It is therefore time for question period. The member from Nipissing. Thank you very much. Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Life is unaffordable in Ontario. Families are working harder, paying more and getting less than any other province in the country. That's why the government needs to do more to alleviate the tax burden on the middle class. This weekend the Ontario PC Party and our leader Patrick Brown laid out our plan. The people's guarantee of that guarantee was a 22.5% cut to income taxes for the middle class. So that the members realize, so that all members realize I have not changed the direction that I'm trying to bring our house to, today is no different day. If I'm getting the signals that that is going to change, I will start with warnings very quickly, just to set the tone. Please carry on. Mr. Speaker, an Ontario PC government would bring real change for middle class families. Why won't this liberal government, Speaker? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it's a real honor to be able to stand before you and the rest of this house to acknowledge the tremendous work that Ontarians have done to bring our economy to where it is today and recognizing that it's only been possible because of the stimulus and the balanced approach that we've taken to ensure that we recover from this global economic downturn that's been sustained for a long period of time and yet Ontario leads Canada. It leads the G7 and for that matter, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to create more jobs than ever before. The member opposite, the critic, the leader of the opposition, has long advocated for balanced budgets and, Mr. Speaker, the largest deficit in Canadian history was voted by the leader of the opposition for $60 billion. That is their plan, Mr. Speaker. They're taking the province into deficit going forward. Thank you, Speaker. I'll send a copy of the plan over to you and you can have a real look at it because Ontario used to be a province where if you worked hard, spent wisely and saved diligently, a family could get ahead. They could build a better future for their children. But that's not the case in Ontario any longer, Speaker. Families are struggling and some are falling behind. They need help. That's why we know Ontario families need lower taxes. Excuse me. Stop the clock. We're in warnings. We're in warnings. Carry on. Twenty-two-and-a-half percent lower income taxes for middle-class families, Speaker, would make a significant difference in the lives of those trying to get ahead. But, Mr. Speaker, we can't trust the Liberals to make life more affordable. Why should anyone in Ontario trust them? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, this government, under the leadership of Premier Kathleen Nguyen, we have instituted progressive measures while at the same time becoming and managing our expenses. We are providing free tuition for students, free pharma care for everyone under the age of 25, 100,000 more childcare spaces. And the member opposite is advocating for cuts, cuts to education and cuts to health care, Mr. Speaker. That is their plan. And what we on this side of the House will take a balanced approach to ensure that we can afford the things that matter to Ontarians while that side is cutting revenues and cutting across the board the very services that matter to us. We on this side of the House will always look after the people of Ontario. Final supplementary. Thank you. Back to the minister. Well, that is a complete fabrication, Speaker. With straw. For 14 years we have seen Liberal insiders get rich at the expense of the people of Ontario. And while the government lined the pockets of high priced executives, middle class families struggled. It is not their imagination. Middle class wages have stagnated for 14 years while Liberal taxes and fees continued to rise. Thanks to this government, middle class Ontario is poorer than the average Canadian. So Mr. Speaker, we have to ask, when did the Liberals decide they were the government for the insiders and no longer for the people? Thank you. Minister. Page 76 of their plan made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, over 12 billion dollars is what's being cut across the board to the people of Ontario. So the question becomes, what are you going to cut? And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, they're making decisions only on election cycles. They don't want to go long term or look beyond. Mr. Speaker, we've got to have a long term vision to things that matter. You may choose your last comment that could get you the warning. When I stand, you stop. Finish, please. We trade over 800,000 net new jobs primarily in the private sector. The economy is growing. People, I recognize that many across the province don't feel the same benefit as others with our prosperity. We need to do better. And I did so in the fall economic statement. And I hope the member opposite will approve and support the fall economic statement. That does real plan for the real people of this province to make sure that they get real prosperity going forward. Do you see it, please? Do you see it, please? You can take the risk if you'd like to keep talking. New question. The member from Nipissing. Thank you. My question is for the Minister of Finance. First, they disparage the Auditor General. Then they disparage the financial accountability officer. And now they disparage Kevin Page, the former Budget Officer. In the 1990s, Ontario's average income was 10% above the national average. But in 2012, income in Ontario fell below the national average for the first time ever. In fact, between 2005 and 2015, Ontario families saw the slowest rate of income growth of any province in Canada. Thus the envy of the country, middle-class Ontarians, now struggle. They work harder, pay more, and get less under this Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, why has the Liberal government spent 14 years allowing the middle-class families to struggle and keep their heads above water? Thank you. Minister. Mr. Speaker, that is rich coming from that side of the house. We're provided for an increase in the minimum wage that they are now denying the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, stand up and fight for the people of Ontario. We have 5.9% unemployment rate, the lowest it's been, and it's 31 months below the national average. We will continually support everyone in this province for the sake of the families of this province. They're putting at risk their livelihood. They are instituting a much more expensive carbon tax, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Ontario. We recognize that will put us in harm's way. We need to be competitive for businesses and competitive for the people of Ontario where everyone should share in that growth. That is why we are increasing minimum wage to $15 and they are not. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you. Back to the minister. This government brought in some of the largest tax increases in Ontario's history. Between the health tax, the HST, and other fees, the Liberals have made life unaffordable. These everyday email and call our offices, they share their stories and they tell us they just don't have any money left. That is why we can't trust this Liberal government and that is why a PC government will reduce income taxes for the middle class. That's why a PC government will increase the Ontario sales tax credit and that's why an Ontario PC government will make life more affordable for Ontario family speaker. That's what is fair. Why won't the Liberals make life affordable for Ontario families? So Mr. Speaker, we know their plan in the past. We hear it now going forward. It's not much of a plan because what are they going to do in order to achieve deficits no less, Mr. Speaker. They're promoting deficit spending going forward and we are going to balance this year, next year, and the year after that. And in order for them to achieve even a little bit of that deficit that they're proposing, they're going to go back to firing nurses, closing hospitals, reducing funding for health care. Finish please. And Mr. Speaker, we have been disciplined and determined in our plan to recover and to plan to come to balance and it's being achieved. And Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are going to put our economy in harm's way by taking excessive actions that they're proposing which were, now since, put us at a disadvantage over other jurisdictions around the world. We will continue to be free traders and continue to support Ontario. Thank you. Final supplementary? Back to the minister. Speaker, this is about trust. This is about looking out for Ontario families across Ontario. This is about making life more affordable. That is why we need to lower taxes in Ontario after years of Liberals raiding middle class families to pay their Liberal insiders. If you want to know what the Liberals will do, just look at what they've done for the last 14 years. The Ontario PCs will make life more affordable. Mr. Speaker, why do the Liberals continue to make it harder for Ontario families to succeed? Thank you. Minister. It is all about trust, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you this. We can trust this government to continue to fight for the people of Ontario while the opposition, you can trust them to cut the very measure that mattered to Ontarians. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, when we provided for free Medicare for everyone under their age of 25 for pharma care, they voted against that, Mr. Speaker. What? They'll take that away. When we were talking about it providing for free tuition for students so they can get a better start in life, they voted against that as well, Mr. Speaker. And that's what you can trust from that side of the house. We can also trust that the opposition, federally, when the leader of the opposition was in power, voted in the largest deficit in our history, and the largest debt increase in Canadian history came from the leader of the opposition. And the critic now stands here and suggests that somehow cutting revenues as well as the and Mr. Speaker, cutting revenues and going into deficit spending is not one of the best interest of the people of Ontario. Thank you. We need to provide for programs and services that. Thank you. New question, the leader of the third party. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, my question is for the acting premier. For over a century, Ontario's public hydro system made our province an economic powerhouse that provided good jobs and prosperity for Ontario's families and businesses. But after decades of conservative and liberal privatisation, Ontarians are now struggling to pay hydro bills that are skyrocketing. People literally have to choose between keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. In Ontario, in 2017, this is just unacceptable. Why did this Liberal government pick up and run with the disastrous privatisation policies of their conservative predecessors and cause hydro bills for Ontario families and businesses to soar even further? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise and talk about Ontario's Fair Hydro Plan, Mr. Speaker, which has seen a 25% reduction that's happening right across the province in every single household. And when it comes to Hydro 1, Mr. Speaker, our one and our two customers will be seeing even further decreases, Mr. Speaker. They're seeing anywhere between 40% and 50% in reductions in their electricity bill. And that's because, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we acted. We recognised that too many folks that were living in northern and rural parts of our province were paying proportionately more than others in other parts of the province. So Mr. Speaker, we worked with Hydro 1. We worked with poverty groups. We worked with rural associations. And we changed the Triple RP to actually bring forward a further decrease, Mr. Speaker, to now where they can see their bills dropping between 40% and 50% per month, Mr. Speaker. We've actually brought forward that and the First Nation Delivery Tax Credit. That is actually changing the lives of many of those people right around the province, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, they acted all right. Hydro weights have gone up 300% under this Liberal government. And in fact, they went up 50% just under this particular Premier. Apparently, the Conservatives think this shows good hydro policy because they plan to continue the disastrous Liberal hydro plan if they win next year. When the Premier sold off Hydro 1, she told Ontarians that it was a good thing, that it would eventually actually mean lower rates for families and businesses. But earlier this year, a privatized Hydro 1 demanded a 20% distribution rate increase on people's hydro bills. Can the acting Premier tell us how increasing hydro bills for Ontario families who are already struggling to keep up is a good thing, Speaker? The good thing, Mr. Speaker, was our plan to actually reduce Hydro 1 customers' bills between 40% and 50%, Mr. Speaker, that that member and that party voted against. When looking at the decision that's before the OEB right now, Mr. Speaker, we've actually set all along and part of the fair Hydro plan is that we're keeping the costs to the rate of inflation, Mr. Speaker. So again, making the numbers up, the costs will be held to the rate of inflation. Also, Mr. Speaker, depending on Hydro 1's draft rate order, it's estimated that the bill impact for 2017 would be an increase of 0.1% and for 2018, Mr. Speaker, 0.2%. But that again, Mr. Speaker, also comes on top of the 40% to 50% reduction that we brought forward to the people of Ontario through the fair Hydro plan, changing the RRIP, increasing the OESP, increasing the First Nations Delivery Credit, and many more, Mr. Speaker. I don't think anybody believes that a 300% increase and then a 40% to 50% decrease is leaving people better off. It's still a 250% increase. It's putting private profits ahead of public interest. Earlier this year, Hydro 1 signed a deal to buy a Vista. We all remember that, an American energy company for more than $6 billion. The OEB told Hydro 1 that they're spending their money poorly. The OEB said that profits should go into improving the grid and reducing bills for families and businesses.  Can the acting premier tell us how the lining of pockets of private investors and shareholders will keep Ontario families and businesses from paying skyrocketing Hydro bills? Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we've seen bills that Hydro 1 customers, R1 and R2 customers drop between 40% and 50%, Mr. Speaker. That is actually significantly lower than where they were last year, and we're getting accolades, Mr. Speaker, from poverty groups, from organizations that have seen the changes by the fair Hydro plan that we implemented, Mr. Speaker. Not with any help from the opposition, of course, Mr. Speaker, because neither one of them wanted to help low-income individuals. They never even talked about it in their plan, Mr. Speaker. First Nations, they have seen their delivery credit disappear, changing the lives of many of our First Nations people that live on reserves, Mr. Speaker, and we're getting thanks from First Nation organizations. When it comes to the acquisition of a Vista, Mr. Speaker, there will be absolutely no rate impacts affecting the people of Ontario, and as I said before, Mr. Speaker, we're seeing a reduction of between 40% and 50%. Thank you. New question. Leader of the third party. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Last week, we learned that Hydro-1 wants to spend millions to install prepay meters, prepay hydrometers, so it can actually bypass Ontario's rules against winter hydro disconnections. With the prepay meters, Hydro-1 won't have to disconnect anyone. The power will get cut off automatically if the customer doesn't feed the meter. Why is the Acting Premier cracking? Why is the Acting Premier cracking down on families who are already struggling to keep up with their sky-high hydro bills? Why are they bringing in prepay meters to the province of Ontario? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister of Energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Hydro-1 said last week, as I said last week, there is no prepaid meters being brought forward by anybody, Mr. Speaker. There is an opportunity for Hydro-1 to explore an idea for folks to opt in if they choose. But again, Mr. Speaker, the NDP sees that as something that's coming forward. There is nothing coming forward with prepaid meters, Mr. Speaker. And of course, this is still being reviewed by the OEB, Mr. Speaker. That's the quasi-dudicial economic regulator for the province that always puts first the interest of the ratepayers, Mr. Speaker. So that still even has to be reviewed by the OEB. So there is two paragraphs in a 2000-plus page document that is talking about the Hydro-1 application. And at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, if this was to be approved, it's an opt-in program. It isn't something that everyone will actually have, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, prepaid meters do not belong in Ontario. Period. They do not. It should not be happening in the expense of folks. According to the Auditor General, Hydro-1 customers already overpaid for overpriced botched rollout of the smart meter program. And now we learn that the privatized Hydro-1, which apparently this government doesn't control even though they said they would, wants its customers to pay yet again for now new prepaid meters. Will this acting premier explain why a privatized Hydro-1 is planning to force people to install prepaid meters so they can once again disconnect families who are struggling to pay their bills in the winter months? Thank you. Minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a law now that this house passed that actually bans winter disconnection. So again, making it up as she goes along, Mr. Speaker. But also let's look at those Hydro-1 prepaid meters. It's an opt-in program if it's approved by the OEB. Mr. Speaker, it's an opt-in. No family will actually get this put on them. It's an opt-in program for people who think this might actually help them. But when it comes to choice, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to choice, it's that party that voted against reducing Hydro-8 rates between 40 and 50 percent, helping families in northern and rural parts of the province. It's that party, Mr. Speaker, that voted against the increase in the Ontario Electricity Support Program, helping low-income individuals. It's that party that voted against First Nations and their delivery credit that actually has changed the lives of thousands, over 20,000 First Nations people on reserve, Mr. Speaker. We'll keep acting on protecting the people of Ontario. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, if a poor family, a low-income family has a choice between a $300 reconnection fee and a pay for an advanced meter, what do you think they're going to do? It's no choice whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. No choice whatsoever. This Liberal government sold off its majority ownership of Hydro-1, Ontario's oldest and most important public asset, without consulting the people of Ontario, without a mandate. It was a massive betrayal of Ontario families, and they're only just beginning to pay for it. It's already demanded higher transmission rates and distribution rates, and it's just applied again to increase the rates paid by remote First Nations. What it wants to force families and businesses is to install prepay meters to get around the ban on winter connections. How can the Conservative model their hydro policies after Conservatives did the same? In fact, how can Conservatives still, in their policies, model their new election platform on what the Liberals are doing, which is family so badly? Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're happy to see the Conservatives recognize, finally, that the 25% reduction is the best way that you can help people in this province lower the electricity bills, Mr. Speaker. Also, Hydro-1 customers and six other jurisdictions, six other LDCs, are seeing their rates lowered by 40 to 50%, Mr. Speaker. It's this government that invested in making sure that we spent $70 billion rebuilding a system. It's this government that made sure that we eliminated coal from our electricity supply, Mr. Speaker. When you do that, Mr. Speaker, when you eliminate coal, we've reduced in Ontario, in Ontario, 23% air pollution deaths, Mr. Speaker, have been reduced in southern Ontario, 41% hospitalizations, and that's thanks to the investments of this government. No less, Mr. Speaker, both opposition parties voted against that. Thank you. New question? The member from Dufferin Calendar. For 14 years, families work harder, pay more, and get less. My question is for the Deputy Premier. One example are hardworking parents struggling to find and pay for childcare. Let's say they have a household income of $55,000 and they have two children, three and five. Patrick Brown and the Ontario PCs think families deserve help to cover their childcare costs, and that's why we would create a new Ontario childcare refund. Our plan means that families would be eligible for over $10,000 of childcare costs. Families need childcare spaces that they can afford, and our people's guarantee does just that. Why have the Liberals allowed childcare costs to become the most expensive in the country? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, thank you, Speaker Indum. The party opposite has demonstrated their ability to promise anything to get elected. So these are the same old Tory Speaker. They will cut services families depend on. You know, I'm not making this up. If you turn... If that continues, I just a reminder, because there are a couple of members, remember from Leeds Grenville, if this is a test of my resolve, you're going to lose. If you turn to page 76, in the magazine that was released this weekend, Speaker, you will see in as small as font as possible, $12 billion in cuts. Make no mistake with cuts. We've seen it before. It's a fine tradition, Speaker, in that party, $12 billion in cuts. Thank you. We want you to come clean and say we're... Thank you. I will take no lessons. From this government, families are working harder than ever to build a better future for their children, yet they don't feel like they're getting ahead. In Ontario, childcare has become increasingly unaffordable and out of reach for families. Ontario has the highest childcare cost in the country. This means even if parents are able to find a childcare space, they may not be able to afford it. That's your liberal legacy. A life has become so unaffordable. Mr. Speaker, why has this liberal government allowed childcare costs to become the most expensive in Canada? So Speaker, let's be clear. This magazine contains a number of initiatives that are designed to be popular. I get that. But the big whole, Speaker, is where is the money coming from? And it's hidden, Speaker, on the bottom of page 76. I'll happily send page 76 over to the member opposite in case she hasn't had a chance to read right through to the very end of the platform, Speaker. Oh, well then look, maybe you can read it. You'll see page 76, $3.12 billion of mystery cuts. Where are those cuts coming from? Is it in hospitals? Is it coming from cutting home care? Is it coming from closing schools? Is it coming from ending free tuition? Is it coming from ending farm care, Speaker? I answer it. Good question. Member from Wellett. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the acting Premier. Every Ontario working should be safe on the job. But here in Ontario today, healthcare workers are being put in harm's way day in and day out. Violence against healthcare workers is pervasive and it's getting worse as hospitals overcrowding and underfunding continues as part of the Liberals cuts. Personal support workers and frontline staff are experiencing physical trauma, verbal abuse, sexual harassment and assault.  It's simply unacceptable and it has to stop. So why is this Liberal government doing nothing to end this epidemic in the workplace of violence and not keeping our incredibly dedicated healthcare workers safe? Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Not to the Minister of Labor. Minister of Labor. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the Honourable Member for that very important question. I'm glad she's asked that question, Speaker, because it's something we are doing about. It's something we are doing something about and it's something that we understand has become an issue in our healthcare facilities. What we have done, Speaker, is we've invited all parties to a leadership table that's been in existence now, Speaker, for going on two years. They did a year's worth of work, Speaker, focusing directly on the hospital sector. This was organized labour, this was management, this was a nurses union, Speaker. This was a Minister of Labour. The Minister of Health was very active on the committee, Speaker. We came forward with the first phase of that, directly aimed, Speaker, at hospitals. As we move into phase two, Speaker, we're going to look at places where personal support workers would work. We're going to look at places where things like family health teams, those types of things, Speaker. It is an issue. We need to deal with it. People in Ontario need to know they work in safe workplaces. We're acting on it, Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Well, Speaker, this has been going on for years and healthcare workers need action, not talk. Come on, violence has been normalized and swept under the rug inside our hospitals and inside our long-term care homes. And this government's cuts and layoffs are only making the problem worse. When there aren't enough staff to provide the care to high-risk patients, workers are always put in danger. They do their best to provide great care without protection and support that they need. And all too often, these nurses and personal support workers suffer physical, verbal and sexual assaults, and sometimes they're never able to return to work again. What will this government do to start funding proper staffing levels in hospitals and in long-term care homes to stop the epidemic of violence that's hurting our healthcare workers? Thank you. Minister. Speaker, the workplace violence prevention leadership table has worked really well, Speaker. And I believe it's offensive to the members of that committee who have been working on it, Speaker, for between a year and two years now. And these are people from organized labour. These are the nurses themselves, Speaker. These are the patient advocates. These are the people, Speaker, that are front-line. These are the people that realize that there's an issue there and are working very, very hard to solve those issues, Speaker. We at the Ministry of Labour are going to get into each and every one of those hospitals. We're going to explain what needs to be done. We're going to make sure that people understand that violence in the healthcare sector is not an option, will not be tolerated. The zero-tolerance, Speaker. We are going to make sure that the people who are patients, doctors, nurses, employers understand if you work in healthcare in Ontario, Speaker, nobody gets hurt in that situation. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the member from down the point. Thank you, Speaker. My question this morning is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We know that our government has been committed to ensuring that Ontarians have access to high quality, compassionate, palliative, and end-of-life care in their home or as close to home as possible. We also know that everyone in Ontario deserves to age with dignity. This has been a priority for residents of my riding of Davenport. Our government began investing in hospice and palliative care in 2005 when $115.5 million was invested in the end-of-life care strategy. Since then, we have been making massive strides and we know there is still more to come. Our government is investing a total of $155 million in hospice and palliative care over the next three years. With last year's 2016 budget announcing a commitment of $75 million in additional funding over the next three years. Can the Minister please share with us what these investments mean for the future of hospice and palliative care here in Ontario? Thank you. Minister of Health, Long-Term Care. Thank you. And thank you to the member from Davenport for giving me an opportunity to discuss the important investments that we're making in palliative care. And let me take the opportunity as well to welcome those joining us today from hospice, palliative care, Ontario, and thank them for their tireless efforts to ensure that every person and family in this province can quickly and easily access the finest standard of hospice palliative care when required, Mr. Speaker. And I'd also like to recognize my parliamentary assistant MPP Fraser, the MPP for Ottawa South who has been at this point, Mr. Speaker. There has been no greater action, Mr. Speaker. He has traveled across the province to hear from patient groups, caregivers, diverse communities, and healthcare providers, and the result has been our strategy, Mr. Speaker. All done. Supplementary. Thank you, Minister, for sharing that with us and also thank you to the member from Ottawa Centre for his advocacy and great work on this particular file. Last month, our government announced a new program to support the creation of new and expanded hospices across Ontario. Through this program, eligible hospices can apply for significant capital funding to help with the construction or renovation costs of more than 190 beds that will serve more than 2,000 additional clients and their families each year. Residential hospices are so important as they provide expert care in home-like environment, giving families and friends the space and care they need to be with their loved ones at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. Access to hospice and palliative care is so important to my constituents and so important to communities across Ontario. Question. Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please inform this House of the other initiatives that will prove the hospice and palliative care in Ontario? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, we are currently funding more than 30 hospices across the province and we've made a commitment to fund 20 more. We're funding their operating costs, we're funding capital costs as well with the new program announced this year. We're working with Hospice and Palliative Care Ontario to expand access to training and important information about palliative care to caregivers who are caring for their loved ones at the end of their lives. We've increased funding for visiting hospice volunteer services across the province this year by more than $1 million. We launched the Ontario Palliative Care Network together with our partners at Cancer Care Ontario at Health Quality Ontario and the local LINS. This network is now in the final stages of completing a three-year action plan to ensure that access to high-quality palliative care is equitable across this province. We have a robust strategy informed by Ontarians, informed by stakeholders and advocates and most importantly by families, caregivers, loved ones who are most effective. Mr. Speaker. The member from Elgin Middlesex London. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Speaker in 2014 Ontario's auditor general highlighted the dismal state of palliative care services in Ontario which has resulted in an equitable access to palliative care, inefficient use of funding and a patchwork of varying services and standards across the province. Health Quality Ontario has estimated only about 30% of patients get the palliative care they should. This need will only grow due to a rapidly growing demand and aging population. Now we've learned through internal documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Request, government will fall 35% short of its own goal of expanding hospice access. Speaker, can the Minister explain why his ministry will not be providing the recommended amount of palliative care beds? Thank you. Minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've just spoken about the investments that we've made. We're the first government to begin funding hospices in this province. I find it curious, and I think it's a 78-page people magazine that the opposition has created, that there is not a single mention. Not even one time is the word palliative mentioned in that 78-page document. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm so excited about what just came out in the Globe and Mail. The headline, Patrick Brown's Fiscally Risky Economically Dubious Plan for Ontario. And, Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail goes on to say that, give Ontario progressive conservative leader Patrick Brown full marks for salesmanship with his People's Guarantee, Alexa Manifesto. The problem they go on to say in quotes with the People's Guarantee is that it's a bit too clever, fiscally risky, and economically incoherent, Mr. Speaker. For 14 years of this liberal government, we have a rationed healthcare system. We have decreased hospital services. We have increased staff layoffs. And we have a demoralized healthcare professional, Speaker. This province needs change, and the People's Guarantee will need change. Minister, research shows that access to a palliative care approach is better not only for patients, but for families that reduces stress, improves quality of life and patient satisfaction, and places less burden on caregivers. Due to this government's waste and mismanagement, patients across the province are not receiving the proper care they need, and often go without palliative care. Ontario needs 1,300 hospice and palliative care beds, but of now only 341 of these beds are available in this province. Speaker, I spoke to a palliative care physician this weekend, and London is falling apart with access to palliative care, and this government is ignoring the situation. If this government continues to make provinces expanding access to care, it's time for them to follow through on their promises. Speaker, will the minister explain to this House why they are falling short? Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe there's a volume two of their People magazine. Mr. Speaker, in 78 pages, not a single word referenced to palliative care. We should have had this conversation last week, and I would have alerted the member opposite to the importance of actually developing a strategy on this. But the PCs have no plan for Ontario, but what they do have, and now it's in black and white, they can't walk this back. They have a document that tries to hide $12 billion in cuts, and it's there for everybody to see on page 76 where they talk about value for money, audits, it's in brackets indicating a cut, a cut from the $12 billion cut over the next mandate, which is what's proposed. It's even worse than what was proposed by Mike Harris when he was in power, Mr. Speaker. So we know exactly what their plans are. Promise the world, make a glossy document, and cut, cut, cut. New question, the member from Parkdale High Park. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the acting Premier. Speaker, six months ago, this government refused to issue Joshua M. Ferguson a birth certificate reflecting their correct sex designation. In Ontario, non-binary folks still cannot amend their birth certificate to anything other than male or female categories. While jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Northwest Territories have already acted, in Ontario, a human rights complaint has been filed against this liberal government. It has been six years since Toby's law passed. Why is this government dragging its feet? How long, Mr. Speaker, does it take to change a form? Thank you. Deputy Premier. To the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Mr. Government and Consumer Services. Thank you, Speaker. I thank the member from Parkdale High Park for this question and her tremendous work on this file. Speaker, our government does value acceptance, respect, and diversity. We're committed to ensuring all enterans are treated ethically, equitably, including the trans and non-binary community. And similar to the driver's license and healthcare policies we've already implemented, we are developing that gender neutral option for Ontario's birth certificate. We've taken significant steps to develop that certificate for enterans. And my plan is to deliver that no later than the spring of 2018. And we're working with other levels of government, particularly the federal government, to make sure we get this important identity document right. And I'll be pleased to provide more details in the supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, back to the Minister. It's been six years. And as the Minister said, we already have the X option for driver's license and health cards. So what's the problem? Why is the option not available for birth certificates? A birth certificate is a foundational document without which Joshua is unable to get a passport with the correct sex designation. This limits their ability to travel and to exercise basic human rights. The government already admitted that there are negative consequences for those who don't have identification congruent with their gender identity. I asked the Minister to look at Joshua Ferguson, who is here in the galleries today, and commit to issuing a birth certificate with our correct sex designation right now. Thank you. Minister. Speaker, I too want to acknowledge Joshua Ferguson and guests here today to address this important issue. We know the federal government has indicated it is moving forward to remove sex designations from passports. And for the time being, they have an interim measure I understand that will be added to the passport to direct the reader of the passport to ignore the indicated sex on the certificate and read as an X. And now that that's occurred, Speaker, Ontario will continue its work on developing a system for the issuance of non-binary birth certificates. We've consulted significantly on this issue in the community with thousands of respondents and we want to get this right. We also, Speaker, introduced a new policy to help trans and non-binary persons live according to their gender identity. These rules will help guide ministries and how they collect, retain and use information and I was very pleased to receive a letter from our human rights commissioner commending the support and leadership of this government on this very policy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Speaker, we know that climate change is a real and imminent threat. In fact, it's possibly the greatest global challenge that we face today. The world has seen an increase in weather-related events in the past decade and scientists are attributing this in part to climate change caused by human activity. Speaker, a recent study shows that more than half of Americans believe that climate change contributed to the severity of the recent hurricanes in Florida and in Texas. And Ontarians are worried too, including people in my writing of Kitchener Centre. In fact, about one-third of Ontarians anticipate significant consequences in the next two decades due to climate change and virtually all Ontarians are expecting a food price increase. My question? Speaker, could the Minister please explain to this House what actions we are taking to deal with climate change in Ontario? Thank you. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Well, thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the hardworking member from Kitchener Centre for that important question. Speaker, our government is well aware that climate change is a growing threat to the livelihoods and well-being of people across the world, including here in Ontario. And I can say Ontarians know we are not immune to climate change and they are concerned and they want a plan that takes meaningful action. So to help Ontarians adapt to climate change, Speaker, we're creating a new organisation to give municipalities, indigenous communities and businesses the most up-to-date climate data. This data will help Ontarians make decisions informed by a better understanding of the risks imposed by climate change, Speaker. Working with climate change adaptation experts, we're going to undertake a province-wide risk assessment to better understand vulnerabilities and prioritise our actions. Speaker, our government is taking strong action to help Ontarians adapt to climate change. Thank you, Speaker. And I'd like to thank the Minister for his dedication and for his answer. Another stat for you, 70% of Ontarians expect that our province is going to experience more forest fires, more severe storms and hot summers, and that we're going to see a loss of habitat and the extinction of plants and animals in the coming decades. We know that Ontario will be facing challenges as we continue to adapt to climate change. Speaker, this government is prepared to address those challenges head-on with a plan that is smart, responsible and affordable. Because of bold and innovative action that we have taken, Ontario is now recognised as a global leader in the fight against climate change. Speaker, could the Minister please describe how this government has a plan to tackle climate change while creating fairness and opportunity in this province? Thank you, Minister. Well, thank you, Speaker, and thank you again to the Member for Kitchener Centre. Speaker, our government is helping Ontarians fight climate change in their everyday lives through millions of dollars of investments in green solutions. You know, Speaker, Patrick Brown and the PCs have said that they would scrap our climate change action plan and cut these investments. Speaker, just this morning I was at Sick Children's Hospital announcing an important investment to help our hospitals fight. Why? Thank you. The Member from Lampton Kent, Middlesex is warned. Finish, please. Thank you, Speaker. Let me continue. I was at Sick Kids Hospital announcing an important investment to help our hospitals fight climate change while increasing patient comfort. These are exactly the kinds of investments in Ontario's future that the party opposite is threatening to cut, Mr. Speaker. You know, our plan is more than putting a price on carbon, Mr. Speaker. It's about investing in Ontario's future. Mr. Speaker, Patrick Brown wants you to pay more for everything so that he can pretend to care about climate change. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? The Member from Soren Hill. To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, as the Francophone Affairs critic, I've approached many different, I've had interactions with parents that are frustrated by the lack of services and lack of Francophone education in their regions. Recently, the School Board has considered to eliminate the Francophone education services in Halton. The Minister's help has been required to elaborate and to ensure the Francophone education. Why is the Minister not active? Minister of Education. Thank you, Speaker. And I want to thank the member opposite for this question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about all of the work that we're doing to support French language education in this province. There's no question the demand for French as a second language has increased by 76%, I believe, and that's a recognition that having a second language is an advantage. And parents and students are choosing more options in French as a second language. And it's the recognition that the supply of French language educators is outstripping the demand, and that is the reason why we have a plan in place that has been developed with the input of French language stakeholders to increase that supply of French language educators. And we're doing things that are more creative and innovative, like working together with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration to recruit those people who have education training and French language and to support supplementary. Once again to the Minister, the popular French immersion programs are essential in terms of using the French in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, we know for a number of years that there are not enough teachers in French in order to adequately ensure that the French immersion program is supported and offered in January 2016. I spoke about the waiting lists in the region of appeal for students. Why does it take an impending election for the Minister of Finance Act? No, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it wrong, yes. She recognizes that there is an increase in the demand for French language education which necessitates an increase in French language teachers. And Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what our plan that we have in place is doing. We are recruiting more French language teachers and we're doing that in a targeted way. We're working with the teachers colleges in Ottawa and in other locations to do just that. And Mr. Speaker, we believe that every student in this province deserves the best education possible. We've seen an increase in our graduation rates by 17 percent since 2003, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to continue to invest in education unlike the party opposite, Mr. Speaker, that just put out a plan this weekend that had no reference to a plan for education other than a $12 billion cut which will impact our school board's error. When I say thank you, that means you sit. New question. The leader of the third party. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the acting premier. There's an overcrowding and hallway medicine crisis in Ontario's hospitals thanks to the Conservatives who closed 28 hospitals, fired 6,000 nurses and closed over 7,000 hospital beds and the Liberals who have cut or frozen hospital budgets for a year, Speaker. A young man from Ottawa knows this only too well. On Friday, while Ottawa Hospital was over capacity at 108 percent occupancy, he was waiting in the overcrowded ER in pain with a back injury. He asked for help. He said he needed to lie down because the pain was so bad. That's when he was told to lie on the dirty floor in the emergency waiting room. Can the acting premier explain why Ottawa Hospital was so overcrowded that a young man in pain was told to lie on the floor instead of on a stretcher while waiting for medical care? Thank you. Deputy Premier. Mr. Health and long-term care. Mr. Health, long-term care. Well, Mr. Speaker, we understand that across this province for a variety of reasons. There are hospitals that are facing challenges. But regardless of that, they are providing the best possible, the absolute highest quality care. And I know, and I commend the Ottawa Hospital, the civic site, Mr. Speaker, for the work that they're doing now with the individual to get to the bottom of precisely what happened during that incident, Mr. Speaker. I know that the leader of the third party understands that there's often a complexity surrounding specific incidents and occurrences. But the Ottawa Hospital is looking into it and doing that as appropriate as they should with the individual. But, Mr. Speaker, what we've done in the past weeks is we've created and added the equivalent of six new community hospitals across this province. 1,500 new acute care beds, 500 plus transitional beds, and 200 beds of support of housing, affordable housing for seniors, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. Speaker, frontline staff are caring, dedicated individuals who are doing the best they can under the immense pressure that decades of cuts from both conservatives and liberals have made to our hospitals. A nurse who witnessed the incident said this, and I quote, I have been on the other side, and I understand the frustrations of the staff attempting to give quality care with limited resources after staff and bed cuts. I know how deflated they feel when they're unable to do so. The Liberal government has allocated 45 temporary beds to Ottawa Hospital and only half the amount of money that it actually takes to run those 45 beds. This will not solve the overcrowding crisis. I will, the Liberal government, take this crisis that has been years in the making seriously and make drastic improvements to our hospitals to make sure nothing like this ever happens to get again. Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are making substantial investments, as I mentioned, more than 1,200 acute care beds across this province, the equivalent of six community hospitals. But since the leader of the third party introduced her question with a comment about the PC's record, I feel it incumbent upon myself to also remind Ontarians that they closed themselves, not the NDP party when they were in government, 9,600 acute care beds, including Mr. Speaker, 13 percent of all the mental health beds, and I believe it's 24 percent of the acute beds in hospitals, Mr. Speaker, and then remarkably their minister in waiting, their minister of cuts, announced an additional half billion dollars in cuts should they have formed government in 2014, cuts that would have come to health care and education. So there is, yeah, it's very similar to the PC platform, the cuts of 12 billion dollars. I don't know if there's a race going on or not, Mr. Speaker, but it's worrisome. Thank you. Any questions? The member from Scargromer. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the minister of education, the Honorable Mitzi Hunter. Minister, as part of our deep support of pluralism and diversity, we'll believe that all students are enriched by learning about the history, culture, and contributions and perspectives of First Nation, Métis, and Inuit in Canada. We must honour and celebrate them. It's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples and put forward a series of actions in the journey together. One of the commitments we made as part of the response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action was to discourage the use of team names and logos and mascots considered offensive. Speaker, I understand that the Ministry of Education has taken steps to fulfill this call. Speaker, to the minister, what are we in fact doing to make schools safe, inclusive, and accepting for all? Thank you, Minister of Education. Thank you, Speaker. I want to say thank you to the member from Etobicoke North for this great question. It's a very timely question. Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting all Ontario school boards in their efforts towards reconciliation and rebuilding of relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous people through trust, understanding, and mutual respect.  That's why in January we released a memo asking boards to do a review of existing team mascots and logos and work closely with their Indigenous Education Board Leads, Indigenous Education Advisory Council, students, and Indigenous community partners to respectfully consider any concerns about school teams, logos, and mascots, and to work with those communities to look into these issues. Thank you, Speaker. I think it's important, of course, that our government is taking action to make sure our schools are welcoming environments for all students. Our government is committed, as you will know, to working together with indigenous partners and build trusting, respectful, and mutually beneficial relationships within schools that make our schools safe, inclusive, and accepting for all people, whether indigenous or non-indigenous. Speaker, as we move forward, I think it's important to ensure that our education system is inclusive and respectful, and I know there are a number of initiatives coming forward bringing this to fruition. Will the minister be able to elaborate on the measures that the government is implementing? Thank you, Speaker, and thank you again to the member from Etobicoke North. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to all the partners for their work to help create a more inclusive environment for all students. Last week we sent a follow-up communications to boards requesting that they consider the issue of students wearing indigenous-themed sports, clothing, and costumes to school. We have asked boards to take steps to promote a safe and inclusive and accepting school climate, including with respect to safe school policies and practices such as school dress codes and bullying prevention plans. Together, we can ensure that our schools are safe, inclusive and welcoming environments for all students. We also recently released our province's first-ever Education Equity Action Plan to provide more resources to boards to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices, stereotypes, and biases so that all students, regardless of background, are supported. Our government remains committed to supporting safe, welcoming, respectful, and inclusive learning environments for all students. Thank you. The member from Oxford. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Deputy Premier. We've been warning this government that living in Ontario is becoming more and more unaffordable. This morning, the Ontario Food Bank Association released their annual hunger report. Half a million people needed a food bank last year just to make ends meet and put food on the table, an increase of more than 150,000 people in the last year alone. Daily bread food banks users are spending 70% of their income on housing because of the lack of supply of rentals. And yet, these government policies have resulted in thousands of rental units being cancelled. Deputy Premier, when you look at the impact on these families, do you still think your housing policies are fair? Thank you. Deputy Premier. Well, Speaker, I know the minister responsible for poverty reduction will want to speak to this. But I do need to make it clear, Speaker, that in the new platform, the magazine that has been released by the party, I'm looking and I'm not seeing anything that would respond to the very concern that you have raised, Speaker. So in fact, quite the contrary, because your plan contains $12 billion of cuts, Speaker. We remember the last time you were governing that your party was in government, Speaker. Social assistance rates were slashed and then they were frozen. Minimum wage was frozen. So you've got $12 billion to make up and you haven't even begun to address the issues related to poverty, Speaker. So I'm looking forward to volume two. I'm sure it's going to be in that one. Thank you. Point of order. The Minister of Education. Correct my record. In answering the member opposite question, I said that the demand for French language has increased by 76 percent. Mr. Speaker, it has increased by 74 percent since 2003. Thank you. Wow. Okay. There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.


Yn meddwl, mae'n gael i'r rhan, y cyfnodd yn ymdillogau a'r cyfnodd yn ymdillogau yn Argo, Fflux a'r captain. Mae'n cael ei wneud, ac mae'r Meddina yn ymddangos. Mae'r cyfnodd yn cael ei fod yn gweithio ar gyfer ei gynhyrch, ac mae'n gweithio ar gyfer ei gweithio, ac mae'n gweithio ar gyfer eu gweithio. Ac, sefydlu, y cd-f outdoor a'r CNCF ddaf ar-bathoddau, rwyf wedi gweithio ddau 9 yr hyn o'r cyfnod arferfwyr. Rwyf yn ei gweithio'r cyfnod ar-barthau cyfnod. Rwyf wedi gweithio'r cyfnod ar-dynod a'r cyfnod ar-fwrdd. Mae gweithio ar-dynod a'r cyfnod ar-dynod, ac yn oed yn y ddweud o ddiwrnod, mae'r oedd yn y cyfnod ar-dynod o'r oedd y cael yw ychydig. Mae ydy'r ddw'n ddwy ffotos yw hyn ar gyfer, mae'n ddweud fel ysgwrdd. Mae'n sgwrdd eich ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud ymlaen a'r gweithio'r eich ddweud, ac nid i'n gweld y ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly, dwi'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'r ddweud o'r dechrau gyda'r dyfodol ar gyfer. Mae'r unrhyw ffordd cwrs yw'n ddod ar ymddangos. Gwysig fod yn diddewyr llyfridd, oed ac ddwy'r llyfrdd yw, mae'n gofio'r rhai pryd o flynyddiannau ymdrytiwn ac a'r hyn yn rhan o'r ffordd a�a ar draws i'r ymddangos. Ar y pryd cyfnodau'n meddwl, rwy'n credu ar hyn pwynydd yn ysgrifennu a'r probl yw'r eu cyfnod. First isined option. We'd all love it too have a single tool to go for our metrics. That's not the case. In an enterprise you'll have Prometheus and Dynatrace, nd another Prometheus instance and Splunk, and so on and so forth. So that's that's problem number one. How do we get a unified view and treat that data in a unified manner? The second is, when we make a change, how do we actually measure that? Tools like Argo are very, very good at doing a deployment. But how do we actually measure whether that worked and whether it was successful? And then the third is taming the integration complexity. The talks that I've heard the last two days have all been about we're maintaining this point-to-point integration with this tool. And then we build it again with another tool and so on and so forth. So challenge number one, the observability tool sprawl. Just can I give me a nod or a shake a yes or a no if that's an issue for you? Yes, yes, lots of nods, okay. So the solution that we have come up with, of course, is the captain metric server. Basically think conceptually about the metric server as a cache that lives on your cluster. What it will do is it will sit as an operator on your cluster and you define your endpoints of where your metrics are. They could be Prometheus, they could be Dynatrace, they could be Datadog or Splunk or wherever. The metric server will go out and retrieve those metrics from that solution and pull them into the metric server, as I say, like a cache. And then once they're in there, you can treat those all the same. You can just say, get me a captain metric. You don't really care where the metric actually came from. Now of course that opens up a lot of other stuff and other capabilities like HPA and CADer. So you can drive those tools with the captain metrics. And this is what it looks like. So you have a Cube CTL get captain metrics. And you can see there we're pulling one from the provider Dynatrace and one from Prometheus. And again, you don't care where those metrics came from. How do you actually define that? What does it look like in Yaml? You won't be surprised to know there is a custom resource behind this. That's top on there is the Prometheus. So provider and then you give it your query. And obviously the query is tool specific. So the query for Dynatrace will be different to the Prometheus query. You can also see there you can define the fetch interval seconds. So they're both 10, but you can say, well fetch the metrics from Prometheus and fetch this metric from Prometheus every 60 seconds. So there's that flexibility as well. And then that's just an example of how it could actually be used with HPA. Here you're saying, well I've got HPA. Here's my metric, my availability SLO. And I'm pulling it from a kind captain metric. And here is my target value. And if not, HPA will then scale accordingly. Again, remember that most of what I've talked about is the plumbing. As a user you're just going to be looking at this right hand Yaml saying get me a metric. You shouldn't care where it came from. That's the abstraction that the captain metric server provides. Challenge number two. I made a change and well great now what? Argo flux has applied the change. But yeah, so what? What do we do with it? Let's see whether that was good or bad. The lifecycle toolkit gives you full observability of everything that happens on your cluster at the deployment level. Because it emits open telemetry metrics and open telemetry traces. So as Argo does a sync, we build an open telemetry trace of what that looks like. And I'll show you that in a moment. And then of course there are graffing solutions like Grafana. You can build dashboards for your Dora metrics because of course if we are wrapping. If captain is in that deployment process, we know how many deployments you've done. We know how many failed. We know the time it took to do the deployment because we've got the open telemetry trace. And at the bottom there of course is the actual open telemetry trace. And I'll zoom in on that a little bit later. And the third one is this idea of point to point integrations and trying to solve that problem. So you've got test tools, you've got security tools, you've got your SLO validations. Am I allowed to deploy? Is the infrastructure healthy enough? And all of these are kind of, you have to maintain them. And captain is trying to solve that with the concept of captain tasks. So this is an example of a captain task. At the moment captain only supports JavaScript and it runs via the Deno or Dino runtime engine. As you can see there you write these tasks so they can do anything you want. Now an evaluation looks like that. Obviously again a CRD where you give it an objective. A captain metric as I described earlier like available CPUs. You give it an evaluation target. And then basically you link that into your deployment via annotations. And it either passes or it fails. And if it fails of course we're not going to do the deployment. So how do you get those top two yamls into your actual process? Well it's very simple. It's just a case of labelling up your deployment manifest. So here what you're seeing is annotations that say pre-deployment. We're going to do these evaluations. So these are things like checking our third party systems are healthy. Our dependencies are healthy. Our infrastructure is healthy. Whatever conditions must exist before you're allowed to deploy that app. Maybe it's a maintenance window. Then we trigger the pre-deployment tasks. And in this case it's whatever you've written. But let's say we're going to notify someone on Slack that that's going to happen. Then we do this exact same two steps post deployment. So after the pod is scheduled you have the ability to run your own tasks. Like notify that the deployment was successful. Or rollback or whatever the case might be. All right enough slides. Let's see this. So this is the Grafana dashboard that comes out of the box when you install captain and the observability piece. The lifecycle toolkit comes as a helm chart. And then of course you need something like Jaeger or Dynatrace to actually visualize those traces. You need a graph, a dashboard solution like Grafana. But the actual metrics, the Dora metrics are emitted by the lifecycle toolkit. So there's nothing to configure there. Now down the bottom if I zoom in a little bit we also see a list of traces. Now as you can probably guess this trace is a deployment. It is an open telemetry trace of a deployment. Now if I zoom in what you'll see is there are two sort of just a shape of things. There are two sections here. There is your application and then we kind of go into the tree and you've got your workloads. So think about your workloads as your deployment yamils and the application is a concept in captain, a CRD called a captain app. And what that CRD does is it allows you to say this set of deployments is logically to be considered an application. Now all of those workloads, those checks that I was talking about happen on both the workload level and the application level. So not only can you test your micro services whether they're individually healthy but at the end of all of that is my application as a whole healthy because it's no good saying well yes my cart service is okay and you know they unit tests really at the workload level and then you go to the application level and say can my user do the thing they need to do? And that's what you're seeing in this tree view. So we go into the pre-deploy tasks. This long one here is actually the deployment. So this is Argo applying the deployment and then we do the same thing at the end with the post tasks. So how does this actually work? Well we start by installing the toolkit. Now it's important to say it is a toolkit. So if you like the sound of the open telemetry traces and metrics you can have that bit. If you'd like the combination of metrics so that you can have just that bit. So you can pick and choose which part of this you want but ultimately you have to annotate your namespace. That's going to say to captain okay start taking notice of this namespace. So this is the application namespace. Then we have a completely standard deployment manifest. Nothing special at all apart from. We've put in some, I'm not sure why this is commented out but it works with app as well. So three labels app or name, version and part of. Now the part of is the application level. The name is the workload. Those three annotations are what drive the toolkit. Those three are really the only thing you need because that's the information we need to build that picture. What is our workload? Well that's the name. What application does it belong to? That's the part of. And what is the version of that? That's the version. And that's it. That's basically it. So you run with Flux or Argo or whatever tool that you currently use and the lifecycle toolkit just hooks into that deployment and does the rest for you. How are we doing for time 302? This is a sample of a captain task definition. So as you can see this is in line so you can actually write anything you like. Now as long as these tasks exit with a zero captain says that was successful, fantastic. On we go with our day. If they exit with anything other than zero obviously that's indicating an error. Now if your pre-deployment tasks fail. So let's say you're trying to do a deployment and you go out and check your third parties. They are unhealthy for whatever reason. And you've done that as a pre-deployment. Your workload will never pass. It will never be deployed. It will stay in a pending state and that is by design because what you're saying there is my third parties have to be healthy otherwise I know my application is going to be unhealthy. Now post tasks of course the deployment the pod is already scheduled so if a post task fails the worst that's going to happen there is you're not going to get your notification in Slack for example. So what about the captain evaluations? I'll show you one other thing which is a missed apart. How do we get the pre and post evaluations to actually trigger and actually work in the life cycle? Again they're just annotations. So here we're saying captain.sh pre-deployment evaluation. Evaluate my dependencies. Pre-deployment tasks. Notify someone via Slack or webhook or whatever the case might be though we're about to start the deployment and then do the same thing afterwards. So this is what a captain evaluation looks like. Again completely GitOps compatible. We have called it evaluate dependencies now remember back here this is how it ties in. So that's the name of the object. So that's how they tie together and we have a captain metric reference as you saw the metric server evaluate CPUs and we have an evaluation target and that's partly why we've built the captain metric server because we didn't want to pollute this with the idea of providers. We don't want to have because remember different teams are probably going to be setting this up in a large enterprise. So one team is going to be looking at the metrics and the thresholds another team is going to be looking at the providers. So we didn't want to have you to have to know well this metric comes from from Ethos and this one from Dynatrace and so on and so forth you can treat them treat that transparently. I really want to open the floor questions because I know the lifecycle toolkit is new to a lot of you but actually that's a good question how many are new to the toolkit? How many had only just heard about this now? Good. Hopefully there'll be questions. So in summary the three big capabilities are a unified way to access observability data. They're the captain metrics so no matter where you're coming from what tools your metrics come from that's the captain metric server. As you saw all of this is generating Dora metrics and open telemetry traces sort of quote-unquote out of the box that's the lifecycle toolkit. That is what's wrapping your deployment. Now it's important to mention that it is at the cluster level so captain is completely agnostic to flux or Argo or Cube CTL apply or however you decide to do that deployment captain doesn't really care because it's actually a pod schedule extension that that's when it starts is when the pod is actually beginning to be scheduled. And of course I talked about the idea of tasks, custom tasks and the SLO evaluations and all of this of course as you've seen happens natively in Kubernetes with CRDs. Questions? So the question is how does the lifecycle controller find out the time to recovery metric because I guess the version would change there. Is it the whole application that it looks at, just part of it and so what's considered an incident and when is that remediated? That actually I'm very glad you asked that. That brings up two areas that we need assistance from the community with and advice and opinions on is exactly that time to recovery but also promotions between environments because what I've just described there is I'm deploying a set of YAML files. That is an area that is under active discussion so if that's of interest please do join the community, get involved, have your opinion etc etc. So when the application is initialized for deployment so metrics are not available for application. How do we set the lifecycle let's say for healthy recovery or healthy deployment? So let me show you the definition of a captain application. Now this step is actually it's recommended but it's technically optional. So what I'm doing here is I'm saying I've got a logical application called simple app it's in this sorry I don't know if that's still working it's in this namespace the application has a version 1.0.2 and it has a set of workloads and each of those workloads has a different version. Now it's recommended to do this obviously with GitOps you want to be declarative but if not my belief is that the lifecycle toolkit will basically look at the annotations on your deployment manifest and build this for you. So that's how you define an application and then you can also decide your pre and post evaluations and tasks at the application level in this YAML file. Your question was more around the health of an application. So the toolkit hooks into the scheduler so the first time the toolkit really cares is when the pod is about to be scheduled and we basically say no no wait a minute we know you're trying to schedule some pods but let's go and do some tests and tasks and evaluations first. If they pass go ahead Kubernetes and schedule the pods that's fine. So does that answer your question or not really? That answers but maybe to be more specific so application pre deployment checks can check for computer resources or let's say memories availability is there or not. How about those scenarios where we want to set up let's say ingress route and the controller is down. Does it check the availability of the route? I mean can we have that capability? The short answer is yes. Have we got time? Yeah we've got time. Okay so in that scenario you would mix the two concepts remember you've got your evaluations that pull from the captain metric server. So the first thing is are some metrics available in the captain metric server that we could pull and judge if they are perfect. If not then remember you've got you've kind of fall back to the tasks and those tasks are just javascript so now the world's your oyster you can do whatever you like as long as that task exits with a zero you're signalling to captain that it's it's you know so that's using a task would be how you would reach out to a CDN if the CDN didn't have metrics and say are you still available before I do my deployment? You do you know a fetch you'd make sure their endpoint is up all good that's the mic's close. I got the mic first. Oh yes you did. Is there a distributed way to run captain it's sort of like a management cluster level or is there architectural reference for that? Not that I'm aware of the only deployment models I've seen at the moment are a single cluster because you deploy the toolkit per cluster I'd be very interested in working on a multi cluster set up a multi region well multi cluster I guess set up and and even having that a Grafana dashboard to visualise that that would be fantastic I'd love to have that. So short answer no not yet but let's connect and build that. Would the pre and post deployment a variation also trigger for upgrades if I update the deployment definition with a new image for example? Yes well yes and no so it works on the version so you have to bump the versions in your deployment which you probably be doing anyway in reality so yes as soon as that version is upgraded because what I haven't shown is behind the scenes obviously as soon as we start this process we set up a load of custom resources on the cluster so you can say cube CTL get captain apps and I'll show you the current version it'll show you the previous versions and so yes yes it does. So I have to bump the version of the captain app it's not enough to change just the deployment which deployment spec? No just the workload. Any more for any more? So now I got the nod or the shake at the beginning now that I've said that said all of that does this sound viable or as a project are we fundamentally missing something here? Are we missing a problem that this solution could solve? Fantastic everyone's tired there's been a lot of talks I should have got you all to stand up and do some sort of which two or which one isn't the first two? It might be just personal preference but tasks just doesn't I don't feel like that's the but I haven't tried them yet. No, no What I think being here and hearing projects like Ortilius we could have tasks that push and notify into their repository to say you've got a new version after a deployment here's the image and the char go and stick that into your registry or even just notifications I don't I was talking to the tecton folk today maybe we trigger a tecton task the possibilities are endless really Like filing a bug or something essentially when a test fails you could automate the creation of a work item or something like that. I do want to say one thing that really caught my attention when I mentioned with Kempton over the last couple of months has been the integration trace test and seeing that adds a very visual layer and I guess my question here is with the life cycle controller and the metric server do the trace test run essentially with Kempton do those show up in the same metrics capacity or do you see them in sort of the open telemetry like door metrics as well so we've built how are we doing oh good we've built trace test I'm in contact with the trace test or the fantastic team and if you haven't seen trace test definitely check it out but we've built it for version one, Kempton version one which is a completely different thing to this we haven't yet embarked on that journey of building it for the life cycle tool kit but I think it will be a task and potentially a task that then pushes metrics into the captain metric server and then you can do evaluations on it so yes I think we haven't solution it yet to be honest but I think and it makes sense it makes sense to have all of this in one place so because your trace tests and it's not just trace test data dog, data trace we'll want to pull traces from their back ends and evaluate traces as well I guess that is like the other problem with trace test which is that it is not multi cluster or done it sort of like a management level it really has to be run next to the applications because of that it's kind of the same thing here unless you're forwarding your telemetry data into an hotel collector into some other centralized observability plane you're not really visualizing or seeing it from a hub and spoke model exactly, please do sign up to the Slack and raise these questions and thoughts this is exactly why the community is so powerful so thank you very much everyone and yeah


We demystify what goes on behind the therapy room door. Join us on this voyage of discovery and co-creative conversations. This is The Therapy Show, behind closed doors podcast with Bob Cook and Jackie Jones. Welcome back to episode 46 of The Therapy Show behind closed doors with Bob Cook and myself, Jackie Jones. And in this episode, we're going to be talking about, I've got a frog, the client who doesn't know why they are there or what they want from therapy. Yes, I'm smiling. Not your cough or anything. I'm smiling at the number of clients who, in my clinical history, have said, well, actually, I don't know why I'm here. I just feel I had to come because the discomfort in my life had been so high. Or they might say, well, I don't know why I'm here. I don't actually know. I think there's anything wrong with me, perhaps, but I'm here. And we can have a range of transactions like that. It makes me smile because more often than not, it's a minimizing transaction. It shows often denial. And those people often stay with me the longest. Yeah, I can see that. Again, I know we've spoke about it in the past, but in this country, in the UK, in order to be trained in transactional analysis, you have to have your own personal therapy throughout your training. Oh, yes, I know where you're going. I didn't think there was anything wrong with me until I started training. And then suddenly it was like, oh, my God. Thought your cough or your cough. Literally, it was like, yeah, I thought I was functioning quite well until I started therapy and then slowly but surely things started coming up for me. So I would probably have been one of those people. Yeah, it's interesting what you just said, that to be a psychotherapist, you have to have your own therapy. If you're in the UK CEP training at the Institute, you have to do 40 hours a year, 160 hours in the whole training. And I'm sure what you've just described many of the trainee psychotherapists have probably said to their therapist, well, you know, I've got to do it because I have to do it because otherwise I can't be a psychotherapist, but actually there's nothing wrong with me. I don't know what I'm going to talk about with for four years. What do you think? Yeah, or interestingly, I think there's the other group of people who maybe I know in the last podcast we were talking about, you know, the avoidant kind, that maybe start training as a psychotherapist because they know that therapy is part of it. And it kind of, I don't know, there's no shame or that first connection with a therapist is done because they're doing their training. No, you're right, you get a lot of people coming to therapy. And they may not say that's what you've just said, but ostensibly it works out that way. Yeah, yeah. So what do we do with a client that comes and they don't know why they're there? Oh, we would get back to them. It's like happy trains, you know, the clinical world we get. You're having split into categories again, I think. You get people who have been sent there. Yes. Oh, you know, my partner sent me or, you know, my friends have said that I'm a real pain or I actually don't think it's much wrong with me, but I'm here anyway. Now, therapist with that type of person has all those types of transactions needs to start needs to think, well, what about motivation? You know, in other words, are you do you actually want to be here for yourself as well? Or is this simply because you've been told to come? Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I want to be here for myself. Yeah. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Or you might get somebody said, well, no, I don't really need to be here. I'm just doing it because of I've been sent here, then I would send those people away. Yeah. I would say come back when you're coming back for yourself then, because if they're doing therapy from an adapted place, which that is, yeah, adapting to please or whatever it is, therapy will never work because you'll never meet the real self. And also, they're not taking ownership of there's anything wrong. It's surprising how many telephone calls I get from parents have grown up children or partners that they'll phone me up and ask if I'll see their child or their partner. And when I say to them, yes, I'm quite happy to see them, but they need to phone me up and make an appointment. I can't make an appointment for somebody through you. And they're quite shocked as if, why not? Really? Yeah. I haven't had that so much because I don't really get into that discourse, I suppose, but it's an interesting one. Well, if they, I can't remember parents saying that actually, but if they did, actually, I've probably attempt to get the parents into therapy instead. It's interesting. I've had, seriously, I've had quite a few phone calls over, whether it's because of the pandemic or whatever it is, that, you know, they're really struggling and, you know, will you, can you help them? And I'm like, yes, I can. So can I make an appointment for them? It's no, you can't make an appointment. They make contact with me. Especially if they're over 18. Exactly. Yeah. But they seem quite shocked at that. So not only do people go to therapy because they've kind of been told to, but out there in society, people are trying to make appointments for the relatives or friends to actually go to therapy. Yeah. What's an interesting one? The other category of people who come and say, well, I know my life, I'm not happy in my life, but discomfort is so high. And I just need to be here. I don't really know why. Yeah. I know that I need to be in therapy. Now, when I meet that type of person, I'm more likely to say a transaction like this, which is what I'm going to say to you now. I'll say, well, it sounds like you obviously need to be here, as well as want to be here.  Yeah. It's really powerful that. Yeah.   Yeah. It's not definite, is it? It's not definite and TA terms is bypassing the pound. Yeah. Yeah. And in the words, it's given permission to the younger self to be able to reflect. Yeah. And so then usually what happens in my experience, they start guessing or reflecting. Oh, well, if you're asking me to reflect, I think it might be because I've just been so unhappy. You know, I've been happy for years. And then the next question needs to be, and that queries more than questions. I do want to say is, well, what does happy mean for you? Because they will start to speak, especially people who don't know why they're there. Well, they'll start to minimize or speak in vague terms. And they're all deflecting transactions to actually keep you away, actually. And the therapists can understand that and see them in those terms as defense coping mechanisms, then the therapist can then choose to gently just confront those transactions. Now, I don't like being confronted by that's just ridiculous or something, but in terms of, well, that's interesting. So, you know, do you mean by happy there? What do you mean by unhappy? Oh, well, you know, I'm unhappy because I and they'll start to give reasons then. Yeah, I'm unhappy because I can never stay in a relationship. Oh, because that if you start to go like that, very slowly, 10 to one, you're going to find out why they come to therapy. Yeah, because there's something about they already know the answer. They know. I mean, no, people know, but they need somebody to help them gently reflect on a hypothesis. Yeah, of what it may be about. Yeah. Exploration as well, and just exploring. Yeah, yeah, all about.  Actually, I don't think I should be here really. You get you get a lot of that type of deflection or destruction. And I think I'm very, I think I'm very good as a therapist, one of my strengths, which is what could be called in the game, phenomenological inquiry. But another way to look at this is a reflection on their younger self and how that younger self is really sabotaging their abilities to get better. Yeah. I went when that kind of thing comes up in therapy, I always say that it's like the child is scared, he doesn't want things to change because this is how it's always worked up to this point.  You got one thing, though. Yes, absolutely. You got one aspect that is really important to remember that they've come to therapy in the first place. Yeah. Now, if they've come to therapy in the first place, that level of motivation to change, even though they might be part of themselves like what you just talked about, scared and everything that goes with that, they've got a bigger part, I think, or at least an equal part that has the energy to change, even if they don't know it.  Yeah, 100%. Yeah. So have you had many clients yourself in your own clinical practice to present not knowing why they're there or don't know what to work on or? Yeah, yeah. And we usually start off with a four week exploratory contract thing where that's what we do and also the ones that say that, you know, well, there's nothing really wrong. There's people worse off than me. I hear that an awful lot from clients. Yeah. Yeah, they're minimizing. It just happened to me. I had a happy childhood. All these reasons why they shouldn't be in the therapy room. Yeah. And they're all minimizing and they're all transactions which are aimed at deflecting you from. But the duty of the therapist, I believe, especially with these types of clients, is actually to be a bit like a terrier and keep on the case. Yeah. I could do it with them all. Be like the Sherlock Holmes. Yes, yeah. I'm a great believer in being like a Sherlock Holmes character, bit like a terrier, just to keep on them on. But gently, you know, permission transactions, helping them reflect. Yeah. What's going on in their life, helping them looking at how the past affects the present, looking at the unmet relational needs. They're all the reasons why a client comes in the first place. Yeah. And sometimes with these sorts of clients who, you know, say that they don't really know why they're there, I think that, you know, having a sense of humour helps as well, you know, that I don't go in full-on therapy mode with them either. It's about, you know, them knowing that it's a safe space to talk about whatever they want to do. If they want to come in and just off-load, they can come in and off-load. Yeah. So humour. Yeah, yeah. Making things lighter. Yes. And kind of layer by layer or once the therapeutic relationship is built up and they feel more comfortable.  They know why. So it is just those, you know, subtle questions. Yeah. Yeah. Another thing, Jackie, which is, I held very dear, dear, by the way, is it's okay for people to not know. Yeah. That shocks them when you say that. It's okay to not know. Yeah. And it's okay to work with your unknown. Yeah. Because a lot of the therapeutic healing, actually, is because people have a fear of the unknown. Yeah. Because the opposite of that is, of course, is taking control, working things out and everything that goes with that. And that, of course, leads to a lot of issues. Yeah. So it's okay for them not to know. But that's different from an attempt to understand them. They are very different. It's okay for them not to know. And as I said, to work with the unknown. And how does that, how does that actually stop you getting what you want today? That was fine work with the unknown. And how does that actually work in you not getting what you want today? So it's been like a terrier. Yeah. It's been like permissions and to just keep with them. Because there is another kind of thing that I think about with this where, you know, people goal setting and moving towards something, there are that section of society that know what they don't want. That kind of gives them the direction rather than going for something that they do want. They find the way by avoiding certain things. If that, am I explaining it right? I don't know. The move away from and the move towards people. Well, I think you talk about control and vulnerability. Yeah. To the size of the plow, which is actually the same thing in some ways. But I think that you know, it's really, really important to allow space and silence and to give them permission to explore the unknown. Yeah. Well, yeah.  Oh, yeah, because they don't know what we take nine or 10. If you want to, if I went down the street, but snowing now, so I won't. And I found nine, found 10 people. Yeah. Just found 10 people in Tesco's or somewhere. I said, I would go into you.  The eight of the eight of the 10 people would list off what they don't want. Yeah. Before they get to what they want. Yeah. So that's very common. And sometimes that's quite a good tool in the therapy room to have. You know, if they're saying, I don't know, I don't know what I want. I'll often say to them, well, tell them what you don't want. Yeah. It kind of points you in that direction. Yeah. With a bench fee, you can only go so far with that. Yes. Yeah. Thanks for the stop. Yeah.  Is there anything else there that you don't want? And I'll say, well, no, I think I've come, well, okay, then just put down the compartment then. And is it okay if you allow yourself to just go beyond that place to reflect on what might be what you want in this world? Or have you always been denied the opportunity to explore what you might want? Yeah. Which again, you know, is an important thing if, you know, we're prevented from that. And that again goes into the fantasy and the daydreaming and all that sort of stuff. We all fantasize about what we would like. Yeah. But you see, I think what the relational needs underneath all this is the need for self-definition to be able to define ourselves. Yeah. To have dreams, to have aspirations, to hope things can be different. But if we've had parents or significant others, which take ownership of that process and ownership of you, then we become defined. Yes. Never believe that we can actually dare to hope we might get what we want. Because we've always been told what we should want. Yeah. And again, for me, that leads into creativity as well.  But we do that because we have an internalized parent, which has done it before for you. In other words, their parenting or significant other people have defined them. So they've never had the opportunity to do what you're talking about. Doesn't mean creativity, spontaneity, reflection isn't there. No, 100%. So imposing, overbearing, they've never been able to even allow themselves to imagine things you're talking about. Yeah. So what's the first step? Besides getting to know them and everything else, but you need to help the younger child. But you know, in the end, you have to take that parent on. Yeah. You can give as much permission as you'd like for self definition of the child, the youngest child in the person. But you also need to help desensitize that parent, that shadow above the person. Yeah. Which is where I see a lot of the limiting beliefs that we have, that they are capped, that it is that critical parents or that parent that is imposing those limits. Yeah. Now, the parent usually, I believe, comes from a scared place. In other words, if they don't take ownership, if they don't self-define XXX, then something's going to happen to themselves or to their child. Yeah. And that's because of their own history, of course. That's why I said earlier on in one of the podcasts, maybe it was this one, be good if I could get to do therapy with a lot of the parents of the clients that come in the room in the first place. Yeah. Now, what I do, of course, is do a lot of the work with the parents of the clients, but I do it through fantasy role play and psychologically be more powerful than the original parent. Yeah. Which is a really interesting thing to do because it's not about blaming and shaming the parents or anything. Sometimes it's about understanding why as parents we do what we do. And again, I'm a parent, you know, and I've got a parent and my upbringing has impacted on me, which theoretically I then pass on to my children. And that's where the scare comes in. Yeah. That will repeat history with our own children often. Yeah. Even though we all make a choice, we all make a choice in this. Well, it's an interesting one. I mean, I could talk forever about this and we should do podcasts on it. But, you know, when I often talk into the parents in the client, if you like, or role playing the parent, we come across a phenomena called Hobson's choice. Yeah. Yeah. So there's a choice and they often feel there's not a choice. Yeah. So that's an important thing to think about, I think. Yes. You know, at one level there's always choices, but if the choice is damned, if you do damned, if you don't, yeah, becomes a very limited choice. Yes. Yeah. And again, survival comes into it. You know, we do what we do in order to survive our upbringing or whatever it is. And in a child's place, it is often life and death. It's very black and white stuff. Yeah. So the clients that come in your room and say, I don't really know what I'm here, but I feel I've had central unhappiness or discomfort and I just need to be here. All the clients that say, I don't really know what I want to work in therapy, I think it's really, really important to think about healing, that they've really come. However they want to frame it, that somebody might help them in healing to have a, just to have, even if it's only for a moment, an enhanced positive experience in life. Yeah. Or somebody, or somebody who might just spend a few moments trying to help them understand themselves or help them look at themselves or understand how come they've been the way they are. Somebody would just spend a few moments doing that in a kind way. I think that's, that's it. You know, that inquiring is really important and that those are the kind of things that as a person, not a psychotherapist, they really hit something in me is when somebody, you know, without a reason is inquiring. It's quite intimate that, that transaction with somebody. And don't forget these clients may never have had even a moment of that. Yeah. That's so healing, isn't it? It is, it is. And it goes deep and it's long lasting as well. Yeah, definitely. Many, many, many, many students, many, many, many therapists and my travels have said, I just want to do something. And they read all these books and they by definition have to be taught many different things. But actually, at the end of the day, if they can somehow take on board, that just by being in the room, by being kind, by showing compassion, inquire about what may or may not have happened to them, is actually often the most healing thing they can ever do. Yeah. Yeah. And it is powerful. Yeah. And, you know, sometimes the most interesting and impactful sessions I've had are when the client has said they don't know what to bring. You know, when you say, so what would you like to talk about today? What do you want to bring for them? They're like, there isn't anything really. And at the end of it, they'll say, wow, I don't even know where that came from because that was not what I was intending on talking about in today's session. There you see what they're really saying. You know, I'm okay. I can look after myself. Yeah. Now, if a therapist buys into that, I don't do think they're doing their job well enough. No, no. But it's interesting to peel it back in a session when they've not come with anything specific to talk about. And it's like, well, let's just, you know, we'll just explore and see what comes up. See what comes up is so important. Yeah. So thank you for that, Bob. You're welcome. I've done really well because I've got the next one. Normally, I forget what we're going to do. So I think in the next podcast, what we're going to do is looking at the disturbed client.  That's great podcast. And what's fantastic.  I can only talk what I know for half an hour, but I could probably talk a whole day on that subject. Well, we'll keep it to 30 minutes. So I will see you in the next one, which is going to be episode 47, working with the disturbed client. We're heading to 50 then. We're getting there. I'll speak to you soon. Yeah, take care. Bye bye. Bye. You've been listening to The Therapy Show behind closed doors podcast. We hope you enjoyed the show. Don't forget to subscribe and leave us a review. We'll be back next week with another episode.