time for oral questions. I recognize the Leader of His Majesty's Royal Opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. Speaker, after five years of conservative rule, life is more expensive than ever for ordinary people. From big cities to small towns, more and more people are depending on food banks to get by even while they work full-time. This week we learned that food bank use has increased by 36 percent in Ontario over the last year alone. That's about 5.9 million visits. In the Niagara region alone, food bank use has increased by a staggering 56 percent, driven mostly by people visiting for the first time. Speaker, while people struggle under the weight of this cost of living crisis, why is the Premier's top priority, the construction of a luxury spa in downtown Toronto? To apply the Minister of Interest structure. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Look at this again, the Leader of the Opposition. That's all she can talk about, Mr. Speaker. But what I want to talk about is the fact that the Ontario Science Centre business is being made public today. What I want to talk about is the new deal, the historic deal that the Premier and the Mayor of the City of Toronto have struck, providing the city with more operational funding, with more support for TTC trains and streetcars, for the homeless, for one fair service integration, improving the quality of life for the people, the hard-working people of the City of Toronto. I want to talk about the vision for Ontario Place, which includes far more than what she obsesses over with. Well, Speaker, I hope the Premier answers this next question. I don't think the Premier understands maybe the gravity of what Ontarians are experiencing. Folks in communities like Minden and Chesley and Allmont are watching their nearest emergency rooms closed due to underfunding and understaffing, while this government forks over millions of dollars, tax dollars to help a private company from Austria set up shop on Toronto's waterfront for 95 years. It doesn't make sense. And if it wasn't enough, now they are changing the rules entirely to exempt the Ontario Place project from impact assessments and public accountability. So, Speaker, I'd like to hear from the Premier. What is so special about this luxury spa that the government is literally changing the law to make it happen? Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the accomplishments that we've had in the last couple of days. Like the New Deal that was struck with the City of Toronto to provide more. As we approach the winter, this is becoming even more important. Let's talk about service and fair integration to make travel for transit riders more affordable between the GTA and the City of Toronto. Let's talk about all of the housing initiatives that now the City of Toronto and the province will be working on together to make sure that we address the housing crisis together. Mr. Speaker, we are bringing Ontario Place back to life because we want it to be a place that family can enjoy. And the City of Toronto is supportive of bringing the Science Centre, building a brand new system. Final supplementary. Speaker, it's almost as if they don't want to answer the question. Speaker, we get it. The Premier sees his elite waterfront spa as, I don't know, his legacy project, but his real legacy will end up being a housing crisis that has only worsened under his watch. Rents are skyrocketing and we are nowhere near the one and a half million homes that we're going to need. We've got a minister of housing who brought together stakeholders and municipalities this week only to refuse their request for help. Speaker, it's time for the Premier to get real. Why is he dragging his feet on building the housing that people need while fast-tracking a luxury spa that no one wants? To respond to the Premier. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, wow. Okay? Wow. When it takes the most popular NDP leader in this country, the mayor, that we can cut a deal with, why can't we cut the same deal with the NDP with their leadership? Because there is no leadership over there, Mr. Speaker. Talk about housing. We had the greatest housing starts in 2021-22 that we've seen in over 30 years. We put legislation after legislation forward that leader along with the cohorts over there voted against. They voted against making sure that we have affordable, attainable housing for people that need it. We made sure we had legislation that's going to be easier for local municipalities to get permits out, to get people building. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? She voted against it. She votes against everything we move forward on, votes against building new hospitals, new roads, new infrastructure that these homes need to get built. But again, the NDP is about no, no, no. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it was good to see the Premier stand in his place and answer that question. Let's go back to the Premier, shall we? Let's go through what's really in Bill 154. The Conservatives are giving themselves unprecedented powers to bypass laws to force through this luxury spa development on behalf of a private company. This bill would also block lawsuits against the government for misrepresentations or misconduct and would block legal remedies for it. I'm going to quote here, Speaker. Misfeasants, bad faith, trust or fiduciary obligation. Why is the Premier giving his government the power to commit misfeasants and breach of trust with this Ontario play scheme? Minister of Infrastructure. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me talk about the real legacy of this Premier and this government. Helping keep people safe from the TTC. Building the most transit. Historically speaking, building the most transit in the province of Ontario, and then not only just building the transit, but also make sure that the City of Toronto has the funds and needs to operate it, again, to help transit users. Mr. Speaker, what the Premier did over the last couple of days is make sure that the City of Toronto, the largest city in Canada, is now financially secure and has financial sustainability for years to come. And Mr. Speaker, the New Deal did include the City's support for a brand new Science Centre facility. The old Science Centre is 54 years old. We want to make sure there's a new Science Centre for generations of children to enjoy. Supplementary question. Let me put this another way. This government is so concerned they're breaking the laws that they're rewriting them. Of abuse of power is so bad under this government that the current Minister of Housing is reviewing more than half of the MZO decisions made by his predecessor and the Auditor General is investigating. And now the Conservatives are giving the Minister of Infrastructure the power to issue Minister's Zoning Orders. Back to the Premier. When this government is already under multiple investigations for its abuse of planning authority, including a criminal investigation by the RCMP, why would the Premier give MZO powers to the Minister of Infrastructure? Members will take their seats. The Premier. Because why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we give the infrastructure Ontario those authorities? One of the world-class organizations that deliver projects worldwide is recognized as on time, on budget, on everything they do. Do you want something to get done? Give it to infrastructure Ontario. They have a world-class reputation. You know, again, Mr. Speaker, the opposition, all they want to do. The opposition will come to order. The Premier has the right to answer these questions. You're asking questions. He's got the floor. Premier. Through you, Mr. Speaker, all the opposition wants to do is say no to absolutely everything, but complain that there's no housing. But they vote against housing. They complain there's no roads and infrastructure, but they vote against $184 billion we're spending on infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, we're leading North America in job creation, economic development. We're leading North America when it comes to creating new opportunities for families to get a job. The paper. Thank you. Thank you. The final supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Let's dig a little deeper into this special deal that this Premier seems to be so obsessed with, because there seems to be repeated preferential treatment for thermal. No fairness monitor for procurement, no scoring criteria for bids, and a half a billion public dollars to give thermal a parking garage, even though the government told other bidders they wouldn't pay for it. And even that wasn't enough. Now they're letting thermal bypass all the environmental and heritage laws. So my question to the Premier is why is the Premier so determined to give preferential treatment to this one private luxury spa operator? Again, Mr. Speaker, this is all the opposition member cares about. But Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the opposition member that we are legislators. It is our role to bring in new laws. It is our role to amend legislation before the House to make sure that we are addressing issues in our society. Mr. Speaker, we had a very competitive procurement in 2019. We had third party evaluators involved in that process. Mr. Speaker, the Liberals led their own procurement back in 2016. And let me guess, Thermae was a successful proponent, actually their top proponent, as it was for us as well. But Mr. Speaker, we are bringing Ontario place back to life. What the opposition wants is they want that island to continue to fall into disrepair. They want that island to continue to flood. They want that island not to be enjoyed by Ontarians, the 15 million people that live here. And that is just simply not acceptable to government. Thank you. The next question, the member for University Rosedale. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing. Earlier this week, the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing hosted a housing round table with municipalities. Municipalities told the minister very clearly that they were ready to cut red tape to get more housing built, but they needed more funding for growth-related infrastructure. They asked the minister to allocate funding under the Building Faster Fund based on housing permits, which they can control, rather than housing starts, which developers control. Why did the minister say no to these municipalities? The challenge is that I actually did not have a round table with municipalities this week on housing. I had a housing forum that included municipalities, not for profits. I had included home builders, Mr. Speaker. That included representatives from modular building. So it was a round table. It was actually a forum with 300 people from across the province of Ontario who are focused on building homes, Mr. Speaker. That was what it was all about. Not just the municipal sector, but we had a lot of very productive meetings, and they were focused on one thing. They said the same thing to us. Help us get shovels in the ground by removing red tape, remove obstacles, and we heard time and time and time again that the federal government has to step up to the plate and help us with infrastructure to enable housing to be built faster across the province of Ontario. So that is what we're up to, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it was an open forum. Unfortunately, the NDP did not send anybody to participate in that forum. I would have thought the critic for the NDP would have been there, maybe the leader of the opposition, but they didn't show up. But that is consistent. They haven't showed up since they've been on this place, Mr. Speaker. Order. Order. The supplementary question. Thank you, Minister. I don't believe I got an invitation. So my question is back to the Minister. Earlier this year, the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario pointed out there were hundreds of thousands of development-ready homes in Ontario that were approved for construction, but remained unbuilt. No matter how fast a municipality issues a housing permit to a developer, they cannot force the developer to build. This is my question to you, Minister. Why is this Minister withholding infrastructure funding from municipalities for something they cannot control? So please take your seats. Mr. and Ms. Paul Ferris and housing. Speaker, now look, I wore a sweater vest today because I thought I would, you know, bring it down to bring my more gentle, the more gentle Paul Kalandra forward, Mr. Speaker, but clearly it's not working with the opposition. So let me unpack it for the member opposite. It was a public forum. Anybody could have applied to it, but in order to do that, you actually got to, you know, read the public pages and apparently the member didn't do that. With respect to infrastructure, in about, I don't know, 45 minutes, the member opposite is going to have the ability to vote for infrastructure for our municipalities to get shovels in the ground faster. I'm hoping that the member opposite will vote for that, Mr. Speaker. We are bringing forward a policy, a use it or lose it policy. So those developers, those home builders that don't get shovels in the ground after doing all of the work with their municipal partners will lose that allocation. But here's the big thing, Mr. Speaker. Response? The member opposite could call 1613 Jagmeet and bring down the federal government if they don't redirect that $15 billion worth of spending to put housing-enabled infrastructure in the ground. That's what we need, Mr. Speaker. The next question to the member for Essex. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job, Creation and Trade. Under the previous Liberal government that was supported by the NDP, investment was fleeing the province of Ontario. By contrast, since taking office, this government has welcomed record levels of investment from across our economy in an array of industries. Global companies in auto, advanced manufacturing and the tech sectors have been coming to Ontario to set up shop. And we've also seen unprecedented levels of investment from life sciences companies. And yet the opposition expects us to do nothing when the federal government continues to hike the carbon tax on Ontario businesses and workers. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please explain how our government is supporting investments in the life sciences sector? The Minister of Economic Development, Job, Creation and Trade. Ontario is Canada's largest life sciences sector and we have a storied reputation around the world. Ontario is where insulin was discovered. We developed the first cardiac pacemaker right here in Ontario and we detected the gene that cracked cystic fibrosis. That's what the 70,000 men and women who work in life sciences do. In the last three years we've attracted $3 billion in new life science business. That's because we lowered taxes and reduced red tape in Ontario. We have 1,900 firms generating $11 billion in annual exports. All of that is because we lowered the cost of doing business in Ontario by $8 billion every single year. You don't achieve those heights, Speaker, by raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. It's exciting to hear that Ontario has been able to secure billions of dollars in job creating investments in the life sciences sector. But even as we do that, we continue to hear from the opposition the members in this house and they defend and they even brag about the federal carbon tax and they say how much good the federal carbon tax can do. They don't understand, Mr. Speaker, that raising taxes on businesses and people hinders innovation and growth and job creation. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please explain how our government and its pro-business strategy low cost approach is helping our life sciences sector and the Ontario economy? Minister of economic development, job creation and trade. Mr. Speaker, well the member from Essex is absolutely right. Only yesterday the member from Waterloo said and I'm quoting, people are not concerned with a carbon tax. Well I can tell you 70,000 men and women who went to work at a new job since we were elected, I can tell you they're concerned with a carbon tax. 70,000 of those people worked in the life sciences sector and thankfully we introduced a new life sciences to the next level, a new document, a new strategy. We introduced a new life sciences council. We have a new life sciences fund, $15 million, $3 million of it was invested recently to help six life sciences companies develop made in Ontario medical innovations. Speaker, we plan to grow that 70,000 to 85,000 people and they too will care about a carbon tax. This growth only happens because we keep our taxes low. The next question, the member for Key Wackenall. Good morning, my question is to the Premier. Speaker, the ongoing systemic gaps in both federally and provincially funded education systems have resulted in systemic discrimination in First Nations children. The Chiefs of Ontario launched two reports in these gaps in K-12 schools across Ontario. The evidence in the reports confirms the needs to increase supports for First Nations learners in the provincial system. I ask what is Ontario doing to address the inequities for First Nations learners? To respond on behalf of the government, the Minister of Education. Thank you, Speaker. I do appreciate the member opposite's question. We are committed to the success of First Nations Métis and Nuit students. It's why, Mr Speaker, we've increased funding for Indigenous education. This year is a really important year because in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report the Department of Ontario to close the gap to ensure every child is learning residential school history. We've now done that this year. We're proud to have done so. I did it with the Minister of Indigenous Affairs. In addition, Speaker, we signed an agreement for reciprocal education agreement to allow Indigenous students on and off reserve in order to access the schools of their choice without having to face the red tape and often months or years of delay to get into our schools. We more than double the Indigenous graduation coach program. I appreciate there's more to do and we're going to continue to work together across the government to ensure the success of these kids, they graduate, they achieve their potential, they get good jobs and we're able to remove the barriers that have held them back historic bonds. Thank you, Speaker. The supplementary question? The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement and we need to do better in education. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission put forward a vision that First Nations and all levels of government would work together with sufficient funding to close educational gaps within a generation. Eight years after TRC called for changes that would lead to the gaps being closed. Speaker, there is almost no progress to show. Government, listen to these reports and commit to removing systemic barriers for First Nations learners. Minister of Indigenous Affairs. I've worked very closely with the Minister of Education. In fact, the Chiefs of Ontario's Moving Forward Strengthening Relationships for Future Generations Annual Report 2022-2023 on page 21 says, we expand Indigenous learning opportunities throughout the Ontario school system including more responsive curriculum and new programs as well as renewed efforts to engage families and communities. That's coming from the Chiefs of Ontario's Annual Report and it's being backed up by significant investments through the Indigenous Education Grant that serves two important functions. It supports Indigenous student achievements and new areas and new opportunities for knowledge for all classrooms and all children to learn about the important contributions of Indigenous history and Indigenous culture. The Priority and Partnership Fund focuses squarely on performance of Indigenous students and their well-being. Mr. Speaker, we're closing that gap. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Solicitor General. It's no secret that Ontarians are fed up with the unnecessary and useless carbon tax. It is a regressive and harmful tax that hurts everyone, including the important public services that keep our communities safe and well. While we have heard about the negative impact that the carbon tax is having on rising costs for families and businesses, it is very concerning that firefighters in communities across Ontario are also being impacted. The carbon tax is driving up the fuel and gasoline I've lost my place. It happens. There we go. The carbon tax is driving up the fuel and gasoline costs for everyone in our province. It is not right and it is unacceptable that response vehicles used by firefighters should be negatively impacted by this federally imposed carbon tax. Can the Solicitor General please explain the negative effects of the carbon tax on our frontline firefighters across Ontario? Thank you. The Solicitor General. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member from Brantford-Brant is right and he's also a volunteer firefighter and I want to say thank you. As the member was for Sarnia-Lampton and others, what the independent Liberal members don't seem to get and they're downplaying the tax because they did it in recent days when we spoke about the cost of policing is every time you fill up a vehicle, a fire truck, any vehicle that's used in firefighting, you are paying the carbon tax. When you are buying equipment and other resources that you need to keep Ontario safe, you are paying the carbon tax and those costs and the Ontario firefighters are being penalized for this carbon tax on the cost of fuel on procurement and operations. It's totally unacceptable and whether it's about public safety and policing or firefighting, it's unacceptable. Our message to the federal government. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the Solicitor General for that response. The carbon tax is negatively impacting the institutions that help keep the province's communities safe, including fire departments and communities across Ontario. It is not right that the negative impact of the carbon tax is adding more pressure to the already challenging work of firefighters. The federal government's carbon tax is draining resources that should be better spent on fire prevention and protecting our communities. It is vital that we provide safe and courageous firefighters with the tools and the resources that they need to protect our communities instead of paying for additional fuel costs because of the carbon tax. Speaker, can the Solicitor General please elaborate on how our government supports our frontline firefighters instead of punishing them through the excessive carbon tax. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, thank you to the member opposite. As I said previously, and even in last night's debate, there were comments from the independent Liberals to suggest that for public safety, there's no added cost in the carbon tax.  What I want to say, especially because we have representatives in the leadership from the Ontario Professional Firefighters Association, we have members from all over Ontario including my friend Dennis from Thunder Bay. You know, Mr. Speaker, especially in the north, gas is expensive. It means on every liter of gas that's filled in a fire truck, there's carbon tax. It's completely unacceptable. But Mr. Speaker, we will always have the backs of the firefighters every day. Monsieur le Président, je suis fier de soutenir. I'm very proud to help and support our own firefighters here in Ontario. Thank you, Speaker. My questions to the Minister of Health. I've received over a thousand stories highlighting barriers to access contraception. Today I bring these voices to our debate on Ontario's motion. Sara 27 has to choose between contraception and rent. Nadia, also 27, unintended pregnancy forced her job resignation due to child care. It is about gender equity, empowerment and affordability. As BC and Manitoba show universal contraceptions offers of affordability, gender equity and health cost benefits, will the Minister commit to starting public consultations on this critical issue to improve Ontario health outcomes? Thank you, Speaker. You know, I certainly appreciate the member's advocacy but I also want to remind people of what we have already done in the province of Ontario. So already in the province of Ontario, we have access to contraceptive for anyone under the age of 25. We have it for individuals who are challenged financially to access through the Ontario Trillium Drug Benefit Program. These programs are put in place and have been part of our Ontario health system because we understand that we need to ensure that there is equitable access and we need to make sure that it is targeted in a way to protect individuals who need it most, which is why with those two programs alone we cover 40% of the population. Thank you, Speaker. And the supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the Minister. If you believe that the current policy for publicly funded contraception up to the age of 24 should be effective, should that rationale not extend to those beyond the age of 24? Women's fatality spans approximately 30 years, not 9, necessitating broader access. Research shows a net health system cost savings of $5 per resident, underscoring the efficiency of preventative over-surgical health care. The selective approach of OHIP Plus risk perpetrating inequities given the cost, neutrality, gender equity implications, and bipartisan potentials will you recognize the benefits of pursuing universal contraception access following the example set out by other provinces in Canada? Minister of Health. So again, I will remind the member opposite that is in fact under the age of 25, 40% of the population is covered. Those two programs alone are already in place in the province of Ontario. Can we look at other opportunities to improve the system? Absolutely. That is why we are doing so many of the health system pieces that we have in place. But I also want to highlight the excellent work that the Minister of Education has been able to do securing a $10 day care for the province of Ontario. This is not an issue that we are looking at only in one ministry. We are making sure that women empowerment individual access is critically important but we are doing it in a whole of government approach, not one-offs. Thank you very much. The next question, the member for Kingston and the Islands. Speaker, we are in an affordability crisis yet the fall economic statement doesn't use the word affordability once. During the 2018 election, conservatives promised to cut income tax by 20% for the middle class. That promise was never kept. The Minister of Energy even claimed last month on affordability that quote, our province has done everything we can. He's forgotten past promises. It seems the promise they have remembered is the one donors reminded them about opening the green belt and gifting $8.3 billion of public value. Tax form ON 428 still has the 9.15% tax rate promise not kept. How can Ontarians trust this government to tackle affordability when they can't even keep or remember a basic election promise? The Member for Oakville and Parliamentary Assistant. Thank you, Speaker. Perhaps, Speaker, you could give me, I know it's usually a minute to respond. I'd like about 10 minutes because there's so much I can talk about in terms of what we've done for affordability that the opposition liberals and new Democrats have voted against. We've extended the gas tax for another six months to lower costs for consumers to lower costs for businesses. Will the opposition support us? Will you support us in lobbying the federal government to stop the punitive carbon tax? Have you done it in the past? Our government has been focused, Speaker, on affordability. Whether it's carbon tax, whether it's cutting tuition for students who are in affordability crisis themselves whether it's a lift tax credit that lowers the tax rate for the lowest individuals in this province, we've stood on the side of families and individuals in this province. Where's the opposition? Find the members to make their comments through the chair. Supplementary question back to the Member for Kingston, the islands. Speaker, nothing can hide the cold hard fact that people want action, but there are zero measures to provide families with immediate pocket book relief in the fall economic statement. People are tired of a government that doesn't address their struggles and they're tired of a government under criminal investigation by the RCMP. So tired they elected two new liberal MPPs and by elections this summer. Can this government be trusted to tackle affordability when they wouldn't take the opportunities to provide families with immediate pocket book relief in their fall economic statement? The Parliamentary Assistant Member for Oakville. I request a few extra minutes to be able to give a response because there's so much we've done. The opposition has voted against all the initiatives we've taken on affordability. Let me just go through some of the other things that we've done as a province. We've removed the license plate stickers for all drivers across the province helping businesses and consumers. As the Minister of Economic Development has referred to we've taken away $8 billion in costs for businesses in this province. Where are those costs savings going to go? They're going to go to the people of Ontario. We've also lowered the cost of transportation in this province. Whether you're taking the GO train or public buses in the GTA we've lowered that. Did the opposition support us on that front? Absolutely not. So again, we continue to move ahead, get investments in this province and bring affordability to the extent that we can. We'll continue doing that. I hope the opposition will support us with the fall economic statement. Thank you very much. The next question is for Bradford Brandt. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development. Because of the federal carbon tax life has never been so unaffordable. Northerners are already feeling the pressure at the gas pumps where fuel costs are significantly higher than in the rest of the province. While Ontarians are struggling because of rising costs the independent Liberals and the opposition NDP members continue to agree that the carbon tax should nearly quadruple, raising the price of everything even higher. The carbon tax adversely affects our businesses and negatively impacts our economy and Ontario workers. Speaker, can the Minister please explain how the carbon tax negatively impacts individuals and families in Northern Ontario and in Indigenous communities? Thank you. Minister of Northern Development, Minister of Indigenous Affairs. I'll tell you what our American friends just celebrated Thanksgiving and that hits home for us out in Canora Rainy River just across from Fort Francis in International Falls, Minnesota. And as friends and families crisscross the border, Mr. Speaker, here's what they found. Gas is $3.24 a gallon in International Falls. That works out to about a buck 14 a liter back in Fort Francis, about 150 meters away. Gas is $1.70 a liter. Now let's pivot to what's on the table for dinner. Turkeys. 2015 Mr. Speaker, a turkey was $1.50 in 2023. It's north of $2.50 a pound. That's a 67% increase. Mr. Speaker, when you tax a farmer who grows food, when you tax a trucker who brings it all the way out to northwestern Ontario, 22-hour drive from Toronto, Mr. Speaker, and those who buy the food. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. And I appreciate the Minister's response. It's difficult to witness the federal government place this punitive tax burden on northern communities when they are fully aware of how detrimental this tax is to affordability and cost of living. Unlike other areas in our province, northern Ontario faces distinctive challenges when related to fuel costs that should be considered before implementing such a presumptuous tax. It is disappointing to see how the opposition consistently underplays the repercussions of the carbon tax on rural, remote and northern communities. Speaker, can the Minister please provide further details on the adverse effects that the carbon tax is inflicting on the residents, communities and businesses throughout the north? Thank you. Mr. Northern Development, Minister of Indigenous Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to have a serious discussion when a loaf of wonder bread in Sachiko Lake is some $6.29 a loaf. Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to account for that cost. It arrived in that isolated community with some subsidies for gasoline that the province of Ontario asked for transportation of goods. The federal government's successive ones, the one I was involved with and the recent one, participates in a food subsidy program. Yet that loaf of bread is still over $6. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? It's because the person who bakes the bread pays a carbon tax. The person who packages it or the company that packages pays a carbon tax. There's a carbon tax on the cost to ship it. There's a carbon tax, Mr. Speaker, once it arrives in the community and then you get a $6.00 loaf of bread. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's time once and for all for the NDP to join the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and send a clear message to the coalition in the federal government to scrap this tax, Mr. Speaker, it's plain and simple. It's as easy as slice and bread. Next question, the member for Hamilton Mountain. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Over 60,000 children are on a waitlist to receive access to core autism services in Ontario. My office receives many calls and emails from families who have been waiting for years for answers to their questions. Questions like, did our application get approved? How do I know where we are on the waitlist? When will my child receive services? Mr. Speaker, yesterday our offices received an email from your ministry liaison asking us that we refrain from contacting Access OAP on behalf of our constituents citing process and protocol telling us we're not allowed to help. Minister, why is Access OAP denying our office's advocacy and making it harder for families to get answers? The Parliamentary Assistant Member for Stormont Dundas. Our government is implementing a new Ontario autism program and the new program families will have access to an expanded set of core services including applied behaviour analysis, speech language pathology, occupational therapy and mental health services. This is the first time that families will be able to access mental health services through the OAP. Families also have access to a range of services like the foundational family services which we launched in 2020 to help families support their child's learning and development at home. Early intervention services to help young children access services at critical points in their development. And the early entry to school program which will help prepare children who are starting kindergarten or grade one for the first time and urgent response services for children and youth who have immediate needs. We're meeting benchmarks and making progress every day as we continue to implement a needs-based OAP that supports children and youth with autism and their families. Somebody obviously hit record and repeat on that response. Families from across the province are reaching out to all of our offices including government members. First we're told to access OAP and needed their own consent forms only to receive useless answers like we can't tell you where you are on the list, when you'll receive a call or even when you'll get a case worker.  Families are desperate and this is completely unacceptable. Minister, why are you allowing this third party organization that we fund to block answers to make sure that things are even harder for families? All families registered in the OAP have access to foundational family services and urgent response services when required as well as care giver mediated early years programs and entry to school program for young children. Children and youth with autism may also be eligible for programs such as healthy child development programs including healthy babies, healthy children program, infant and child development program, preschool speech and language program, rehabilitation services delivered by children's treatment centers, special needs resources, resource teachers and childcare settings, special services at home program, assistance for children with severe disabilities program, out of home respite, enhanced respite for medically fragile and or technologically dependent children. Families who received an initial interim one-time funding payment may also be eligible to receive a second payment of either $5,500 or $22,000 based on their child's age as of April 1st. Thank you, Speaker. Order. The next question, the member for Canada Carlton. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have an affordability crisis in Ontario. When this government was... Stop the call. The member for Canada Carlton has a question. She has the floor. She needs to be able to ask her question to ask the members to permit her to do so. Start the clock. The member for Canada Carlton. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have an affordability crisis here in Ontario. When this government was elected they promised a 20% tax cut for the middle class. This government has been dragging its feet for six years. So what's their priority? It's certainly not the middle class. It's not our most vulnerable. It's not Ontarians on ODSP or at food banks. Or those on surgical or autism services weightless. But what do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have an $8.3 billion green belt giveaway now subject to an RCMP criminal investigation. We have a $650 million thermospaw parking lot now under Auditor General investigation. Somehow there's always enough for handouts to develop for friends. But the Ontario family, the cupboards are bare. We have grocery chains and the fossil fuel industry gouging Ontarians. Speaker, question for the Premier. Will he keep his campaign promise and cut middle class taxes? Order to respond to the parliamentary assistant member for Oakville. Thank you, Speaker. I must admit it's a little surprising hearing that question from that member from Ottawa, Canada, Carlton, who in this house in the last few weeks has said the carbon tax is good for consumers. The carbon tax puts the cost of everything, getting to the legislature, driving your kids to soccer, food, businesses, public transportation. This is a government that has been committed to working on affordability since we took office in 2018. I don't even know where to start with all the programs we've put in place and the cost reductions we've done. But let me remind the member of just a few of those things that we've done and I'll certainly talk to more of them in the supplementary. We put through the lift tax credit, which was the largest income tax credit in the history of Canada. Helping those individuals in the lowest income tax brackets reduce their taxes. I'll have more to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, which means I guess I'm not going to get my question answered. The provincial government does have the most applicable tools to help the people of Ontario. If they wanted to, they could bring back rent control, they could raise ODSP, they could raise the Ontario child benefit. It's not good enough to write letters if one has the power to actually ease people's distress. Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are still waiting. They're lining up at food banks. They're struggling. Apparently, the voters were wrong to take this government at its word. We know it. The RCMP knows it and now Ontario knows it. Speaker, will the premier and his provincial government actually use some of the tools that they have available to them to help the people of Ontario and cut middle class taxes? Member for Oakville Parliamentary System. Speaker, and we've been using those tools. I don't know where the member opposite has been for the last little while, but we've been using those tools. The member opposite mentioned ODSP. Just last year we brought through legislation which moved it up by 5% and then indexed it to inflation to 6.5%. That's the largest increase in ODSP's history. Did the member opposite support us and the team over there support us on that legislation? No, they did not. But that's not all, Speaker. We've done a lot for affordability. We've increased the minimum wage this year by the largest ever increase in recent history to $16.55 per hour. We've also brought about and extended the tuition tax credit for university students. We put through a 10% cut in tuition a few years ago and we've extended that freeze for four years, putting tuition among the lowest and the most affordable in the province of Ontario. So I hope the member's opposite will join us, get some sense and support the fall economic statement. Member for Peterborough Toworka. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Associate Minister of Business. We've heard both within this chamber and obviously from our constituents that the carbon tax is causing an increase in expenses for all Ontarians. This is especially true for businesses in northern Ontario which face significantly more challenges related to the higher cost of goods and travel because of this regressive tax. The sad reality is that these additional expenses are ultimately passed on to the consumers. It's truly astonishing to witness northern members from the opposition parties defending this tax despite its detrimental effects. Speaker, can the Associate Minister please elaborate on the carbon tax's negative impact on businesses in northern Ontario? The Associate Minister of Small Business. Thank you, Speaker. I really do appreciate the member from Peterborough Co-authors for raising such an important question. Speaker, businesses in the north are burdened with increased costs for transporting their products which ultimately leads to higher prices for all consumers. Moreover, the carbon tax affects various sectors including manufacturing, mining and forestry which are critical to the economic growth of northern Ontario. These industries often rely on energy intensive operations and the carbon tax adds an additional financial strain on their businesses. These small northern businesses provide meaningful employment to their communities and put food on the table for many families. Speaker, you would think that the NDP and Liberals would all be for reducing the cost of doing business and unleashing local economies close to their writings but instead they'd rather sit on their hands and on the sidelines while costly coalition puts more strain on northern Ontario. Thank you. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the Associate Minister for that response. The previous level of government with the support of the NDP not only failed to support the north but they also resorted to insults and name calling it referring it to a no man's land which is probably why they have no one represented in northern Ontario now. Unfortunately that attitude of disrespect has not changed. Since then they've supported the federal carbon tax that impacts every aspect of daily life including groceries, gas and home heating fuel. And I find it rather ironic that members of the NDP have asked for a way to reduce the cost of gasoline in northern Ontario. Remove the carbon tax. This regressive tax has severe and negative consequences for businesses and families, particularly those residing in northern communities. Speaker, can the Associate Minister please elaborate on the impacts of the carbon tax on small businesses across the north? Really do appreciate the member's question and share their concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on small businesses in northern Ontario particularly in industries like manufacturing, mining and forestry. Thanks to this Premier, the Minister of Mines, this Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Minister of Northern Development, northern Ontario businesses have been given the support they need to thrive. This is despite Ottawa's best efforts to increase the price of doing business in the north. Speaker, the carbon tax is being felt in small businesses in the manufacturing and mining sector where businesses rely on energy intensive processes to produce goods. And for forestry and logging businesses, the carbon tax adds to their operational costs making it even more challenging for these businesses to sustain their operations and contribute to the regional economy. Speaker, this government has been clear from day one. We call on the federal government to do what's right for our businesses, our economy and our communities. Scrap the tax now. Thank you Mr Speaker. My question to the Premier. Minister of Transportation said Ontario has the safest highways in Canada. Speaker, it's hard to grasp the meaning of that sentence in a Facebook group called Highway 1117 Kill People Exists. Just visit that page. Hundreds of daily photos of drifted trucks and accidents and videos of drivers passing on double solid yellow lines, both commercial and personal vehicles. My question to the Premier. Will the government bring forward Chad's law and make passing double yellow lines legal and penalized in Ontario? Minister of Transportation. Thank you very much Mr Speaker and I will reiterate that Ontario does have the safest roads in North America and our government intends to keep it that way Mr Speaker. In fact that member anytime we have brought any measures in this house through the budget through the fall economic statement to invest in road safety and to invest in highways like Highway 11, Highway 17, expanding highways, that member has voted against those measures every single time. We are opening up new rest areas Mr Speaker on these highways and that member voted against increasing safety and building more rest areas across the North Mr Speaker. We will continue to work with law enforcement and advocates in road safety ensure that we continue to have the best roads in Ontario and North America. This is a supplementary question. It used to come on Highway 11 and 17 even worse when it's winter maybe he'll realize what we're living a day to day. Mark Andrews, a retired OPP traffic inspector said himself the current legislation related to unsafe passing is a reactionary offence. My proposal becomes law. The OPP's ability to educate drivers and enforce unsafe passing will be greatly enhanced. Again to the Premier, can you commit to passing Chad's law now? Thank you Mr Speaker. It's already illegal in Ontario for any driver to dangerously pass any vehicle. Ontario's laws already provide the ability for police officers to enforce offenses where appropriate when someone is driving dangerously. We will continue to work with law enforcement and police officers across this province as we have been as we continue to have the safest roads in North America Mr Speaker and we will continue to invest in road safety. I ask the member opposite when we are making these investments in Highway 11 and Highway 17 when we increase investments for road safety in this province that he support this government in those measures every single time when we are investing in the north when we are investing in making those highways safer increasing capacity on those highways the NDP and the Liberals have voted each and every one of those investments Mr Speaker. We are going to continue to keep Ontario's roads and highways safe. Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is for the minister of natural resources and forestry. I'm hearing more and more from my constituents in rural communities. Their day to day expenses have become increasingly unaffordable since this carbon tax was introduced. The sad reality is individuals, families and businesses in rural communities are feeling more pressure from the negative impacts of the carbon tax. Unfortunately the independent Liberals opposition NDP continue to ignore serious consequences of the carbon tax as having on real people, people from communities like Comber, Merlin, Highgate, Wheatley, Richetown. Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government supports rural communities during these challenging economic times? Member for Hastings, Lenox and Addington in Parliamentary Assistant. Thank you very much Speaker and thank you to the member from Chattanooga County Leamington for the question. As the members opposite have continued to throw rural communities under the bus. The previous Ontario Liberals refused to keep hydro bills down and instead allowed hydro bills to consistently rise to the point where rural Ontarians were having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families. But I want to address the people of rural Ontario Speaker. To those I say don't worry. Our government is saying yes to rural Ontario. We are keeping energy costs down. We are cutting the gas tax. We are supporting our manufacturing industry and yes Speaker we are fighting the carbon tax with everything we have. Our government will continue to build and support rural communities across Ontario. Thank you Speaker and my thanks to the Parliamentary Assistant for that genuine response. The previous Liberal Government neglected rural communities for 15 years. We felt it. And the disrespect of rural Ontario, this disrespect continues to this day. It's astonishing that the independent Liberals and opposition to NDP continue to support the federal carbon tax and make fun of it even when they're well aware it's causing financial hardship to our families and friends. With the cost of everything increasing because of the carbon tax people are paying more for transportation, groceries and home heating course. Speaker, can the Parliamentary Assistant please elaborate on how our government is making life truly more affordable for people in rural Ontario. And the response, Member for Hastings, Lenox and Addington. Thank you Speaker and again to the Member from Chatham Kent, Leamington I appreciate your understanding of what your rural residents are going through. It is clear from the carbon tax that the Liberals simply don't want anything to be built in Ontario. And it's really no surprise, since for 15 years under their watch they refuse to connect rural communities to broadband networks. They close 600 schools, mostly in rural Ontario. And they refuse to act when the cost of child care increased by over 400%. The Speaker, we are doing something about that. We lowered the gas tax by 10 cents on every leader and we are ensuring that resources can move across the province so that houses, roads and transit lines will be built. We are building Ontario at a rate that the Liberals simply couldn't ever have. Thank you Speaker. Thank you. The next question, Member for Hamilton-Less and Caster Dunbass. Thank you Speaker. November is Women Abuse Prevention Month and today our galleries are filled with advocates from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Homes. They are raising the same question again and again as violence against women has reached epidemic levels. We've asked your government to declare intimate partner violence like almost 70 municipalities have done but you refuse. Last year in Hamilton police received 13,000 calls for intimate partner violence and almost 5,000 women and their children were turned away from shelter beds because they weren't available. Again, an epidemic of violence against women and your government refuses to increase their core funding which has been frozen for over 15 years. So it's nice to see all of the government wearing their purple scars but we need to see more than that performed of action. We need to see this government declare intimate partner violence and gender based violence as an epidemic and we need to see core funding increase after 15 years of a frozen core funding. These women are doing important work to keep our women safe. Will we ever see your government truly support women in this province? Yes or no? No. Speaker, no woman should ever be subjected to violence and through legislation and investments our priority will always be to provide support to those impacted by violence to prevent it before it happens while ensuring that perpetrators responsible for horrible crime of intimate partner violence are held accountable through the justice system. When it comes to violence against women and children we are focused on actions that deliver concrete and tangible results. That's why we passed laws like Kira's law some of which were the first of their kind in Canada to make it harder to victimize women. That's why we invest significantly in both violence prevention and supports to victims of violence. Support programs like emergency shelters, counseling, 24 hour crisis lines, safety planning and transitional housing supports to help women escape abusive situations and we've been working with our federal government on the gender based violence national action plan and we welcome municipalities to join us and end this horrible crime. Speaker, every woman has the right to live safely. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes our question period for this morning. We now have a deferred vote on a


What's up guys welcome back to the Johnny Q channel in this video. We're doing a 12 by 12 Canvas with sunset colors. Let's get it baby. First we're starting with a little bit of yellow Yellow base, okay, we're gonna go into a magenta Let's go into a red This is gonna look beautiful so far. It's looking like Starbucks colors. All right Starbucks. Wait. No Starburst Wow Haha All right, I said Starbucks. I meant Starburst. All right, we'll do the red little bit more yellow some magenta Let's do some of this nice lavender a little bit more red All right, here we go. Oh This is gonna look beautiful. I know it Here we go And look at that piece 12 by 12 sunset colors. Hope you guys like it. I love it and I'll catch you in the next one


Jai Hind! Jai Bharat! We are in the Indo-Pak border You will see that there is a young man and he is protecting us This is the end of the world and this is the end of the world This is the beginning of the world and it will be the end of the world Simara Jagrataprahar We are in the end of the world And here is the land of India BSF Border Security Force Simanta Praharinka Sahita January 26 12.30 Thiris and the full press 9.30 10.30 If you like our video then don't forget to like, share and subscribe to our channel


I graduated in the University of Wales when the Royal College of Music in London and came up against the best in the world, which is wonderful. And really by horizons at the time, we'll do that and go back to Wales. But then a whole new world was opened for me in London and that's where it all began. Standing outside the festival hall, I'd gone to watch Carrion do a rehearsal and I stood there looking down at the Thames and I said I'm going to come here and conduct one day in this hall and I did. When I first started at the prom, the idea was to make a card at the centre and then go and visit different places during the day, come to concerts that night and that's what has happened, they're coming from London, from abroad even. I am fiercely passionate about Welsh composers because many have written some wonderful music and it's our job for people to get to hear them to see what this music is like and that has been a big feature of the Welsh proms. We have got so much to offer in Wales in musical terms.


Thank you very much. I'm Marku. This work was actually supported by a very security, who were the owners of... I'm going to... That company is no longer in my background. Sometime last August, so I'm here. This one doesn't work. I'm just supported by the current intellectual property owners of Hummingbird. I don't even know who those people are. Anyway, some gentleman takes us to the concept of my trip. Did I just switch this one? Hummingbird 2, which was, which is a successor to Hummingbird 1, came out in two years ago. It's a library not located encryption organ for, which was actually designed to work together with a specific arbitration protocol. For example, in ISO standardization forms, these two have been proposed together. So it has been designed for very specific frames. So it should really be looked at in that context. For example, in this protocol, it's only found in encryption mode. Because the protocol is used for authentication, encryption is not even needed. But anyway, we actually evaluated it in the context of a general library of encryption organ, so you don't really have to care about that. But anyway, it has a 128-bit secret key, and obviously that's also the security claim, and a 64-bit IV. And, you know, there was, in the previous talk, the non-previous issue was mentioned, and because of the way this particular cypher is being used, it's unavoidable because the IV actually comes from the interoperating part, so you can avoid the other part of it giving you the same IV twice. So it's supposed to be actually resistant to repeated IV attacks. This is actually a repeated IV attack. So it's not announced. Yeah, so I was involved actually in the design of this cypher. So we were only allowed to do minimal changes. So this was partially because of intellectual property issues. Hummingbird 1 was patented, so the same patents had to apply to Hummingbird 2. We were, our hands were a little bit tight there, but anyway, because Hummingbird 1 was quite seriously broken, so it had a 256-bit secret key, which was obviously too large, and you could cut down that into the 2-to-64-bit single key attack, so it was quite devastating. And I'm not aware of any other attacks against Full Hummingbird 2, so there's been some e-print things, but those have been mostly actually bit from them. So there was one claiming a 2-to-36 attack, so I emailed the authors and said that surely enough you implemented this and it must work like within a minute because it's 2-to-36, and there was an email back one week later saying no, we haven't implemented it and they just went through the papers. So there's actually been quite a few e-prints like that and none of these attacks are valid, so there you go. So the architecture is based on 16-bit databats, so the target was really ultra-light weight microcontrollers and hardware implementation, and more specifically, Texas Instruments MSP 430 family which has 16-bit bears and 16 in general service registers, so at least designed fairly well with that part in order to ultra-light weight MCU. The cipher has almost no key schedule, so we split the key into eight 16-bit bears, so I'm using this notation later on in the talk. And there's only one non-linear component, it's called WD16. This was named by our marketing department after our mascot, Pete Diffing, so supposedly he designed this on a cocktail napkin somewhere. Anyway, they like to play it, and it's actually designed by Pete Diffing and by Pete Diffing, so we have WD16, which takes in 64 bits, and these 64 bits are either the upper map or the later half of the one-train with key always in this talk. WD16 can be viewed as a mini block cipher with a 16-bit plaintext coming in and a bear coming out. So we made a very simple observation. This is actually something which was inspired by one of the bit-throne e-brings by Kaizhran, Liimding and Ji Yuan from China, and they had a valid, related key observation on WD16, but they apparently failed to turn that into an actual working atom, so that's the thing. So here we have the structure of WD16, so there's four arms, there's four by four S-boxes here, each one of these are the same, but there's four different S-boxes here, and there's a linear mixing phase here, and it's keyed by 64 bits, so there's four subkeys going in here. It's a fairly simple thing. So zooming up to the first round, we can see exactly how it happens, how it works, and if you have a simple related key here, like inverting the high-most level here, only one S-box is obviously activated, then we have linear mixing after that, and quite obviously if you have a certain probability, we can cancel it out if you have a related key. Because these are four by four S-boxes, you always have at least, you know, differentials, probability one over four. Actually if it's a good S-box, like these are, all of the differentials are one over four. Right, so we observe here that we have 64 bit related keys for these WD-16 instances that actually produce the same output for these two related keys with probability one over four, because the subkeys are only used once here. So that's one word, that's one word, that's one word. And one should also know that if this difference is actually coming from up here, from plaintext side, then we also have two plaintexts which actually produce the same output under related key with a high probability, so we can have basically coalitions in WD-16 easily as well, with high probability. So I'm using both of these trivial probabilities in the attic, which is actually quite simple. Oh yeah, I should note also that actually they haven't burned one attic, where I can say any WD-16 dive function, so that was totally relevant to the attic. Typically I claim that it's two to six to four, because that's the general case, just based on the structure of Hummingbird one, but if you look more deeply into the actual contents of WD-16, it would be easily pushed down to like two to 32 very realistic values against Hummingbird one. Now we go to the structure, that was WD-16, now we look at the data pass which are 16 bits. So first we have a sort of a key setup phase, so we have four arms like this, where we start with the IV value here twice, and we run some additions and rotations to sort of mix it up into a 1.28, which that's the IV setup phase. There's a counter here, and really the keys I use here twice. So here we use subkeys from one to four, one to four again, five to eight, and five to eight again. Because the key schedule is so silly, we actually note that there are related keys that we do with one over 65,000, actually produce the same IV value as the four arms, because if we have a relative key position here, these subkeys are the same, and here again that's where it happens. The number of related keys or the related key family is simply, that is the highest probability related key family. There are others, I mean lower probability, but still perfectly realistic. So I'm just focusing on the easiest related key families. So because that's one thing that Ivan thoroughly put into the paper, is that because these related key families are so large, you can actually hit them by chance in an RFID setting. Especially if the RFID has something like a master key, or if the private keys are derived from serial numbers which happen in keylog, if there's issues of that nature that the secret keys aren't entirely dependent, that they aren't derived from something, you have a fair chance of actually hitting related keys, if you have a big file of RFID tokens, it's actually finding a pair which have this relation by chance, and in a related key you can obviously then derive the master key by using that pair, so it's fairly realistic. And one should also think about the sort of vegan versions of pieces, because then it gets totally silly. They're easily grateful. And those do exist. Now the encryption part. So having a pair isn't like a stream cypher or exactly like a clock cypher. And because of the requirement of even for the very first bird to be resistant against an axe, unlike in like a duplex mode or similar modes, you run a presentation on each plane expert to produce each cypher expert. We cannot just sort that with the state and then mix up the state or something like that. So we have a, that's the encryption pipeline and then there's mixing with the staples here. These are additions. And there's also some variable keying. These last four staples are actually used to key the middle row rounds here. So that would be total interior. Like in Hammond Brake 1. But anyway, because these key birds are sore and the related key family is based on sore, that doesn't really matter. If we have K1 to K4, again here, that's 5 to 8, we don't have to worry about that. We only have this one or four, probably we haven't twice, but it's the same cypher test. We observed that there's a very high probability, 1 over 16, that if the state matches, if we run the IV setup, find an IV value which produces a collision in the state after IV setup, then we have a very high probability that these two related keys will actually produce matching cypher tests. Obviously, it's quite easy to test because we allowed this repeated non-seract type of model. So, coming to the actual key recovery. I just thought it's a very big one key relation that I'm using here. So we have two black box, let's say, RFID tokens, and we are issuing various there. And they are related by this. And obviously the task is to figure out key. So these very basic observations, you can actually develop all kinds of attacks. This is the one I implemented and run successfully. So that's the diagram I'm describing. So the first step in the attack is to find an IV value. We only need one IV value which produces a state collision after the initial in phase for these two keys. And we've already seen that it's very easy to do. We have two to sixty in effort and we have such an IV value. And it's easy to detect because we have matching cypher tests for some of them and next one is two keys. Now, we call the encryption routine here. Two months. They say the first attack, actually the very first period of the internal state. And that's done by analyzing the interplay of this addition, the very first addition of the register word one to the plain text word which is, by the way, the diagrams and the equations I'm using the same variable that's temperature variable zero. And then it goes into WD16 where we have absorbed between the key words and the plain text word, WD16. So it's all based on interplay because we can choose plain text P1 here. We don't know this one but we know what happens in here. So this was trying to create a collision here. We use a pair of plain text words which we can choose for the two black boxes. And with certain probability we get a collision after the very first WD16 invocation. And that tells us about the state of the first register word here. It's just based on the particular characteristics of the S-prox that's in there.  You can build a table like this for any S-prox. Now, as you have actually you have the value of R1 in like two consecutive plain exposition. So you can see that it only changes by this addition for example here. So by subtracting those from each other we obtain an internal quantity here. So after that you have one of the internal state variables. Just because it's based on these additions and things you can actually work out with fairly basic algebra just filling the equations around simplifying them. You can work out much of the rest of the internal state. So that's all in I believe in section 3.3. So because this is a because we can repeat the same value you can just rewind back the side for new stuff again try different things actually build full codebooks full 2-to-16 codebooks for certain position and analyze those for more information. But anyway so after that exercise we have two internal quantities D1 and D0 for example position. So that's D1 D0 and D1 we know these values and we know that only 64 bits goes in here. So that allows us to basically break the cyber in half. So because we have these values and we are full forcing WD16 instances we don't have to worry about the other half of the secret key. So that already gives us a 2-to-64 attack. So first we attack this half. Obviously then the second half is a matter of root force. The whole complexity of attack is 2-to-64. Then one can see that actually having equations like that allows this to be split in half because each one of these keywords is only used once in the WD16. So you can do a time memory trade-off for this space. So actually attacking the first half of the secret key can be front down to something like 2-to-36. But if you do that I haven't figured out a way of doing that to the second half. So that root force phase of the second half of the key dominates and the overall complexity is still 2-to-36. But again that's the case if we have this particular relation. So if the relation can be in any one of these positions this difference is cancelled by this. So we can shift this for example one position one position right and it will still be a perfectly valid relation. And I do actually believe I'm fully aware to die by there's probably a way of doing a time memory trade-off on both halves. The other related key model the security of the whole thing closed out in like 2-to-32. That's very much true if we are in a crazy attack model where we have multiple relations. I've seen that being proposed. If we have like 32 related pairs somehow then you can definitely get the common secret 2-to-32 effort. So in the paper in the appendix I was asked to sort of propose an alternative to WD16 which is obviously the weak link here. I wasn't allowed to touch any other part of decipher which is pretty bad because I know that it has features that I don't really support myself. In the appendix of the paper there's a version called or I'm a bit too new they are replaced with key functions. We love these key functions nowadays because well for example S-boxes are sometimes vulnerable to cache-side channel attacks and things like that which don't really have a lot of key functions. These are something that we engage and are rotation independent. So it's just based on these two involutions and a bunch of constants. The hardware implementation is actually smaller than the one we've been to. The software implementation I wrote for MSP430 isn't that impressive but can you do it? MSP430 only has one big rotation right or left and here I'm rotating like a crazy amount so that's one of the reasons and that's what they do in the most order of the game. So you are welcome to try it out. I know that there might be some attacks and even related key this isn't fully resistant to related key attacks because I couldn't change the key schedule. So there you go. Just a little challenge. Anyway, so thank you. I like regular players. They just come along and live it. Thank you. Do you have a question or comment? So I have a question. So have you tried to apply other related key type of attack? For example related key boomerang attack. So related key boomerang or related key boomerang? Not necessary because this was sort of trivial. I like single things. So any other questions or comments? Okay, let's thanks again.


The intention-to-treat principle is a method used in randomized controlled trials to ensure that all participants are analyzed according to the group they were originally assigned, regardless of whether or not they actually received the intended treatment. This method preserves the benefits of randomization, which cannot be assumed when using other methods of analysis. Per protocol analysis is the opposite of intention-to-treat analysis, it excludes participants who did not receive the intended treatment, thus increasing the risk of bias. Using the wrong method of analysis can lead to a significantly biased assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention. This article was authored by C. Eric McCoy.


Welcome folks, we're the Down Industrial, let's finish down 881, NASDAQ off 414, S&Ps off 117. Now this is a huge problem folks because what we have out here is that you're going into the swing and you had some good volume today. Now we didn't have the volume of the swing, but what you had is you had an expansion of volume and you're digging into the high volume bar. So the low of the spy is $380, we're $389, the high of that bar was $397, we're $389, so we're going into after that bar. Now what we did is you did 118 million shares versus two days ago you tried to get to a high of $64 million, you can see how this works, price and volume, bottom on you're accelerating down, so this market is going to take a rest over the weekend and you're going to see this go for the low on Monday. If you get higher volume on that low, get out of the way because this is a monster ABC Down and it's a huge one. We go into the NDX100, we take a look at the NDX100, same type of setup inside the NDX, bottom line you get 81 million shares, the high of the low is $293, well we're into that bar by 5 points, the low is $280, that's going to go after $280, the volume characteristic and the Q's are even worse, you did 81 million shares, you're coming into 91 million, this can blow this away in a second. If it does, bottom line, same type of setup, monster ABC structure down. What you have here folks is this, there's plenty of time to get to lower price because what we have, we come back the 13th, you get a full week, then we're off the 20th, you get another full week before you can get to the July 4th weekend because the July 4th weekend, no doubt, here we go America, it likes to go up, it does, no matter how far you down, it loves to go up the July 4th weekend. Gold, gold, bottom line, broke a B point, broke it with volume, you're going to higher price. Now the amazing thing about gold is that this came out of nowhere and that's what it loves to do, but this one really came out of nowhere today because it doesn't even make any sense because the dollar went up almost a full penny, the dollar went up 965.6. So gold is long and strong, have a great weekend folks, have a safe weekend, we look forward to you coming back, visiting Tommy Monday morning 9 o'clock, great show, have a great one, have a safe one.


What's going on guys, it's your boy DPJ here today with another Destiny video and in today's video We're going to take a look at the Red Spectre. Now the Red Spectre was a weapon Which had a lot of hype surrounding it prior to the Taken King's release We saw a few glimpses of this weapon via Taken King gameplay trailers a lot of people including me thought this could Have been some sort of upgraded Red Death or Monte Carlo just because of the bayonet It was all speculation at the time though, so forgive us Now this weapon is natural weapon of its own and it's a weapon I've wanted to get my hands on since seeing images of it quite a while back It finally dropped from me the other day and damn I got pretty excited I really did now this weapon as far as I know is a crucible drop only weapon But I have had people tell me they've had it drop from other places But obviously providing no proof at all So if you want this thing go grind PVP I had mine drop after playing Rift and having a not so good game The leg was terrible and it led to me running around with a shotgun Which is what I do when I enter laggy lobbies So if you guys want to hire your chances of getting this drop go play crucible be crap like me and hopefully it will pay off Now the Red Spectre dropped with not so great perks, but to be honest I was just thankful to see that hand-laid stuck because as you can see its stuck stability is pretty damn bad And this being a weapon with a higher rate of fire. It needs a stability perk Mine also dropped through hutswap and Icarus neither perk makes this weapon more potent The three sites mine has are read the ORS, SureShot IS and range lens RL S3 Me personally I prefer using the less clunky SureShot IS as it's these bare iron sights Which work best for me Now I'm maxed out this thing straight away as I am actually looking for a go-to PVP auto rifle In this Red Spectre I thought I found it especially after going off what other people had said So I use this weapon in PVP and I instantly knew this weapon was going to be sub path to other auto rifles I'd used It has a high rate of fire So keeping it under control to nail that target gets rather hard after around 40 feet Which is fine I suppose because after about 40 feet you may as well spit on your enemy to do damage as this thing has no range at all Not gonna lie though this thing packs a pretty punch at close quarters So we'll take a look at its PVP stats So this weapon shoots 10 bullets per second so that's 600 rounds per minute It will empty its entire clip in roughly around 3.33 seconds This weapons reload and ready time as standard is around 2.10 seconds Now onto its PVP damage this thing does 20 to the head and 16 to the body but it's damage fall off is pretty bad This thing will do a maximum of 200 damage per second if all shots are landed are crits Or in my opinion that would pretty hard to do to the body per second you'll do 160 damage maximum clip damage is around 720 now the stability of this weapon could be improved depending on what mud you have dropped without Instability perks though, and if you let rip this thing is all over the damn place Even with hand laid stuck it ain't much better, but it can be handled to a degree But like I said it does need more stability if you have had this weapon drop what mods did you get? Let me know down below in that comment section over all I am slightly let down by this weapon I expect to be much more, but that's not to say ain't a good weapon It just ain't as good as what I think it should be the best thing about this weapon in my opinions Probably subtitle rumor has it that red death prototypes are circulating in the crucible once again So this thing is a red death prototype, but ain't no way near as good guys That is my opinion on the red spectra and how you obtain it. Hope you enjoyed the video Do drop a like I do appreciate the support subscribe for daily destiny, and I'll catch you guys on the next one Peace out until next time. Peace