It is now time for a question period. The leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. My question, Speaker, to the Premier. Premier, I watched your press conference last night in wake of the latest revelations with $1.1 billion that you wasted to protect liberal seats. You said, you're sorry. Here's the difference between your leadership and mine. Premier, saying you're sorry isn't leadership. Order. Order. I'll be starting immediately. Member from Sudbury, come to order. I'm going to start right away. Finish, please. Your style leadership, Premier, is you believe leadership is simply saying you're sorry. I believe leadership is about holding people accountable for what they've done. So, you failed to make this announcement last night. Maybe you'll this morning. Who got fired? Who's being dumped from Cabot? Who's being held accountable for this incredible waste of what they've done? Exactly what I said I was going to do when I came into office, Mr. Speaker. I campaigned to process, Mr. Speaker, making sure that the information was available. And that is what we've done, Mr. Speaker. That's why the tens of thousands of documents have gone to the committee. 30,000 documents from the Premier's office, Mr. Speaker. That's why I asked the Auditor General to look at the Oakville situation and to report on that situation. We have that report now, Mr. Speaker. So the information that I said needed to be available is available, Mr. Speaker. From my perspective, that's leadership. I said I was going to do it. I did it. You have the information, Mr. Speaker. That's in the process. Supplementary. I think the answer, Premier, is if you will remove nobody from their job, it's time to remove you from your job. Let me see if I understand your alibi on this, Premier. Your alibi is that you spend a billion won in hush money to send a trans candidate, and your alibi is that you had nothing to do with it. You were out in the hallway when these decisions took place. You were out of the loop. The reality is, Premier, your fingerprints are all over this. You actually signed the deal. You had a choice. You had an option. You could have said no. This is not in the interest of taxpayers. This is bad for the province of Ontario. You could have set a higher standard, but you signed the deal. You signed the document. If you're going to do that and sell us up the river, why should we trust you with the finances? Premier. Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is really important that people understand that we made a commitment, as did all the parties, to cancel and relocate the gas plants, Mr. Speaker. That was our commitment, Mr. Speaker. We took advice from officials. And, Mr. Speaker, I have said that in the first instance... Shouting people down is not... I need to hear their response. Thank you. I have said in the first instance that there were decisions made that should not have been made, that we should have paid closer attention to the community. I have never said, as the Leader of the Opposition alleges, I've never said that I didn't take any responsibility. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I was part of the cabinet that made this decision and we worked to make it the best way possible, Mr. Speaker. There were mistakes made. Now, it's to make sure that this never happens again, that we have the... The sound come to order. The member from Cambridge come to order. The member from Halton come to order. Second time. Supplementary final. You know, it's incredible the Liberals give themselves a standing ovation on the patented back. All of you could have said no. And said no. Not one of the Liberal Benches ever took a moment to say this was right. This is clear. The same goes both ways. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities come to order. And the member that just said that might find themselves kicked out. Please finish. Not a single one of you said no. And the only choice, Speaker, is to clear out this entire corrupt lot, change the government, and get this province back on track. Here's step number two. First of all, a judicial inquiry. Put the Liberals before the stand, the threat of jail time, the threat of jail doors closing to compel the truth. Primarily, support our call for the judicial inquiry. Can you see it, please? Thank you. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, if I believe... Member from Prince Edward Hastings come to order. If I believed for one moment that there were anything criminal that had gone on, Mr. Speaker. If I order a judicial inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I would be looking for that. The fact is that it is very clear now as a result of all of the documentation and all of the reports that have been done, Mr. Speaker, that there were mistakes made. That the people who were making decisions made mistakes in terms of some of the decisions, some of the paths that they went down, Mr. Speaker. I've said that. I've taken responsibility for that as a member of the Parliament, Mr. Speaker. And what I had said I was going to do was provide that information to all of the people who were asking for it. That's what I've done, Mr. Speaker. We have the information, and now, Mr. Speaker, it's time. We need to make sure it doesn't... Thank you. New question. Can you see it, please? New question.  They call it fraud. They call it perjury. That's criminal activity. There's no more clear demonstration than that is why we need a judicial inquiry. Put liberals, put Dalton McGinty, put Kathleen Wynn on the stand. Let's actually hear you before a judge who can compel the truth. And maybe it's going to take this thread of jail doors slamming shut behind the liberals to get that truth. But, Speaker, I'm not going to give up on that. I will do that as Premier.  You signed the deal. You had a choice. You sold us down the river. Premier, why did you sign the deal? Why didn't you say no? Premier? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, as I said, when I came into this post, I said that we were going to open up this process and we were going to get all the information that we could and we have done that, Mr. Speaker. And, in fact, the auditor general has credited our government what she said is it was good to hear they're taking the report seriously and are taking some actions and changing the way things are going to be done in the future, Mr. Speaker. That's our responsibility. That is what governments should do in response to information that determines that there were decisions made that shouldn't have been made and that there were processes in place that should not have been in place. We're taking that action, Mr. Speaker. The most important, there are two things that are very, very important in this. One is that we cite energy infrastructure differently, Mr. Speaker. And the Minister of Energy is putting new rules in place in terms of working with community. And secondly, Mr. Speaker, there are rules around political staff, relationship with third parties and their ability to influence those deals, Mr. Speaker. Those are the changes that need to be made. Thank you. Supplementary. Again, no one believes that you happen to be out in the hallway when these decisions are made. You were a co-chaired liberal campaign that chose to do this. You signed the key cabinet document that sold the province out and sold out taxpayers. These things have real-world consequences. $1.1 billion could have built that subway to Scarborough. $1.1 billion could have built a new hospital in South Niagara. $1.1 billion could have built a new hospital in Vaughan.  Premier, the problem here is that you yourself signed the document, you sold the province down the river and the NDP sold their soul to prop it up. Isn't it time for a change? Well, you called your secretary. Let's get the truth on behalf of taxpayers. Premier. Mr. Speaker, I went to committee. I answered the questions about my involvement. I made it very clear that I take responsibility for having been part of the cabinet that Mr. Speaker was trying to get a deal. There is no doubt about that. And we were taking advice from officials. So John Kelly, who was counsel of the Ministry of the Attorney General, said, quote, in my experience over 40 years of litigating, if you can avoid litigation, you should. It's a process that is fraught with risk. Unquote. Mr. Speaker, we were trying to make a deal. We were trying to avoid litigation. We were acting in good faith in an attempt to avoid future costs, Mr. Speaker. That is the information that is available. I made it clear to the committee what my involvement was. And I take responsibility for being part of the cabinet that made those decisions. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we all agreed in this House that those gas plants should be relocated, Mr. Speaker. That was the agreement. We implemented that, Mr. Speaker. And I've said there were mistakes, and I've taken responsibility for that, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary? Here's the reality. There are two important facts in the Auditor General's report. Number one, Premier, with all due respect, you weren't at a loop. You were in the control room. You were calling the shots. The key decision we find out on page 16 of the Auditor's report itself, it said the key deliberate decision was made when you signed the document and you sold the province down the river. You signed away any of the protections the taxpayers had to give hush money to TransCanada Corporation to save liberal seats. Premier, you signed that document. You had an option. You chose to sign that document. You sold the province down the river. I have no confidence in a Premier that makes those decisions, that has a pattern of behavior that should deliver party out of the taxpayers. Will you do the right thing today? Will you call our confidence motion and let this legislation decide that the ability to do that. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You know, when I look at this whole situation, the thing that I think is the most problematic is that in the first instance, we did not get the sighting of these pieces of energy infrastructure right in the first place. We did not listen to the communities. We did not do the right thing in terms of taking into account the concerns of the community in the first instance. Had we done that, Mr. Speaker, had we had a process in place, as we do now, where we would take into account the concerns of the community, we would examine those and make sure we understood what those concerns were, Mr. Speaker, and have community buy-in in the first instance, then we would not be in this situation. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. We are correcting that problem. It should not have happened, and I take responsibility for having been part of the government that made that mistake of not taking the community's concerns into account in the first instance. No question. They were the first party. Thank you, Speaker. My first question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Auditor General found that the cancelled power deals will cost the people of Ontario almost a billion dollars. Does the Premier plan to challenge the findings of the Auditor's Speaker? Mr. Speaker, we have accepted the Auditor's findings. We thank her for her findings. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the OPA has a different set of findings used a different set of assumptions, and one of the points of this whole exercise, Mr. Speaker, is that estimates of cost vary. When you look out 20 years, and you're trying to estimate what the costs are going to be, it is difficult witness the number of different numbers that have arisen over the past months, even to today, Mr. Speaker, where there are two different numbers in terms of the OPA number and the Auditor General's number using different assumptions. So the cost estimates vary, and that has been one of the issues that has been very challenging and I would suggest mostly for the people of Ontario in order that they try to understand this situation. Thank you, supplementary. Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the Premier is saying she doesn't believe the numbers that the Auditor General put in the report yesterday. Now the Auditor's Speaker, that the Liberal government, in their rush to reach a deal, drove up the cost in their rush to reach a deal, drove up the cost of cancellation by hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, as a member of Cabinet, the Premier signed off on that decision. How does she justify that sign off? I did not say that I didn't accept the Auditor's numbers. I said I did accept the Auditor's numbers, but what I said was what she actually said, which is that there is uncertainty. There is uncertainty in these numbers. The Auditor General says that herself, Mr. Speaker, and anyone who has spent time with accountants, and I love accountants, showed the confusion about the Auditor General to look at this situation. I accept her findings, Mr. Speaker, and as I said, I have done everything in my power to get information out to answer the questions that have been asked, and we'll continue to do that. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Liberal Party campaign and as a Cabinet minister who signed off on the decision, the Premier knew or should have known that the Liberal government was driving up costs and that the public would be on the hook. When the Premier was signing off on those decisions, was she thinking as an elected representative of the people or in her role as Liberal campaign co-chair? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have many times taken responsibility for my role as a member of Cabinet in the process that took place. It's true we were attempting to get a deal and avoid litigation, Mr. Speaker, and I will just quote from David Lindsay, who is a former Deputy Minister of Energy. If you have a contract and you don't honour the contract, then the party on the other side can sue you for breach of contract and the damages will be all the benefits they were hoping to procure. Try to avoid litigation. That was the strategy. What we in the OPA were trying to do. So, Mr. Speaker, there was an attempt to avoid litigation. That is absolutely true. I take responsibility for being part of a Cabinet that was attempting to avoid litigation and all the costs into the future that that would mean. So, I take responsibility for that. And, Mr. Speaker, I have said that we need to have different processes in place and that's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. I have a question. There was a third party? Well, my next question is for the Premier as well, Speaker, and I have to say that no matter how hard she tries to muddy the waters about the real numbers, the auditor was pretty clear yesterday. The government cut a great deal for TransCanada and made it easier for the Liberals to hold on to power, but they stuck it to the people of Ontario. Now, the cabinet ministers who signed off on the arbitration preventing the OPA from defending the public interest. Why did she do that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, I've answered questions about my role in being part of a cabinet that was attempting to get a deal on this, Mr. Speaker. We were working to get certainty and we were, Mr. Speaker, attempting to avoid litigation. That is quite clear. We have said that over and over again, Mr. Speaker, because we believe and certainly that staff in the Premier's office believe that to incur litigation or to go into a situation where litigation would be certain or probable was not responsible, Mr. Speaker. I've also said that we need to make changes. We need to introduce new rules that would limit political staff involvement in commercial third-party transactions. I've said that clearly. I said it yesterday, Mr. Speaker. We'll be bringing in policy in the next week or so, Mr. Speaker, that will put those new rules in place. It's very important that we learn from the findings of the Auditor General. That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary? Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier likes to talk about how much things have changed or how much she might want to change things in the future, but she was part of a team that signed off on this crass decision in a desperate bid to hold on to power. So if the Premier thinks this was wrong, why didn't she stand up and say so when she had the chance, Mr. Speaker? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to step back and just remind everyone that the... Specifically, the member from Bruce Gray-Owenstown, others as well, but the member from Bruce Gray-Owenstown will come to order second time. Premier, sensitive play. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What we were doing was we were implementing a decision that had been a promise of all three parties, Mr. Speaker, that we were in that situation. But we all agreed that the gas plants needed to be relocated. We were implementing that, Mr. Speaker, and there was a cost associated with that. And there would have been a cost associated with it, whether the PCs or whether the NDP had been in office, Mr. Speaker. That's just the reality. Thank you very much. Well, I'll remind the Premier that I was the only leader during the election campaign who said I would not promise to cancel those plants until I knew how I could do it. This is actually on all levels here. All members, relax. And don't use this as an opportunity to steal some comments. Please finish. He could hire 18,000 nurses, Speaker. It could buy- The Minister for Rural Affairs has come to order. Instead, it's going into the pockets of private power companies. Now, the Premier says she's sorry today, but when she had the chance, the power to actually do something, she chose the Liberal Party's interest over the people's interest, and she signed off. Question. How does she explain that decision? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So let me just first say that I have said repeatedly that the money that was the cost of moving these plants, Mr. Speaker, was unacceptable. You're absolutely, she's absolutely right, that it was not acceptable, and it came about because of decisions that were made that should have been made differently, Mr. Speaker, and a process that did not work. But, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party and her candidates, they opposed both plants, Mr. Speaker. They said they would relocate them. They opposed those plants. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker, and we have them on record saying that they would. So, what we need to do is make sure that we understand that when decisions are made around large pieces of infrastructure, whether it's roads, Mr. Speaker, or whether it's energy infrastructure, when those contracts are entered into, Mr. Speaker, when changes are made in those, there's a cost attached to it. We better make sure we've got better processes in place. That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, on the siting of infrastructure and on the processes to get out of them. Thank you. Thank you. New question to the member from the Peeing College. Thank you very much. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the auditor confirmed what Vic Fidelli had told this liberal government all along, that their attempt to steal a seat in the last election cost $1 billion. Now, let's put this into perspective, Speaker. Barack Obama spent less money campaigning to become the President of the United States than you spent to save the member from Oakville's seat. It's absolutely shameful. It's that the liberal campaign chair who signed that Cognitive Document either didn't know what she was signing with the billion-dollar price tag, or she knowingly stood in this assembly and said it was only $33 million. So, Speaker, my question is very simple. Is she incompetent, or does she knowingly tell this House it was $33 million when she knew it was a billion? And that's why we need a judicial inquiry. Appreciate it, please. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to this supplementary, but I just want to be clear once again, Mr. Speaker, that at every juncture, when I reported on a number, I was taking that number from information that had been given to me by officials, Mr. Speaker. That is the only way that I had access to numbers. Those are the numbers that I used, Mr. Speaker, and I have said repeatedly that the numbers have changed over time, and that's been one of the issues around this whole situation, Mr. Speaker. It's why, in fact, I asked the Auditor General to look at the situation in the first place. Thank you, supplementary. Speaker, I guess the number certainly did change. She said $33 million. It was a billion dollars. That's 2,640 percent that she was off, Speaker, and proved she's got no plan. She's got no mandate, and she has no credibility left whatsoever. She knew as much in her documentation yesterday. She said at the time this Premier was standing up that she had actually already paid. She already paid a third, Speaker, of what it had cost. That's how much she knew when she knew it. Has she no shame? She created the decisions, yet now she comes with her crocodile tears and says she's going to prevent political interference. She's already done it, so, Speaker, no point. Minister of the Environment will come to order. Premier. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate my new energy critic. It's the first opportunity I've had in the House. She was one of three energy critics that were appointed at the time, Mr. Speaker. And consequently, I asked the Premier if she could appoint two co-ministers of energy to mask the three critics. But she turned me down, Mr. Speaker. Member from Northumberland, with the U.S., come to order a second time. We're talking about the costs that are going into the pool of costs that affect the rates, Mr. Speaker. Yes, these additional costs will impact and put upwards pressure on the rates. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, in the last five or six months, we have taken some decisions that are going to be very significant in pushing the energy rates down. For example, Mr. Speaker, it was the $3.7 billion we saved on the Samsung deal. That $3.7 billion is going to push rates down for the next 20 years, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Member from Charlotte and Fort. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Premier. General said, quote, we believe that the settlement with TCE will not only keep TCE whole, but may make it better than whole. The Liberal government made sure that TransCanada would get every nickel of profit and then some. In spite of the fact, there was no reason to do that. When the Liberal government cancelled the Oakville gas plant to save a seat in Oakville, TransCanada ended up making more money, not less. Every day Ontarians are paying those bills. Why did the Premier and her government put private power profits ahead of every day family? Mr. Speaker, the plant in Oakville was poorly sited and the government has accepted responsibility for that and has accepted the responsibilities for the additional costs. Indeed, the Premier has apologized for that. But Mr. Speaker, in response to the people of Oakville, the PCs, the NDP and the Liberals committed to relocating the plant and no party had precise costs at that time. The Auditor General in response to the Premier has now provided us with her estimate of the cost to do this. And Mr. Speaker, these involved difficult negotiations. There are expert people who came before committee Mr. Speaker and have said we are not to be litigating this issue. It should be negotiated. And the contract that resulted was as a result of the given take of negotiations to avoid litigation Mr. Speaker. Thank you supplementary. Speaker, it's a shame the Minister wasn't around when two parties in this legislature told them before they signed the contract not to go ahead in Oakville. The Ontario Auditor General said the reason that Ontario families are paying TransCanada more money for cancelling the Oakville power plant is because the government promised to keep TransCanada whole. The promise to protect every nickel of profit came out of the Liberal Premier's office. Why did the Liberal government put private power profits ahead of families who are paying the bills? Mr. Speaker, the Ontario power authority was negotiating with TransCanada Energy. The negotiations were tough. Mr. Speaker and estimates were made by OPA and I want to quote from the Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker. This is the Auditor General speaking. Making assumptions about future events and their effects involves considerable uncertainty. In fact, those are the Auditor General's words. Accordingly readers should be cautioned that while our estimates differ from estimates previously announced by the OPA they will also likely differ from the actual costs and savings that will be known in the future. Those are the Auditor General's words on page 3 of the report. OPA made their best estimates on their assumptions. The Auditor made hers and the result is in the Auditor's report which we accept, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Question from Ottawa Orleans. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. For parents in Orleans the health of their children comes first. But as we lead increasingly busy lives it becomes more and more difficult to make sure we're making the healthiest choices for our kids. This spring our government's healthy kids panel made a number of recommendations to fight childhood obesity. I understand that the Minister made an announcement this morning in response to some of this advice. Speaker, through you could the Minister tell the House what the government's plan to help parents make healthier choices for their children. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the member from Ottawa Orleans for this question. We know that the healthier our kids are, Speaker, the less likely they are to develop a chronic disease later in life. That's why our government struck the healthy kids panel to give our kids the healthiest possible start. That panel provided very valuable advice. And this morning I was happy to announce that we're taking care of the health of our kids. And this morning I was happy to announce that we're taking care of the healthiest possible start. That panel provided very valuable advice. So we will help parents and children make healthier choices by giving the information they need, Speaker, by putting calories on menus and menu boards. This month we'll begin consultations. We'll listen to parents, health professionals and industry partners. And this winter I will be in charge of their support for this. I urge all members in this House to support this legislation. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to the Minister. I know that parents across Ontario will be thrilled to hear that we're moving forward with menu labeling for large chain restaurants. This will certainly equip parents with more information to make better choices. But I think we all recognize that no one action will be enough to tackle the challenge that the government is taking to give our kids the best start in life. Thank you, Minister. Well, thank you, Speaker. And last week the Minister of Children and Youth Services announced the first initiatives responding to the panel's recommendations. We need to give our kids a healthy start in life, and that starts when they're babies. So we're focusing on the first days, weeks and months of a child's life by enhancing breastfeeding supports in Ontario so that every mom who wants to breastfeed will get the support she needs to do so successfully. This includes 24-7 telehealth support because we know that babies are hungry around the clock. And as kids grow up, Speaker, we know that good food at school keeps them healthier and boosts their academic success. That's why we've also announced an expansion of the student nutrition program to provide breakfast and snack programs for about 30,000 in high-priority schools. Speaker, because of these initiatives aligned with the panel's recommendations to give them a healthy start as I've indicated before I don't like it when members do drive by heckling. New question. The member from Nipissing. Thank you. Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The Auditor General told us the cost to cancel the Oakville gas plant is significantly more than it needed to be. And a number of questionable decisions caused this. The Auditor states, quote, the province, the OPA and TCE entered into an arbitration agreement that laid out the framework. That's what sent the price soaring. This is all thanks to you, Premier. You signed the Cabinet document that gave them the power to do this. The Auditor further states this deal, quote, waved the clause in the contract that gave the OPA a sensible claim of not owing TCE lost profits. So, Premier, when you signed that Cabinet minute, you wrote a blank check to TransCanada. Premier, will you finally admit that you are directly responsible for this scandal? Thank you. Governor Hussler. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has addressed those questions. The committee has looked into it. The Auditor General outlined the possibility of what might have happened, but at the same time, we had dozens of witnesses in front of committee who spoke about the potential for litigation that it was much better to negotiate than to litigate. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that at the Premier's behest, we have put forward cost estimates provided by the Auditor General and the Progressive Conservative Party, which aggressively made the same promises will not furnish us with their cost estimates, Mr. Speaker. As for their candidates to come forward before the committee and talk about the costing that went to it, they have refused to come forward. We've asked Mr. Speaker, the member from Halden who stood in this legislature day after day after day, and asked for a cancellation of Oakville to come to the committee, and yet he's approved. Mr. Speaker, we have given the information to the committee. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, it's obvious the Premier herself said we have 160,000 pages of documents. We've heard from 62 witnesses. Yet with all of that, we still did not know the answer to the member from Cranbridge's original question how much did it cost. It took an Auditor's report to tell us liberal witness after liberal witness testified under Oak. Yet they all denied that TransCanada was told they would be made whole. Speaker, twice today the Premier said, quote, we have good advice from officials. But, Speaker, we know from the Auditor General that it was the Liberal Government who told the OPA to locate the plant in Napa-nee. And that decision alone, that decision to move that plant so far away, the Auditor told us added $577 million to the street. Never mind that other issue. Premier, despite your hollow apology, Ontarians want to know three things. And who's going to jail? Thank you. Thank you. I'm not impressed with somebody's actions. Come on over here. Mr. Speaker, you can't rewrite history. The fact of the matter is that party opposite made the exact same promise as Mr. Speaker. Daniela Morowitz who's the President of the Charwell-Maple Grove Residents Association, went on Metro morning and you know what she spoke about in May of this year? She talked about going to Queens Park and the opposition parties being 100% behind her and she went on to say nobody said how much is it going to cost or put a maximum dollar value on canceling it. The member from Nipissing will come to order. No. No, you won't. You will. Carry on. Every single party in this legislature made the same promise. Mr. Speaker, we came forward with the auditor the Prime Minister yesterday and the Minister of Energy outlined steps that they will take in order to make sure this does not happen again. We call on the Justice Committee to undertake similar work and provide advice to this government Mr. Speaker, you cannot rewrite history. No question. The member from Simmons, James Bates. My question is to the Premier. The report yesterday on the Oakville power plant from the auditor was quite damning. A section in the report says the Premier's office committed to compensating TCE for the financial value of its contract for the Oakville plant even though events occurred that we believe could have enabled termination costs at a much lower cost. My question is why did the Liberal government commit to paying more money instead of paying less? Mr. Speaker, the member from Prince Edward Hastings will come to order second time. Carry on. Mr. Speaker, the contract had a provision called force majeure and basically there was a cancellation clause that would come into effect at some future time. The cancellation clause date in the agreement at hand, Mr. Speaker, was February 2016. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, the auditor general calculated her costs and expenses based on a starting date of December 2015. So the auditor in one hand was saying this thing would be operating in December 2015 and yet she's relying on a cancellation date in February 2016. So Mr. Speaker, with respect to the auditor general, there's a significant inconsistency on that particular issue. And in addition, Mr. Speaker, they were negotiating all the parties on our side negotiating in good faith. Thank you. Supplementary. Unbelievable that they're challenging the auditor on their decision. The fact is, your government had an opportunity in order to get out from underneath this at very little cost. For some reason, and we know what that is because you were trying to save some seats in this saga, you ended up doing what was the most expensive alternative. So I ask you again, why is it that you made a decision that committed Ontarians are paying far more than he should have for the cancellation of these plants? Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear three parties promised to cancel the gas plants, both of them, Mr. Speaker. None of us had estimates at the time. In the meantime, the premier in her leadership asked the auditor general to do a report. Namastating the fact that the auditor was taking nine months to prepare her report, the opposition continually tried to get the exact cost at committee. In April, Mr. Speaker, we asked the president of the OPA to come before committee with his most current estimate. That most current estimate was $350 million, $310 million, Mr. Speaker. The reality is nobody knew what the cost was going to be. At that very committee hearing, I remember that the critic for the conservatives was making an estimate of what the cost would be. Thank you. New question? Member from ThunderBee, Adam Coken. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the minister of rural affairs. The minister, when we were first elected in 2003, we inherited three deficits. One deficit, a services deficit, and an infrastructure deficit. And in the first seven or eight years of government, we committed about $60 billion to infrastructure, including major projects in my riding of ThunderBee, Adam Coken. We further committed another $35 billion over the next three years. Now, small, northern and rural municipalities, including those in my riding, Niebing, Oliver Papoonge, O'Connor, Gillies, Conney, and Adam Coken have benefited greatly from our infrastructure announcements historically. My question to the minister is if you can describe for me what your ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has done to benefit those smaller municipalities through programs like M-triple I. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say good morning to the member of ThunderBee, Adam Coken, and I want to thank him for his question. Our budget in 2013, we put $100 million in for a new infrastructure program that all rural municipalities went across the great province of Ontario. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation myself, had the opportunity to visit Ontario, north, south, east, west over this past summer. An opportunity for us to consult widely with mayors and Reeves and wardens, wonderful group of people, and to get their input on how we can allocate this $100 million to support roads and bridges in rural Ontario. I'm pleased to say that last Friday the Premier and I had the opportunity to be in beautiful Sipco, Ontario. A wonderful bear was there. Dentist to Valley of Sipco saying this is the right program, the right time for rural Ontario. 21 communities across the province will be receiving funding. Thank you.  Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. And thanks to the Minister for that response. This summer, Minister Murray was in my writing. He held a consultation on the Long-Term Infrastructure Program and he held that in Marillo, a small hamlet in a community in my writing of Oliver Pakunj. Small communities have benefitted greatly as I said in my opening question on previous infrastructure announcements. However, they are still very concerned with stability and permanency. These small communities by and large have very large geographic land bases. They have relatively small tax bases with which to support their infrastructure needs. One bridge in a small community like Niebing or Oliver Pakunj could significantly skew their budget. Minister, I'm asking you to tell me what we're doing on a go-forward basis to ensure that small northern and rural municipalities have some ability to plan in a very positive, proactive way for their infrastructure needs on a go-forward basis. I do get excited about investing in roads and bridges and water wastewater treatment plants. Right across the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, and to answer my colleague from Thunder Bay, Anacocca, Minister Murray and I travel across the province. We met with over 500 municipal leaders to talk about the challenges they face. And out of this consultation, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at ways, 2014, that will be a centerpiece of our budget to have a... Member from Bruce Gray-Owen Sound is warned. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we're probably going to be doing some projects in the right ex-member, Bruce Gray-Owen Sound, to help that community out with their infrastructure needs. And Mr. Speaker, we're looking forward to putting a permanent program in place. Hopefully, we'll see that. Hopefully, we'll see that in the 2014 budget because that's what AVO, that's what ROBA, that's what all the municipal leaders across Ontario are asking for and we're going to deliver, Mr. Speaker. Member from Barrie. Speaker, my question today is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday I asked why you were defending 200% completion bonuses for the already grossly overpaid TO2015 executives. You continued to rationalize wasting $7 million for people to simply show up for work and said, and I quote, the compensation packages are based on the officials who hosted successful events like the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. That's perfect, Premier. And I'm going to hold you to that and insist that you follow suit because the Government of BC actually cancelled millions in bonuses for its employees working on the Olympics. So, Premier, will you shut down these inappropriate taxpayer-funded bonuses? Of course not. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I have said that the Board negotiated these compensation packages. If you look at the comparators with other games, Mr. Speaker, they're consistent with those. But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this morning the Minister and I had the opportunity to open and welcome the Paso AGM, Mr. Speaker, people from 41 countries who are here to be welcomed by Ontario and the wonderful progress that we're making on the Pan Am Capital, Mr. Speaker, Pan Parapan Capital, the venues, Mr. Speaker. What is confusing to me, and in fact embarrassing, Mr. Speaker, is that the party opposite is not going to take part in the reception, Mr. Speaker, that they are not welcoming the people from these 41 countries to Ontario. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they will reconsider, that both parties will reconsider. They'll join us because I would like to say that the whole legislature welcomes the Pan Parapan Capital. Supplementary? I don't think I heard an answer. I didn't hear an answer. Indeed, they are all welcome, but not in any cost, Premier. We're just at the tip of the iceberg with the Pan Am Expensing, is fixing it. No one. The Premier, the Finance Minister, the Minister of the Pan Am Games are all scapegoats. They appointed TO 2015 buffer board when things go south. We see this with how we saw it with Orange, when we saw it with the gas plants. You need to take accountability, Premier, and tonight you have the goal to celebrate the day after the auditor general reported on Oakville some $1.1 billion in waste that could have actually financed these very games. We'll run another 500,000 The Minister of the Environment has warned. Carry on. Thank you, Speaker. Today's party will run another $500,000 for a good time, or up to $1,000 per guest. Speaker, does the Premier have no shame? Will the Premier release all the budgets and total costs for Pan Am partying? Thank you. Again, Mr. Speaker, I spoke into the board. We are reining in the expenses, making it very clear that the judicious use of public dollars has to be the norm at the Pan Am Games. But, Mr. Speaker, part of the condition of getting the games was hosting this reception, was hosting the people from these 41 countries here in Ontario. The Pan Am Games, Mr. Speaker, for me, and I said this to the Paso AGM this morning, it's about all the young people in those 41 countries right now who are training, they're swimming, they're running. It's got to do with why we went into this bid, Mr. Speaker, why we wanted to bring the Pan Am Games here. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday we learned that no price is too high for Liberals when it comes to courting votes in Mississauga and Oakville. I wouldn't be surprised if the people in Thunder Bay are blowing a fuse today, Speaker. Can the Premier explain how her government can blow a billion dollars shuffling out of India and not even have a penny left over to convert the Thunder Bay generating solution to gas? Mr. Energy. Mr. Speaker, the plant in Oakville was poorly cited and the government has accepted responsibility for that and the additional costs incurred and the Premier has apologized for that. Mr. Speaker, all parties committed to canceling these two gas plants and we now have the price coming up. Mr. Speaker, what we're doing now moving forward is improving the sighting of large energy projects. We've asked the ISO and the OPA to travel across the province and consult with people. They provided a report with 18 recommendations. Mr. Speaker, we've accepted those 18 recommendations. Those 18 recommendations will ensure that there will be no sighting errors. There will be no change for these large infrastructure projects. Mr. Speaker, we've done it. Mr. Speaker. We contracted for 21 gas plants in the last 10 years and 19 of them are in bankruptcy. Thank you. Supplementary. Well, Speaker, the people in Thunder Bay have waited a long time for some straight answers about their gas plant conversion. By the way, the minister should know they actually want a gas plant learning that they're on the hook for this government's billion-dollar scandal. Now, what's worse is that for a billion dollars, this government could have easily converted the Thunder Bay generating station to gas and would have had plenty of money left over. Can the Premier please explain to the people of Thunder Bay why she threw billions of dollars or a billion dollars down a hole instead of providing power for mining and resource development projects across the Northwest? Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party would ask a unique question. I would give a unique answer. Mr. Speaker, she's asked that question before. I've indicated we haven't made a decision on converting the Thunder Bay gas plant. It's still under consideration, Mr. Speaker. We will be meeting. We've got meeting scheduled with the Task Force from Thunder Bay. We're continuing to talk to them. We have our advice from our ministerial agencies, Mr. Speaker. And the decision will be made soon in due course. And I expect Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario will be happy with the outcome. She's barking at the wrong choice, Mr. Speaker. Always barking. No question. A member from Scarborough-Hillwood. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of the Environment. And it affects all people in all Ontario. Protecting the quality of the air we breathe is a fundamental concern for all Ontarians. When I was the CEO of Civic Action, reducing the number of cars on our roads was one of our objectives. In hopes of cutting down the amount of airborne pollutants. Pollutants that cause smog, for example, contribute to respiratory and other health problems for tens of thousands of individuals every year. Lately I have been pleased by the conversations with longtime residents from my riding of Scarborough-Hillwood where they express the noticeable improvements to their air quality over the past few years relative to years prior. Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment please share with us the extent to which smog in Ontario has been handled over the last decade. Thank you. Minister of the Environment. I have an excellent question on a great public interest and I want to thank the member for it. Our government, she would know, has taken very strong action on smog pollution in Ontario. The results really have been good. I have some statistics here to share with members of the House. That's good. The average number of smog advisory days per year has been decreasing since 2003. There were 17 or more smog advisory days each year between 2003 and 2008. Since 2009, Ontario has had three years with fewer than 10 smog advisory days. This year has been nearly smog day three so far. These observed reductions in annual smog can be largely attributed to a 36% reduction over the last several years in nitrogen dioxide. One of the major ingredients of smog as well as a 33% reduction in fine particulate matter, one of the health damaging components of smog. Thank you. Good. Supplementary? Speaker, again my question is for the Minister of Environment. Residents throughout Ontario will be pleased that our government has been working hard and successfully to reduce smog causing pollutants. It will be reassuring to the residents of Scarborough-Gildwood that the improved air quality they have noticed over the past few years is the product of amiable action by our government. Speaker, through you, could the Minister of the Environment please share with this House more specifically how our government is reducing the air pollutants that lead to smog setbacks in our air quality? Thank you, Minister. Again, an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. As members would know, smog contributes to nearly 10,000 premature deaths a year in our province according to the Ontario Medical Association. And I'm pleased to be able to mention a number of initiatives that are improving air quality in Ontario. A massive investment in public transit is obvious to all in this province. Our government's phase out of coal fire generating stations is nearly complete. Despite encouragement from the benches of the official opposition to burn more health damaging coal. As well over the objection of our conservative friends, we have strengthened the drive clean program. Cars, trucks and vans are the biggest domestic sources smog in Ontario. So it matters that car generated air pollution is reduced by a third to drive clean required car repairs. And the Ontario Medical Association, the doctors. Thank you. New question? The member from Newmarket Awards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Speaker, the gas plant scandal costs the taxpayers of this province more than a billion dollars. The orange air ambulance scandal cost taxpayers untold millions. But more important, it cost the lives of patients. And when the full truth is known, we'll find that the ineptitude and mismanagement under the watch of this government also cost the lives of four dedicated first responders. We're now told that orange is conducting a strategic review of its operations. I'm not sure if there was one consistent theme through 18 months of hearings into the orange air ambulance scandal. It was this. Orange should not be in the aviation business. Can the minister- Of course still. If that advice that came from staff, from pilots, from paramedics and from stakeholders is that recommendation part of the review. Thank you. Well, Speaker, I must start by saying I find it disappointing that the member opposite would prejudge the investigation that is underway with regards to the crash. But I can tell you that orange is very committed to patient safety and to the safety of the men and women who work at orange. They are also very committed to ensuring that they deliver the best possible value for the money that they spend. I am enormously impressed with the new leadership at orange. They are looking very closely at important questions, Speaker. They are engaging their own staff. They are engaging people from outside of the orange organization who have a lot to offer, Speaker. They are dedicated to improving the quality of care, Speaker, and the value for money at orange. Thank you. So the minister doesn't know if that is part of the strategic review. And we're going to assume that it's not. Speaker, there are two Transport Canada inspection reports that were issued in March of this year. Both of those reports validate the testimony of witnesses that testified to the fact that orange should not be in the aviation business, from aircraft equipment to pilot and paramedic training to the sustainability of the current structure. It is very clear that orange should not be in the aviation business. I'd like to know from the minister. Would the minister tell us this? Why is she and orange so intent on perpetuating the MASA scheme that will continue to put the lives of patients who first responders at risk in this province? Why will she not take the advice of sworn testimony that makes it very clear that orange should not be in this business? Thank you. Minister, help. Thank you. Minister. Speaker, what I can tell you is that the new leadership at orange has brought an entirely different approach to providing air ambulance. They are working with other partners, Speaker, in our healthcare system. They're working with critical. They're working with our hospitals. They're working with land ambulance, Speaker. They are really working to integrate orange into our healthcare system in a way that it has never happened before. As I said earlier, I am very impressed with the work of Dr. Andrew McCallum. I'm very impressed with the work of the new board, Speaker. They are determined to make the right decisions for the people of this province. And I do wish the member opposite would support them in their work and support the frontline men and women who come to work every day to save lives, Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. My question for the minister. Thank you. My question is for the minister responsible of Francophone affairs. I've heard I've had a few calls from SOS Jerem, but the government keeps putting obstacles in their way. When they want to be reelected, the government showed that they can act very fast, just like the auditor general has shown in her report on both power plants. But when it's about helping Francophones to help being designated, it's taking way too long. The question is very simple. Why do we face so many delays? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the member of Nicole Belt for her question. I'm very surprised to hear her comments today. Her interest in the region of Jerem, we are working with this region. We've been working with them for a very long time. And the delays are not caused by us. We are supporting them. We would like them to be a designated region right now. We want the consent of the opposition members. And there are hesitations. So I've met with the members representing this constituency, and there's still a resistance in the opposition. So I would like to keep on working with them.  So I encourage working with us and trying to convince the members that are representing this region. Question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Durham Region meets the criteria to be a designated region, but we keep asking more. They always need more support letters, and they are not supporting them in their search for more services. So when is the government going to work for Francophone communities? And when are they going to work with the region so that they can become a designated region, according to the French Services Act? Answer. For the designation, there are criteria that have been established from the start, and the Durham Region does not meet these criteria. With Kingston, there was a good will from the elected people in this region, and it's been very easy with their approval to designate Kingston Region. We do not have the same support right now from the members in this region, so I encourage them to keep working with the municipal council and the regional council to make sure that we can designate this region. So I encourage my colleague from Nicol Belt to help in this process. Thank you. A minister of rural affairs at a point of order. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I didn't get this in time earlier this morning, but Dr. Rita Kelsian from Peterborough, Dennis. She's with the ODA Lobby Day here at Peterborough. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member from Prince Edward Hastings. A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to welcome some constituents from Belleville. Ralph and Diana Neeler here, and Kate Neal, who's been the spokesperson for Bill 30, and I'd like to congratulate her on her hard work this year as well. I too would like to welcome the Neal family, including Trish Neal. Kate's aunt. We've heard a lot about Kate as we've debated this bill, and I'm delighted you're with us today, Kate. I'd also like to welcome Joanne DiNardo and Thorntina Sansu Suare from the Canadian Cancer Society, and Annette Sear from the Melanoma Network. Thank you. Thank you. We have a third vote on the motion. A third reading of... I've been seeing it, so I'll see it. The member from Renfrew and Nipissing Pembroke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, in response to a question from a liberal member, the Minister of Health indicated that there would be legislation coming forward later. You know that it is the custom of this House that for the announcement of legislation is to take place in this legislature, not in the form of answering a law ball question from one of her black bench MPPs. The point of order, and for clarity purposes, you can anticipate and say anything you want in terms of legislation. There is no rule that says they have to do it in a certain manner, so whatever that kind of destination is, is very doable. The... We have a deferred vote in the motion of the third reading of Bill 30 and act to regulate the selling and marketing of taining services and ultraviolet light treatments for taining. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bill. The members, take their seats, please. The members, take their seats, please. Please. Thank you. On October 8, Ms. Matthews moved third reading of Bill 30. Please rise, please. One at a time, be recognized by the clerk. Ms. Matthews. Ms. Matthews. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Garrison. Mr. Garrison. Ms. Jeffrey. Ms. Jeffrey. Mr. Susa. Ms. Susa. Ms. Win. Ms. Win. Ms. Win. Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor. Ms. Sandals. Ms. Sandals. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Bartolucci. Mr. Bartolucci. Mr. Baradinetti. Mr. Baradinetti. Mr. Cole. Mr. Lille, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Morrow, Mr. McNeely, Mr. Quadrie, Mr. Moriti, Mr. Patel, Mr. Nacvi, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Bulkerson, Ms. Aldenaze, Mr. Dixon, Ms. Jasek, Ms. Hunter, Mr. Frazer, Ms. Wong, Ms. Dahmerlos, Mr. Crack, Ms. Manganat, Ms. Elyat. Mr. Hardiman Mr. Fidele Mr. Huda Mr. Yakibusky Mr. McLeod Mr. Miller Perry San Mascota Mr. Miller Perry San Mascota Mr. Please Mr. Barrett Mr. McNot Mr. McNaught Mr. Holliday Mr. Jones Mrs. Monroe Mr. Chudley Mr. Chudley Mr. Clark Mr. Clark Mr. O'Toole Mr. O'Toole Mr. Bailey Mr. Bailey Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson Mr. Smith Mr. Smith Mr. Harris Mr. Harris Mr. Thompson Mr. Thompson Mr. Sherman Mr. Sherman Mr. Eurek Mr. Eurek Mr. Scott Mr. Scott Mr. McKenna Mr. McKenna Mr. Walker Mr. Walker Mr. McDonnell Mr. Mck Dennell Mr. Pettipies Mr. Pettipies Mr. Milligan Mr. Milligan Mr. McLaren Mr. McLaren Mr. Nichols Mr. Nichols Madam Jellina Madam Jellina You should be song Miss. Horvath Mrs. Horvath Ms. Genova Mr. Novo Mr. Marcazie Mr. Marquezi Mr. Prude Mr. Prude Mr. Natesha Mr. Natesha Mr. Tabas Mr. Tabas Mr. Singh Mr. Singh Mr. Miller Hamilton East Stony Creek Mr. Miller Hamilton East Stony Creek Ms. Forster, Ms. Campbell, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Vanthoff, Mr. Vanthoff, Mr. Shine, Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Fife, Ms. Fife, Ms. Sattler, Ms. Sattler, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Hatfield. All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk. Five, the nays are zero. The ayes being nine and five, the nays being zero, I declare the bill carried. Third reading of the bill, 20 of them left here to approach in a while. Be a resolve that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion. The preferred vote on the motion of second reading of bill six, an act to protect and restore the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Basin, calling the members, this will be a five minutes bell. On February 27th, 2013, Mr. Bradley moved second reading of bill six. All those in favor, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Hickson. Mr. Jeffrey. Mr. Susan. Mr. Susan. Ms. Wynne. Ms. Matthews. Ms. Sandals. Ms. Sandals. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Hoskins. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Quinter. Mr. Bartolucci. Mr. Bartolucci. Mr. Bardinetti. Mr. Bardinetti. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole. Mrs. Cansfield. Mrs. Cansfield. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Dugas. Mr. Dugas. Mr. Grevelle. Mr. Grevelle. Mr. Mcmeakin. Mr. Mcmeakin. Mr. Chan. Mr. Chan. Ms. Peruzza. Ms. Peruzza. Mr. Murray. Mr. Shirelli. Mr. Shirelli. Mr. Miller Hamilton, A. Stoney Creek, Ms. Forster, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Vantog, Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Fife, Ms. Sattler, Mr. Hatfield, all those post-missories one at a time be recognized by the public. Mr. Harris, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Arnaud, Mr. Hardiman, Mr. Fadali, Mr. Hudak, Mr. Yakibusky, Mr. McLeod, Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller, Harrison, Ms. Goka, Mr. Cleese, Mr. Barrett, Mr. McNaughton, Mr. Holliday, Ms. Jones, Ms. Monroe, Mr. Chagley, Mr. Clark, Mr. Toul, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Smith, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Yurek, Mr. Scott, Ms. McCannis, Mr. Walker, Mr. McDonnell, Mr. Pettipese, Mr. Milligan, Mr. McLaren, Mr. Neckles. Mr. Neckles. The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33. I declare the motion carried. Second reading of the bill. Does the election pose you a wa? Shall the bill be ordered for third reading, Minister of the Environment? I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills. So ordered. There is a reception for the historic grant for Gretzhox in room 340, presently to be received. There are no deferred votes further. This House stands adjourned until 3 p.m. this afternoon.


Okay, so thank you for waiting. So I am Arun Joseph. I am from Texas Instruments. So I am one of the main trainer for AeroBoot.org project. So this is an open source project where we are porting Android to some of the open source hardware. Hope you heard about BeagleBot, BeagleBond and BeagleBond Black, such kind of open source hardware. So we port Android for these devices and we host these sources on AeroBoot.org. So I mainly work on porting Android. So but in this presentation I will be giving an overview of Android security, various attacks on Android and what are the security blocks in Android. Then some work, some guidelines for the people who work on Android. So I expect many of you are from Android development and somebody who would like to extend Android framework for the different needs. So let us get started. So I will start, I will be starting with some background on attacks on Android, Android devices and I will be like telling what are the security building blocks of Android. So there are different layers and the lower level Android offers some features in the system and kernel level and then in application security level Android will be of Android is offering different, there are different security aspects and on top of above there are some Android cloud services which prevents Android malware and some other attacks. So this is a graph which I took from Trend Micro website. So they are leading anti-virus company and they have some data till 2013 September. So they are showing that around 1 million Android malware and high-risk apps exist today targeting Android. So do you know how many apps exist in Google Play? So there are around 500 different app stores in internet other than Google Play. Some of them are dedicatedly hosted for Android malware. So that is what these statistics indicate. So mainly Android malware, you can classify the Android security threats into different categories. So one of the categories is Android malware. In that we have some of the malware will be like stealing data from your phone, accessing your SMS contacts, email, etc. And then some of them will be doing online banking theft like fraud and other things. And normally now corporate big companies provide VPN access through your Android phone. So some of the malware will be targeting that. So that will be from Android malware's perspective. So in general when we talk about Android threats, there are other things. So there are something like insecure Wi-Fi networks that can act as a middle-in-the-man kind of attack. So somebody sitting near you may not be accessing their mails, might be intercepting the whole Wi-Fi traffic and will be trying to get from the internet application layer. So that kind of attacks are there, that are network related attacks. So theft and the lossing of smartphones is also a security concern. So all your passwords, all your data stored in your smartphone, and if a user loses this phone, there should be some way to lock that phone, or there should be some way to remotely locate that phone or wipe the data on that phone. So that is also an aspect of Android security. So then another thing will be routing. So normally as an Android developer or an Android user, you would consider routing as a very good thing to have. But most of the device manufacturers would not consider routing as a good practice. Then that will be a security aspect from the device manufacturer point of view, like a Samsung or a TA or Amazon point of view, that they would not recommend. Then network providers like AT&T, V-Design, such network providers would want their phone not to be unlocked so that they would lose the contract. So these are all security concerns from different people, different stakeholders of Android. And 2013, the major highlight was that master keys vulnerability. And this was discovered by one of the company called Bluebox. And they proved that 99% of the Android phones existing today can be attacked with this vulnerability. And even almost all apps, what this exactly is, you can update or install an updated version of the legitimate application with malicious content inside that. So I'm not going inside that into the details. So I'll just quickly give an overview of what are the tactics used by these malware. So mainly, like I described, the Android Master Key Vulnerability, it was using like repackaging of the application and inserting some malicious content and would like fool the user to install or to give his access. So that is one of the tactic. And the next thing is negative code execution. So this is where most of the Android malware are actually trying to get a root access in your phone so that they can access any area of memory. And then once they get the root access, they can do anything with the phone, data or the network. Then Android 2.2 onwards, Android provides device administration APIs.  So these device administration APIs are provided from Android 2.2 onwards and the users can be fooled by the malware to install as a device administration applications and they can get a device administration privileges to wipe or lock the data. Then over the air attacks in that, like Android would allow a network provider to push some settings on your phone, like your APN settings. So there are many, many settings can be like pushed onto your phone and fooled the user that it is received from your network provider, but it will be doing something else on your phone. So the main goal of Android security is to limit all these attacks and if the Android phone is affected, how to limit the impact. So this is the goal of Android security and there are like a lot of expectations from different people. Like you can consider Android users, Android application developers, Android device manufacturers and the network provider. So and some people would be like generating content for smartphones, like video or music. So all these stakeholders have different expectations from the Android security layers. So the challenge would be like you have your complete, like almost 100% source open and you have plenty of reference designs to play with. So there are like for a like like attacker, there are a lot of like resources available, like the complete open source and there are reference designs like Nexus 7, Nexus class of devices. And so these are the actual like challenges to provide the security while being open source and like with a lot of reference designs, how to like satisfy all the security needs from different stakeholders. So I'll quickly go through these slides because you know all these like on the left side you can see Android platform building blocks and the right side you can see the Android security building blocks. So I have just taken the differentiating factors of Android security. So if you can see from low level to high level, top level, you can see Android is actually like enhanced, has enhanced the Linux security and then it is providing a concept called Android application sandbox and there are for Android framework and Android applications, it gives a concept of permissions. Then at a Google Play level or cloud level, it offers different things called Android Bouncer which is to scan like periodically like the Google Play content and if any malware is detected, remove them. So that constitutes the complete Android security. So this is like the platform stack, the Android security stack. I'll just like Android security broadly like it is multi-layered and this can be divided into three different layers. One is kernel system security at the low level and in the middle level you can say application security and top level Android cloud services. I'll go detail into different layers in the coming slides. So a quick overview of system and Linux security. So the main concept here we have is application sandbox. So we'll tell what is application sandbox. Then Android, if you like inspect a Android device, you'd find different partitions like boot, system, data, cache. So many partitions are there and the system partition is the one which contains almost all operating system libraries and some core libraries. So this partition Android has made read-only. So then there is something called safe mode. If you enter into safe mode, only core applications of Android will be accessible. So then there are file system regarding file system permissions. So each of the applications, whenever they create new files, okay, that files are applicable only to that particular application. Other applications cannot read the different applications file. Then Android complete Linux is enhanced with the security enhanced Linux project. So security enhanced Linux is something like, you can designate resources, system resources. So even if you get a root access, you may not be able to access all the raw block devices. Let's say, you can actually label the raw block devices of your flash and you can enforce some security so that the root, even getting root access, cannot destroy any data in some of the raw block devices. So I'll just talk about the main difference between the traditional Linux and Android. So in traditional Linux, we have different users, Guest, some, your name, so root, so many different users are there. So these are like Android, sorry, Linux kernel will give like complete security between the users of Linux operating system. But in Android, when it comes to Android, Android would be giving security between applications. When an application is executing, it is like protected from different applications. So this is achieved through Android, like Android thinks that each application is a user. So then and Linux kernel will enforce the security between users. So the resources are protected from each application. So this forms a basis for the application sandbox. So application sandbox is nothing but what I said. There is no permission for an application to access the system data, the user's data, or any other application's data. And if you want to access any other application's data, you have to declare permissions and you have to explicitly request through your Android manifest file. So one of the other aspects of your system and kernel security is memory protection. So most of the malware would, like all these options, Android enabled one by one because many of the malware like in the past tried to attack these vulnerabilities. So maybe I can give you like example of each memory protection where it was vulnerable at an earlier point of time. So mainly in memory attacks, the malware would target the buffer overflows, mainly heap and stack overflows. And then integer and string overflows, then like leaked kernel addresses. And the malware assumes that the code will in a executable image, the code area will be this, the data area will be this, the stack area will be this. So Android malware would assume that. So to protect that, so there are features like address space randomization where you cannot predict where the code area of an executable, where the data area of the executable. So all these options are enabled in the compiler level. Yeah, you can find these options in the build directory or in the pre-built tool chain directory. You can find patches for this. So Android tool chain, the tool chain is different from the normal ARM GCC tool chain. So from a user's perspective, you can actually encrypt your file system data. That is your data partition, which contains all your application data. And there is external storage that also you can encrypt. Then device password, it can be like a, you can enforce the security complex rules for the device password. Then from Android 2.2 onwards, Android provides the device administration APIs. And to enhance the VPN and the certificate storage, Android provides some more APIs in the later versions. So now we have covered the system and kernel level security. So now we are moving to the middle level, where middle level, where we are classifying the system resources. In the Android app framework, you're classifying some APIs which are cost sensitive and some APIs which are protected APIs. So you can find these APIs as examples. So from applications, there is a permission check level. Under that, all the personal information and the sensitive input devices and the user data would come. So all these constitute the sensitive user data and the protected APIs. And from applications, there is an intermediate level where Android enforce the permissions. And the SIM card access APIs are a different thing. So for that, only you cannot access the SIM card by getting any of the permissions. You have to call it through the real layer. That is the radio interface layer. So there is like as an app developer, you will be aware of application signing process. Before installing to any device, any device, you have to sign your application with a public key, private key pair. That is called certificate. And so Android uses this certificate. So I told that certificate is a pair of private key and public key. And Android uses this method to identify the author of the application, to identify the authenticity of your application updates. And if two applications have to communicate to each other, Android uses this certificate as an authenticity for communication between different applications from the same order. So there are something called debug keys and the normal keys. So you cannot sign an application with the debug key. Then it cannot be uploaded to Google Play. So you have to create a private key, public key pair. So you can use the key tool binary. It can be allocated in your SDK or in the Android sources in the host part tools. You can locate the key tool. That can be used to create the key. And if this certificate is compromised, the other malware can use it to update or give a repackaged version of your application with the malicious content. So also you can use the Eclipse tool, where you can use the Eclipse tool to sign your application. So now we covered the one part of application security. So one of the other building block is permission model. So as I told, due to application sandbox means each application is running as a different user in Android compared to Linux. So one application can access only its data. It cannot access the operating system data, the users data, or other applications data. So if you want to access that data, so normally the application cannot read, write other applications, like keep the system awake or get the user data, et cetera. So if you want to do that, you have to explicitly mention it in your Android manifest file. And at the time of installation, the package manager of Android would ask the user to grant these permissions and only at install time. And any other point of time, these permissions are granted only at install time. And it is granted forever. And you cannot request additional permission at runtime. And there is something called shared user IDs. So if you are another of two applications, your two applications want to communicate each other without the need of permissions. You can declare a attribute called a shared user ID by which you can access each other's file, each other's application's file. And from your application, if you create a file with these flags, then it can become accessible by all the other applications. So in permissions, there are three concepts. Like one is using the permissions. Second thing is declaring the permissions, new permission, and enforcing the permission. So these are the main things in the permissions model. So as a normal application developer, you will be using the permissions. So to use the permissions, you have to use the attribute using permissions. And all the available permissions, you can find it in this link. Or if you are in your Android device, if you execute command PM list permissions, then it will list all the permissions. And if you go to your settings and you go to an application and at the bottom, you can see what role permission one application would be granted. And this is regarding declaring new permissions in your Android false code or in your Android application so that the other applications can use it. And this is how to use the permission attribute to actually declare a permission. So now comes the permission enforcement. What do we have covered is using the permission and how to declare a new permission and how to enforce a new permission. Sorry, I enforce a particular permission. So as an application, as a phone application or an SMS application, I can enforce the permissions on to my activities, on to my services, on to my content providers. If you are a mail application, you can enforce permission on to your content. So that is called permission enforcement. And that you have to do in your Android manifest file, plus you can do at runtime also. At runtime, you can say that if somebody is calling your service, if somebody is calling your content provider APIs, read content, write content, if somebody is calling an activity of your application, then you can check at runtime whether the calling process or the calling application or the calling processor process have that particular permission. Then there is something called URI permissions. So in URI permissions, the main thing is like considering a mail application where mail application doesn't have image viewer. So if the mail application has an attachment, so it would hand over that URI. URI is nothing but the path to a file to the image viewer application. The image viewer application should not access all mail content. So to prevent that, Android introduced permission called URI permission, where which you can, like when a mail application gives pass an indent to the image viewer application, it can specify these flags so that it has the ax. It is giving that content provider URI path to the image viewer only to that particular content. So and also content providers also should support this. So these are the 10 bad permissions like described in Google I.O. So if your application has all these permissions, then it is likely to be rejected in Google Play. So if your application is unnecessary asking these permissions, there is a good chance that the Google Play can reject your applications. So these are some guidelines. So instead of using the send SMS permission, you can ask the combustor to be like, you can use the SMS combustor, or instead of accessing the camera directly, you can use the image capture permission. So instead of reading the read font state, you can request for a random ID if a random ID only required for your application. So you don't need to access the font state or font identity. So there are four platform keys. So I told each application or each package has to be signed with a key. So there are four platform keys. So this is more of interest of a device manufacturer or an Android package, complete package provider, where you have to sign all of your platform and the shared and the media all if you are content with some keys. So there are keys provided in ASOP. But you have to generate your own platform keys so that it will pass the Android CTS. So Android CTA compatibility test is something a suit which would validate your Android distribution. So starting from 4.2 onwards, Android gives support for multi-users. In multi-user scenario, we will just investigate what is the permissions and the applications. So I talked about user IDs. Each application is given a separate user ID. So in multi-user scenario, each of these applications will run with a different user ID for a different user. So application code, so application package and the Dalvik cache and the applications native libraries all are shared. But the application's data and the application's runtime process is different for a different user. So Android would do it with pre-pending the user ID with the application's original user ID. So Android updates, like if a security problem is reported to Google or Android, then they would intimate the OEMs. And they will internally work on a patch and they will deliver to the ASOP. Plus they will deliver to the OEMs so that OEMs can give updates to the user ID. So there are some cloud services available. And the main one of them is Android Bouncer, which periodically checks all your Google Play content and removes the malware. And there is something new called remote application removal. So remotely, Android can remove malware from your device. So this is a very recent concept, which I just read in one month back. So I do not know the exact details of this. And Android provides the application verifying. So you can select the verify apps so that your application can be verified while installing. And there is something new called Android Device Manager. So if you have latest version of Android, so if your device is registered for Android Device Manager from anywhere in the world, you can locate your device, you can ring your device, you can lock your device, or you can wipe the data of the Android device. So Android also provides the backup and restore. So this backup and restoring will be a major security consent for the Android users. So this concludes my presentation. So the main thing, which are being debated, the thing is a lot of Android devices are with the older versions of the software, from Eclire onwards. So if a master key vulnerability is discovered and a patch is available from Google, the OEMs will not update the older devices, isn't it? So that is a discussion point. And regarding permissions, the users will be granting the permissions at the install time only. You cannot modify the permissions. So that is also a discussion point. So anybody of you have any questions on these topics? Hi. Can you give an example of a simple attack? Yeah. Stack over apps. OK. So I'll just give an example from my perspective. So earlier at Texas Instruments, you would make Android like SOCs, SOCs which can run Android. In that, we have a graphics driver called the, our graphics driver was from Imagination. So that graphics driver exposed a device node, which is called devPvrSvrkm, dev node. So the problem was like any user application was able to like open that device node and do some IOCTLs on that particular device node. OK. So that device node, so internally, the IOCTL was able to write to the kernel memory areas and which would give the root access. From root access, the malware can do like a profit from there. So that was one of the attack and the full description of the attack and how to use that attack is described in one of the reference here. I have it in the reference page. And another good example is like in earlier versions of Android, like there was one file called data. So this is one of the method I used to route my phone. So this attack is like you have a data local prop file here in Android system, which was read-writeable for the user, normal user, where you can specify the read-only property RO.secure equal to or false. So you specify it as like a false. Then on the next reboot, you would get the instead of user prompt, you will get the root prompt. So most of the category of attacks called Android boot kits were using this method, modifying the system property and reboot. And when you get the boot completed message, you start your malware action. So there are like a lot of resources available, which I have described in my references. And go through that, you can find out the different malwares, how they were able to get access to the Android root access. So mainly, all these malwares were using the root access to the phone, mainly to their malware operations. So I have a question. You have pointed out different security areas. But my question is nowadays we bring our own devices to our offices. So we have on the same device, we have organizations or corporate data as well as our personal data. So like the email system, we have the personal email as well as the corporate email. So how to segregate or is there any web services available for this particular area to secure the corporate data? Like we have encryption, we have multi-users nowadays. But anything else in this corporate and bring your own devices? Yes. Actually, from that aspect, Android provides the VPN APIs and the credentials APIs where you can securely store your company's certificates. So that is one area. And another thing regarding encryption and decryption, so Android provides the OpenSSL and the Bouncy Castle APIs for encryption and decryption and for the network security and the other Java security. So in OpenSSL, even you can accelerate your software implementation of cryptography. You can use the hardware implementation also. And in some cases, Android provides this layered approach and anywhere you can tweak your security. So for that, some examples you can say Samsung Knox where they have expanded this security with the ARM trust zone features. ARM trust zone is a security feature.  So Android provides the device management APIs and the security framework consisting of the Bouncy Castle and the OpenSSL. And there are APIs to credentials and the VPN. And apart from that, Android provides the extensions also, extensible framework so that the other vendors can extend the framework to suit their needs. Hi, I'm Satish. You told us about the application security. It provides the permissions while installing the app. What if we have to update the app and it requires different permissions, which are not malicious? Sorry, when you update your? The update needs different permissions. And the different permissions has to be granted. Will the security allow that? Yeah, actually, Android, if you check the Android guidelines, if it is a new permission being introduced by Android. So you have to specify the target of your application in when you are building your applications. So Android would check that when a new, what do you mean? You mean the updating of the device or updating of your applications? Applications. So when you update your applications, Android would check what is the targeted SDK for that. And if you are telling your target SDK is Android 4.4, Android would check the requesting permissions with the available permissions. And if the available permissions, if your requesting permissions is correspond to the ones in the targeted device or the available in the targeted device, it would grant it. And normally, your application, if your targeted SDK is Android 4.4, it would build with Android 4.4. But it cannot run on a lower SDK device. So the main distinction will come in your targeted SDK. So if your application is targeted for Android 4.0, and if you are installing it on 4.4, where accessing some data was good enough in 4.0 and would require a new permission in the 4.4 case, in that case, Android would think that your targeted SDK is 4.0. And this permission is only available in 4.4. So Android would think, OK, let's grant it automatically. So that is being mentioned in Android Security Gates. So I think that would answer your question. I'll be here afterwards also. Only one last question, please. I am trying to get a permission by installing it. And it won't have any permissions after the runtime. So in this scenario, if app A is defining a permission and app B is using a permission, if I install app B first, and then app A, then how it will be? Yeah, definitely Android would not indicate the user that the application has requested this API, but it didn't mention it in permission list. What would happen is a security exception will happen. Android will tell you that the application has been force closed. And if you look at the Android logs, you can see a security exception. So that is the way it would work. It would not indicate to the user that this application requires an additional permission which was not listed when it was installing. So was that your question? So there are a lot of security experts are questioning the way Android is assigning the permissions. But Android gives very good explanation in their security gates to have the permission seen this way. Like when you install your application, you request all the permissions forever. So that is mainly for the simplicity for the user. OK, thank you.