It is now time for question period, the leader of Her Majesty's Royal Office of Health. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The numbers don't lie. The numbers don't spin or evade the truth. Last year the federal government— This applies to all sites. Please continue. Last year the federal government— Minister of Transportation. —gained $62 million more for health care than the previous year. But this Liberal government increased the health care budget by $598 million. There's a difference of $54 million. $54 million that should have gone to fund patient services, nurses, and home care. But instead this Liberal government diverted the money to pay for their own scandals, like gas plants. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why she took $54 million from health care in Ontario? As one can notice, it happens on both sides. Now let's stop it. Premier. Well, it seems that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is carrying on a tradition of that party of not really understanding the map, having a bit of challenge. So let me just go through this. The PC Leader is simply wrong, Mr. Speaker, when he talks about the $54 million from the Canada Health Transfer. If he looks at last year's public accounts and compares it to our 2015 budget, Mr. Speaker, look at those projections. He'll see that there's no $54 million gap, Mr. Speaker. What there is instead is over $100 million in additional funding for health care, Mr. Speaker, of the Opposition to take a look at the numbers and do the math. I can read this very well. I'm going to move to warnings immediately. So calm down. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. The government may applaud their $54 million cut, but the government's cuts are having real effects on Ontario patients. There are hundreds of doctors here at Queen's Park today who have told us countless stories of how the government's cuts were reduced, the care that patients deserve in Ontario. Cuts to physician services and billing caps mean doctors who are small business owners have to cut staff, cut staff that are providing health care, and reduce services provided to their patients. These highly respected professionals are offended that the government continues to demonise them. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier put patients first, stop attacking doctors, and finalise the fact that health care is important in Ontario? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, you know, Mr. Speaker, my grandfather was a doctor, he practiced medicine after the First World War in North Toronto for 40 years. My father was a doctor, Mr. Speaker, and my daughter is finishing nursing. The member from Renfrew, Nipissing-Pebruck, is warned. And whether you hear me or not, the warning stands. Carry on. Make that point, Mr. Speaker, because it is very important to me personally and to our government that we have a very strong working relationship with our health professionals. It's extremely important. It's why, Mr. Speaker, that we increase the health budget to a total of $50.8 billion this year, Mr. Speaker. That's an increase of 1.2%. We're increasing physician compensation by 1.25%, Mr. Speaker, over the next three years. The money that is going into health care is increasing, Mr. Speaker. It's increasing year over year, and we will continue to work with our health professionals because they are so critical to the well-being of this province. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. You're not going to find a single doctor in the province of Ontario that believes your argument that you're not cutting healthcare, that you took $54 million from the federal health transfer, dispended in other areas. And what I can't believe, Mr. Speaker, is to make up for this diversion of money this government is asking doctors to compromise quality care. They owe to their patients. Doctors want to deliver quality care to their patients, and you're diminishing that. They're forcing emergency rooms to take on more patients when those patients lose their family doctors. Mr. Speaker, why won't the Premier do the right thing, restore the $54 million cut and recognize the fact that no one in Ontario believes you're not cutting healthcare? Mr. Finance. Mr. Speaker, the right thing would have been a member that was sitting in the Harper government fighting for on behalf of the people of Ontario and the Ministry of Health has increased by more than $18 billion, while CHC has only increased by $6.8 billion. Ontario. You never know when I'm going to hit. Finish please, and wrap it up, sir. He makes reference to the budget, which talks about projections. The actuals that was recently published shows that spending for healthcare has actually increased by $1.1 billion, well over the $50 billion, every single dollar of the budget. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier. The doctors and patients here today are victims of your scandals and waste. Billions of dollars have been squandered to benefit liberal friends and special interests. Because it's more important to this Liberal government to pay millions of bonuses to pan and executives than to make sure 800,000 Ontario's get a family doctor. Because it's more important to this Liberal government to dole out millions from e-health to Liberal friendly consultants than to make sure addiction clinics don't shut down. Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier tell the doctors that are here today and their patients that paying for her scandals is more important than funding frontline healthcare? Thank you, Premier. It's a long-term care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to welcome the doctors who are here today and acknowledge their presence. I'm proud to see that I had a meeting with the OMA Executive, with the President of the OMA, Dr. Michael Toth yesterday. We talked about a number of issues. I reiterated the government's interest in negotiating and getting back to negotiating. We've never actually stopped that process, Mr. Speaker. We followed a process that was agreed in writing by the OMA back in 2012 that led to an umpire to retire Judge Warren Winkler coming up with a proposal accepting the government's offer and imploring the OMA to accept that offer. Regrettably, the OMA didn't. We are implementing the offer that was presented and endorsed by retired Judge Warren Winkler. But we had a very positive discussion yesterday with the OMA, and I'm happy to talk about that in the supplementary. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the Premier. Hospitals across Toronto are operating at 115% capacity. Hospital beds are filled with seniors who now wait 69 days to get to a nursing home, an increase of 18 days since 2005. Thank you for that, Speaker. Health Quality Ontario reported that half of Ontarians are not able to schedule a timely visit with their primary care provider when they are in need. Yet, this government responds by cutting over $800 million to doctor services, forcing clinics to close, and sending more and more people to hospitals, emergency rooms. Mr. Speaker, where are this Liberal Premier's priorities? Fill the primer, reverse your health care cuts before the next set of clinics close in this province. Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, the examples that the member opposite just gave are precisely the reason why we've asked our physicians. The member from Leeds-Grenville is warned. Carry on. The comments and examples made by the member opposite are exactly the reason why we've asked our physicians after a 60% increase over the last decade to the point where they're the best-paid doctors. As they deserve to be, Mr. Speaker, the best-paid doctors in this country, we've asked them to hold the line, take a modest reduction so we can actually invest in home and community care and so we can invest in our hospitals. So we can invest in the other health care workers who are at the front line working hard like our PSWs. But, Mr. Speaker, when I met with the president of the OMA yesterday, we had a very good discussion. I presented to them another opportunity to create, as Warren Winkler, the senator, asked us to do, a task force to look at the future of physician services. He embraced that and endorsed that, and the OMA previously did as well. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the health minister is asking doctors to take a pay cut to pay for their scandals, the gats, the grants, the e-health, and smart meals. Mr. Speaker, back to the dreamer, the health quality report found that less than half of patients hospitalized for heart failure or chronic lung disease see a doctor within the week after discharge. For those hospitalized with mental illness or addiction, the numbers are even worse, with more than two-thirds of those patients failing to see a doctor within seven days of their release. Which is why, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's cut to physician services makes no sense at all. The cost of these cuts will not be measured in stats or dollars and cents. The costs will be measured in the suffering the seniors will endure when they wait hours for ER because they can't get an appointment with their doctor if they're lucky to have one at all. Mr. Speaker, does the premier not care? Nothing for the suffering that these cuts will inflict on the people of this province who deserve timely quality health care. Mr. Speaker, please. Mr. Speaker, please. Thank you. Minister? Mr. Speaker, first of all, we aren't cutting the budget for our doctors. Our doctors budget is increasing by 1.25 percent this year. It's increasing by 1.25 percent next year as well. We're bringing in 700 net new doctors into this province this year alone. That's three times the rate of population growth. We're continuing to provide the services that people depend on. We're not talking about health services and the delivery of health services. We're talking about one thing, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about compensation to our doctors who are the best paid in the country as they deserve to be, Mr. Speaker. But I want to get back to that important discussion I had with President Toth at the OMA yesterday where we provided them with the opportunity to work in partnership with us, to create a task force on the future of physician services, to look at a whole broad range of issues, including compensation, Mr. Speaker. We're prepared to negotiate today, tomorrow, going forward, working in partnership with the OMA. Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Against the public's wishes, the Premier is plowing ahead with the unnecessary sell-off of Hydro-1. Based on the initial share offer, the Premier is now projecting the sale, where it will generate $2 billion less, Speaker, than originally forecast. My question for the Premier is this. Where is the $2 billion shortfall coming from? Repayment of debt or from axing infrastructure projects? Thank you, Premier. So, Mr. Speaker, let's just be clear what's happening right now. We are broadening the ownership of Hydro-1 in order to finance what is the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario's history, Mr. Speaker. This release of the prospectus, Mr. Speaker, is the first step in a process. And the leader of the third party, I think, knows that the final price has not been set. This is a process, Mr. Speaker, whereby the price will be set. So we are on track to realize the $9 billion, Mr. Speaker, that will allow us to invest $4 billion in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, infrastructure that is sorely needed in our urban and our rural and northern communities, Mr. Speaker. We are going to make those investments, and we are making those investments, Mr. Speaker, because we know that economic prosperity in the immediate future and in the future depend on those investments. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has never needed the money from the sell-off of Hydro-1 to build infrastructure. There are other options, and the people of Ontario have been telling her loudly and clearly, Mr. Speaker, to change this course. When the profits from the sell-off was estimated at $4 billion, that sum represented only 3% of the $130 billion of the Liberals' promises on infrastructure spending. Now they stand to make over $2 billion less on this unnecessary sell-off, Mr. Speaker. The people deserve to know where that loss of $2 billion is going to be coming from. What does that mean to the Premier's promises? Is the Premier planning on paying down less of the hydro-debt, or will she start axing some of her infrastructure projects? Mr. Speaker, again, let me be clear, the price has not been set yet, and we are on track to realize the $9 billion. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the lack of plan that the leader of the third party put forward means, Mr. Speaker, that had she had the opportunity, none of the projects that we are on track to deliver would have been delivered. I have asked her in this House before, and I will ask her again, which of these projects would she have cancelled, Mr. Speaker? Would she have cancelled the electrification of the Barrie line, which would increase weekly trips from 70 to 200? Would she have axed the Milton line, 15-minute peak direction service? Would she have axed the new alignment of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph? Or would she, Mr. Speaker, have cancelled the $1 billion for the Hamilton LRT? Is that the project that she would have cancelled, Mr. Speaker? Because she had no way of financing all the projects that we are delivering as we speak. Mr. Speaker, this Premier hasn't even sold off the first tranche of Hydro-1 shares, and it looks like she's already down $2 billion for her infrastructure promises. The Premier has insisted time and time again in this House that without the money from the sell-off of Hydro-1, every single project in Ontario is at risk. Now that she's going to have $2 billion less from the sell-off of Hydro-1, Ontarians deserve to know which projects she's going to be cutting, Speaker. Is it going to be all day two-way goal in Kitchener Waterloo? Is it going to be the mainly drive extension in Sudbury, Speaker? Is it going to be public transit projects right here in Toronto, Speaker? This Premier needs to let the people of Ontario know which projects she's cutting when she doesn't get the money that she says she needs, but she doesn't. Well, Mr. Speaker, at least we've got the NDP talking about infrastructure. And to build infrastructure. So she hasn't talked about infrastructure for three years, Mr. Speaker. We are engaged in the first step in a process to realize the $9 billion, Mr. Speaker, for a billion dollars of which will be invested in infrastructure. She knows, Mr. Speaker, she knows perfectly well that the price has not been set yet. She also knows, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for us to make these investments in infrastructure and that there are projects all over the province that have already been begun, that are on track to be begun, and that we are working on, Mr. Speaker. So I say to the leader of the third party, we are electrifying the very line. We're electrifying the part of the Kitchener line, the Lakeshore line. We're building for Highway 7 between Kitchener and Weld, expanding it. And improving high... Thank you. I don't need the theatrics. I know what to do. New question. The leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. My next question is also for the Premier. The incoming federal government has just promised $125 billion... Order, please. Please. Federal government has just promised $125 billion over 10 years for an infrastructure... Minister of Government Services is warned. Immediately, Speaker, presumably a significant amount of the money will flow to Canada's largest province. The Premier has insisted that the only way she can fund Ontario's infrastructure needs is through the sell-off of Hydro-1. Well, now there's another obvious solution, Speaker. My question for the Premier is this. Will she do the right thing, abandon her plan to sell off Hydro-1 and demand Ontario's fair share of the new federal infrastructure project money? Question. Thank you. Premier. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it's wonderful to hear the leader of the third party supportive of the new federal government, Mr. Speaker. Two municipalities around the province, which I do regularly and all of our members are talking to municipal leaders all over the province, Mr. Speaker. There is no shortage. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is a wealth of need in this province. The fact is that infrastructure was neglected when we came into office, Mr. Speaker. There was a huge infrastructure deficit across the province. We have been working on that. We have been working with municipalities. We haven't had a federal partner. We would have been able to do more had we had that federal partner, Mr. Speaker. Now we do. So we have a plan. We've got a plan that we are implementing, Mr. Speaker. And if the federal government will work with us, we can do more and more is needed in this province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what's needed in this province is the maintenance of our public electricity system for the people of this province. Now is regeneration. The government's sell-off of Hydro-1 was supposed to net them $4 billion towards their $130 billion of promises over 10 years. That's approximately 3% or $400 million a year over the 10-year period. With the new federal government promising an aggressive infrastructure program, surely Ontario, Canada's largest province, can expect at the very least $400 million a year. Here's an opportunity for the Premier to listen to the people of Ontario, to do what they're telling her to do and stop the sell-off of Hydro-1, use the new federal infrastructure program funds to build the infrastructure that Ontario needs. Will this premier do the right thing and abandon her wrong-headed scheme to sell off Hydro-1 because it is absolutely unnecessary all the way around? Thank you. You see it, please? You see it, please? Thank you. Premier. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. So the Leader of the Third Party started this round of questions with contention that we don't have enough money for infrastructure investment, Mr. Speaker. Now she's suggesting we have too much money for infrastructure because the federal government is going to be working with us. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, there is a need for infrastructure investment across this province. In fact, as the new leader of the federal government has said, there is a need for investment in infrastructure across the country, Mr. Speaker. It looks different on the West Coast than it does in the Northwest Territories. It looks different in PEI than it does in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. But the fact is there is a need across this country for investment in infrastructure. It's one of the reasons that I believe that Justin Trudeau won, Mr. Speaker, because he recognized that. He is going to work with the provinces. He is going to work with the territories. And he is going to augment and support the plans that we already have in place. But that doesn't let us off the hook. We have to stick to our plan and make investments that we've committed to the people of Ontario. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, this Premier's plan is wrong for Ontario. It is wrong for the people of Ontario. And this is her chance to make things right. The people of Ontario want this Premier to stop the sell-off of Hydro-1. It is absolutely unnecessary. Now that we have federal promises of new infrastructure money for Ontario, the sell-off is even more unnecessary than before, Speaker. One wonders what the big hurry is, Speaker, to get Hydro-1 into the hands of private investors. One would have to ask the Premier that very question. But the most important question is this, Speaker. Why will the Premier not do the right thing? Why will she not do the right thing and stop this unnecessary sell-off of Hydro-1? Keep it in the hands of the public where it belongs for today and for generations to come, Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So here's the urgency. The urgency is that we have roads and bridges. We have water systems. We have a need for broadband. We have a need for gas, Mr. Speaker. We have a need for transit systems, Mr. Speaker. That has to be built. That's the urgency. People's quality of life depends on these investments, Mr. Speaker. The ability of businesses to expand, move their goods around, Mr. Speaker, whether it's a rural or urban communities, move those goods and be able to draw more investment to the province. That's the urgency, Mr. Speaker. And I don't know when the leader of the third party talks to people around the province. I don't know if they say to her how critical it is that they have the support of the provincial government to make those investments. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we go to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or I go to the Ontario Good Roads Association, Mr. Speaker, or we talk to the city, the urban centers around this province, they need investment. They need a part in the provincial government, and that's who we are. Good question to members from Ontario and Ontario. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Seniors in my riding and across Ontario are worried about the cutbacks to care and wait times which are getting longer and longer in Ontario. Mr. Birch of all in town was told he was facing a 14-month wait for cataract surgery. That's 420 days. Not only does this long wait for cataract surgery put in terms at three times over the national average, but it also has serious and grave consequences. People like Mr. Birch could go blind while waiting to access their health care. My question to the Minister is, after 12 years of your government and 10 years since launching your wait time strategy, is a 14-month wait the best you can do? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question from a party that didn't even bother to measure wait times, let alone actually invest them. We've invested hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, in reducing wait times across the province. We were the first party, the first government in the history of this province to actually measure those important wait times so we had targets, we could improve on the wait times, and we've done that including, Mr. Speaker, on cataract surgery. In the last decade, the wait time for cataract surgery across the province has been reduced by 152 days or 49% last, Mr. Speaker. So we're making improvement. Cardiac cancer surgery among the best in the world reduced that wait time by 32%, Mr. Speaker. Angioplasty and angiography by 40%, Mr. Speaker. Knee replacement, we've reduced the wait time by 54%, Mr. Speaker. A little rich coming from a party that didn't even bother to measure, let alone invest in reducing wait times. We've done both and we've seen the success. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the minister of health, long term care. The minister says one thing, but the people of this province tell us otherwise. Who are we to trust, this government or the people bearing the brunt of your cuts? My question to the minister is simple. I want to know why you have failed to meet your cataract surgery targets and why wait times have more than doubled from 180 to 420 days from some constituents. Stop counting, start doing. Mr. Speaker, this year alone we're investing nearly $100 million specifically to reduce wait times on important surgeries and procedures, cancer treatments and other important things that are important to Ontarians. There is regional variation. There is variation across province. We're working closely in those cases where the wait times are slightly higher than in other parts of the province. We're working with our lens. We're working with the hospitals involved, with the practitioners that are providing that surgery, that service as well, to ensure that we're able to reduce those wait times across the province. We're doing an investment of a significant amount of money. You never had a plan to do that. You didn't measure wait times. You didn't invest. You closed hospitals. And this government is committed. The member from Prince Edward Hastings is warned. Wrap up, please. I think I have, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Speaker, this morning the galleries are full with physicians. They decided to come to Queen's Park after a week in our constituency we had the opportunity to connect with the physicians in our own writing. The truth is, Speaker, that this government has imposed a unilateral agreement on physicians in Ontario. A unilateral agreement is not an agreement that is why they are here today. By their action, the government has created unrest within our healthcare system. What does the Premier have to say to all of the physicians that are here today in the gallery who are worried about her government action and what it will mean for the healthcare of our province and for the nations who need that care? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, we have a deep respect for the work that is done by our physicians across this province. We are, as the Minister of Health has said, we're proud of the fact that they are the best-paid physicians in the country. That's a good thing. They work hard and they provide a wonderful service to the people of Ontario. At the same time, we have made difficult decisions on this side of the house. We are increasing physician compensation by 1.25% over the next three years each year. At the same time, we made a decision that putting money into community care and particularly into personal support worker salaries that are among the lowest in the province. We believe that that was important for the quality and the integrity of the healthcare system. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't see this kind of reaction from the NDP at that time. We didn't see them standing up to talk about the support for the lowest-paid and we saw them vote against a budget that put money into the lowest-paid professionals in the province. Thank you, Speaker. I don't understand how come the Premier and the Minister does not see the chaos they are creating in our healthcare system. Most of the 28,000 physicians in Ontario are not happy right now. They are not happy because they feel disrespected. Nothing good comes when a group of people feel disrespected. They are human being just like you and I, and when they feel disrespected, they react just like it. Stop the clock. Order. Please finish. When will the Premier realise the damage she is doing to our healthcare system by the way she is treating our physicians? Nothing good will come of this. The unilateral action are causing chaos. Who will pay the price for this? Will the Premier step up and fix the chaos? Respect our physician and have an agreement that both parties can agree to. I do respect our physicians. I respect them deeply and I respect the fact that the Minister of Health has met with the head of the OMA and has said let's sit down again, let's continue this conversation. But, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the highest paid physicians in the country. That is a good thing. It is a good thing that they are paid well, Mr. Speaker. They work very hard. But there is a range of health professionals who need the support of this government if we are going to have a healthcare system that is going to meet the needs of the people in this province. There are people in their homes who need personal support workers not to be in precarious employment but who need a sustainable living wage. That is why we have made decisions to put money into community care and to support those people. I am surprised that the community does not understand that. I am surprised that they don't support making sure that we have equitable pay and that we recognize the importance of the work. Thank you. New question? Member from Burlington. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for seniors' affairs. The Minister recently visited my riding of Burlington to host an important regional roundtable consultation regarding a topic I feel very strongly about, the prevention of elder abuse in the province. We know that elder abuse is a problem that often remains hidden due to fear, shame and lack of awareness. I am proud that Ontario was the first province in Canada to introduce a strategy to combat elder abuse. As a member that represents a community with a significant seniors' population close to one in five of our residents as a senior, I understand the importance of addressing this complex issue and was eager to participate in the consultation session for Ontario's elder abuse strategy review. Speaker, can the Minister please provide this house with further details regarding Ontario's elder abuse strategy and what our government is currently doing to protect seniors? Thank you. Thank you very much Speaker and I want to thank the member for the question as well. Let me say, Speaker, that I have had the wonderful privilege of visiting the riding of the member in Burlington and I want to say that indeed she has a lot of seniors. They are very active, very engaged thanks to the hard work that she is doing in her particular community. But let me give you, Speaker, very quickly what we have been able to do in the past five years alone. We have trained some 25,000 frontline workers in the different sectors of health, justice, social services and education, Speaker. We have had more than 950 public sessions reaching out to over 38,000 people, Speaker. We are maintaining financially and supporting more than 50 local elder abuse network, Speaker. This is because of what the people have been telling us where some of the problems exist and we are doing that. OPP, Speaker, they have frontline trained staff and other reviews. Our retirement home, Speaker, mandates providers to report any abuse on our seniors and we are doing that. They welcome you to the more, Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. And I'd like to commend the minister for his continued work in advocating for the safety and dignity of older adults in our province. At the regional consultation session I attended with the minister, I was pleased to see how many local organizations and community agencies from my riding were able to provide the opportunity to provide our government with their thoughts and ideas surrounding elder abuse prevention. These organizations included the Burlington age friendly seniors council, the Halton regional police, the elder abuse committee of York region, family services appeal and the appeal elder abuse prevention network. The session was an effective dialogue on how we can better understand the increasing complexities around elder abuse issues in Burlington. Speaker, Minister, please inform the legislature why our government is undertaking this review and why these consultations are important. Thank you, minister. Thank you again. Thanks to the member from Burlington for the supplementary question. Let me say that addressing and preventing elder abuse, it's a commitment that we have made within the Ontario action plan for seniors. We know, Speaker, that we have the best service for seniors population and we have to continue on a regular basis. This is what we are doing. This is what we've been doing, Speaker, to examine and reexamine some of the plans and programs that we are doing by delivering the best of service to our seniors. Unless we do that, Speaker, that we continue to examine our strategy, we won't be able to do that, Speaker, but the consultation that we have with stakeholders and the various seniors group, it is indeed, Speaker, to get as much information so we can improve the delivery of service to our seniors. We continue to do that, Speaker, because we do care. We were the first province in Canada to indeed come up with a strategy to combat elder abuse, Speaker. We will continue to do that for our senior speakers. Thank you, Speaker, and Mike for long term care. This afternoon we had a motion calling on the government to restore funding to physician services, including the $815 million slash from physician services. The minister, the premier, received a letter from a new family physician practicing in Dufferin, Caledon. In her letter, Dr. Mag laid out how cuts will impact the patients in her community. They are considering letting go of some staff, shutting down their blood lab, but Dr. Mag, I would like to be clear with this point, patient care will suffer. Will the government restore the $850 million of slash from physician services? Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, what we've done is following the independent conciliators advice we've implemented the proposal that was presented to him and endorsed, which calls for a 1.25% increase in the physician services budget last year, this year, and next year. In fact, I think I would hope that the member opposite would agree that all we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is sticking to the increase that was presented to Judge Winkler that he agreed with, because the danger is, Mr. Speaker, if we go over that budget, that 1.25% increase in budget, then we won't have sufficient funds to be able to apply it to increases in the recent wage to our PSWs to address the important issue of nursing, recruitment and retention, Mr. Speaker, those mental health investments that are so important. But, Mr. Speaker, we spent a year and a day negotiating with their doctors. We presented 75 proposals to them. We did not get a single answer or advice back from them on which one of those proposals would provide a savings. Back to the minister. Your point is that the population is increasing. People need to see their family physicians. Frontline physicians like Dr. Mag are saying you need to work with doctors. We're no longer part of the team providing health care. You've cut us out. As Dr. Mag said in her letter, I would like to be clear with this point. Patient care will suffer. I want the premier and the minister to know that you are outright lying every time you tell the truth. The member will withdraw. I withdraw. Excuse me, stop the clock. I thank the member for withdrawing, but that is not acceptable. So those people in the background that are indicating that I made a wrong judgment, I did not. Carry on. I ask again, will the government support this afternoon's motion that states that people of Ontario deserve the highest quality of care in the health care system? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario deserve the best highest quality physicians in the world and we have them, Mr. Speaker. And I'm proud to be a member of that profession. I met with the president of the OMA, Michael Talk yesterday and his team. They're the ones, Mr. Speaker, that have refused to come back to the negotiating table. From day one I've said that I'm prepared to do this after accepting the recommendations of our impartial third-party umpire. They didn't like the decision that that umpire made, Mr. Speaker. We're bound to it. We believe that it was a fair offer. Judge Winkler agreed with us. We put in front of the OMA 75 proposals for how we could find savings so we could slow the growth of that budget to 1.25% a year. The OMA did not respond to a single one of those proposals. I had a good meeting however yesterday and I remain hopeful. Thank you. My question is to the premier. The minister of education has repeatedly said in this house that she is willing and interested to get back to the table and expedite the process of negotiating with the provinces elementary school teachers. But we understand the minister may not be informed. In fact she may be perplexed about what's going on at the table. She is the government who walked away and hasn't been back since before Thanksgiving. Speaker, does the premier know that her negotiating team has not responded to offers on the table or returned to negotiate a settlement since before Thanksgiving? Minister of Education. Yes, thank you very much and I want to actually start speaker by informing the house that since we last met we had an opportunity to speak that in fact the French teachers IFO who represent the teachers in the French public and French Catholic boards have in fact ratified theirs. Which of course brings us to the point where we have a collective agreement with every group of teachers in Ontario except for ETFO the English public teachers. Certainly we have been available to bargain. My people are at the hotel today. I was actually on call. My husband was about to leave for the cottage without me on Thanksgiving because I was there. I was there but Stop the clock. Stop the clock. I'm going to use this opportunity to remind everybody you speak in the third person and you are actually asking your question asking your answer to the chair. It lessens the temperature and it stays that way. You have one sentence wrap up please. We are absolutely prepared to bargain. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you speaker. I notice the minister is wearing pink today. Hopefully that's in support of CUPI education workers who have waited over a year. Can we hear from the premier speaker? That's two weeks with school underway and the minister is going to be talking about the issue of the government on reaching a settlement. Either the minister knows that negotiators for the government have willfully ignored the latest offers on the table or the minister doesn't know what's going on. Either way it's a problem creating chaos in our schools. There are only a few issues left to resolve. Our elementary school teachers want a settlement. Students and their parents want stability. And work out a settlement. Thank you minister. Up the table with some of the education workers today. We are working on getting settlements with our education workers because we very much value the work that education workers do in our schools. And we will be we I want to reiterate are quite prepared to return to the table with the elementary teachers. In fact I understand Mr. Hammond has indicated the same thing. And we've asked the mediator who's on the file to try and actually set up the dates to do that, just that because everybody seems to say we'd like to negotiate. We've asked the mediator to set those dates so we can get back to the table. We're very close to an agreement and if we get to the table we can finish it. Thank you. Thank you very much speaker. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Speaker today is a great day. It's National Bioenergy Day and it's a chance for Ontario to recognize the many benefits of using biomass energy in our province. Biomass is globally recognized as a renewable source of energy speaker. Unlike oil, gas or coal there is no additional carbon released from the combustion of biomass. It emits the same carbon that is absorbed just a few months or years ago. The use of forestry waste to produce clean biomass energy diverts wood from our landfills and reduces ecological footprint of the forestry industry. Putting waste wood to work is good for the environment speaker and it's good for the forestry industry. Speaker through you to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, what is our government doing to support the great use of biomass in this province? Thank you. I want to thank the member from Glen Gary Prescott Russell for the question. Speaker in 2003, we committed to closing coal-fired energy generation in the province of Ontario. There were five facilities like that. Two of those facilities happened to be in my riding of Thunder Bay Atacocon. One in Thunder Bay and one in Atacocon. Speaker, we invested heavily. We converted both of those facilities so that they could accommodate and provide energy generated from biomass. Through that we created a new industry in the province of Ontario that's utilizing biomass. It's created jobs. Speaker, this is clean. It's green. It's renewable. It's sustainable. I know the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is thrilled with this approach that we're taking. It's been good for the economy of Northern Ontario. It's good for the planet and it's helping us meet our reductions when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions in the province as we meet our goals. It's a great policy. It's a great policy. That was a great question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the Minister for that update. I know forestry operations can only realize their full economic potential when there's synergy between operations. It's great that Ontario forestry operations are finding new opportunities to put their lower waste to work, such as the development of biomass pellets, by the way, Minister, of which I heat my own house with. Ontario's forestry industry about 200,000 jobs direct and indirect. In 2013, Ontario exported $4.9 billion in forestry products. Mr. Speaker, it's great to hear that our Minister and our government is committed to producing more sources of clean energy such as energy generated through the use of biomass. In addition to the boost to Ontario's forestry sector, could the Minister please answer the question on the conversion of the coal plants to biomass and how they're benefiting Ontario and in particular lead the reliability system in Northern Ontario. Thank you, Minister of Energy. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank my colleague for the question. The conversion of the Thunder Bay and Attico can generate stations to biomass, Mr. Speaker, will keep energy jobs in the community and also ensures clean, reliable, sustainable and local supply of electricity for the region. The plants are able to ramp the generation up and down very quickly to meet changing conditions in the demand side, helping to maintain electricity reliability in Northern Ontario. Mr. Speaker, Northwestern Ontario is now home to North America's largest power plant fueled completely on biomass. It is our priority to ensure there continues to be a stable, reliable and cost-effective supply of electricity to the region. And the conversion of former coal plants to biomass are playing an important role in ensuring that Northwestern Ontario has the power they need when they need it. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is clean power. Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. The cost of the Liberal mismanagement never seems to end. Last spring, high school students in Durham and Peel were out of their classes, all because the Liberal government's failed two-tier bargaining system. The failure not only cost 26 days out of the classroom for students, we now know through a memorandum of settlement which we obtained, it also cost taxpayers a million dollars in a payment to the OSSTF. What's even more appalling, Mr. Speaker, is that this Liberal government took funding from struggling students in order to pay for their own mistakes. The Minister botched up the bargaining. Mr. Speaker, will she explain why she's forcing students and taxpayers to pay for her mistakes? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we need a little bit of a history review here. Back before the recession, in the agreement that was struck in 2008 before the provincial agreement before the recession, there was an agreement to hire 2,300 additional teachers in the four systems. In fact, there were even more than that. We hired over the course of the next several years 2,300 teachers above and beyond the required class size in the collective agreement. When we reached the recession in 2012, there was an agreement that for the end of that group of teachers, that in fact we had hired enough additional teachers. The enrollment was declining. We haven't fired anybody. We haven't cut anybody. We haven't packed fire. Supplementary. Education Minister, when the Liberal government wastes a billion dollars on a gas plant, they forced others to pay for it through higher hydro bills. When the Liberal government wastes a billion dollars on e-health, they forced patients to pay for it by cutting physician services. Now the Liberal government has botched teacher negotiations and they cut back on vital programming for students. The Education Minister admitted herself that Bill 122 is flawed. Now it's time to prove that you've learned the lessons. Own up to your own mistake. Mr. Speaker, will the Education Minister announce to the House that she'll bring in a new bargaining system, recognizing the fact you've had to pay out a million dollars to make up for your own mistake? Thank you Minister. Let me repeat. The number of class size ratios, the number of pupils per teacher has not changed. So that stays in effect with the bargaining. We have not cut the class size ratios. In addition to that, we've hired 2,300 additional teachers on top of the collective agreement since 2008. And those teachers remain in place. No teachers have been cut as a result of collective bargaining. No classroom programming has been cut. No special education has been cut. The member from Bruce, when I stand you sit. The member from Bruce Gleo and Sound is warned. Wrap up one sentence. There have been no cuts in the classroom. Thank you. New question? The member from Oswald. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. During this election campaign, this Premier established a very public relationship with Mr. Trudeau. And I think communities across the province are wondering whether relationship will translate into a real relationship when it comes to policies and strengthening our province. This government has talked a good game about supporting manufacturing. But talk is easy when you don't have a willing partner. Well, the Premier says she finally has found a fairer for making table arms is born. So what will that mean for manufacturing? We need a plan to keep jobs in this country and communities working. Up until now, when it has come to manufacturing, the feds haven't been willing to be at the table. So what can we expect now? Will the Premier please tell us how she intends to bring her new federal partner to the table to protect jobs and figure out a solid manufacturing strategy? Thank you. So Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Economic Development is going to want to speak to the specifics of what is happening in manufacturing in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, because in fact we have a very good story to tell. Mr. Speaker, there are challenges. Obviously we are in a transition. But Mr. Speaker, to the point that the member asked about the relationship with the federal government, it's true. I made it very clear that the people of Ontario that their best interests would be served by having a federal government that was willing to work in partnership with the Premier of this province, Mr. Speaker. It was willing to sit down with the Premier of Ontario and Creamers across the country to determine how best to engender a business climate that would draw more business to Ontario, that would create jobs, Mr. Speaker, and that would make the investments that we need in Ontario and across the country. I'm thrilled that we have that partnership now, Mr. Speaker. It's not something that was just superficial. There is going to be a working partnership between this Prime Minister and the Premier's of the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Harbor signed a trade deal that possibly binds the incoming government and that casts a shadow across all of our communities. Projections of job losses across the country, across our communities, are staggering. As many as 24,000 jobs in the auto sector will be impacted by the TPP across the country, potentially 1,500 jobs in Oshawa alone. All jobs are important and communities are going to be sorely impacted. If the Liberals are really interested in protecting good jobs, then they would listen to the communities that are affected by this deal, communities like Oshawa. They are saying that it's time for the federal government and provincial government to sit down with the municipalities that rely on manufacturing and will be affected by this deal. This deal has fewer protections than the Americans were able to get. It's a lopsided deal. Will the Premier use her new federal connections to develop a solid manufacturing strategy and protect Ontario jobs? And please tell us, where are our assurances that jobs won't be wiped out? Thank you, Premier. Minister of economic development, employment and infrastructure. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we do agree that having a strong federal partner when it comes to partnering with our businesses and growing our manufacturing sector is really important. But it's also important in this party for all political parties to support the efforts we're making to build that strong economy. It would be really helpful to have a third party and a third party leader, Mr. Speaker, who understands the importance of building infrastructure because that's important to our economic competitiveness for our manufacturing sector as well as our entire economy. It would also be helpful to have a leader of the third party and a third party that understands the importance of having competitive, effective corporate tax rates. That's one of our greatest competitive advantages in this province. So, Mr. Speaker, now that we have a strong federal party that will support these efforts, now we're looking across the aisle at the third party, maybe they'll learn something from the strong federal party that we have in place and support the efforts we need to build a strong economy, invest in infrastructure and invest in building a good environment for investment in Ontario. Well, thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Now, Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves as to why our government must continue to improve accessibility in Ontario. Currently, approximately one in seven of Ontarians have a disability, a number that is expected to grow in the future. Yet, nearly 90% of Canadians believe that people with disabilities are not fully included in our society. Now, Peter Athanasopoulos of Spinal Cord Injury of Ontario continually reminds me of the importance of helping reintegrate people with disabilities into society by ensuring that all public spaces are accessible. And we know, Speaker, that Ontario has a very detailed plan of being accessible by the year 2015, totally accessible by that time. So, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister update the House as to the steps that are currently being taken so that we can reach this very important goal in Ontario? Thank you. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the member feels very strongly about this issue, and I appreciate the question. If we are to lead the country and remain an international leader, we need to drive a cultural shift across society to improve accessibility. Ontario is conducting targeted audits of retail companies with 500 or more employees to ensure workplaces and employee practices are accessible during a three-month audit blitz this fall. The Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure is leading the audits with the goal of ensuring that employers are making accessibility a regular part of recruiting and supporting employees with disabilities. Our ministry will check that large retailers meet requirements under the AODA, including creating and making public a multi-year accessibility plan that outlines the steps put in place to remove and prevent barriers for employees and customers. And Mr. Speaker, developing customized emergency plans for employees with disabilities. Tim, supplementary. Well, thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his answer. We know he's working extremely diligently on this file and he has the total confidence of the accessibility community to be sure that these steps that we're taking will be implemented in time that we can be totally accessible by 2015. But, Speaker, improving accessibility is not just the right thing to do for our society, it's also the smart thing to do for our economy. In 2010, the Martin Prosperity Institute outlined that by having a more inclusive Ontario, we would see a $7.9 billion increase in GDP. This would include a $1.6 billion in new spending for Ontario tourism and a $600 million increase to our province's GDP per capita annually. And this is why we must all work diligently to make sure that Ontario is totally accessible. And as a start, I would encourage every member here to ensure that your constituency options are fully accessible. So, Minister, Speaker, will the Minister expand on some of the ways that he is working to implement this audit blitz? Mr. Happy to, Mr. Speaker. Our ministry has made resources available and work with organizations to help ensure workplaces are accessible and will continue to support businesses in these efforts going forward. Many of these resources were developed in collaboration with employers. The resources include a guide to help create multi-year accessibility plans, free online training on accessibility, a guide to assist businesses to develop a plan to help an employee with disabilities with an emergency, free online sessions to help organizations comply with the AODA, and as well as a new website to make it easier to understand the requirements. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of new initiatives that we announced last June that we'll be working on implementing in the coming months. But, Mr. Speaker, the key is working together with our business community to drive that spiritual shift that's going to lead to Ontario being continuing to be a leader in accessibility, up to our goal of fully accessible community 2025. Thank you. Question and member from the Foreign Heal. Thank you. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker, last session this government passed Bill 15 which combined two distinct pieces of legislation, auto insurance reforms and government regulation of the towing industry. Unfortunately, missing from this new legislation was a concrete plan to address highway incident management. I tabled a private member's bill, Bill 30, the Highway Incident Management Act which would address this missing piece. Elliot Silverstein, the manager of government relations at CAA, South Central Ontario, who's with us today says this, and I quote, incident management is not only the foundation for safety at the scene of a collision, it is a mechanism that would not only assist in consumer protection and safety, but help address issues of fraud and chasing two elements that were referenced in Bill 15. CAA believes that incident management is a critical subject that must be considered alongside any pending regulations for the towing industry. Question. Mr. Speaker, when will the minister move forward with the missing puzzle piece of their own Bill 15 by bringing Bill 30 forward for discussion in this case? Thanks very much, Speaker. I thank the member opposite for her question and also thank her for bringing forward this particular private member's bill. Of course, at the outset of question period today, many of us have the chance to acknowledge the great work and the fact that there's a large number of people here from CAA, Speaker. Of course, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Transportation has many, many important issues that we take care of, but of course our goal at MTO is to safely manage highway incidents as quickly as possible. I should point out, Speaker, that this past over the past number of months we are pleased to pass Bill 31, making Ontario Road safe rack, which will not only help protect drivers on our roads, but also a number of other road users, pedestrians, cyclists and other speaker. The ministry will continue to work with the OPP, with all of our partners, to make sure that we maintain that goal that I outlined just a second ago. And of course, this private member's bill, like all others, will continue to work its way through the legislative process. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you for your order from the Member from Beaches East York. Well, thank you. Speaker, in my question, I may have inadvertently said 2015, when I meant to say 2025, I'd like to correct my record. Thank you. As all members know that you have a right to correct your own record, and I appreciate that. With us today in the West Members Gallery, a former member from York Mills in the 35th and 36th Parliament, and Don Valley West in the 37th Parliament, Mr. David Turnbull. And no one stepped on my introduction, which was kind of nice. But we have a deferred vote on the motion, a third reading of Bill 37, an act respective invasive species, calling the members this will be a five-minute belt. All members, please take your seats. First, please take your seats. Slow down. Premier's coming, slow down. On Tuesday, October the 20th, 2015, Ms. McMahon, the third reading of Bill 37, all those in favour, please rise. One at a time be recognized by the clerk. Mr. Moro. Mr. Brabler. Mr. Shirelli. Mr. Shirelli, Beatania Ur. Beatania Ur. Mr. Suza, Mr. Suza. Ms. Bend. Ms. Wynn, Ms. Matthews. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Hoskins. Ms. Sandals. Ms. Sandals. Mr. dooga's. Mr. Dooga's. Ms. McCharles. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole. Mr. Takhar. Mr. Takhar. Mr. Bardonetti. Mr. Bardonetti. Mr. Dulaney. Mr. Dulaney. Mr. Delan. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Orzetti. Mr. Orzetti. Mr. Brabell. Mr. Brabell. Mr. Mr. Murray Mr. Murray Mr. Chan Mr. Chan Mr. Moriti Mr. Moriti Mr. Coteau Mr. Coteau Mr. Lille Mr. Lille Mr. Flynn Mr. Flynn Mr. Zimmer Mr. Zimmer Madame Lalonde Madame Lalonde Mr. Balkasen Mr. Balkasen Ms. Albanese Ms. Albanese Mr. Dixon Mr. Dixon Ms. Manga Ms. Manga Mr. Crack Mr. Crack Ms. Hunter Ms. Hunter Mr. Sergio Ms. Hager Ms. Hager Ms. Kuala Ms. Coola Ms. Malik Mrs. Martin Mrs. Martins Ms. Michs now pass and be entitled as in the motion. There are no further deferred votes. This house stands recess until three p.m. this afternoon.


Good afternoon or good morning everybody and thanks Pat for that introduction. I just want to say before I start thank you to the IIEA for hosting this conference. It's a great opportunity I think for all of us some of us to speak but all of us to listen and particularly in the Q&As I think it's very instructive to hear similar themes and issues coming up that we all need to address here in Ireland when we when we shape this for success. Just in terms of my my own role in AIB as head of personal banking part of my remit is the consumer finance side of the business. I also spent 15 years myself in the capital market side of the business and have been directly involved in financing everything from toll roads through PPP to to the the mobile licenses so from an infrastructure perspective happy happy to take any questions on the end but that's not the side I'm going to focus on today obviously just in terms of what I am going to focus on I'm going to talk and first of all to appease you'll all be very familiar with but I think it's critical to our understanding which is what is it the consumer needs from us and if we if we truly look to match that need and we do it in a viable way and we keep the costs down then this will be successful. There's no doubt speaking from personal experience having financed everything from golf courses to to bridges and if you if you do it in a in a viable way backed by cash flow it will work that's the first thing. The second thing I'm having talked about the consumer I'm going to briefly talk about some of the industry challenges but but but with a financiers perspective and then I'm going to share with you our own experience to date and I'll give you some stats on that and a very open view on how that's worked which will bring me full circle back to when you marry the customer experience the banking experience and the industry challenges and what the customer journey should look like what does that then instruct us to do in the financing side and I just talked to some of the financing options as a happy accident actually I'm not going to talk to the the options that Lisa spoke to not because you know they're not viable they absolutely are but more so because we're looking to it from the size of the Irish market I suppose and the perspective of what we feel works for the Irish market but clearly there are a number of options and there are a number of options discussed in Joe and Josephine's very well put together documents that the IEA produced there just this week and so just just to to take you to the I hope I'm holding this the right way now yes great and just to talk to the consumer need very briefly because you're all going to be very familiar with this I'm just going to look at it from the from the really the banking perspective the first thing is when it when a personal customer comes and talks about what they're looking for they talk about savings but all of the research our own and indeed the research and from the IEA and the HES and others tells you that afterwards customers don't tend to know what their savings were but they do notice the comfort and in terms of customer advocacy which is one of the key things particularly in the Irish market refined and every piece of research we do one of the most powerful and movers on the demand dial in Ireland is getting people to say I did this it was easy and it works so that that that customer advocacy piece particularly in the promotion that was talked about early earlier on is really critical ease of execution I'll talk to a lot how do we make this from an industry's perspective easy to understand and easy to deliver very briefly from a business perspective it's much more hard-nosed that return on investment has to be actually evident and those proofs of savings have to be evident to them but that's clearly doable and I think the examples given to us earlier of Eli Eli Lilly and others and are good examples of that we've had plenty of experience of companies coming to us and they know what we're doing they're doing and we're while we're not energy experts we're happy to have an engineer certify for us at an industry level what those cash flow perspectives are and then they're bankable and the corporate social responsibility is one we tend to forget but for big brands it does help and it helps the story and the advocacy piece and the feel good factor and lastly we're all playing into this one which is the national priorities and we all know about the EU targets they've been talked about and thankfully it isn't a penalty based structure but it could move that way and actually I think the penalties will be self-imposed by us if we don't get this right we don't need the EU to do that the the importance of the savings and the efficiency for us as an exporting nation and our our competitiveness is absolutely vital particularly when you see the type of savings that that can be made in terms of just understanding the Irish market I'm just going to talk from a pull and a push perspective and I think part of the dynamics particularly when you see our experience so far has been very often in a new industry where you're relying on early adopters it's very much around timing and getting that timing right and in terms of the demand curve we've had the early adopters we've had that if you like enhanced by grants which are highly likely to leave and it's really a question of how do we move that demand curve dial forward that's down to the cost effectiveness and the ease of access for consumers and for business users alike the golden rule was mentioned earlier and I have a question mark after it because we know it's not going to be a guarantee but I think if that can be used particularly in the marketing and what we find again and again in our research we're very very different from the Germans actually and this research goes back over 10 years consistently Irish consumers when they're looking for a loan the first thing they look for and this is backed by our own research will the banks say yes to me it's the embarrassment factor it's the approach ability do I understand the formula how do I put this to the bank the second thing they look for isn't price it's affordability so it's a bit like when you go in to buy a car how much will it cost me per month and I think that's critical in the solution if you say to somebody 210 euro per month which you're only going to say 500 euro per year you have to be able to say it's going to cost you 60 euro per month and it's the affordability it's what can I pay out of my pay packet every week or every month that that that's critical and the golden rule plays a part whether it's guaranteed or not been able to show that in a very straightforward way particularly in the promotion obviously the cost effectiveness and then I've mentioned the access and incentives which I will come back to the push factors unfortunately are becoming much more prevalent I won't speak to them other than to mention rising fuel costs colder weather and the levies can be a car or a stick in the sense that they can be I think platformed in to be if you like an encouragement to invest particularly one thing as a nation we can do more of is to give people advanced warning of where poor taxes and prices are going to go if you don't take energy efficient and initiatives yourself and if there's one thing we're very good at as a nation and I think the conversion to the euro and we were the fastest country to convert Irish people understand finance and they understand the dynamic of what something's going to cost them they're very good at that is this enough I think I put it there at the bottom and in green which isn't an accident and the customer experience do I understand it do I want it is it easy to do and that's the advocacy piece and is it worthwhile I've a colleague of mine here today from our facilities management area and the right hand side of this box is really a credit to them and I'll be in trouble if I don't mention our own corporate social responsibility in terms of what we've done in energy efficiency ourselves we reduced our carbon footprint by 15% between 2007 and 2010 and we're not you know we're not an energy user in the way that a Pfizer would be but given the number of buildings we have that's quite a significant saving and we've done someone wins for example e-statements but but they're minor in terms of what they're going to do for the environment I will acknowledge this is just a backdrop coming into the customer journey very briefly in terms of some of the research findings to date that 85% of customers and consumers have used savings and only 15% of sought finance which talks to my earlier slide and that average spend is quite low and significantly below what a deeper retrofit would require and and so our financing mechanisms when we come to talk about that have to encourage those who are prepared to do deeper retrofit if they find that they don't have sufficient savings to actually use the financing and that is available interesting while 47% almost half and having having said that they were going to invest for savings they weren't clear what the savings were afterwards and I think the next one is probably the most important one in terms of our conversation today lack of own funds is cited as the main reason for not proceeding these are direct quotes I only take out loans when absolutely necessary was an answer from 43% of the participants in that TGI survey which was only last year and if there's something I want I save up for it now I do think that's been impacted by the economic climate that we're in and probably also experience it's fair to say we also know from our own research and a morax research that the primary focus of customers now is paying down debt particularly home mortgage and the secondary focus is on saving money so we just have that challenging backdrop but that won't be like that forever and I think the one thing I would say to that myself is that lending to somebody who wants to invest in energy efficiency if you think of the mindset of someone who does that whether they're a consumer or a business is a very good risk it's a very good mind that has had the head on them to think about that and that does make a huge difference and you know when you think of the other options in terms of consumer finance that's a pretty good one this is just I won't go through all of this but I think it's really important for all of us who are playing in the industry to make this journey easier it's quite fractured at the moment the chevrons and excuse me and the chevrons are quite separate and you know I deliberately put an arrow at the end of those chevrons that needs to be a journey that flows quite seamlessly and we all play a role in that from creating the customer awareness these slides will be available so I won't walk through but but they're obvious is the customer aware which brings us back into the promotion and it doesn't have to be national TV there can be shop fronts etc and but that helps and unlocking the demand so explaining those invest to save options that are available involving everybody from the marketeers to the suppliers to the financiers having accredited that's come up several times today and an accredited and I think was mr. Kelly who mentioned not just accredited suppliers but the accredited assessment advice I think is is is a very important point and finding a dynamic to do that reliable installation and lastly finance which I'm going to talk to whether that's via the energy bill whether it's via white labeling and these are all options that are under under discussion and in a working group at the moment whether it's direct loans and we have to allow for people who want to use their savings there's one thing we have to remember and particularly in in propositions and the marketing of these at the end of the day what we're doing here is providing a service we're facilitators finance lubricates the proposition it isn't the proposition itself when someone buys a car they're thinking about the engine the speed the oil consumption finances a hygiene factor but it's a hygiene factor that has to work very effectively in the middle of all that we're a bit like the dentist you just want to make the experience as pleasant as possible but nobody really wants to experience it in the first place the retrofit industry challenges I think have been covered a lot so I'll walk through these very quickly in terms of the the questions that bankers are asking as we sit in a working group at the moment is what is the size of the market I mean just a little a little insight this 44 million meters in the UK that makes that's attractive to pension funds there's four million meters in Ireland just to just to put a perspective on it but I think that means that the solutions lie in the island of Ireland you know we've made lots of industries viable here despite the size of our nation and we're we're very conscious we're very cost-conscious nation so there are there are and opportunities there for us to make this work and I mentioned cost effectiveness and I think in that the third last point they're leveraging expertise and competencies without adding to the cost so we can't if we the more if we layer cost into this proposition we're taking away from the savings and and that's not the place to go so we need to keep those costs everything from the legal advice cost to the financing costs to a level that's commensurate with making it viable but not too expensive and I think and somebody talked about the prevalence of of promotion part of that is education and making consumers the the agents of change and championing advocates at every opportunity that we can and you know Brian motherway speaking this morning on morning Ireland and speaking to people in a language they understand I think we've all a responsibility in that regard in terms of using every opportunity to to make this visible I I'd encourage you to look at the agri-lobby in Ireland and you know I I think retrofit needs a lobby frankly and I think that everybody in this room could play a part in that but the concept of actually deciding that you're going to make this visible and and and structuring a very focused lobby around getting getting this on every agenda and mostly the consumer and the business and agenda is is is worth thinking about and and it will help that appetite to invest so here's the page of all been waiting for the the financing options I'm only covering some of them and they are all under consideration with a working group and I'll just walk through at a very high level and how how they work from what's most similar to a conventional and to what I would call a heavy a heavy joint venture and then a light joint venture perspective and there there's definitely in the second one and absolute room for PPP type structure and I'm the key thing about a PPP structure having been involved in them in the past is making sure that cash flow is is is very tangible so starting with the first one which banks have a tendency to want to see and an appetite for a conventional but visible finance proposition so that's that's saying well why don't we use the banking facilities that are there I think that I'd be the first to admit there are a couple of things at a minimum that would have to be done in that regard first of all the industry would have to agree on a standard application form and make the front end very simple and we'd have to make streamlined decisioning and speaking to that first point that consumers tell us in research which is will you give me the money if I come in don't embarrass me a formula based and this is an industry I'll add the golden rule where the concept of putting a formula forward works quite well frankly is it enough it could be but I've I've spoken about the two thousand and seven experience we've had ourselves and I think we do have to go further than that and as an industry at this point and I'll come back to that the second option speaks very closely to what we've heard already in the sense of a one-stop shop joint venture the likes of an energy bank a pre-funded joint venture fully functioning from the marketing at the front end all the way back to the finance and you could have a number of streams of pension funds here everything from bank funding pension funding and government and levy and payments in in terms of financing an element of it and all the way down to commission based payments depending on how the the industry structure structures it and an involvement of utilities you you can pay through the utility bill or you can pay directly we you know that the pay as you save is a model that I had intended talking to but I think it's been very well described by the by the previous speaker and happy to take any questions on that afterwards so I won't talk to that now and and then all of the payments are everything's fronted by the energy bank and with financial institutions potentially playing a role from financiers to just credit assessors in the background the challenges with this one are you're replicating the processes that are already available in the financing system around credit assessment and managing debt and provisioning you look you have to have a banking license and you have the governance of that and you know what's been worked through at the moment is is the demand sufficient to warrant the cost of that that's still been worked through and it would be unfair to call it it's definitely a structure that can work but in a market of this size we have to be very careful this is one area where you have to be very careful not to layer in more cost than the savings that you're you're providing and and that's up to those that structure to make sure of that the third option then the cross industry alliance when I use this word I am adamant that this can't be some kind of loose alliance this has to be a formal alliance underpinned by contracts if if it's if it's going to work in in my view and that's my my personal view and in terms of the discussion so far and before I describe this to you I'm going to use an analogy from the motor industry you go into a garage and you're thinking of buying a new car before you leave most garage for courts will say to you would you like to finance that in some cases they've got a pre agreed supplier in some cases they'll give you a choice of financiers so picture forward you've got a very strong lobby for the industry you've got the visibility of maybe an agreed and shared marketing front with both government levies commissions utilities banks and being involved in that and you have a front end whether that's electricity shops or whatever front end the industry would agree where somebody can come in on that customer journey the share runs I showed and say I'd like to understand what I can do in my retrofit and in my home or in my business and we we can take that all the way at that front end and in that formal alliance from awareness to execution in a fully streamlined process which takes all the benefits of the previous streamlined application form used the same throughout all of the banks preferably a streamlined application form that covers off the needs of everybody from the energy company to the bank all in the one form fully streamlined with an accessible sales engagement at the front end and behind that are the banks whichever one of them are chosen by the consumer it's the consumers choice then underwrites that keeping the costs down agreeing to do it on a formula and the only basis in which they would refuse to do this and this is a prerogative that one has to retain is if it is known for some reason that that's that's going to be a bad debt and that that and that answer goes straight back to the customer not not not via a supplier provider so there is a an example of very like the motor industry where an awful lot of the infrastructure the IT and the costs are already embedded and they can be leveraged that's scalable and not just to the retrofit industry but to others and and that's another one that's on the table at the moment but I suppose from from my perspective and I can say this on behalf of AIB I mean this is potentially a 14 billion to a 20 billion industry you know even if if a third of that is financed there's definitely a business opportunity here for everybody in the room if we if we use our mindset and and put our minds to it and and I'm happy to say that I've spoken to a lot of this already in terms of the the ownership issue on the on the joint venture and the risk share becomes an issue that needs to be fleshed out if we have participants and particularly sharing in a bill it was referred to by an earlier speaker and you know if you have somebody who hasn't paid and they're electing to pay one or the other there is a slight divergence of requirements there if a bank has an unpaid bill it quickly starts to eat into capital in terms of how Basil charges whereas an energy company doesn't doesn't charge for that and isn't providing in the same way so it it's work throughable but there's a there's a lot of work to be worked through there and if a customer is in difficulty and part of that bill is an energy bill and part of it is a bank bill you're talking about two customer and difficulty regulators you're talking about the energy regulator and the bank regulator so I think there probably would be need for some legislative change there but listening to the minister this morning I think there's an appetite to go that road and to facilitate the industry in that way which is which is good to hear and in fact it was mentioned earlier are we lending to the consumer or are we lending to the meter and there are legal issues been worked through there I think was well covered earlier and I've just mentioned some of them but in terms of and the consumer that's a well-tried formula in terms of recourse to the consumer there are some challenges in the in the meter and provision that are still being worked through and particularly in terms of vacant property and therefore unpaid but I think there are structures that can be looked at there and I think they will be different in Ireland to the UK market just because of the size of the market in terms of how that might pan out but that's under active discussion at the moment and finally there are lots of opportunities in how the repayment will be collected be it the utility bill directly by the by the lender and we have to be careful to have interest rate fluctuations the last thing we want to somebody getting an energy bill that's going up because interest rates are going up now there are ways of of playing in fixed rate funding there but it's just another factor to be considered the bad debt collection there may be a level of it development which in the current environment we'll all want to keep to a minimum because that has to be passed on to the consumer and there are regulatory considerations so to come full circle back and to the market size in business case there's no doubt there's a market there we've spoken earlier about the minimum and 14 billion of a market but the market becomes a market of one when somebody comes into and says they want to to retrofit their home or retrofit their business and when it becomes a market of one every penny counts and that brings me full circle to making sure whatever structure we put in here we have to remember every penny counts and structured in such a way that it is cost effective I'm going to quote Brendan Halligan now in terms of a recent thing he said and which struck me and in terms of the momentum that we need here we do have to move with speed but he cautioned on haste and I think the point there is that we have a lot to do before 2020 and I don't think we have too long of a comfort zone and getting this going because it will take time to build momentum it'll take time to get the legislative and the structures right and every year the passes is another 100,000 homes and another 100,000 opportunities for the building industry and for the banking industry so we do need to move at speed here and I think as an industry the fact there are so many people here I think it's a good sign in terms of the fact that we're about that and I do think the interests are aligned in summary and this is a quality lending opportunity I've said that already once we get the structure right from our perspective it supports the community ethos it supports business open for business and employment and it supports economic investment and recovery if it's structured for viability and the critical thing for us is to make it easy and seamless I'll finish by leaving you two contact names which will be on the my own if there's anything you'd like to ask me or if you have any ideas that we haven't covered off that you'd like to play into the discussion we'd be very happy to hear from you and the second gentleman there who is in the audience today John Hearn is the head of consumer finance for AIB and he has his product development manager Esther Ashefield with him today as well so they're available to talk to you during coffee thank you very much


We are now in 2011. It's really the time to use the eye from the sky. We can measure things on the earth, especially on cropland from satellites. My real motivation is to start using this kind of technology that can help feeding the world. We have to feed all these people in the world. The problem is the water scarcity. We really have to develop very good information systems. In the end, what counts is what happens in a particular field. That particular field has to produce more with less water. If we don't measure what's happening and if we don't guide the local advisors and the local farmers, this is not going to happen. We invested a lot in space technology. All these systems are up and running and we are not using them. A satellite can scan the earth, can scan the crop. We can measure spectral reflectance. We can measure temperature of the crop. And the temperature tells you very much whether the crop is healthy. The satellite is reading the leaves. How much carbon is taken, how much water is used, we call that PI mapping. Pixel intelligence. The vision of us is to make smart pixels for smart phones. Millions of people can start using that information. What it really means is that a farmer in India can get that information on his smart phone. Then that local firm in Punjab will really convert it in something like you should irrigate on Tuesday. And you should irrigate 40 millimetres, which basically means you should open the gate for three hours. So the strength is that we combine the smart measurements with the local knowledge. By using this technology and by sending information to people in the field, we directly give them access to information, which I think is fundamental to improve the world.


I'm Sergeant Jeffrey Newell. I'm from Missoula, Montana, and I am an aircraft rescue firefighting Marine. It's the coolest thing ever. First, what it means to be a Marine, I mean, it means everything to me personally.


Good morning, Hank, it's Tuesday. So remember Brotherhood 2.0 resident mathematician Daniel Biss? He was a friend of mine and a very successful math professor at the University of Chicago before deciding to leave that job and run for political office whereupon he eventually became a very successful state senator. Yeah, so Daniel is now running for governor of Illinois, like complete with fancy campaign ads and everything. And I have to say this turn of events is a little surprising to me because Daniel is the smartest person I know and governor of Illinois seems like a terrible job. But for one thing, Illinois politics are so dysfunctional that the state regularly has no budget. And for another four of Illinois' past ten governors have been imprisoned for corruption an incarceration rate that is, you know, somewhat higher than the ones seen among professors of mathematics. Anyway, what interests me most is that Daniel, deep down, wants to work in government to help people and because he believes in democracy. And he's actually been very successful as a state senator. He led the passage of legislation to increase retirement savings and a ban on so-called conversion therapy for LGBT people. But to accomplish stuff, he's had to wade through this vast gridlocked swamp of U.S. politics and also he's had to attend many, many meetings. And sometimes when we talk about politics or the news, people in comments will be like, why don't you run for office?  Like, when I'm forced to attend a meeting, by far my most common contribution is to say, so are we done then? I usually start saying that like 12 seconds into a meeting and then repeat it mantra-like until finally I am released. Slight tangent. The other day I was playing ping-pong with Stan and I was telling him how happy I am about the crash courses in computer science and world mythology and he was like, yeah, do you want to do some more crash course literature in the fall? And I was like, maybe. And he was like, we could read 1984 or some other.  So anyway, more crash course literature coming this fall. But to return to the point, politicians have to attend so many meetings. Like, say you're running for governor here in my home state of Indiana, you have to have tons of meetings with rich people to ask them for money and then every day you have to have meetings with strangers all around the state to hear their concerns. Many of these people will disagree with your political positions and will never vote for you and yet you have to listen to them like a grownup and resist the urge to cover your ears and say na na na na na na na na na na.  Because it's done so many other things as well. And then, if you're good enough at shaking hands and meeting with rich people and meeting at town halls and meeting with other elected officials, etc., literally ad nauseam, you get to be governor. At which point you basically become a professional attender of meetings. Like, Hank, do you know what the governor of Indiana is doing right now? He is attending a public meeting of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.  So yeah, my hatred of meetings, among other things, would make me a terrible elected official. But that doesn't mean that elected officials are terrible. In fact, the only one I know is among the kindest, most thoughtful people I've ever met, and no matter your political leanings, you'd be lucky to have him as your governor. Now, of course, too many politicians do embody our caricatures of them, but our system of governments depends upon Daniel and the many, many people like him. People who are passionate and honest public servants, and who are willing to attend many, many meetings, so that I don't have to. We desperately need those people in government. So Daniel, thank you, good luck. I know you're running against a few billionaires, but I believe in you. Hank, I'll see you on Friday. And screen. Hey, so you know self-care bunny? Roseanna's self-care bunny is now available in beautiful poster form at dftba.com. Also, a lot of you have been asking about the boxes in the background. I don't know what's in them, but in a completely unrelated story, as you might know, there is a scavenger hunt happening. There's a different riddle every week. It's a little bit complicated. I'll explain more in the doobly-doo. But for those of you who like riddles, this week's clue actually is self-care bunny. Well, rearranged.