Good afternoon and actually I guess early evening and welcome to the can you yet another container networking Session this one a panel discussion To kick around a lot of the ideas that we've actually been hearing this afternoon on the container track a lot of the interesting Perspectives about sort of where we're going One of things or a number of the things that have been touched on the earlier container sessions We're actually going to dig into in more detail But I have with me and a distinguished panel To actually comment on a lot of what was going on I think how many of you were here for the last session just a quick show of hands Excellent, so we're gonna build off of a chunk of what was said there and some of the details There's been a lot of discussion about Where does networking fit what are containers doing? Where does all of this go next? And sort of what are we looking at? I mean if we think about what's happening We've moved into an area with containers with scale and especially a profusion of projects and capabilities We're talking about courier and the last session You think about what's happening in a lot of the other automation and integration places points around orchestration There's a lot that's taking place and the scale of containers is starting to do some interesting things to network Working you put enough containers on a ship and maybe things start to bend a little bit But I think what we'll be talking about today is what can we do to work around that? So with that I'd like to do introductions for our panelists today So Dan when we start with you and just a quick introduction. I'll let you guys introduce yourself Hi, good evening. I'm Dan Dometri. I'm the co-founder and CEO of meet okura, and we are a network virtualization overlay company I Keep it short It's Scott's Ned, and I'm with Juniper Networks I'm kind of an evangelist around SDN and virtualization technologies because the SDN community needs another evangelist, right? Come on the more evangelist the merrier Danny and Hansen I'm a software engineer with Cisco. I've been a technical contributor to several Container related projects with an open stack over the last year plus Chris for Lilian Stopey director of solutions architecture at meta switch and the chief architect for project Calico and Mike Owen director of product management Cisco. I work on the Cisco ACI which is one of Cisco's SDN solutions And that by the way, I'm Eric Hanselman. I'm chief analyst for four five one research And we've been over the course of a series of summits really looking to address Some of the more interesting networking challenges that are cropping up and in containers We've certainly got a really interesting one The last session was talking about a couple different approaches to tackle some of this complexity But I'd like to start with just sort of defining. What's the problem? I mean containers are just awesome and amazing and super and we should be using them and they're great And they do all this stuff by themselves, right? Oh, yeah good. Yeah. All right. Well, all right. We're done. Thanks. Hey, it's been real So What's wrong? Is this simply a matter of scale? Is this a matter of? Some of the complexities I think one of things we saw in the demo That you know what we're setting up in containers is a certain amount of abstraction networking, which I think is okay But that has a couple potential issues around it. So thoughts is a good thing bad thing actually Christopher and I were talking right before the panel and You know one of the aspects of containers is that it's a tool that different people use in different ways a way to Package and deploy an application with its dependencies a much lighter weight version of a virtual machine All this business about the composing applications into microservices. It can be very many different things That said I'll give you one of my views Which is that? application developers that are deploying Things in containers in the microservices approach don't want to care about the low-level details of networking like IP addressing Low balancing services, etc. So I think the challenge there is to integrate with the orchestration systems and infer What kind of networking we should be setting up from it? There is of course also a scale component potentially, but it's a orthogonal issue Yeah, since I have the mic. I'm gonna chime in on top of what Dan said I think you know this is a really in there's a bit of an inflection point going on it is Interesting point for us to potentially rethink the way we've been exposing networks out of cloud management systems And you know infrastructure as a service that we no longer need to expose the direct Infrastructure as a service if you're using containers, you're trying to think at a higher level You're trying to you know essentially manage an application and you know We actually it's time to separate out all the operational constraints from how the network works am I using VLANs am I using VX Lens what IDs am I using all the stuff needs to be completely hidden and Really, you know if you look at kind of what the different comp you know application composition languages are offering That's really all the application developer needs to interact with they should be able to say how pieces of their app fit together Who needs to call what API and that can be composed into a set of network policies you know on the back end and You whatever system we cook up needs to be able to offer this clear separation of application composition and Operational and operational constraints, and I think that's there's an opportunity to make a big step towards that as this transition happens So I'll chime in a bit too. So Calico is doing both open-stack networking and various flavors of container networking And one of the things we talked to container folks is echo what's already been said The developers the folks who are gonna who are building container environments don't need ethernet They don't need they don't want to think about VLANs. They don't want to think about constructing networks They want IP addresses to be reachable For their containers or maybe load balances be reachable for their containers and that exposes the components of the application and that's it Coming so I'll spend your question around a bit the challenge for networking There are many challenges for networking in in container land and primarily the the big ones are scale and Ephemerality those containers come and go very fast orders of magnitude faster than a VM There's orders of magnitude more of them than VMs So that puts stressors on to any kind of virtual networking infrastructure That's different scale than VMs the problem for the open-stack community. I think is Our API is the way we think about networks. We still is if you look at neutron We still make people think in terms of segments and subnets and VLANs and VX LANs and all of this stuff That's exactly what these container folks don't want So if we say we're going to do container networking in open-stack by using neutron We're saying we're going to be asking the container folks to use an API construct That's exactly what they're trying to run away from. I think that will probably mean that would be less successful than we would like Yeah, I mean some of the traditional thoughts around segmentation for compliance and all of the things that we have in traditional enterprise networks Neutron and a lot of the other kind of networking for cloud focus has been how do I take the old world and adapted to this in the world And how do I how do I represent and describe the functions? I was doing before in sort of a virtual way and I think the opportunity is as you guys have been saying is Maybe we can rethink that maybe you know We can hide some of that complexity or even in some cases possibly ignore some of that complexity and simplify the approach So when you think about that simplification, where does that need to happen? I mean, I think we've Addressed the idea that Developers shouldn't need to know about that sort of capability But yet if you think about what's out there today, and we don't have a lot of abstractions that that can do that for them and Dan you were talking about intuiting what the Implications of the network ought to be and what those network structures ought to be How do we end up doing that? I think Mike said something very similar is that these application Description systems and I gotta be perfectly honest. I'm not familiar enough with this to say something super intelligent But if you look at I know we've done we've done stuff with Yeah, I know you know we've done we've done stuff with integrating metonets deployment with Canonicals juju and that itself has been sort of generalizing towards an application deployment infrastructure Which describes dependencies between different tiers and the IP addresses and the services there They don't matter you configure them You're gonna sign something random private and and services in between So I think that's the kind of thing that at the most basic level we're talking about Yeah, I think there are you know if you in the container world people are much more running down the road of What you might call an intent-based infrastructure where I signal the intent which parts need you know Which of my containers you talk to which other parts of my containers using you know what APIs or what what ports or something along Those lines, you know, I need an HTTP connection between this container and this set of containers And we're starting to see some bits of that lib network is made in in docker for those of you were here before Has made an attempt at doing that And it's really just a Docker zone when it's implementing that right now The container network interface which came out of the app see work that's been going on the container world is something that some other folks Are starting to standardize around I wouldn't say they're pure intent, but they're definitely more intenty based Than you know more of an infrastructure base that that we're more used to in the open stack world So yeah, I think all of them, you know, we've integrated to live net it's got warts I mean now all of these things have warts on them, but they're further down the right path As to where I think we're in the going to end up going No, so honestly, I think the answer is not that complex You know, there's there's different label mechanisms that have been emerging in all the different platforms, right? And you know what you really want is a composable generic grouping construct and labels sort of offer that you know Different containers can get labels if the labels match up you end up, you know Associating different policies and those policies can trigger different behaviors on the back end I think this is one of the simpler constructs. I've seen you know most of the orchestration systems can drive this concept in some ways and That's really the way, you know, I've seen application developers Well, you know something that resonates with them that also is still meaningful to the back-end systems So that raises the point of where does this stuff actually start to happen even if we're doing label constructs if we've got some higher-level way of intuiting intent other projects that are doing that now and We're sort of hovering on the edge of it mentioned some of what's happening in the apse world, but What what's sort of a state of the project environment today in an open-stack perspective about where these things fit and sort of where they need to go? I think within open-stack a project that I'm involved in Magnum That is part of the solution outside of open-stack Project that I've been involved in in the past is open-shift, so For example with open-shift Over the last year plus it's gone through a refactor based on Kubernetes and Docker And basically adding to the constructs offered by those systems Taking very much a developer's approach, right? So understanding that As an application developer The way that I do my work doesn't stop at the kubernetes level of defining services and pods and so forth But I have to also think about my source my source code and how I can Go ahead and tie my source code to my Docker images how I can create deployments to that encompass Maybe environment variables for certain system settings and and kind of just taking those constructs to the next level Going back to Magnum What Mike said with labels I put together with the help of the community the container network model for Magnum and we're going through the implementation and two parts of that was a to take out the Networking from the core of Magnum very similar to what libnetwork and Docker did with libnetwork, right so that we can now make networking more pluggable and Flannel is the first network plugin that supported But besides just defining those Network plugins each of those network drivers or plugins can have a wealth of configuration information associated with it specifying subnet sizes and Configuration back ends and so on and so forth And we didn't want to bloat the Magnum API by having to add all these different attributes and so forth And so instead we took the labels approach right so that you can define what network driver you want to use for your Magnum instantiation of your containerized environment and then pass in Specific configuration attributes to that particular driver by using labels and there's actually a bigger initiative within Magnum to to make the system more pluggable across all the different Software components and add the label support across a different software component So hopefully the network model is just kind of the starting point for that effort So is Magnum enough of where it stands today? We talked about the pluggability the interchangeability of networks Certainly we take a look at projects like flannel that it give you a little better way to stitch together container capabilities So to build that into the orchestration What are those pieces that that need to be added on top of that and is sort of the Magnum model sufficient? So I think it's just a starting point now right and so if you look again Yeah, Magnum with what we're doing with networking is Identical to Magnum's overall approach to the project Magnum's not trying to recreate the wheel Create its own set of tools that competes with Docker Kubernetes But actually embrace those tools right and so We go back to the the Magnum container network model You know we use lib network as kind of that reference model And so it's just a starting point What we need to be able to do Just from Magnum's perspective is add more drivers and and what we're doing is is You know looking to the different vendors to get involved in the community and start adding support for things like Calico or Meet-O-Net and so forth so that when it comes to networking within Magnum It's it's a feature rich service within Magnum and so You know if the Yeah, I take a look at at the work I'm doing with Calico and and the people I'm out talking with and there's certainly a subset of the the user base that I'm talking to that are Pure open stack or our pure container Model folks, you know, they there's going to play Mesa, so there's going to play Kubernetes or there's going to play open stack there's a growing Consensus among a lot of the user base though that they're going to have a mix They're going to be running some containers and they're going to be running some open stack The thing that I'm not hearing from them though is that they want open stack to manage their containers What I'm not hearing is they want to run containers and VMs under open stack What I'm hearing is they want to run open stack and In the same physical infrastructure, they want to run Mesa, so they want to run Kubernetes So they're almost peers. So the real question is, you know, we that for the folks who are going to run containers within open stack It might be an interesting starting point But I think there's another use case which is that there is a common fabric might be storage and networking and other things that is shared between Open stack and something else And just to go back to the one question to comment about tags and labels And that's the way where we've cracked in Calico The policy model and everything else is exactly the same way that everyone else is talking about it It's we use labels and policies and it's I think that's pretty much anyone who has looked at this and figured out How you're gonna do this at scale how you're gonna do this so that five years down the road You don't have the problem of looking at the firewall and going okay Well, there's 8,000 rules here in this firewall And I have no idea which one of these is still relevant or not But I dare not remove them because I'll break something you want the policy in your network to be Transient and rendered just depending on the load that's there if we're in a container world That policy may only be relevant for two seconds and then it may be gone again There's no reason to put that hard into the networking. You do this by labels and asserting Rendering the policy as necessary in the network and then removing it when it's done Like what you said about the about the peer level relationship between open stack and other stuff, you know Not related to containers We've definitely seen that with with VMware and open stack in in our deployments And we what we did actually is we made neutron the common networking layer But but which which is great And I think that we can add mesos to that and other container things on bare metal and everything will be Pretty good, but we're still missing that intent-based, you know, networking model and Right well neutron is neutron is neutron is whatever we make it to be right and you know So sure we could add something to it that that is intent-based But there hasn't been a whole lot of consensus in the community around that yet yet You know Partially I agree with what Chris said I've seen a little bit of it where it's you know There's bare metal container environments and and there's open stack and VMs although I don't think the world is as simple as that and I don't think we can design a solution with that Simplifying assumption, right? I think there will be you know, I've definitely seen customers They're using VMware as their base environment and they're running Container systems on top of it. They've always orchestrated infrastructure with VMware and that's what they're doing I've seen other environments where they're using open stack and they're running continue It's a magnum model essentially either directly orchestrated via magnum or one they've handcrafted themselves And I think whatever the solutions we build have to be one where we pick points of control that we can actually manage Either over-the-top scenario for containers or a bare metal deployment of containers and it can't break You know, you know and it has to work in a pragmatic holistic way across these different scenarios that people will deploy Yeah, and again going back to the app developer standpoint, it's You know an app developer is going to deploy the containers wherever that app developer can do it quickly and Expensively reliably and if open stack becomes that platform that meets those requirements Then, you know, we may see a shift From your perspective that you're talking about but you know, I do agree in the sense that When it comes to container networking implementations, it's still you know, the container words the world is so new That whatever container networking implementation that you're evaluating One of the evaluation criteria should be can this container networking implementation work? outside of an open stack cloud because it's just still too early and and and I If we were to pause time right now to your point you would see more container Deployments happening outside of open stack, then what is happening with an open stack? Sure in terms of platforms, but that does bring up the question about bridging the various worlds of networking that we need to link together I'm Dan you're talking about neutron as being a vehicle to be able to do some stitching around that Does that do enough do we need to get some level of? You know lower level connection We said I was spitting out VLANs as we get all the way down to the bottom of this and and how much of that has to get Integrated into the network orchestration piece to work I think it doesn't do quite enough and again my example was VMware and open stack. So the model is quite the same It's virtual machines one way or the other Launched by this thing or by that thing For the in that sense neutron the neutron model is nice because it's VMware ESX I'm sorry VMware vSphere. It doesn't really have a network model per se. So we said okay just adopt neutron We said to the to the customer and that that seemed to be Positive positively accepted, but with containers. It's a bit different because the framework like mesos mesos not even a multi-tenant Thing actually right? I mean you sort of have to layer something on top of it with a with a service registry it doesn't It's it's very different. It's a it's a bit orthogonal in that sense. So we have to come up with something that's More abstract. Maybe the labels are Are the way but that That's very confusing for me to be honest, you know to to think about applying just the labels only to to the neutron Networks and policy and then to the containers as well. So I'm not sure if Yeah, maybe Christopher can enlighten us because I'm I'm getting confused. So At least in one implementation, I'm very aware of it's fairly easy to map security groups into labels and policy Right, so it's purely a way of saying I'm attaching this security group to this VM Well, that's that can be that security group can be a label and can can be represented by a label and get label Can also be rendered in? Container land When you talk about sorry when you talk about the integration I think there's one layer of integration, which is the control plane or the management plane integration You know what whatever we're using to orchestrate these things The other end which you're saying down lower How do we interconnect these things this neutron really is just a orchestration shim, right? The other day the container world anyway is pretty much all IP You know and I will guarantee you that almost all of the packets coming out of your VMs today are IP So if you start thinking about what you need to bridge These things together, so I'll talk to one another we sort of solve this problem a couple of decades ago You know I you know IP sort of won this war So all of the architectures that we've used to interconnect big disparate networks That all run IP, you know sort of come into play, you know, you can you can route it You can provision you can provision IP paths you can route it you can use MPLS There are all sorts of tools, but so as we sort of keep in mind that at the end of the day What we're slinging around are IP packets. I don't how many people here running IPX in their cloud Apple talk Banyan vines Yeah You just shot my idea down, thank you I thought there was a hand going up for vines back there too, but yeah But I mean this label discussion kind of is spurring ideas in my mind that I need to go find a whiteboard and think about a bit more Probably not here We have there are whiteboards there I see But you know I mean it would be a relatively straightforward thing to define a way where one of these labels is associated with the BGP community which is associated with some service chain definition that the SD uncontrolled right so back to what you were saying You know these are problems that have largely been solved at the networking layer and and there is probably an abstraction model We can define that that aligns with with this model of labels for applications that that could map Yeah, no, you know in reality Yeah, you know if you think about one of the ways that the future can go here You could think about it, you know in some containers of service deployments a drastically simplified networking model I've had conversations with folks today about you know an all v6 network that was you know could Filt on something like Calico That was you know a route a routed v6 network every container gets an IP well that work in all environments It won't but it's very simple. It's a it's a relatively simple You know environment to think about and it's a relatively simple environment to scale You know, you know, I think I've worked with different enterprise customers They require more complex networks and we can look at other solutions, you know for them You know, but you know, I think we can start thinking about these kind of simplifying assumptions and what they can do You know, we can actually design networks around these, you know, these things if we can start coalescing around them And we could really simplify the environments we're dealing with. I just came up with the answer to what is the problem with container networking? Networking guys love their abstractions and they're We can do this. This is really cool. You should do it So there are you know, not everything is a simple network But one of the things we need to do as an industry instead of saying to your point You know instead of saying here's a really complex construct and I can do all these wonderful things with it Start off going the other way and say here's a really simple construct What can you achieve with this and you will find some things in some cases where people will need slightly more Complex things but it's the 80 you know, it's the 80% rule Do you design for the 100% use case which is what we've always done in networking? And that's why we have RFC stacks that go up to here to make MPLS work Or do you start with something at a very basic level and say okay? This gets you 80% and now I'll bolt this on to handle this next 10% etc. Our biggest problem is us We like making things complex And and we need to stop doing that because the app developers want to make things complex in their space They don't need us making things complex for them I'm not a networking guy That's it's a really good point though and I mean it's what I've been focused on is what I like about Docker is that Philosophy of the batteries included, but but replaceable and so you know if there's you know a key point You take away from the session is really continued to try to put yourself in the mindset of the application developer. I mean Docker got big and the main part was that it took a lot of these complex technologies and and exposed Exposed those technologies to a user and made it very easy, right? and so If networking comes in and starts to make you know over-complicate things then it's never It's never going to be consumed by the app developers and they'll continue to use You know the the native bridge for live network and deal with it in other ways, right? So speaking of all those things we've got a wraparound complexity The previous session sort of skipped merely over things like address management in a much larger context Is that something that that we can sort of Generally leave behind as we get a little smarter about orchestration I mean we've got to exist in a much larger address space and even v6 You know we we can talk about sort of flinging addresses all over the place with with great abandon But there's a lot of that service capability. We've got to manage in that larger environment How do we deal with all that? At the container orchestrators one thing they do do is manage resources reasonably well IP address is just another resource You know so and some things need pinned addresses, but less than as people said here less and less things need pinned addresses I see to give you an address. It's ephemeral and you'll find it via service discovery or whatever else But you know, I don't think the networking folks And there are IPAM and a lot of these container networking infrastructures now people are adding IPAM and as was stated, but this is you know, this is just another bit of Another resource that needs to be managed. It's nothing You know, it doesn't need to be anything special you know going back to Lib Network and I reference Lib Network because I Think it's probably the most well-established Networking implementation for Docker containers and that doesn't say a whole lot in the sense that I don't think it was even around What a year ago? But where I'm going with with this is that Lib Network the one of the purposes of Lib Network was to you know extract the networking functionality from Docker core Docker engine and and Lib container and And all those core services within Lib Network are being Modularized right so whatever key value store you want to use you use Lib KV whatever IPAM you want to use that's now being pluggable as well and so You know, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if functionality doesn't exist At least the foundation's there if it's Lib Network or or most if not all other Container related networking projects or Lib Network plugins Are doing a good job of making the services pluggable Right, so again if there's a service that's not there or a plug-in like the IPAM plug-in doesn't provide the functionality that's needed go through the process like all open-source communities to follow that that process of Creating the design proposal and then start contributing to it looking to the future of We've talked a lot about the developers need to at some point track an IP address Whether or not that comes out of a service directory or what have you How do we get to a point at which we move beyond the need to actually grab an IP address move to namespaces Is that something that's like way too far out there? Where do we head towards a brighter future in which? You know that address, you know, you don't need to know an address to be able to get connectivity Are we going to named pipes? Yeah, I mean, I don't know if we ever get there It's kind of hard to tell but I think one of the bridges to there is service discovery and so, you know service discovery if it's not something in that that you've looked into spend the time looking into service discovery and That could be part of the answer is is relying less on IP addresses to manages to manage the services that make up your application and Build that service discovery layer so that when you add remove or change those application components, they dynamically update that that register and the other application components now can dynamically communicate with that Application component so I used to work in Amazon comm a number of years ago in infrastructure not AWS it was just a backend infrastructure and in fact the whole thing was built on a service discovery It was the so-called service oriented architecture. There was a whole service registry Service discovery, etc. But it was one system that was sort of horizontal across across all of Amazon infrastructure It was mandated. The problem is that we don't have a standard like that. That's not You know IP or DNS, right? So DNS is service discovery with respect to applications with respect to Docker It's it's a it's a clue, but that's what it is right now Yeah, yeah, no no last spring Adrian Cockroft gave a talk about using DNS and namespace and what Netflix was doing in that space for exactly solving this But it's their environment. It's somewhat closed. It's not a standard and and so yeah, I think Focus on this So all we need to do is change DNS, right? Well, maybe Easy no problem Yeah, I think something. I'm sorry Oh Some of the container folks are already doing this I mean you look you look at at cd Infrastructure, etc. That it's already a service discovery mechanism in this environment. So I don't think you need to look too far ahead You know if you're writing in this new environment You're already doing that you actually sort of have to work against the flow to actually go back and try and use Real addressing so I don't think you have to look too far in the future Anyone is writing something into AWS today, you know, you you don't Worry about your IP address is too much. So, you know, I think we're almost sort of there Yeah So the only bit I've done in that you know, I do believe the problem's pretty close to solve with services discovery as everyone else said You know the the only caveat I would add is you know We need to be able to you know as you look at different kinds of port remapping techniques and stuff that people can use It adds a significant amount of back-end complexity when something does go wrong So doing it in a way that actually helps you still manage the network and actually troubleshoot a problem when it occurs That could probably still be significantly improved Matt bad Matt especially Pat Pat bad don't do Pat So that was that was sort of what I was hitting at a little bit like these are you know, there's some simplifications We can make that you know, you know what goes beyond you know underneath the service discovery mechanisms Which could actually make it easier easier or hard to you know troubleshoot and operate the network and scale it out Just to add to what Chris was saying with the service discovery. I mean the technologies are there You just have to leverage them, right? you know, you still have to Create your docker file or your image that is using the ability to share that configuration expose environment variables so that As you instantiate containers or remove containers Those service components are dynamically added or removed from your service discovery Mechanisms so again technologies are there, but you still have to you know, build your application images to leverage a service discovery layer All right, well we're running to the end of our time. I wanted to hit each of you for One thing you'd like to see in container networking capabilities. We head towards the the future General thoughts about what you'd like to see next Simple ask that we keep it abstracted and and pluggable like you talked about so You know, I think one of the faults of neutron in the very beginning And I said this in Vancouver too was we tried to build a product instead of building a framework And and so let's keep in mind that we want to build Frameworks and and in some cases some vendors SDN solution might be the right approach maybe some open-source project might be the right tool to use but stop trying to package everything into one shiny little ball and Keep it a pluggable framework So I would probably you know hit on alignment around points of you You know points of trust and security essentially as we think about containers running inside VMs containers running in bare metal Interacting with you know true kind of you know non-container as bare metal workloads Where are we defining the different points of trust and the points of enforcement of different? You know security policies whether they're labels or you know or however they're defined You know actually have a community you know align on you know What software tools that we're using to enforce this is it open v-switch is a tool you know tools on top of this How can we do it in a unified manner so that we can actually give a unified security model across all these different deployment mechanisms? I'm gonna focus on something related to what Chris said visibility so with so many different containers moving around being ephemeral I'm moving around necessarily but being you know being very ephemeral and changing and not necessarily having their addresses be Important they're all they're all automatically assigned in such figuring out what has actually happened You know after the fact means that we need some sort of capability to record and pour through a bunch of data potentially when things go wrong so I think Mines in sort of in two parts one keep in mind that What we're interested in is what people are actually trying to do not the underlying Infrastructure so don't go down that slippery slope of oh, I can just create a subnet data model and that Pops into the second half Fairly Standardized data model or approach to a data model that that has in concept You know labels or some other kind of intent-based Infrastructure that pretty much everyone agrees on doesn't have to be exactly the same, but it's much easier if we have a common data model or metadata model that Would make it easier to then integrate into things like an open stack on one side and a mesos and something else if We all have our own data models because mines five percent better than yours It just makes things more difficult and there's more abstractions more abstractions make it more difficult to troubleshoot Etc. I Think one is gonna be it's gonna be a tough I would say simplification is high I mean when we start thinking about containers inside VMs inside cloud networking inside physical networking Okay, great. I got it up and running and deployed what happens when things break, right? Is it the container network overlay is at the cloud network, you know, so simplifying Container networking I think is very important Standards, I'd like to see more standards be developed around container networking, you know, I was really happy to see OCI or the open container initiative and actually it being stemmed from Lib container I'd like to see something similar Maybe if it's Lib network or some other software library that becomes the standard for container networking Last but not least I'd like to see better integration and this kind of goes back to, you know labels I think labels as part of it, but just better integration with Application development or application platforms. I gave some examples of open shift But if it's cloud foundry or whatever it may be Right now you could do a lot of really cool things With these application platforms, but when it comes to a networking standpoint There's not a whole lot you can do there. I would really like to see that you can specify policy That you can specify all sorts of different characteristics and expose those potentially through labels to that application platform All sorts of characteristics including potentially net biosupport All right. Well with that, why don't you join me in thanking our panelists this evening? We're standing between you and beer We'll talk to you down at having a beer. So thanks very much everybody


Therefore, it is now time for a question period, the leader of Her Majesty's Law and Opposition. Mr. Speaker, the Premier and her cabinet will be meeting with the Quebec cabinet this weekend, and my question is for the Premier. Historically, this has meant hydro-rate payers in Ontario are about to be on the hook for another secret deal to import power that we do not need. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a very direct question, and that is, will the Premier be signing a contract this weekend? Will she be importing more Quebec power that Ontario does not need? Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I would just say to the leader of the opposition that actually there will be no new contracts signed this week, Mr. Speaker. But I would also say to him that I think it makes eminent sense that Ontario and Quebec would work together, Mr. Speaker. We are actually going to be holding our seventh joint cabinet meeting, Mr. Speaker, because central Canada is a very important part of this country. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the population, the majority of the contribution to the GDP. So, Mr. Speaker, it only makes good sense that Ontario and Quebec would work together, that we would find ways to collaborate on innovation, Mr. Speaker, and, Mr. Speaker, to work together on agreements that will benefit both provinces on energy, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. When the Premier says work together, I wonder if that's code for negotiate. If Ontario does sign a new deal with Quebec and if it is anything like the deal that we saw in the newspapers this summer, Ontario will be on the hook for more power we do not need. In fact, Ontario doesn't need this power. Based on what we saw in the newspapers, let alone the eight terawatt hours of hydropower from Quebec that was covered in the papers that was suggested was proposed. Just last year, this government wasted 7.6 terawatt hours of clean electricity. Most of it clean green electricity. Most of it spilling our hydroelectric power. So, Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier has said they're not going to be signing a deal this weekend. Are there negotiations right now for such a deal? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear that the leader of the opposition is talking about a deal that was rejected, Mr. Speaker. It was not signed, Mr. Speaker, because, Mr. Speaker, we are always looking for ways to work with Quebec, with other provinces, with states, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, to find ways to enhance our capacity in this province. As I said, Mr. Speaker, whether that is in innovation, whether that is in energy, Mr. Speaker, or beyond that, Mr. Speaker, whether it's in education. So we will continue to look for partners. We will find ways to work together as we have in the past. And, Mr. Speaker, as I said, later this week, our two cabinets will be hosting a joint meeting in Quebec City. And that is, Mr. Speaker, our fourth consecutive annual meeting. But our government, Mr. Speaker, has met with the cabinet of Quebec over the last number of years. And, Mr. Speaker, I will also be addressing the National Assembly for the first time. Can you see it, please? Can you see it, please? Final supplementary. Finding more coal plants. Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. Once again, the Premier says work together and doesn't say there's no negotiations. In the summer when we saw this deal that appears to be scuttled by the media reports, we heard what stakeholders said about the negotiations and what was proposed. The Society of Professional Engineers said, I certainly see Quebec's interest reflected in the deal. Ontario's interests are not so clear. The Association of Power Producers of Ontario said, Ontario already has a surplus of energy, so it's very difficult to see how this deal or any other soul source deal with Quebec could benefit the province or its ratepayers. So, once again, a very specific question. Not about what the Premier is doing in Quebec. Are there negotiations right now for another soul source deal that benefits Quebec instead of Ontario? Are there any conversations? Are there any negotiations that Ontario deserve to know? So, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear that what the Leader of the Opposition is asking is, are we as a government talking to Quebec or officials from Ontario talking to Quebec officials in the name of finding an agreement that would benefit Ontario? Mr. Speaker, as we have in the past, previous discussions have led to last year's agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Speaker, and lower costs to Ontario ratepayers by $70 million, Mr. Speaker. So, if the Leader of the Opposition is asking, are officials engaged in a conversation with Quebec that is ongoing that could lead to further deals, Mr. Speaker, further agreements that would be beneficial to Ontario, would reduce costs for Ontario? The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. New question. The Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Since I can't get an answer on the Premier's job creating plan for Montreal, I'll try. Come to order. Start the clock. Question, please. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier got a chance to see the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers report this summer. They crunched the numbers and the numbers were shocking. It showed Ontario wasted $1 billion worth of clean electricity last year. Now, I know a billion dollars is nothing to this government. There's too many billion dollar scandals to count, but, Mr. Speaker, this is different. That could have powered 760,000 homes. Mr. Speaker, how does this government justify flushing a billion dollars worth of clean, green electricity down the drain? And how do they justify this while pursuing contracts? Clearly, Mr. Speaker, with the Leader of the Opposition saying is that we shouldn't have surplus power ever in the province of Ontario. We remember the days, Mr. Speaker, when that philosophy drove our energy system. We remember the days where there were generators on the front lawns at Queen's Park because we didn't have enough power to meet demand. What the Leader of the Opposition either refuses to understand or comprehend or doesn't understand or comprehend is that our nuclear units are going to be coming out of service as our nuclear power is going to be regenerated. Mr. Speaker, as that happens, we will need that surplus power. So we're planning ahead to ensure we don't do what those guys did, Mr. Speaker, and leave this province in a position where we don't have enough power to meet our corporate demand, our industrial demand, and the demand for our households, Mr. Speaker, for energy. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, and I get why she doesn't want to be on the record on this. The Ontario engineer's past president noted this is a 58% increase in wasted clean, green electricity since 2015, and next year could be worse. He said this is occurring all while the province continues to export more than 2 million homes worth of electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions for a price less than it costs to produce. So let's break this down, Mr. Speaker. The government flushes away more than a billion dollars worth of power, and then they export millions of homes worth of power at a loss to the United States and other provinces. And at the same time, the people of Ontario struggle to pay their hydro bill. Mr. Speaker, how does this make any sense? How can they continue to flush power down the drain while exporting power for a loss? Will the Premier please answer? Mr. Speaker, we've worked very hard to build a clean, reliable and affordable energy system. And the fact that we're taking 25% off the bills on average of Ontario residents is something that Ontario residents bring with good news, even if it's bad political news for the member opposite. And Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This leader has absolutely no plan whatsoever. It's been 202 days since the leader of the opposition promised to come up with his new plan. A lot has changed in that time, Mr. Speaker. Spring has turned into summer, and now summer's turning into fall. Our kids have finished grade one and started another grade. The entire baseball season has already come and gone. Even the NHL playoffs have finished, and now when season is right around the corner, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. We're never going to get a plan from the member opposite because it has no plan. He's a nowhere man. We have a plan that's delivering a... Thank you. One more supplementary. Mr. Speaker, for a third time, my question is for the Premier. The past President of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers added this. He said the numbers show that Ontario's cleanest source of power is literally going down the drain. Literally going down the drain according to Ontario's engineers. That's power that Ontario could have used and eliminated the need to sign contracts for more imported power. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier continue to let Ontario's cleanest source of electricity be poured down the drain? Rather than attack others, I want to know why they've allowed this to happen. Mr. Speaker, why does the Premier hate Ontario's beautiful, clean, green hydroelectric power? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, we're the only party in this legislature that has a long-term energy plan that will provide a clean, reliable, affordable energy system. The member opposite has no plan whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. No plan for clean energy, no plan for a reliable energy system, and certainly no plan to reduce energy rates. In fact, he opposed our plan to bring down energy costs by 25%. To quote the Beatles, Mr. Speaker, and I've wanted to do this for a long time, he's a real nowhere man sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody. He doesn't have a point of view, and he knows not where he's going to, but we do, Mr. Speaker, and that's to a clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Thank you. Can you see it, please? Thank you. New question, the leader of the third party. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. On Thursday, MPPs passed an NDP motion calling on the government to immediately expand the mandate of the wet law for long-term care inquiry. That motion demanded that the government take a hard look at the systemic problems in seniors' care in this province. Will the Premier listen to the legislature, listen to countless families, and move today to immediately expand the public inquiry to look into the crisis in seniors' care? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care will want to comment on the details, but let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. As I read the terms of reference for the review of the case, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there is plenty of scope in those terms of reference to actually allow for an investigation if there is a systemic issue that arises in the process of looking at this one case, Mr. Speaker. And I was very clear as we went into this process, I was very clear about asking that question, Mr. Speaker, because I think if there are systemic issues that are raised, I completely agree with the leader of the third party that those systemic issues need to be explored. But, Mr. Speaker, all of that is within the context of the terms of reference that begin with this particular case. Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a pretty sad day when the Premier of the province doesn't realize that her public inquiry is tied to the wet law for murders or other situations similar. That's what her inquiry does. That's why everybody in this House, including some of her own cabinet ministers, decided to support our motion because everybody realizes we have a growing, horrific crisis in long-term care, and we need to be honest about that and address it. And the best way to do that is to ask the hard questions and come up with the recommendations that will happen through the proper, scoped public inquiry. So my question is back to the Premier Speaker. Why does her Liberal government, why does her Minister of Health refuse to acknowledge what everybody in this House acknowledged last week, and that is that we need a broader, scoped public inquiry to get to the problems in our long-term care system? Thank you. Can you see it, please? Can you see it, please? Thank you. Premier. Minister of Health in long-term care? Minister of Health long-term care. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, this is an issue of great import to the province, and particularly to those families and friends and loved ones, of those who are now deceased as a result of the murders that took place in Woodstock and in London, the assaults that took place as well. That goes out to those individuals, and that is the primary focus of why in response to Ontarians and many, many stakeholders asking us to launch a public inquiry, we did precisely that. And I'm very confident that justice will do the proper analysis, make the correct determinations, consult widely and broadly and publicly, and arrive at a set of recommendations so that we hopefully can prevent this type of tragic situation ever occurring again, Mr. Speaker. And that includes necessarily looking at issues. Thank you. Final supplementary. Seniors' care is at a breaking point in this province. The frontline staff are doing the best that they can, but people are left in bed 18 hours without even having any personal contact from a worker in the facility. There are people who are missing meals, Speaker, in long-term care. There are 30,000 people on the wait list for long-term care. This House said that a public inquiry should take a hard look at the levels of staffing, for example, and funding in long-term care. It should ask about the government's inaction after many years now on countless recommendations that have come forward, but nothing has been done to fix the system. It needs to look really honestly at the systemic problems that we have in long-term care, problems that so many families are up at night worried sick about their loved ones in long-term care. So will this Premier do the right thing, Speaker? Will she do the right thing, expand the public inquiry today, or will we have yet another excuse and another Premier sweeping all of this under the carpet? Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to Ontarians to get to the answers that they are asking for, and we intentionally drafted the terms of reference for the Gilles inquiry to be very broad, precisely for that reason, Mr. Speaker, including the potential to look at systemic issues of oversight and accountability throughout the long-term care system, Mr. Speaker, and it includes she can look at, it's in the terms, other relevant matters that the commissioner considers necessary to avoid similar tragedies. And these are tragedies of safety and security and well-being of people in our long-term care. Mr. Order, please. Thank you. Wrap up, please. Mr. Speaker, I trust Justice Gilles to get to the answer, to have a broad inquiry, to answer the questions that Ontarians are asking right before. Thank you, Speaker. My next question is also for the Premier. On Thursday, this legislature also passed the NDP's bill through second reading to set up a dedicated ministry for mental health and addictions. I believe it's time to bring mental health care and addiction services out of the shadow speaker and give them the funding and resources and attention that they deserve. But somehow, this liberal government folded against this crucial bill. Why is the Premier refusing to take this important step forward to help people who are suffering and desperately need better mental health and addictions care here in Ontario? Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party and I also appreciate the idea of setting up a separate ministry. Mr. Speaker, what we know is needed for all the reasons that the leader of the third party identified that this is an area of health that has lived in the dark corners of our society. Mr. Speaker, there has not been enough light shone on it and there has not been the resource that is needed to allow people to get the supports that they require. And so what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is we're working to put those resources in place. We're actually increasing the funding to mental health services and doing the work that needs to be done. If at some point, Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a conversation about the change in the way those funds are administered or the way the ministries are organised, I'm open to that, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is we need to get money into the hands of people on the ground who are delivering those services and that's what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, mental health and addiction scare has been an afterthought for this government for far too long and it's about time we change that. People in crisis should never have to wait for the care that they need and this government knows that people are waiting far too long for the care that they need, Speaker. Children shouldn't be stuck on waiting lists for help for a year and a half. Young people should never have to suffer the pain of losing a parent, let alone both parents, to mental health and addiction issues, but for seven years this government has sat on its hands and failed to transform mental health and addiction scare so that it's actually there for people when they need it. Why won't the Premier do the right thing? Why won't you use this ministry to fix the system, fix the problem and deliver the help that people need? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if I believed that changing the name of the Ministry would solve the problem of mental health in this province that has been with us for decades. I would do it in a minute but that's not the case and it is also not the case that we have not addressed this the fact is that When I sit with premiers from across the country, every single one of them is dealing with these challenges. That's the reason, Mr. Speaker, that when the federal government put in place the new health agreement with which I was not particularly happy, Mr. Speaker, because it did not meet the needs of any of the provinces. But there was a component, Mr. Speaker, of mental health dollars that would flow to the province. And there was a recognition that this is a challenge across the country. So the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in February we announced additional immediate investments of $140 million over three years, Mr. Speaker, that we have put an additional $100 million into treatment for youth and children, Mr. Speaker. We continue to make investments and to change the system so that people can find their way through it and get the services that they need. Thank you. Start the clock. Final supplementary. What is the case, Mr. Speaker? What is the case is that this government, this Liberal government has had seven years to implement the recommendations from the select committee on mental health and addictions, and they still haven't done it, Speaker. Seven years later, those recommendations sit gathering dust. Today, 12,000 children are waiting for care in this province. Young people are waiting up to 18 months to get mental health services. We're in the midst of an emergency of opioid overdose deaths, even though the Premier refuses to call it what it is. And after so many years, Ontario still does not have a functioning mental health and addiction system in our province, leaving people in crisis to fall through the enormous cracks that exist. If seven years wasn't long enough, Speaker, how much longer does this Premier think people should have to wait for the resources and attention that mental health and addictions absolutely need today? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And it's just not true that we have been investing. We have more than doubled our budget and mental health since coming into office, Mr. Speaker. That party voted against $140 million of new investments this year alone, including being the first province in the country to fund cognitive behavioural therapy. But it's important that the public and legislatures know that the select committee did not recommend setting up a separate Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. It's easy to lift an idea from the NDP party in British Columbia who made the announcement a couple of years ago. But the select committee did not make that recommendation. Nor did my advisory council on mental health addictions, chaired by Susan Piggett, Mr. Speaker. Nor has any stakeholders suggested to me that creating a standalone Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions would be a positive thing to better integrating mental health and making sure we reduce and eliminate the stigma and integrate it into the system. There can be no health without mental health, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question. The member from Kitchener, Conestoga. Thanks. My question is to the Minister of Health. Speaker, in 2012 the Liberal government announced an urgently needed electrophysiology lab for cardiac care at St. Mary's Hospital in Kitchener. After failing to deliver the Minister bowed to pressure and returned to St. Mary's to recommit and re-announce the lab last year. Minister, it's 2017 fall. Will he tell us where that vital lab is today? Thank you. Thank you. Minister, how far can we go? Well, it is a good question. And I appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, from the member opposite. And last year, as the member alluded to, I was in Kitchener for a tremendous announcement at St. Mary's Hospital. $7 million commitment to their cath lab at the hospital. I know the member opposite saw just how great an announcement it was, Mr. Speaker, because he was present for the announcement as we did the tour of the hospital. And I appreciated that. And at that point a year ago, the program was approved and the money was sent to St. Mary's Hospital. But since then, since that time a year ago, Mr. Speaker, St. Mary's has come back to the Linn and come back to the province and the ministry asking to further expand that program beyond the $7 million. In fact, it would cost an additional $2 million in capital and unknown as of yet operational costs. So now the hospital and the Linn appropriately together with the ministry are working on that request for the expansion, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Speaker, the minister had to be shamed, literally shamed in this house to force him down to Kitchener for a re-announcement of this vital lab in 2016. And now we're here again and he's still failed to deliver. Last week, CTV reported the weight that Cassandra Heisman was forced to endure in the past year to be tested and treated before being sent to London for this cardiac procedure. To this day, St. Mary's remains the only one of 11 cardiac hospitals in Ontario still waiting for this vital lab, meaning Cassandra is one of hundreds forced to wait. And yet the only answers we've received to our questions are disappointing political distractions, of course, from the local government member that should have no part in this discussion. Speaker, this is a dangerous waiting game with our health care priorities. No politics and no more empty promises. Will the minister finally deliver the cardiac lab at St. Mary's that patients in Kitchener Warloo and surrounding areas require? Good question. Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is the money was approved and the money was sent and the program exists and the program is growing as it should be. We did and what they're talking about and what we're very interested in is the request for a further expansion just like we approved the project in 2012, but it's a phased... well, it's a phased program, right? Because you can't just leap directly to the implantable cart... you can't leap right forward to the full cardiac program. So in 2013 they launched their implantable cardioverter defibrillator program, an additional $2 million in funding then. And with these investments it allowed them to mature as they asked for to be able to develop and implement and provide the full program that was announced a year ago, $7 million in funding provided. They come back for an additional request to expand that as a new phase, the Lynn and the hospital and the ministry are looking at it. I think all Ontarians accept that one, Mr. Speaker. We would agree that's an appropriate process. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Last week the Premier of Ontario took the witness stand in the Sudbury bribery case. She seemed to have trouble with her memory, forgetting quite a few details about the interactions between herself and her team and the time that her party was courting the Minister of Energy to run for them. For example, the Premier couldn't remember if she ever talked to the minister about paid jobs for his staffers. That's a pretty important piece of information. Is the Premier's memory any better now that she's had time to think about it? Speaker, the question is clear. Stop the clock please. I'm listening very carefully to this type of question in the House and it has to have relevance to the government and I'm hoping that the member will be able to throughout her preamble pull it back to government policy. So I'm going to give you an offer. Order! I want to give the member an opportunity to relate it to government policy. Please feel free to try. Thank you, Speaker. This would go back to the Premier's accountability and transparency in the province. I would like to know if she or her staffers had an exchange with the Minister for his staff to agree to run for her party. Again, I made reference to this last week or the week before in the relevance to government policy and inside of this court case there needs to be relevance to the government policy that's happening. Right now that question has not come to that level and standard. If the member cannot repraise the question to make a government policy I'm going to ask her to either resubmit a different question or I'll pass. One last time. Thank you, Speaker. I would like to know if the Premier has a policy within her transparency and accountability about her accountability and whether she offered jobs to people in the reduction of people running for her party. It's accountability and transparency. I want to make it clear the member is not complying with what I've asked in terms of policy with regard you're talking about a political party's process and not the government policy. I will offer you an opportunity in your supplementary to start again and if that does not comply I'm going to pass the question. The member from Hamilton Mountain. It's a vote. Speaker, the Premier of this province has claimed time and time again that her government is accountable and transparent. When she was on the stand in Sudbury she had a different reflection of what had transpired during her interactions with the now Minister of Energy. Does the Premier still agree that she didn't have any recollections or did she have recollections of her conversations with the Minister of Energy? That does not in my interpretation comply with the standard I've asked you to hit. New question, the member from Northumberland, 20 West. Let me see if I can make this relevant, Speaker. As to the Minister of Labour. Minister, over the years many constituents in my writing of Northumberland, 20 West have either worked in the nearby General Electric manufacturing plant or know someone close to them who has. I've been following the progress of their health case very closely, Speaker. This has been and continues to be a very difficult situation for these workers and their families. Minister, I know you have met with advocates of the workers and the workers themselves many times. This year we are making some progress. In the spring you have three-day information clinic in Peterborough to provide workers and family members information and assistance with their claims. You also established a data working group, Speaker, to the Minister. Can you tell us what consideration of their cases to the WSIB have been? Thank you, Minister of Labour. Thank you, Speaker. I rise today to answer this question to the member from Northumberland, 20 West. I want to thank my colleague to the right of me, the member from Peterborough the Minister of Agriculture because it's just an incredible day for the GE workers in Peterborough, Speaker. They've been through such a tough situation for so long. The situation has dragged on for people that were exposed to toxins in the past of the GE plant, so I'm so happy today to rise to speak to the incredible progress we've made by working together on this, Speaker. This week, Speaker, the WSIB announced that they have established a dedicated review team that's going to reopen and review more than 250 cases involving the GE Peterborough workers, Speaker. These cases should have got better examination in the past. We're going to get the proper examination they should get today, Speaker. Ensuring rapid actions and solutions is what we've been about on this. This is a good day for Peterborough, Speaker. Thank you. Well, thank you, Minister. I'm happy to hear of where we are today. This has been, as I said before, been very difficult and lengthy process for these workers. I believe they deserve the justice they have sought after such a long time. I think it's also important that our government is working to prevent this situation from happening again. I have heard you say many times in this House that you work hard every day to ensure Ontario is among the safest place in the world to work. I know you work hard to ensure that people who go to work come home safe and sound at the end of the day. An important part of that is also ensuring that people don't get sick later in life as a result of their work. What are you and your ministry doing to address occupational diseases around the province? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you again to the member for that question. Employers and employees and organised labour and health and safety organisations and this government, my minister, Inspector Speaker, do work very hard each and every day to ensure that Ontario has become one of the safest places in the world to work and remains one of the safest places in the world to work. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, we know it's critical that occupational diseases are treated with exactly the same seriousness as an important speaker as physical injuries. We're focused on prevention, the cornerstone, what we've been able to learn from this speaker, what we've been able to learn from the GE situation is that we need a dedicated occupational disease response team, and that's what we're putting in place in the province of Ontario. It's going to examine, it's going to respond to all aspects of occupational disease exposure, it's going to go from initial imports to enforcements to helping the workers work their way through the claim system, Speaker. It's a huge step forward for safety in the province of Ontario. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. According to public accounts documents, your government failed to spend nearly $3.3 billion in infrastructure spending during the 2016-17 fiscal year. And Terrans are waiting for essential infrastructure for their communities, from hospitals to highways. Will the Minister provide a list of the projects that are now delayed or not started because 20% of the money he promised to communities was on services? Minister of Infrastructure. I'm surprised by the question, Mr. Speaker. Given the extent of infrastructure investments we are making as a government, the member would know that we have a project or a project to move forward over 13 years with $190 billion of infrastructure. Most of that is getting out extremely quickly, Mr. Speaker. And we don't take any backseat with respect to our investments in infrastructure. It's been very, very well received across the province, Mr. Speaker. We also know that there's a tremendous amount that's coming on track immediately, Mr. Speaker. And that's coming on track in fact, Mr. Speaker. In many of the writings that the Progressive Conservative hold, Mr. Speaker, and I'll address that in my supplementary. Supplementary. You know, the facts show that 20% was not distributed. According to public accounts documents, this shortfall was due to, quote, lower-than-forecast construction activity for the period. Can the Minister tell Ontarians why he failed to get these projects going? Was it red tape? Was it inaction? Or is this another stretch goal? Ontarians expect their government to deliver on their promises. But time and time again, you don't get the job done. All day two-way go to Kitchener, developing the Ring of Fire. Go service to Niagara just to name a few. With so many of your commitments and our communities waiting for action, will the Minister table a list of infrastructure projects not started in 2016-17? Thank you. Mr. Speaker. We have the largest investment in infrastructure in the history of the province of Ontario. And, yes, there were some delays because of the processing with the federal government. And some of them have been allocated to all of your writings. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you look at Sarnia Lampton, $8.43 billion, Mr. Speaker, million dollars, Mr. Speaker, is allocated, it's on track, and it's moving forward, Mr. Speaker. If you look, for example, at Leeds-Grenville, Mr. Speaker, $3,269,000 in the Clean Water program, Mr. Speaker. If you want to look at Kitchener-Conestoga, Mr. Speaker, $10,673,000 for water, clean water, and waste, Mr. Speaker. We can go on for every member and every radio indicate that. Yes, some of these municipalities have not been able to deliver the actual shovel in the ground on time, but they're coming, Mr. Speaker, they're out of... When I stand, you sit. New question to the member from Parkdale High Park. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. It's been five years since the government passed Tobi's law granting trans folk equal protections under the Ontario Human Rights Code, yet there is no equality for trans folk when it comes to accessing health care. My constituent, Luke Fox, who's here today, has suffered just trying to get basic follow-up care after surgery. The lack of care has left him absolutely housebound. Why is the government denying Luke access to follow-up care? Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to speak to this, but I want to just on this day in particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Parkdale High Park on this issue and on so many social issues, Mr. Speaker, today that she is going to continue to work in the community after the next election, she will continue to work in the community on these issues in particular. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely our intention that everyone in this province be treated equitably, Mr. Speaker, that they get the supports that they need, and as I say, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will speak to the specifics of this issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that Luke's not the only one. He's one of many who have been unable to access health care. The government is not even planning on offering many of the surgery options that trans folk need. In Ontario, there are now thousands on wait lists, often under dire circumstances, waiting for necessary care. Care that is, five years later, still only available outside the province. When exactly will equality in health care be offered to our trans community? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Long-Term Care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I, too, appreciate the advocacy. In fact, this was an issue that the member opposite last week raised with me, and I've subsequently followed up with a meeting with my ministry. Because it is an issue that I'm concerned about as well, individuals who go out of province or out of country to follow up and complete the gender-affirming surgery, Mr. Speaker. But when they come back, they may have complications, or they may have questions, or the need for further health care, and it's a critically important issue, and I've asked the ministry to begin that process with our stakeholders, with individuals that can provide us with the best advice on what a suitable path forward might be. That being said, and I know there's much more work to be done, but I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the work that we did that was announced or became effective last year in the spring, where we changed the system whereby an individual could get approval for sex reassignment surgery, so that going from one location we now have literally hundreds of individuals in locations across the province where that process can be sensitively conducted, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Monsieur le Président, my question is for the attorney general. For harassment and intimidation outside of the Morgan-Towler clinic in my hometown of Ottawa, women and health care providers cannot safely enter nor exit the clinic. And we know that that's not only happening in Ottawa. There's been complaints of harassment in the GTA, in the Peel region, among others. It is important to protect women's right to health care and women's right to choose what happens to their body. So, Mr. Speaker, can the attorney general please tell us what is the government's plan to protect these rights of women? I'll see it, attorney general. Thank you very much, Speaker. And I want to thank the member from Ottawa of India for asking a very important question. Our government does not tolerate any form of harassment against women exercising their fundamental right to choose. It is also, Speaker, my steadfast belief and that of our government that every woman in Ontario has the right to make decisions about our own health care and they deserve to do so freely without fear, without fear for safety, privacy or dignity, without fear of being judged or publicly humiliated because of or twice without fear of being threatened with any violence, harassment or intimidation. Speaker, it is women's right to access health care services be it abortion services or reproductive health services without such fear. And our government, Speaker, is asking a necessary legislation to protect women's safe access to abortion services in our province. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. General, for his attention to this problem. I have a further inquiry because I'd like to have more details about the legislation. It's a step in the right direction. How this will balance free speech. The protection of freedom of expression is important in Ontario as well as the former council for Canadian Civil Liberties Association very concerned about that. Can the minister inform us how the bill will reconcile the right of women to access health care and the freedom of expression of anti-abortion protesters? Thank you. I cannot get this question better expert than the member in civil liberties and issues around constitutionality and human rights, so I very much appreciate this question from the member who taught at law school and a practice in the area. Over the summer we have been doing extensive analysis to answer this very exact question. We have consulted with legal and health experts and pro-choice and anti-choice advocates. It was important for us to hear the voices on all sides of this issue, Speaker. We have also looked to British Columbia, Mac and Newfoundland who have all implemented similar laws in their provinces over the past few decades. Speaker, we also have looked at the courts. Certain abortion clinics in Ontario have had injunctions limiting protests around them for years providing us with the necessary templates to balance competing rights, not to mention the decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. At the end of the day, Speaker, we know that not everyone will agree, but I believe that policies like this are very important now however, we need to make sure that we protect women's rights to self-access to abortion services. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Premier, over the last 10 months there have been 1,300 layoffs announced in my writing. Three different major factors including Siemens and Telsenberg. What does the Premier have to say to all those people who say that they have lost their jobs because of your government's policies? Well done, Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Mr. Speaker, I mean that's a foolish conclusion to come to when you look at what our policy has done to drive this economy forward but let me first reach out and say something about those workers both in Siemens Member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke, Honduras and a couple of others are close. Carry on. Let me say a few words about those workers that are impacted Mr. Speaker from layoffs from time to time such as the workers in Siemens. It's very unfortunate that was a plant that was very valuable to that community. The plant came about because of the policies of this government, the clean energy policies that made that plant happen and provided those very good jobs for a number of years. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker the types of turbines that were being built there are no longer utilized and the market for those turbines had dried up. It's unfortunate that we will continue to work with those workers. Our hearts go out to them and we'll continue to do everything we can to help them relocate. Thank you very much. Back to the Premier Mr. Speaker with all due respect to the minister the people who have lost their jobs want to hear from the Premier on this issue. The election is nine months away and I don't want to see any more layoffs in Oxford during that time but I say that with your government's policies their choices are layoffs or close their doors. Yet your government continues to drive jobs out of Oxford and Ontario by increasing the cost of doing business and making it harder for our companies to compete. Premier, 1,300 jobs lost in Oxford alone should make it clear your policies are not working. Will you commit to change your approach and stop piling new costs and regulations on our business and save the jobs that we have left? Thank you. Minister? Mr. Speaker, as I said our heart always goes out to workers who find themselves caught in the transition from time to time plants do close and that's part of the transition in our economy. But Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is there has not been a government in this country and very few governments around the world that are performing that have an economy performing the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years. Our policies have helped work with our business community to create 760,000 net new jobs 96% of which are full-time Mr. Speaker, we're leading the G7 in growth. This economy is going well and for the member to suggest otherwise Mr. Speaker is absolutely doing a disservice to the hardworking business people who have brought this economy ahead. Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue to make those investments to ensure that our economy can continue to grow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Since the Liberals took office Ontario's 24 public colleges have seen an alarming rise in precarious work to the point that 81% of teaching is now done by contract faculty to benefit and no job security. This means that many of Ontario's 500,000 college students are being educated by professionals who are struggling to make ends meet who are demoralized and stressed out who are forced to reapply every four months for the job they have been doing for years. There is a direct connection between the quality of education for students and the quality of work for faculty. Will the Premier commit today to improving job security in Ontario's 24 colleges? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Well, thank you, Speaker and thank you to the member from London West for that question and I want to say welcome to all of the Opsu representatives who are here from our college sector today. This year we're celebrating 50 years of the college system in Ontario and I tell you it's been 50 extraordinary years and it is impossible to imagine this province without colleges and I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to the people who make our colleges great and that is the faculty and them. I do know, Speaker, that the issue of precarious employment in our colleges is a very real and live issue. I know that we are in bargaining so I will leave the bargaining to the bargaining table but I do want to say, Speaker, that we recognize this issue and the Minister of Labor has broad introduced Bill 148 that actually starts to address this issue. Thank you, Speaker, again to the Premier. New Democrats have long supported Equal Pay for Equal Work which is why we pushed for strength in the language in Bill 148 language the Liberals voted against. We heard during committee hearings that Bill 148 provides too much latitude for employers to avoid their Equal Pay obligations and given years of liberal underfunding of the college system, colleges will have an incentive to use the loophole and not move forward with Equal Pay. Speaker, what will the Premier do to hold Ontario's colleges to their Equal Pay obligations for contract faculty and to ensure that the resources are there to support implementation of Equal Pay. Minister of Labor. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member for that question. Two approaches to that answer obviously, we look at the province Ontario over the years, the track record we have in reaching collective bargaining agreements without strikes or lockouts I think is exemplary. It's about 98 or 99 percent. I'm convinced that that attitude will continue throughout these negotiations but we're always confident that when we work together we're able to achieve those types of agreements. We have a history of stability obviously Bill 148 introduces another angle to this speaker. We've gone out consulted broadly on this issue we took it out after first reading the committee had I think a long time to hear a variety of views on this speaker. We continue to work on it. We continue to debate it in the House Speaker. It's a work in progress but the intent speaker is to inject both fairness into the system. Thank you. New question. The member for Lancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Westdale. Thanks very much Speaker. My question is for the minister responsible for the poverty reduction strategy. Speaker, our government under the stewardship of our premier has always taken a leadership role in exploring bold ways to create fairness and opportunity for the people of Ontario. That's what our fair workplaces plan is about. That's what our fair hydro plan is about. That's why anyone 24 years old or younger will be able to get their prescription medications for free. And that's why we launched the basic income pilot in order to test how we can help people living on low incomes better meet their basic needs while improving their health, education and employment outcomes. Speaker, this week is International Basic Income Week. And I want to ask to the minister if he could tell members of this house more about Ontario's basic income pilot. Thank you minister responsible for poverty reduction strategy. Thank you Mr. Speaker and I want to thank the member for Lancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Westdale for the question and for his tremendous advocacy on this issue for many years. While Ontario's economy is growing and it's strong, many people just aren't feeling that growth in their everyday lives. The three year basic income pilot will study whether a basic income can better support vulnerable workers and give people living on low incomes the security and opportunity to achieve their potential. What we learn from this pilot will help inform our longer term plans for income security reform. The pilot was launched this spring in Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County and Thunder Bay and later this fall we'll be launching the next phase in Lindsay. In addition, a basic income pilot for First Nations is being co-created with our First Nations partners. Throughout the summer we've been holding community information sessions. We're building awareness and I know the minister of community and social services will elaborate further in the supplementary. Thank you Thank you speaker and to the minister for his answer. Our government recognizes that some Ontarians are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living. We are working hard to improve the lives of all Ontarians including and especially our most vulnerable. As we enter International Basic Income Week, a week where activists around the world are combining their efforts to advocate for a basic income, it's important to highlight our government leadership in launching a basic income excuse me I let the member from Hamilton get away with a walk by heckle but now I'm going to ask him to refrain. Carry on. And he's a good man, I'm sure he'll do that. It's important to highlight our government leadership in launching a basic income pilot in Ontario as a way to see if there's a better way to help people get ahead and stay ahead. The pilot is an important example of how our government is applying evidence-based policy to promote fairness in the economy. Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us more about the pilot? Thank you Minister of Communities. Thank you to the member for his question and I'm very pleased to share with you on International Basic Income Week details of our evaluation process. Our goal is to better understand whether a basic income could provide more opportunity to people living on low incomes and whether it could potentially improve their overall health and educational attainment. Our pilot was designed to ensure that findings from the evaluation are of the highest validity and integrity. To assist with the evaluation, the government has appointed Dr. Kwam Mackenzie as special advisor for the pilot's research and expert in the field and his role as special advisor will be to provide advice on how to best evaluate the outcomes of the pilot. I'm sure that his expertise will be invaluable as we move forward on this important project. Thank you My question is to the minister of health and long-term care. Earlier this year, the residents of Niagara West Glamrock found out that the Rivera long-term care is planning to move 50 beds at the Kilian Lodge in Grimsby down the QEW to Hamilton. Adrian Peters, a retired engineer living in Caster Center, visits his wife at Kilian Lodge every day. Adrian chose Kilian precisely because of its location. He'll no longer be able to see his wife every day if she has moved to Hamilton. What action will the minister of health and long-term care take to ensure people like Adrian in Niagara will be able to see their loved ones in care? Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I'm proud to say that we have, since coming into office, built 10,000 new long-term care spots as well. We've redeveloped 13,000 and we're well on our way to our commitment by 2025 to redeveloping 30,000 long-term care beds in this province. Now, as it pertains to this specific proposal, and that's all it is going. It is a proposal from Rivera that has come forward to the government. And part of our approval process, Mr. Speaker, and there is no guarantee of approval, by the way, but part of the process that we require is a robust community consultation. And so that, I believe, is what the member opposite is referencing in part that there is now a public consultation being taken so we can legitimately and importantly get feedback from communities and the very families that may be positively or negatively impacted as we continue our deliberations. Thank you. Supplementary. Back to the minister. Speaker, the reality is that this Liberal government has failed to make the substantial, meaningful investments in long-term care that are needed for Ontario. This government is failing families not only in Niagara West Glam Brook, but families like those of Adrian's across all Ontario. Speaker, after 14 years of Liberal mismanagement, my constituents are rightly concerned that long-term care capacity could be removed from the Niagara region. Beds are being taken away with no plan to replace them. This is unacceptable. Speaker, through you to the minister of health and long-term care, can families like Adrian's count on more long-term care beds in Niagara or will they be disappointed once again by this tired Liberal government? Good question. Thank you, minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And of course we're committed to continuing to invest in long-term care. In fact, in the most recent budget that that member and that party voted against, Mr. Speaker, we increased that long-term care budget by an additional $80 million. And importantly, Mr. Speaker, $60 million, sorry, and that actually that was a 2% increase. It was $80 million this year alone. And part of that was for behavioural supports, which is to accommodate those seniors, those individuals in long-term care who have more complex needs, including, for example, dementia. But we have a very robust I want to reassure the member and the community he represents that we have a very robust process where a requirement of any proponent whether it's creating new beds or shifting moving beds that we require them to engage the community, engage those people most affected, and we then receive that through the Linn, with the Linn's involvement, we receive that as part of our determination whether we should continue or consider this proposal or not, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. New question. The member from Canora Rainey River. To the Premier, residents in Canora Rainey River were shocked last month when they learned that the long delayed twinning of Highway 17 has been delayed yet again. Instead of being completed by 2020, the completion date is now 2021 and beyond, meaning that we really have no idea when this crucial project will be finished. Even more shocking is that instead of accepting responsibility for the delay, the Minister of Northern Development blames Shoal Lake 39 First Nation. Is this the type of reconciliation we can expect from this government? Mr. Transportation. Transportation. Thank you very much Speaker. I thank the member opposite for the question. This is an issue that for my three years and a little bit as Minister of Transportation, I've had the opportunity to work hard on with respect to talking to the communities in the affected area. I've heard from members from Northern Ontario on our side of the Legislature. I've also had the chance to speak with our federal colleague Bob Nalt from that particular community and heard from mayors along the way. What I can confirm is right across the North there is a great deal of excitement about the fact that our government is so committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in expanding highways in every corner of the North Speaker. In fact, we see in our Northern Highways program more money coming into the area than we do in the other time in Ontario history Speaker. I also know Speaker not that long ago, the Premier herself was actually in the Canora area and had the chance to meet with both Shole Lake 39 and Shole Lake 40. I can confirm in this Legislature that the Ministry of Transportation will continue to work closely with all of our partners, including our First Nations to make sure we advance. Thank you. The public accounts recently revealed that the Prime Minister has spent nearly $4 billion less on infrastructure during her first four years than the previous Premier spent during his last four years. This Premier keeps playing political games with her infrastructure projects and promises, especially in the North, she'll drop by to make big announcements, but when it's time for action, she disappears. This is why crucial projects like the twinning of Highway 17 keep going until this Premier stop blaming First Nations for her own lack of action on this infrastructure file. Thank you. Well, Speaker, I'm a little bit astounded by that question. In 2017-2018, this Premier and our government, we are investing a historic $630 million to expand and repair highways in Northern Ontario and in my entire time, in my entire time as Minister and in year out, members of the NDP caucus do their best to try and impede progress when it comes to critical transportation infrastructure, whether we're talking about the GTHA or the North West of Ontario, Premier Kathleen will continue to make the right investments in the right place at the right times and we'll do it partnering with our First Nations Speaker to make sure we produce the best possible outcome for them and for the entire state. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Our next host stands recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.


Complex i is a mitochondrial protein complex that plays a key role in the production of adenosine triphosphate, ATP, through oxidative phosphorylation. It is composed of 43 subunits, many of which are highly conserved between humans and flies. In this study, researchers isolated complex i from Drosophila melanogaster and determined its structure. They found that it has a similar structure to complex i in humans, but with some differences. For example, one subunit was found to be more similar to human subunit in Doofah 3 than previously thought. Additionally, they discovered that the complex can exist in two different states, one of which resembles the ready-to-go active state seen in humans, while another resembles the deactivated state. This information will help scientists better understand how complex i works and how it may be used as a model system for studying other proteins. This article was offered by Ahmed Noe Adjib in Jecheng, Alvaro Sanchez Martinez, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.