are very generous defined contribution plans that exist. At the same time Mr Speaker we have to balance the fact that people need a predictable stream of income into retirement that they can rely on and Mr Speaker with the feedback that we have received we are in the process of looking at who is going to be affected by the Ontario retirement pension plan. The member opposite will be required to be part of this plan and we want to ensure at the end of the day that we strengthen retirement security for people in this province so that when they retire Mr Speaker that they will have that income that they will rely on in their senior years and that is the focus of the Ontario retirement pension plan. Back to the Premier the fact remains that sky high electricity prices, high taxes and excessive red tape have already cost us hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and thousands of jobs in the auto sector. Many are going south of the border and we are losing out on new job creating investment. The ORPP means higher payroll costs for business and less take home pay for workers and it will only exacerbate the trend of lost manufacturing jobs. The Premier should know that GM's commitment to Oshawa expires next year and the government is consciously and deliberately making it harder for GM to stay. Will the Premier recognize the folly of her policy and take this simple step which will give hope to auto workers that their future employment will remain secure. Thank you Mr Speaker. We are the only government that is committed to enhancing retirement security for Ontarians. We know so to ensure that people are prepared for their retirement. Finish please. Economists agree that we need to take action. Just today CIBC's Deputy Chief Economist Dimension of Town stated and it all and added all up and there are some 5.8 million working Canadians who will see more than a 20% drop in their living standards upon retirement. He went on to say that's why the time to act is now. Mr Speaker that's why we are acting. Thank you. The Leader of the Third Party. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday the Premier said and I quote, what we have to do as a government is take a position which we did in our platform and in our budget. We have to explain that position and then we have to move forward. The problem is, the Premier has two positions. Not only did she not run on the sell-off Hydro One but in October months after the election she said we're not selling off the assets and her finance minister said we are not going to sell off our assets. Now she's claiming that selling off Hydro One was the plan all along. If the Premier can't decide how about she lets Ontarians decide through a referendum. Thank you very much Mr Speaker so we've been very clear on our plan to maximize assets. Let me just go through this again Mr Speaker. We talked about it before, during and after the 2014 election. So and in April 11th news release Hydro One was in the headline. The Ontario government has appointed a council to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and optimize the full value of Hydro One. It was featured in our election platform. It's mentioned three times in our budget Mr Speaker. So the 2014 budget and I quote, will look at maximizing and unlocking value from its assets it currently holds including real estate holdings as well as Crown corporations such as OPG, Hydro One and the LCBO. Page 164 of our budget Mr Speaker and I quote valuable assets include large and complex government business enterprises such as the LCBO, Hydro One and OPG the government law in-depth review process I quote Mr Speaker. We were very clear that in order to pay for transit and transportation infrastructure needed to leverage those assets Mr Speaker. So the Premier is trying to go back in time and say it was her plan all along to sell Hydro One and that she was clear about that with Ontarians. But in April of this year Speaker a constituent wrote to his local Liberal MPP because he'd heard for the first time that the Liberals were selling Hydro One. He was told by that Liberal MPP's office that quote reports regarding Hydro One are premature and that quote no final decisions have been made about Hydro One. And now those backbench MPP's are going to have to explain to their constituents that the sell off was the plan all along. Start the clock. Order please. Please finish. Those backbenchers are going to have to explain to their constituents that this was the plan all along. Speaker, Ontarians deserve I will immediately start warning individuals that are starting to show people down. Ontarians deserve honesty Speaker and the Premier needs to listen to them. Will she hold a referendum on the sell off? Thank you very much Mr Speaker. As I have said we were very clear that we were going to review the assets that were owned by the people of Ontario in order to unlock their value Mr Speaker to invest in infrastructure that's needed. Now you have to remember that this line of questioning that the leader of the third party is on is a direct attack on the investment in infrastructure that is needed in this province Mr Speaker. The leader of the third party has no plan. She has no solution for how to invest in infrastructure. The fact is she ran on exactly the same fiscal plan that we had Mr Speaker apart from the fact that she said she would take $1 billion more out of the budget than we had put forward Mr Speaker. But she has no plan for how she would invest in the roads and the bridges and the transit across this province that are needed in order for us to be competitive. So the fact is Mr Speaker that the explanation that needs to come from the leader of the third party is how would she make those investments or would she just cancel the projects that are already underway and planned. Thank you. The Premier said to me yesterday that she was quote explicit in our budget and in our platform and then in our budget again about her plan to sell Hydro One. But the fact is her own finance minister didn't know Speaker. Liberal MPPs didn't know and as of April her MPPs were telling constituents that it was premature premature just in April premature to be talking about the sell-off of Hydro One. A referendum would be explicit Speaker yes or no. Maybe that would help the Liberal backbenchers figure out where they stand on this issue Speaker. Will this Premier agree to a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One? Mr Speaker, well I would suggest we all just worry about our own team. How about that? It's that we're necessary in order to make good on the fundamental commitment that we made to invest in infrastructure in this province. So Mr Speaker, it's true at some point along the way final decisions had not been made. But the decision has been made now Mr Speaker. We are going to make those investments not something that the leader of the third party supports. Thank you. Mr Speaker, I worry about Ontarians. That's who I worry about and on selling Hydro One. But for months before and after the election she denied that Speaker. Now she's denying her denial. I don't blame Ontarians for wondering what is going on with this Premier. What's been very very clear and consistent Speaker this entire time is that the people of this province cannot afford this wrong-headed scheme to sell off Hydro One. So will the Premier settle this nonsense once and for all? Put an end to the double-speak and agree to a Hydro One referendum so the people can have their say. Premier, be seated please. Thank you. Mr Speaker, what we cannot afford to do in this province is not invest in the infrastructure that we need. You know, all the questions about jobs and the questions about the economy and the questions about business in this province, whether it's auto sector or whether it's aerospace Mr Speaker, or whether it's high tech, all of those industries Mr Speaker, are looking to government to make the infrastructure investments that they need. That's part of creating the conditions so the businesses can thrive so that more business will come here. Mr Speaker, the fact is we are the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment again this year Mr Speaker. So what we are committed to doing is making those investments. The third party doesn't support that. I get that Mr Speaker. But the fact is, we have made a commitment to invest in that infrastructure and we're going to do it. Mr Speaker, Ontarians were kept in the dark about the Premier's plan to sell Hydro One. Liberal cabinet ministers were left in the dark about the Premier's plan to sell Hydro One. Liberal MPPs were kept in the dark. They kept their constituents in the dark about this plan. The Premier kept everyone in the dark. Now she's tying herself in knots to claim that this was a plan all along Speaker. Will the Premier put all of this to rest and simply give Ontarians the see that they deserve on this issue, a referendum on the sell off of Hydro One. It was very clear in our budget, in our platform and in our budget again that we were looking at assets Mr Speaker. And that we were looking at the sale of assets. We talked about the Crown corporations. We talked about the review that was happening. We talked about the GM shares. We talked about real estate Mr Speaker. It was so clear that the leader of the third party said this on July 9th of 2014. She said, and I quote, the budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets including Crown corporations such as Ontario Power generation, Hydro One and the liquor control board of Ontario. Mr Speaker, it was so clear that we were looking at how we would leverage those assets Mr Speaker. You see that please? Pointing out how sneaky the Premier was being Speaker in that quote. Ontario Speaker stopped the sell off of Hydro One. First the Liberal said selling Hydro One was a terrible idea. Then the Premier said she's thinking about selling Hydro One or to be more specific she is thinking of recycling legacy assets. She said she's not selling Hydro One. Then she said she's selling Hydro One. Then she said she never said she wasn't selling Hydro One. Speaker, the Premier has more versions of this story than Pat Sorbera has job offers for Andrew Olivia by the people of this province and hold a referendum. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well once again we made a decision that it was critical that we invest in the infrastructure that's needed in this province across the province roads and bridges and transit Mr Speaker in order to do that there needed to be funding there needed to be revenue in order to do that we needed money in order to make that investment Mr Speaker and so we reviewed our assets and there was a process Mr Speaker and I will say to the leader of the third party and to Ontarians has not been an easy decision. This is not an easy decision on the part of the members of this party Mr Speaker of this government but we know that if we don't make those investments in infrastructure Mr Speaker that will be irresponsible. It would be irresponsible for us to not invest in the infrastructure that is needed for the future generations whether it's the businesses of this province Mr Speaker or whether it's the individuals who are having trouble getting around because of gridlock that must be made. We made a commitment and that's what we're going to do. Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is for the minister of natural resources and forestry. Minister yesterday police were forced to shoot a bear because the M&R was unable to respond in time. Even though the bear had been cited on the weekend and staff received a call at 6.30 Monday morning the M&R was not prepared. Why was the M&R not prepared and unresponsive? Thank you very much. Well in fact the member should know if he was following this incident in the newspapers that the M&RF were prepared. Right through the entire weekend they provided the technical assistance. Right through the incident over the course of the weekend the M&RF provided the technical assistance that exists in the protocol between the police force and the province of Ontario and the M&RF they did that. When the call came in for assistance I believe it was Monday morning around 6.30 the M&RF began to mobilize their forces as required and did their best to respond to the scene. That's the way it transpired, that's the way it went down. Unfortunately I will say Speaker we know that the incident ended in a way that no one wanted to see the animal had to be put down. That's an unfortunate result. The M&RF said that in direct response to the member's questions the M&RF was there in doing what they were expected to do under the protocol. Back to the minister. There's no reason at all the ministry couldn't mobilize on a Saturday or Sunday when they first heard about the bear and be ready to roll. Minister, last year your colleague the former minister of natural resources David Orzetti was quoted as saying, when you look at incidents in schoolyards when children can't go out for recess wearing bear whistles city police officers having to shoot black bears in the middle of communities in Northern Ontario it's not acceptable. Do you not agree with your colleague? However you said yesterday that nuisance bears are not the responsibility of the M&RF. Minister you're minimizing public safety and have you downloaded your responsibility to the municipalities? Speaker when a sighting is reported to the M&RF if the M&RF according to your question was expected to respond in some way shape or form I don't know what it is you expect they would do. The M&RF would be all over the province all of the time 24-7 when there's a sighting. That's not what they do. It's not what they did 5 or 10 years ago and it's not what they're expected to do today speaker. That is not acceptable that you would expect that that would be a requirement on the M&RF when they got the call speaker that the animal had been localized they responded as per the protocol that exists between local police forces and the M&RF. It's unfortunate that the animal had to put down speaker. I would say this is not a question of resources as was implied by the member yesterday in the media. That is not at all the case and in fact M&RF spends far more money today on an annual basis than they did when that members party got the call. Thank you. Thank you speaker. Last year this question to the premier. Last year the Ontario energy board approved a request by Enbridge gas for an incredible 40% increase in the price of natural gas equal to a $400 increase per family per year. One of the two board members who approved that request was Rebecca Hare. We've learned that Miss Hare worked for Enbridge for 15 years and served as its director of regulatory affairs and now the premier has promoted Miss Hare to be vice chair of the board of the Ontario energy board. The government stacking the Ontario energy board with people who built careers fighting for the energy industry instead of people who fight for consumers of Ontario families in the sort of energy. Mr. Speaker the Ontario energy board has tremendous credibility as an independent agency it does its job, it does its well Mr. Speaker. The reality is they're dealing with technical issues and they need technical people on the board Mr. Speaker who understand the sector representing the people of Ontario after they're appointed Mr. Speaker. To suggest that somebody that has extensive experience in the sector is not qualified to sit on a board that deals with these issues Mr. Speaker is just wrong. Mr. Speaker the Ontario energy board has provisions that deal with conflict of interest. They can declare their interest the same as any other board whether it's a Crown Corporation Mr. Speaker or a private sector company they have rules about conflict of interest but they also seek out the best in the business. Thank you. Last week I pointed out that the government was stacking the Ontario energy board with energy industry insiders and I asked the Minister of Energy how such people could be trusted to put the interests of Ontario families ahead of the interests of the energy industry. The Minister said that conflict of interest would protect Ontario families at the OEB. I know that these individual conflict of interest guidelines do not prevent OEB members from approving 40% rate increases on behalf of their former employers. Wow. With the Ontario energy board now stacked with energy industry insiders why should Ontarians trust that the board will stop massive electricity rate increases on behalf of a privatized hydro one. Mr. Speaker first of all the member would know that after that increase that he referred to was made the Ontario energy board made rulings which significantly reduced them, balanced them out, spread them over time Mr. Speaker and when the announcement was made for those reductions we never heard a peep from that particular member Mr. Speaker the energy, the gas rates today in Ontario Mr. Speaker are much better than they were 5, 6, 7, 8 years ago Mr. Speaker and that's because of the Ontario energy board. Thank you. New question from Ottawa South. This is for Native Affairs. For 11,000 people attended and I had the honour of joining you and the Attorney General and the member from Ottawa and the other members from New Orleans at the walk and to show the commitment of this government to renewing its relationship with our Aboriginal partners. Mr. Speaker it was really quite impressive to see people from different walks of life different ages, the number of people over there, the faces that really left a lasting impression on me and we know that the residential school system is one of the darkest times in Canadian history. Approximately 150,000 children and youth were taken from their homes placed in schools often by force. The commission was established in June 2008 to ensure that the stories of survivors from the residential schools were not forgotten. Mr. Speaker through you to the minister, can the minister please inform the house on the mandate of the commission. Mr. Speaker the truth and reconciliation commission was indeed a solemn moment. The commission is gathering stories from survivors and providing recommendations to governments so our history is not forgotten. In 2012 the commission released an interim report which found residential schools constituted an assault on Aboriginal children, families and Aboriginal communities and their cultures. The commission also released a series of recommendations for the federal and provincial governments. Mr. Speaker this government is following up on those recommendations. As Ontario's Minister of Aboriginal Affairs I have visited over 50 First Nations in the last two years. I have met with Aboriginal leaders and members of the communities from all corners of the province. I have come to understand that as people who share a difficult history today the commission will release its final report. Speaker there is a moral imperative to deal with the commission's recommendation. That's why our commission is here today. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Of course the premier who was there as well. The month of June is the national month of Aboriginal history. And this is an opportunity for us to reflect upon the culture, the contribution and the resiliency of these communities. Ontario has Canada's largest Aboriginal population. We know that understanding the history and culture of Aboriginal people in Ontario it leads to a better friendship between Aboriginal people and Ontarians. For reconciliation to succeed all Canadians need to understand the history we share with our Aboriginal peoples. And this month being National Aboriginal History Month presents an opportunity for all Ontarians to become more aware of our true shared history. Aboriginal culture and contributions Aboriginal communities make. Can the minister please update this house on his experience as a truth in reconciliation. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker we will continue to support our Aboriginal partners efforts to restore the vitality of their culture which is central to their communities. We will continue to do our part to educate and raise awareness among Canadians of our shared history and the painful place residential schools have in it. One of the most important steps we can take speaker is education and awareness of the non-Aboriginal community. The Ministry of Education has partnered with First Nations and my ministry to develop resources that will assist educators in planning student learning about residential schools. Ontario is also working in partnership with Aboriginal people and communities to create an awareness through our three year treaty engagement and public awareness strategy speaker. And the reason we are doing that is because in Ontario we are all treaty peoples whether we are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal we are all treaty peoples. Thank you. New question. Thank you. New question to the member from the Leeds Grandville. Thanks speaker. My question is to the Premier.  You are putting Hydro beyond the reach of MPPs, the Ombudsman, everyone. The minister responsible for seniors knows that's wrong because he once said and I quote, there is nothing the public of Ontario will benefit from with the sale of Hydro One. That is why we should try to protect this wonderful facility which if sold will not come back into the hands of the people of Ontario anymore. Premier, did the minister even try to stand up for seniors before you asked him to abandon his principles?  Minister of Energy. Mr. Speaker, the member somehow thinks that the programs that we have to mitigate rates will not continue Mr. Speaker. We have significant programs that mitigate rates Mr. Speaker including Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit Mr. Speaker which gives qualified seniors up to $1,041 back per year Mr. Speaker. We have still in place Mr. Speaker, the program that gives a 10% reduction on all bills Mr. Speaker. We also have in place a low energy program Mr. Speaker which gives up to $600. We're implementing another low cost program Mr. Speaker that will give a family with an income of $8,000 and four children $525 back on the electricity bill Mr. Speaker, they will continue to go forward on our agenda Mr. Speaker and it's a conclusion that he's making that rates are going to go up and in the supplementary I'll talk about the Ontario Energy Board which that party also supported. Supplementary. Yesterday our leader Patrick Brown launched a petition against giving away this invaluable public asset. It's a good petition Speaker but you know what I found one I like better. Your Minister of Northern Development of Mines proudly read it into the record on May 15th, 2002 We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to encourage Ernie Eves to take Dalton McGuinty's advice to put working families ahead of his Bay Street friends by immediately stopping the sale of Hydro 1 and 2. He listened to Ontario's who signed that minister's petition. Will you respect the thousands of Ontarians signing our petition today at stopthehydrofiresale.ca by pulling the plug on this bad deal? The party officers have strange memory Mr. Speaker, they issued a policy paper only about a year and a half or so ago where they were proposing to sell off the private sector significant interest in Hydro 1 and OPG Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, what were they going to rely on to protect seniors? Mr. Speaker, their white paper stated specifically that they recognize that the member of Leeds Grendel Second Tide would continue to be protected and regulated by the Ontario Energy Board That's their paper Mr. Speaker. The member from Nipissing is warned. Speaking of their leader Mr. Speaker The member from Leeds Grendel is warned. One sentence Mr. Speaker, the quote from the leader of the PC party, I generally believe that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. After the warning comes the naming New question The member from Windsor West. Thank you Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Education claimed that class size caps are not on the table. In reality we know there are efforts to replace hard cap language with flexible guideline language Either the minister has no idea what is being discussed at the table or she is experiencing cognitive dissonance. The facts are clear. Removal of class size caps means less one on one time for our kids. Less resources for kids with special needs less time spent with kids with ESL needs. Speaker Is the Premier committed to throwing our schools further into chaos by removing class size caps? Yes or no? Minister of Education I think it's important to make clear that at the central table there are actually three parties there there's the union representing the workers, there is the school board association representing the boards, the employers and there is the government of the crown and what I think you will find is if I check the record I said that the government did not have class size caps on the table I think what you would also find if you check the record from Mr. Barrett the president of the Ontario Public School Board Association that as they have said they do have that. So what I said was 100% accurate Thank you. Supplementary Thank you Speaker. So if I understood that correctly then the government side is not in support of lifting the class size caps so we can look forward to those caps remaining next year. Back to the Premier again either the minister has no idea what is being discussed at the table or she is prepared to allow our kids to fall behind. Class size caps matter flexible guideline language has no real meaning and is not enforceable. Our kids deserve better than being forced into overcrowded classrooms so the government can save a buck families and students deserve more than a $250 million in your cut to education on top of more than a decade of underfunding kids need one on one time and they should not pay the price for short-sighted liberal cuts. Speaker will the Premier commit to holding the line on class size caps and guarantee families and students there will be no change to class size caps in the fall. Thank you minister. I don't think that there's much point in saying he said she said but I think there is a lot of point in understanding the way the funding model works. We paid at $22.5 million. Remember from Hamilton East Holy Creek second time. $22.5 billion in funding is being flowed. The class size ratio within that funding model for secondary schools is 22 to 1. That has been the class size funding model as long as I have been involved as an MPP. In fact it's also with the exception of being bigger classes during the NDP social contract. I think it's also been the class size generator as long as I was addressed it. 22 to 1 is the long-standing class size generator for the funding model for secondary schools in the province of Ontario and we have not requested any change to that. Good question. Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Development, Employment and Infrastructure. As Ontarians are well aware our manufacturing sector is at a heart by the global recession. Fortunately to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses and I quote, we've seen a re-birth in manufacturing. However it's important that we continue to support our members. I'd appreciate if the member would not make comments while he's exiting. Carry on. I know our latest budget, our government has extended the accelerated deduction for investments in manufacturing process and machinery. This important step will continue to encourage the growth of the sector. Through you Mr Speaker to the Minister could we please inform this on the future outlook of Ontario manufacturing sector. Thank you Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to say that I have some good news to report on Ontario's manufacturing sector. In the latest report from Stats Canada Ontario's manufacturing sector gained 1200 net new jobs Mr Speaker. And the month before in March we gained another 800 net new jobs. According to RBC's Canadian Manufacturing Index, confidence in Ontario's manufacturing sector continues to rise from 55.5 or from 54 to 55.5 in the last month Mr Speaker. That's really good news and that's despite all the efforts the opposition are making to top down our gains in manufacturing. Our province's confidence index is now well beyond the national average of 49.8. RBC is predicting that our province's manufacturing sector will continue to lead the country. This is good news for our sector, it's good news for our province and we'll continue to work with our manufacturing sector to keep it going Mr Speaker. Well thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to thank the Minister for that answer. It's good to hear that the steps the government has taken are having a positive impact on the sector. And that outlook for Ontario manufacturing is quite positive not only with the growing manufacturing sector creating many direct jobs but indirect jobs as well. While this is a positive news for constituents in my writing, we know that there are still people in Ontario looking for work. Through you Mr Speaker to the Minister could he please inform this House on what further action the government has taken to encourage job growth in Ontario manufacturing sector. Thank you. The recent budget that we brought in continues to support programs that continue to strengthen our economy and in particular our manufacturing sector. For instance we're increasing the jobs and prosperity fund by $200 million to $2.7 billion. This will help Ontario to continue to secure large investments in our manufacturing sector. Investments like Honda's expansion of Alliston for example. We're continuing to support the southwestern eastern Ontario development funds. These funds have invested $120 million, leveraging $1.3 billion in private sector investment, creating or supporting 31,000 jobs well over 90% of which are in the manufacturing sector. Mr Speaker we're extending the accelerated deduction for investments in manufacturing and processing. That will ensure another $575 million in our manufacturing sector. Mr Speaker we'll continue to work with the sector. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister in 98 days 2 million students in Ontario should be starting their new school year. Sadly the two tiered disaster bargaining system is halting almost all negotiations including the class size debate and we know that you're promoting the guideline option. You're dithering over the past eight months is now causing a real chance of going well in the next school year. Now all teacher federations in Ontario are on the brink of either all out strikes or major disruptions starting this fall. So Minister are you prepared to assure Ontario parents that these disruptions and strikes will not occur come September the 8th. What I can absolutely assure people of is that we will continue to bargain. There are three months left in the next school year. I continue to believe that the only way that we will solve the various problems is by negotiating a collective agreement and in fact central negotiations do continue with various teachers unions. Welcome to Melinda Chartres on who's the President of the French Catholic Trustees who's in the gallery this morning and we continue to negotiate in partnership with the various school board associations with various teacher federations and that will continue and I strongly believe that we will be able to reach agreements before the end of the summer. So Minister I'm not sure if you actually understand how serious the situation is with the non-bargaining that is taking place and we have no agreements with none of the 72 boards. With the non-bargaining you have just a little over 13 weeks to resolve all of the classroom teacher education issues that you expected Bill 122 to resolve. We are likely going to hobble to the end of this school year but parents of 2 million students across Ontario will be on pins and needles worrying about the beginning of the school year in September. So Minister by the beginning of August if you have not made serious progress and judging by the inaction over the past nine months I expect you won't. Are you prepared to bring the House back to take action in August? Thank you Minister. That was fascinating because what I think I just heard was a request for us to impose by legislation a collective agreement and I absolutely reject that. We believe and negotiate we believe that the way to arrive at good collective agreement is to negotiate them and that's exactly what I will be doing over the next three months. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. The Premier's office stopped independent journalists from showing footage that the Premier's office agreed to shoot. We hear this is because that footage might have shed some light into the Sudbury bribery scandal. Now someone in the Premier's office. Please finish. Thank you very much. Someone in the Premier's office is keeping that footage secret maybe it's a Premier, maybe it's Pat Sobera who in the Premier's office is keeping the documentary from seeing the light of the day. As I said in his house we worked closely with the producer to determine the parameters of the film. I haven't seen any of the footage. I still hope that the documentary can be played because in the first instance it was about putting in place a documentary that would replace or would augment a much earlier documentary that was made during the day of this year about how government works. That was the point of the documentary. That's why I agree to it Mr. Speaker. I haven't seen any of the footage and I hope that it can go forward as an educational tool Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Well the Premier did indeed welcome cameras into the back rooms but then something was caught on film. And the Premier's office went into lockdown. We've heard that maybe this has something to do with the Sudbury bribery scandal. We want to know but more importantly the people of Ontario want to know what was caught on tape that spooked the Premier's office so much that they're keeping the... Please finish. So what was caught on tape that spooked the Premier's office so much that they're keeping this footage secret from the people of Ontario. Thank you Premier. Mr. Speaker The member opposite makes my life in our life sound very intriguing but Mr. Speaker what happened was we worked closely with the producer to establish the parameters of the film which was as I said to be a behind the scenes look at the preparation of the budget Mr. Speaker. Over the course of the filming there were some concerns. We had some concerns that the project was deviating from those original parameters Mr. Speaker. We shared those concerns with the producer and that was our sole contact Mr. Speaker was the producer on the project. It wasn't TVO Mr. Speaker. There was always a clear understanding that we would have no editorial control and that was understood but that we would be allowed to review portions of the film with government lawyers for issues like breaches of cabinet confidentiality or privacy legislation Mr. Speaker. That review was supposed to happen Mr. Speaker and as I said we were ready to sign off on the final product. I hope that it can be seen Mr. Speaker but I have not seen any of it. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question this morning is for the Minister of Northern Development in Mines. Mr. Speaker just last week the Ontario Mining Association hosted their 7th annual so you think you know mining high school video awards and I'm pleased to say several high schools from my great writing of Sudbury took home some of the awards. Mr. Speaker I know that our premier along with Mr. Speaker colleagues all side of this house were present at this great event this is an event that gives students an opportunity to learn about Ontario's expertise in geology engineering and our mining exploration and production industries. Mr. Speaker when it comes to mining Ontario has the advantages of a strong economy competitive business costs and world-class research and development environment Mr. Speaker so can the minister inform the house on the status of the mining industry in Ontario and its significance to our provincial economy. Thank you Mr. Speaker. It was wonderful to be joined by premier win and nine or ten of our legislative colleagues at the Ontario Mining Association 7th annual so you think you know mining award show which is an extraordinary opportunity for high school students all across the province to actually put together award-winning videos about the mining industry so what they were doing is they these were extraordinary videos that highlight the fact that there are currently 43 mines operating in the province of Ontario including 14 base metal mines 16 gold mines and one diamond mine it was wonderful to be part of that also to highlight the fact that we have two new mines opening up in Ontario this year I was recently at the ground breaking ceremony for a new gold mine near the radio the new goal project near Fort Francis so there are many exciting things happening in the mining sector of Ontario. Great to have them celebrate at that video award show. Thank you Mr. Speaker. It is part of our government's plan to build Ontario up by creating a dynamic and supportive environment where business can prosper Ontario is a leader Mr. Speaker not only in the Canadian mining industry but also globally there are hundreds of international companies in Ontario engaging in mineral exploration and hundreds more in the supplies and services sector who benefit from that investment and Mr. Speaker the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has made it clear that our government is doing just that when it comes to the mining sector. The global mining economy is evolving and new competition is always emerging. Mr. Speaker I know our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario remains a world leader in mineral exploration and mining investment so Mr. Speaker can the Minister tell the House what our government is doing to maximize Ontario's potential and support a modern and innovative industry ensuring that Ontario's mining sector continues to thrive for decades to come. Thank you Minister. Well thanks again Mr. Speaker and the member is so right it's incredibly important that the mining sector remains competitive that's why we are so proud of the making the Northern Industrial Electricity rate program which is a huge help to the major resource developers in Northern Ontario and may I say there are other very important incentive programs that have been put in place by the Minister of Energy for example the Industrial Electricity Incentive Program not well known the IEI program I know that the Minister of Energy may I say the MVP for Sudbury were recently showcased the new Victoria mine that's under development the KGHM mine we know indeed that D2R Gold a huge gold mine in Northern Ontario has actually been able to have a six year industrial electricity incentive contract reducing their energy costs. Group of cotton minerals in Red Lake a project that will be opening up and commissioned this year and we're going to be there for the opening sometime later this summer another one Thank you. New question. The member from Fallon Hill Mr. Speaker my question is for the Minister of Education in the House today more than 100 students and parents from Hamilton we have physical establishments under which were absolutely 18 years ago of this side of the house we believe that Francophone students can expect modern schools with the same quality of other students in Ontario Minister why do students and family have to wait another 15 years for school Thank you very much and thank you I think the students that are here are French Catholic students from Hamilton so welcome to the house today certainly we have had a high priority in making sure that we fund Francophone education in Ontario it might interest you to know that the funding for French language education has increased by almost 80% since we have so if you compare that to the overall funding for education which has increased 56% since we took office obviously we have been making significant investments in our French language system in particular when it comes to new schools we've spent $1.3 billion building 79 new French schools Mr. President on court Mr. Speaker to the minister later today I will table 2500 numbers of people from Simcoe North in Renfrew word asking for a new school minister what do you say to these students who wish to have another school minister yes thank you the process for applying for a grant for a new school is that you have to make a good business case and unfortunately in this particular case the business case was not a strong business case what we have done however is we have offered $25.9 million to build a joint French school for both public and Catholic students in Hamilton that would be a grade 7 to 12 school the French public board has accepted the offer the French Catholic board has not however our offer remains on the table that we would love to build a new joint French language school for public and Catholic and we have models for all of these schools in the province where we have French boards working together, English boards working together we know this model works Minister of transportation on a point of order thanks very much speaker we are joined today in the galleries by some individuals who are here in anticipation of the vote coming up on bill 31 if I could introduce Rick Donaldson from the Ontario school bus association to Chico from young drivers of Canada and his colleague Jim Kilpatrick we also have some student representatives from Arrival Live, Melissa Montaneri, Natalie DeFaliche, Tori Peacock, Brian Patterson from the Ontario Safety League and the ADM from MTO's Road User Safety Division, Heidi Francis thanks very much speaker we have a guest here today I just want to introduce Maddie Fuller who I met last week at an event honoring 25 years of public service for Mr Glenn Murray welcome to the Queen's Park we have a deferred vote on the amendment to the motion to apply a timetable to certain business of the house calling the members this will be a five minute bill would all members please take your seats on May 27 Mr. Nackley moved government notice of motion number 40 on May 28 Mr. Clark then moved that the motion be amended as follows that in each of the sections A, B, C and D bullet number 2 be struck out and replaced with the following that the deadline for request to appear be 2pm on Thursday of the week that the bill receives second reading dispense agreed all those in favour of the amendment to the motion please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk Mr. Clark Mr. Houda Mr. Wilson Mr. Fidelli Mr. McNaughton Mr. Johnson Mr. Barris Mr. Bailie Mr. Hillier Mr. Walker Mr. Smith Mr. Harris Mr. Nichols Mr. McDonnell Mr. McClaren Mr. Pettipies Mr. Bisson Mr. Singh Mr. Horvath Mr. Vantog Mr. Tavis Mr. Hamilton he Stony Creek Mr. Miller Mr. Hamilton he Stony Creek Mr. Taylor Mr. Nadeushka Mr. Nadeushka Mr. Armed strong Mr. Feih Mr. Montkin Mr. Hatfield Mr. Hatfield Mr. Gretzky Mr. Gates Mr. Gates Mr. French Mr. French Mr. Nackley Mr. Bradley Mr. Brathley Mr. Shirelli Madam Mayor Mrs. Wen Ms. Matthews Mr. Hoskins Mr. Hoskins All those pulse please rise one at a time be recognized by the clerk. The ayes being 95 and the nays being 0 to declare the motion carried. Are the members ready to vote on the main motion as amended? Agreed. I heard a no. The orders of this item will remain on orders of notice paper. Given the circumstances I'll test the house again. Are the members ready to vote on the main motion as amended? Agreed. Mr. Nackley has moved notice of motion number 40. Is it the pleasure of the house that the motion as amended be carried on division? Mr. Nackley. Oh sorry. We now move on to the next item. We have a deferred vote on the motion of the third reading of Bill 31 an act to amend the Highway 407 East Act 2012 in the Highway Traffic Act in respect to various matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act. Calling the members this will be a five minute bell. On April 20, 2015 Ms. Sandals moved third reading of Bill 31. All those in favor please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk. Mr. Dalduka. Mr. Dalduka. Ms. Wynn. Ms. Matthews. Ms. Matthews. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Hoskins. Ms. Sandals. Mr. Dugard. Mr. Dugard. Ms. McCharles. Mr. McCharles. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole. Mr. Takar. Mr. Takar. Mr. Bardinetti. Mr. Bardinetti. Mr. Dylan. Mr. Quadri. Mr. Quadri. Mr. Quadri. Mr. Elliot. Mr. Flate. Mr. Flinn. Mr. Zimmer. Mr. Delaenie. Mr. Dallainy. Mr. Boluciso. Mr. Darlbanaysi. Mr. Dixen. Mr. Dixon. Ms. Manga. Ms. Manga. Mr. Prack. Mr. Prack. Ms. Wong. Ms. Hunter. Mr.UTO. Ms. Surgio. Ms. Surgio. Mr. Moril. Ms. Jassek. Ms. Jassek. Ms. Domnerlo. Ms. Domnerlo. Mr. Fraisler. Mr. Hillier Mr. Walker Mr. Smith Mr. Smith Mr. Nichols Mr. Nichols Ms. Marteau Mr. McDonnell Mr. McDonnell Mr. McLaren Mr. McLaren Mr. Pettipies Mr. Pettipies Mr. Gates Mr. Gates Mr. Sain Mr. Sain Ms. Horvath Ms. Horvath Mr. Bisson Mr. Bisson Mr. Vantau Mr. Vantau Mr. Tabbins Mr. Tabbins Mr. Miller Hamilton East Stony Creek Mr. Miller Hamilton East Stony Creek Ms. Taylor Mr. Hatfield Mr. Gretzky Mr. Gretzky Mr. French Mr. French All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk. 5 the nays are zero. The ayes being 95 and the nays being zero, I declare the motion carried. Third meeting of the bill, 12th of January, closing the law. Please resolve that the bill be now passed and be entitled as in the motion. There are no further deferred votes. This house stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.


So, I have been given the task to represent the Undiagnosed Diseases Network, which includes lots of different sites and different missions, and I'll review that. I'm not going to talk about the RDCRN, which Chris Austin alluded to, but I'm happy to over lunch if anyone's interested. So just a quick disclosure, our department gets support from Baylor Genetics Laboratory at Joint Adventure with Morocco Holdings. This is really, I think, the major question that we as certainly clinicians and researchers are focused on and increasingly. How do we functionalize the genome in the face of increasing discovery of rare and or potentially unique variants in individual cases or families with a clinical diagnosis? And I think one of the contexts of trying to solve this problem has been the Undiagnosed Diseases Network, another program of the Common Fund that's been run by NHGRI. This is Phase 1, description of Phase 1 geographically of the program, which went from 2014 to 2018. It's composed of seven clinical sites, two national sequencing centers, and Metabolomics Core as well as the Model Organisms Screening Center. At Baylor we had the clinical site, the Model Organisms Screening Center and one of the two sequencing centers. And I'll describe some of the experiences and lessons learned from this first phase and hopefully will inform how the collaboration with COMP can go forward, especially in the second phase. This is probably a little bit outdated, slide it, February of 2018, provided by Anastasia Wise. But basically, there's been over about 2,000 patients who have been applied. So this is a patient-driven program, so it's somewhat perhaps a little different than what we've heard about today through the gateway. The applications are distributed to the different clinical sites and they are then either accepted or rejected. And from there they go on to in depth both clinical and research-based phenotyping, which then includes but not based on just sequencing, primarily an equal distribution of exomes and genomes have been done, mostly focused on sort of a trio-based approach. And then sort of a flow from there to either Metabolomics Core or in fact the Model Organisms Screening Center, which in phase one has been focused primarily on flies and on zebrafish. And that output has led to approximately 177 diagnosis there more now that have been made in terms of this cohort. Now the experience was described and it's coming out in a paper that's in press. But this sort of summarizes that 40% of applicants have been accepted for evaluation, 32% actually had clinical exome sequencing when they came to us. Not surprisingly, a majority of the phenotype were not neurological, 40%, with the rest of the organ systems making up the rest musculoskeletal run second in terms of close to 10% and then equal distribution to other systems. The overall diagnostic yield is 35%, almost viewing this as sort of a research reanalysis of an individual who may have already had a clinical odyssey type of evaluation. A decent number, 11% were based primarily on clinical review, 74% was based on sequencing, a fifth led to a change in therapy, widely defined, and 37% led to actually changes in diagnostic testing and there have been 31 new syndromes defined. The flow of work as I alluded to in the first phase is sort of patients to the gateway run by the coordinating center and then to the clinical sites and then ultimately to sequencing metabolomics and the model organism screening center. Importantly for this group, this run by Hugo Bellin at Baylor in collaboration with the zebrafish team at University of Oregon, heavily depends on informatics approach. They've developed this marvel platform which tries to aggregate both human and model organism data which then leads to a prioritization and assignment together with the clinical site. So this is important because this is a very integrated and bi-directional interaction which I think is important in any sort of model going forward for collaboration will then flow either to the fly or the fish core. During the process there were 50 genes prioritized for functional studies, 40 in flies, 13 in fish, three in both and they have certainly contributed and provided diagnoses in at least 12 cases and ruled out candidate genes in eight and they were inconclusive in six. Now as part of this process, Baylor, the Baylor site I think partly because of the Baylor involvement in the IMPC and the COMP program had a small supplement to start to investigate direct interactions almost two years ago and that's now evolved obviously into a more broader engagement of the mosque with COMP II specifically. And I think there's a lot of reasons why this makes complete sense. There are oftentimes, there are genes that have no mouse knockout information that are available that are being prioritized for COMP so this is one certainly reason. I think there are also UDN variants that have been found in Drosophila but have value for further study in mice but probably most importantly a significant number of genes are obviously duplicated in fish that are difficult to study in either fish or flies. Certainly I think they're increasingly a significant number of genes where we look at specific variants and neither fly or fish are the optimal model and those have been really prioritized in terms of collaboration with COMP. Currently the status of the collaboration, there are 28 genes being studied of which there have been multiple alleles, not just loss of function. There have been 21 no alleles already achieved. I understand there are additional five in production and eight have their phenotype completed. I would also add that as part of this the effect of the collaboration is amplified because there's obviously expertise and I'll give you an example of this in my own area of research where we can then leverage COMP to further perform deep phenotyping that really sort of closes the circle, sort of building on the foundation of COMP and I'll show an example of that from a skeletal perspective where we as a group have been very focused upon it at Baylor. When we sort of put sort of the model organism component in the context of what I view as really a multi-ohmic approach to clinical diagnostics sort of espoused and modeled by the UDN, whole exome and whole genome sequencing is certainly powering a genotype first or concurrent approach and there's up to 35% discovery that I think many groups have seen on reanalysis of which about 7% are blended. So this is also interesting. How do you prove an oligogenic inheritance or causality in humans and obviously model organisms may be one important approach to do that. Functionalizing the genome while metabolomics has been investigated primarily as a research tool. Baylor genetics has implemented this and I'll show you some of the data from a clinical perspective and what the yield is. I think we've been very focused at Baylor and now also several UDN sites of integrating transcriptomics and I think that actually further underscores the importance of model organism because we're learning a lot of things in terms of the context of clinical diagnosis that I think probably are not unexpected but underscore the complexity in terms of clinical utility. This of course is key and I think COMP agrees with this and IMPC agrees with this clinical phenotyping whether of a human and a mouse is absolutely critical because of issues of variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance. I think that even without a specific molecular diagnosis there is potential medical action ability and I think we've seen examples of that. And this then you know again leads to the practice of medicine which is management sometimes without an identifiable cause and so there is a role for gathering information and knowledge even without a diagnosis in informing management and of course model organism study is critical because increasingly hopefully I'll convince you and maybe I don't need to the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance is key for both known and unknown disease genes especially because of the context of phenotypic expansion. Now I would underscore this, this is somewhat outdated and this is now being revamped but the 2015 ACMG guidelines of actual clinical variant interpretation and I think you know Alex's work with ClinGen are informing perhaps the next phase of this. This is the category of strong and within strong evidence includes and you can't read this but basically in vitro and in vivo functional data and I would put forth that ultimately with good in vivo functional data this sort of should be moved further into the very strong category and I think this is clear this is important because from the perspective of interpretation and clinical practice certainly diagnostic laboratories follow the ACMG guideline but I see this sort of as a move especially as we run into more of these rare and unique variants. The metabolome is clearly a very important component of it. I know this is a big part of the phenotyping here in the IMPC but we have a lot of human clinical experience with this. I would just summarize that there's no question that from an inborn errors of metabolism perspective metabolomics I think has the potential to really be the best for a screening test. It's not very useful in necessarily managing patients but as you can see from data like this generated at Baylor Genetics and Sarah Alcia when you look at the distribution of metabolites in the metabolomic assay via Z scores it will pick up as an initial screen many of the classical inborn errors of metabolism but even more importantly I think can replace two other tests as an initial screening tool both acyconectin profiles as well as potentially urine organic acid so I think the data on that are coming out that perhaps as a first level clinical tool it may be very useful in replacing potentially three different classic biochemical tests. Over a thousand clinical samples actually 1300 have been performed in the last three years at Baylor Genetics and if we think about the potential contribution in about 37% of the cases there was information that was helpful and it was helpful in the different types of areas. It was helpful in ruling out potential variants from diagnosis it was helpful in terms of changing variant classification and it was helpful in confirming molecular diagnoses and this is of course both in the context of classical biochemical genetic disorders as well as biochemical genetic or disorders that are not primarily based in classical inborn errors of metabolism. If we were to sort of step back and ask what is the overall rate defining it as a test that actually identified an IEM as well as a test that corroborated potentially or supported a genomic diagnosis of an IEM we saw that it was as high as 7% so independently very useful from a clinical perspective. Now I think where I've certainly been very excited about and I think increasingly the UDN has been in moving transcriptomics into the clinical arena. This is an analysis that Mahim Jain now faculty at Hopkins but previously a fellow in my lab did on our UDN data set and really the take home message is that when you systematically do whole blood and fibroblasts based RNA sequencing in patients that a significant number of genes in fact are expressed based on different thresholds of FPKM whether it's OMIN genes as a total 64 and 40% respectively expressed greater than 1 in 10 not surprisingly mitochondrial genes very highly expressed primary immunodeficient genes and skeletal dysplasia genes less so not surprisingly would be genes related to let's say non-syndromic hearing loss but clearly powerful insight into a significant percentage of genes that contribute to human disease. And so in the first phase we at Baylor sort of systematically did trio RNA sequencing as part of our protocol as well as other sites began also doing this. These are aggregate data of cases that we now are putting together as an experience from phase one from Baylor, Columbia, Stanford and UCLA the Columbia site is actually Columbia and Duke and you can see the distribution of cases importantly the distribution of variants so this has been an approach of primarily looking at RNA seek as first a tool to help inform interpretation of whole exome and whole genome sequencing and in this cohort there were approximately 165 variants which were analyzed. Now what types of variants were in fact put forth for analysis? Not surprisingly a significant number 50 over 50% were deep intronic variants as defined by greater than 10 base pairs into the intron. Similarly other sort of variants including classical splice junction variants as well as intronic variants 3 to 10 base pairs were high so clearly these types of variants whether coming out of exome or genome analysis are the ones which RNA seek were could potentially inform on but as well as many of the other types of events that you can imagine frame shifts that led to indels and in frame indels missense variants and so forth. Now this is hard to read I think from given the projection but the take home message is in fact when you look at the RNA seek data and the consequence or the association I should say between a specific variant identified in exome or genome with an observed effect on transcript is quite diverse. If you look at the first clustering of classical splice variants, intronic variants, deep intronic variants not surprisingly a big majority shown here in grade it had no effect but it's a significant number in fact could lead to all sorts of consequences whether it may be exon skipping or it could be intron retention and so certainly even deep intronic variants as you would expect could have an effect in terms of consequence. What's also very interesting is when you look at nonsense and frame shift in dels sort of variants which you would expect could cause nonsense mediated decay they're clearly situations where it doesn't lead to nonsense mediated decay but more importantly we see a threshold it's not plus or minus and in fact we see quite complex combinations of relative expressions or relative NMD and one allele versus the other which may harbor in a recessive disease and missense and so you know one one sort of hypothesis coming out of this is in fact expression pattern and the nature of expression from this allele insist with the variant could also be a major driver of pleotropy and variability and even in the context of missense variants there can be a diverse effect that one could not predict which again underscores the importance of modeling studies in terms of really taking interpretation to the next step. What is sort of the ultimate yield of the clinical impact and again obviously this is context dependent upon how you define different effects this is obviously based on sort of one context which I won't have time to go through but sort of if you think look at in the yellow it's clear that in a significant number of cases RNAC contributed to the actual characterization of a variant to being solved whether it was a prior candidate or in some cases it wasn't even a candidate at all prior to RNA sequencing so that's a value I think that in terms of other value we can change a strong candidate to a weak candidate in terms of deep prioritization it can continue to support whether it was already a strong candidate or it can even help to rule out and this is especially the case when you have a recessive disease and you have one potential dilaterious allele but we have absence of a second genomic finding and the finding of sort of normal expression from that allele has been very helpful and so we've sort of taken the approach that in total about 21% of the cases were helped in terms of a solution with RNA seek and actually I would say 12% were cases solved where it was something that was sort of not readily apparent just from the genomic interpretation like an intronic or a synonymous SNV or perhaps an inframindal so again really depending upon how strong the nature of a variant is RNA seek can have increasing impact so what are the opportunities and challenges for clinical implementation I think that RNA sequencing is clearly effective for prioritization of variants coming out of Weston and WGS from the context of allele specific expression nonsense mediated decay and splicing isoforms something that I think as a field we've often ignored clinically you know there are four to five isoforms different isoforms and different for each gene and in terms of our clinical interpretation we've basically been had to ignore that it can sometimes identify new pathogenic alleles especially in the context of a recessive disease where you have sort of a beacon in one allele already we systematically looked at the current informatics algorithms we have I don't have time to show you that data they're helpful but as you would expect just like the informatics algorithms for interpreting DNA variants they're not definitive by any means there's no question tissue specific expression may limit the implications or the application for a subset of candidate genes analyzed there's no way good way around that other than probing that tissue pathway analysis is actually difficult while the other deliverable maybe to start to correlate pathway signatures that we see for example in human tissues versus model organism tissues I think a enormous potential it is difficult because we're not doing classic case cohort type of design it's a singleton a patient versus perhaps a group of individuals and so that's going to require different informatics approaches one problem which is clearly an issue which I have not seen any group tackle effectively has been to use RNA seek as a de novo tool sort of a priority to identify candidates much like we do today with DNA based analysis and part of this challenge has been really the abundance of novel low-frequencing splice junctions that we see in RNA sequencing approaches so there's just so many of these it's difficult to sort of a prior we say well what what's interesting what's new what could be you know pathogenic perhaps trio analysis can help we are systematically trying to look at that but we don't have an answer yet and of course the real-world sort of logistics of payer challenges of how to pay for this I will end because I know I'm standing between you and lunch and we're behind with sort of two examples that we've sort of seen where I think our lens itself to really a rapid translation in the context of modeling one is when you find a deep and tronic variant and even where RNA seek has been very helpful but you have basically an n equals one situation so where even the RNA sequencing may be helpful doesn't really prove it this was a family that had a noon and syndrome like phenotype and where we identified just by straight whole exome sequencing headers I guess stop mutation in LZ TR 1 which has been implicated in that pathway but what was interesting is that when we looked at the RNA sequencing and here you have control blood control fibroblasts and there were two Sibs one in one Sibs just for demonstration fibroblasts and the other is blood was abnormal splice pattern in this in this gene as well as they were alterations in the allele specific expression which pointed to what we then found doing whole genome sequencing was a deep and tronic variant at minus 256 position of this intron of this gene which ultimately we think led to a whole host of the different splice patterns and in fact we did see that in sort of an in vitro experiment where we knocked in that variant so we had isogenic controls and reproduced different spice isoforms still this was a question is this really consequential in the context of a first recessive form of noon and syndrome now at the end of the day much like in the CMG when there has been you know other families have been identified that supported this we were able to make the supposition but you can imagine the challenges in this situation where in fact you have an intronic variants where there is some data that supports its pathogenicity for actually a recessive form of inheritance where a model organism like specifically in mice because it isn't intronic change could be very powerful and it turns out that this region is highly conserved across human and mice I think a second situation where again at Baylor working with comp actually delivered on sort of a pathogenicity conclusion is a variant in this protein copy to which we found in a patient with early onset osteoporosis this is part of a complex ER Golgi transport primarily ER to Golgi which has been implicated in many skeletal diseases and the RNA seek data supported in fact that there was nonsense mediated decay for this allele but does in fact haploinsufficiency cause an isolated skeletal phenotype in what is a ubiquitously expressed gene and in fact rapidly working with comp we're able to generate the loss of function as shown here on Western analysis and what is low bone mass phenotype in heterozygous males and females supporting in fact the the pathogenicity of this and in fact functionally and so this is where again the next step leveraging local resources is very useful we're able to do biomechanical studies that actually showed the bone were weaker I mean again supporting that this is a heterozygous change that's leading to an early onset osteoporosis in this patient and potentially in the more general population so I think there are opportunities for comp modeling of human V us in the context of clinical discovery and diagnosis there can be multiple inputs and I think at Baylor between the diagnostic lab the various research consortium CMG UDN there's been a increasing flow for this I think another opportunity is industry which has not been discussed here I was just at the American Society of bone and mineral research where there have been multiple new therapeutics I've hit in rare disease context and you know as you can imagine many of the industry are focused on identifying as many patients as possible and I put forth a proposal to them you know they have been sequencing everybody with certain types of phenotypes and they discover a lot of V us's one approach may be to comprehensively model the V us's especially on known disease genes which have therapeutic options you can imagine you're taking really a different approach it's discovery that's based on a situation we have a treatment and so that actually increases the potential value of you know this type of program at least from the therapeutic perspective I'm given again Chris's points early in the morning clearly rear missense variants in the context of phenotypic expansion or milder phenotypes whether they be hypomorphic or neomorphic alleles are extremely I think powerful from a modeling perspective difficult for us to interpret in the clinical perspective but even apparent loss of function variants and some of the RNA seek data are clearly showing that variants that you would think would be apparent loss of functions can in fact have different constants consequences on splicing and expression and so there may be value in modeling that in vivo in a mouse especially if there is conservation of those genes there is no question as you can see how we sort of drove as a group RNA sequencing interpretation it's driven primarily by non-code invariance given their defects of diverse effects on transcript and isoform expression so that's certainly an enormous opportunity and ultimately it's to improve interpretation in the clinical context and I'm hopeful that in the new iteration of the guidelines in vivo functional data will actually be even elevated and importantly you know we all see the OMIM graph with the number of genes going up rapidly but you know in fact the correlation of known genes with phenotypes in the context of phenotypic expansion is an enormously exciting opportunity for you know studying unique structure function correlations and so I don't think we should forget about the basic science opportunity from that sort of portion of the OMIM graph so with that I will leave you with this is phase two of UDN which has expanded now to 12 sites there is now one national sequencing court Baylor and the model organism screening center has actually expanded to include worms and hopefully there'll be even a more robust flow into IMPC and comp and sort of this is the the schematic as it now stands for phase two and I want to acknowledge really all the folks involved in the UDN thank you Brendan I have special across yeah there's no question that RNA-seq is valuable and in the data you showed I think you combined leukocyte plus fiber blast RNA correct and could you speak to how valuable straight white cell leukocyte yeah so I have some data on that which I can't show so I can't show because I don't have it I would show you otherwise so not surprisingly if you look at clustering fiber blasts RNA-seq clusters much better even across unrelated individuals if you do sort of the clustering analysis and and white cells are much more distributed as we would expect because it's a you know a primary heterogeneous mix of tissue having said that I think for certain diseases it's actually quite informative especially for the primary amino deficiencies and so right so if you could you want to go back to this slide just go back quickly so if you look at autism genes about 62% express greater than one between one and ten and about 32% greater than ten so obviously less useful but again you know if you think about our diagnostic rate of 35% that's not bad it's all context so so I think there clearly is still a use even for you know autism or neural degeneration type genes absolutely absolutely that that's exactly correct this is this is why I think that you know we presented as thresholds to give you the dynamic range so between 60 and 30 depending upon how lucky you are good topic to discuss lunch so we have an hour for lunch if you can get back we'll pretend it's quarter of and not 10 of get back by quarter of do everything we can to stay on track thank you


Anxiety is a tendon to pain. It's a pain in death-oriented society, where the ruling emotion which subsumes all others is anxiety. This is the world we live in, and that's the world we have constructed. And that's a world that more and more, it seems, there's no way out of, because our economies are constructed around growth. They're growth-oriented economies. We don't understand that for the vast majority of human history, there was no concept of economic growth. It's a new invention. But our economies are growth-oriented, so we have all the time to create more, to work more, to make more money, more and more. Our relationships are relationships that are, by definition, dysfunctional, because we lost the capacity to see each other and to be seen. It looks pretty hopeless. And here is the said irony and the frightening reality. There is only one way to survive in such a world. Emil Dukheim, who was a Jewish sociologist, called such societies anomic societies. These are societies that don't function anymore. And he wrote a book, an amazing book, a prophetic book. It's called On Suicide. And he said, when these societies will ripen, when they will become the norm, the standard, when anomic societies will become the standard, there will be a lot of suicide. That will be the sign. And so, in such societies, there is only one efficient coping strategy, and it's called narcissism. There is not an accident that narcissism is on the rise, especially among the young, according to studies, for example, by Twentyn Campbell. It's not an accident. The young intuitively understand that the only way to survive such a toxic concentration camp of an environment is by being a narcissist. So they are becoming narcissistic. In July 2016, the academic journal, New Scientist, came up with a cover story, a shocking cover story. The cover story, the title was, Parents Teach Your Children to be Narcissists. There are all branches in academia. There are many scholars who begin to glorify narcissism, to extol its virtues. So we have concepts like high-functioning narcissists, productive narcissists, even productive psychopaths, the work of Kevin Dutton. So we have today scholars in universities who say that actually narcissism and psychopathy are positive adaptations. They are the next stage in evolution. They will take the species forward. It's a dead end in a dead culture, among dead societies. And you can't live in an environment of death without dying yourself. We breathe in death. We eat death. We have sex in a dead way. We are dead. We are a zombified society. Pain, narcissism, these are the tools that are the only tools that are left to somehow cope.  What have I done? Because I'm not sure it's such a good advice to tell people not to be narcissistic or to be less narcissistic and so on. Narcissism seems to be a positive adaptation. Some people use narcissism to get to the White House. Is it truly a good advice to not be a narcissist and a psychopath? 25 years ago, he thought, yes, today I'm much lesser, much lesser. It is also no accident that recently we begin to realize that victims of narcissistic abuse adopt psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors and traits as a defense. We call it psychopathic narcissistic overlay. It's an observation I made about 20 years ago. Today it's common. So today, for example, we know that CPTSD, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, which is the common reaction of victims of narcissistic abuse, is utterly indistinguishable from borderline personality disorder. There is emotional liability, dysregulation and so on. It seems that victims of narcissistic abuse have discovered this truth that the only way to survive is to join, to become a narcissist. If you can't beat them, join them. You can't beat the narcissists. They've taken over. Join them. And victims of abuse do it intuitively. They become more narcissistic and even more psychopathic. And these are the good news because the world is moving into the next phase, psychopathy. We are going to enter a psychopathic world. Narcissism is nothing compared to psychopathy. We see the first glimpses of a psychopathic world. This is what I have to say about your question about Hungary. It's not Hungary, it's the world. And it's the world because we have nothing to live for, honestly. Nothing to live for. We are creatures made of dreams. We are human beings, our entities made of dreams and made of stories. We have lost our dreams and we don't have any story to tell anymore, any believable story, any story that someone would believe. Without dreams and without stories, what is left? Dead flesh. This. Dead flesh. Nothing. We're dead. We have died. We just don't know it.


If you want to get good at anything, you need to put in the repetitions. I believe mental toughness is the ability to stay in the present moment, no matter how chaotic the atmosphere or the environment is. It's the ability to be present. You know, effort is a choice, attitude is a choice, and discipline is absolutely a choice. And the number one is something I learned from Kobe Bryant back in 2007, and that is the best never get bored with the basics. That if you want to be good in any area of your life, you work towards mastery of the basics and the fundamentals during the unseen hours, and you make a commitment to building that foundation. What I like about this is it's parallel with personal accountability.  Yes, you know, something I say to every player I've worked with, every business I work with, repetition is not punishment. Repetition is the oldest and most effective form of learning and skill acquisition on the planet. That will never change.