It is now time for oral questions. I recognize the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Good morning, Speaker. On Monday, the government tried to pass off service cuts on the up express as an improvement. By Tuesday, they were shamed into reversing this decision. That's a record-breaking reversal even for this government. They clearly don't consult people in the community or they would know that this impact was going to be huge on people trying to get to work from these neighbourhoods. It's hard to think of an announcement that this government hasn't had to reverse in shame, Speaker, but my question to the Premier is, has his government considered talking to people who actually use transit to get to work instead of their million-dollar Manfield Roaster? On Monday, we launched the largest co-expansion and over a decade, Mr. Speaker. A 15% increase in weekly trips, 300 new weekly trips for trains and for commuters across many lines, whether that's Lake Shore West, East, Stouffville line, the Kitchener line, Mr. Speaker. This is our government's commitment to get people moving, and of course the NDP wouldn't support that, Mr. Speaker. Of course, just like the previous Liberal government for 15 years did absolutely nothing on public transit. I expect nothing less than when we launched the largest expansion of GO rail transit in the next and over a decade that they would oppose that, Mr. Speaker, just like they've opposed every one of our investments into public transit and getting people moving faster. So we will continue to invest in public service, increase services across our networks. The truth is, Speaker, this is just another example of this government ignoring transit riders and ignoring workers in the Bloor-Western community. There are 82 Metrolinx vice presidents on the latest sunshine list, 82. The Premier gave the Metrolinx CEO a 65% raise while he was still fighting to keep teachers and education workers and other public sector workers at 1%. He went to court over that, even with all of these high-paid executives. Metrolinx still can't say when the Eglinton Crosstown P3 is going to open. So my question is, why does the Premier keep rewarding Metrolinx for failing to deliver for the people of Bloor-Western? Mr. Speaker, let's recap what the NDP and Liberals have voted against on public transit. The largest investment in North America on public transit. The NDP and Liberals have voted against the Ontario line. The NDP and Liberals have voted against the expansion of GO Transit, like we have here today, infrastructure improvements that support the expansion of 300 new trips per week. They voted against the West extension that we just announced the RFQ process on a couple of weeks ago. They have voted against the Scarborough subway extension. Mr. Speaker, on the Eglinton Crosstown West extension, when that is built, it is going to take over 6 million cars off the road. And guess what? The Liberals' NDP have reported that. The record on public transit is horrible, Mr. Speaker. Our government has a mandate to build and to get people moving, and that's exactly what we are doing when we are putting these investments forward. Order. The final supplementary. Speaker, actually, the official opposition, we believe that people going to work deserve reliable and affordable transit. The NDP had to fight to integrate the UP Express into communities after the Liberals envisioned it as just this boutique line. People don't want a government that's actively making their lives harder by just recklessly changing their transit routes overnight. Had the minister spoken to a single commuter, a single commuter, he wouldn't have even put this forward. Why does this government keep putting forward policies without consulting a single person impacted by their decisions? Mr. Speaker, reliable transit, affordable transit. I want to ask the member from both the NDP and Liberals, why did you vote against one fair, $1,600 of savings for commuting? Member for Waterloo, come to order. Why would you vote against one fair and integration of transit services across this province? Why are you going to vote against 300 new trips? Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order. All transit expansion. The largest expansion in over a decade, Mr. Speaker. Your record on public transit is embarrassing. Our government is getting it done. We're building transit. We're investing in public transit, $70 billion over the next 10 years, when the previous Liberal government failed to do so. We're making it more affordable, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the NDP and Liberals will support this government's investments in public transit. And that's a shame. Thank you. The next question. Leader of the opposition. Well, Speaker, speaking of another government policy that's making life harder for people in this province, the government is letting for-profit clinics take advantage of the millions of Ontarians who are struggling to find primary care. More and more, we're hearing about clinics that are breaking the law, Speaker, by charging patients to see a doctor. Yesterday, the Ontario Health Coalition released a report with the stories of over 100 patients who were unfairly and illegally charged to see a doctor. The Minister of Health herself has acknowledged that the province can take action to stop this predatory practice, but has chosen not to. Has chosen not to. Why has this government chosen to sit back instead of taking action to protect patients? Member for Stormont, Dundas, so thank you. Thank you, Speaker. Ontario is leading the country with 90% of Ontarians having a family doctor or primary health provider. The Ontario Health Coalition is an out-of-touch, NDP-backed, special interest group that has spent the last decade ideologically most innovation taking place in our healthcare system. Speaker, our government is taking bold action to connect more people to the care they need when they need it. Over the last year, we have increased publicly funded diagnostic imaging capacity by an additional 97,000 MRIs and 116,000 CT operating hours. Speaker, adding tens of thousands of OHIP-covered cataract surgeries and achieved some of the shortest wait times in Canada. Thank you, Speaker. Bold action, Speaker. Bold action. What this government has done is they've written a letter. A letter. That's all they've done. That's not action. That's the very bare minimum of what a government could and should do for the people of this province. Not only are these clinics charging patients thousands of dollars just to get through the door, but patients are also being misled and upsold. It's illegal, and these clinics are knowingly breaking the law because they've been given the green light by this minister to expand in Ontario. Now she's pretending that there's nothing she can do about it except for writing a letter, and that is pathetic, Speaker. Why won't this government show some leadership to stop this predatory practice once and for all? Members for Rentronipsing Pembroke and the member for Ottawa South will please come to order. Response, the member for Stormont Dundas, Southland Garrett. Thank you, Speaker. Our government will not tolerate clinics taking advantage of a loophole created by federal legislation, as echoed by Minister Jones and other ministers of health across the country at our annual federal provincial territory meeting of health ministers this past November. This lack of a prohibition has created a loophole that health care, certain health care providers and their clinics are taking advantage of, knowing there's no legal consequence or risk of getting shut down. We look forward to working together with the provincial, territorial and federal governments to ensure that this loophole is closed. Thank you, Speaker. Final supplementary, back to the Leader of the Opposition. Let me be very clear with the government, and I'm going to ask this question to the Premier again. We're seeing the expansion of these so-called executive health clinics that provide primary care only to patients who are willing to pay really hefty fees. We saw this starting under the Liberal government, but it has totally taken off under this government. These for-profit clinics are taking advantage of the primary care crisis that has left 2.4 million patients in this province without primary care physician. So my question to the Premier is again, when will this government address for-profit clinics that are taking advantage of worried and ancient patients in this province? Speaker, through Bill 60, our government has further strengthened the oversight of community surgical and diagnostic centres by bringing these centres under the oversight of a patient ombudsman. We have strengthened our laws to ensure that Ontarians will always access insured services at community surgical and diagnostic centres with their OHIP card, never their credit card. Our plan is adding thousands of hours of MRI and CTV scans and more procedures, including hip, knee replacements closer to home, all accessible with their OHIP card, not their credit card. Our plan has already reduced the surgical backlog to below pre-pandemic level, Speaker. Thank you. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition. Speaker, this question is for the Premier. Three years ago, the Federal Government designated the proposed Highway 413 for a Federal Environmental Assessment. That assessment would have given the public and decision-makers accurate information about the impacts but also the costs of this highway that runs through the green belt. A project that we already know is planned only for this government's friends with benefits. If we can't get this information through an environmental assessment, Speaker, maybe the Premier will finally tell us here. To the Premier, how much will Highway 413 cost Ontario taxpayers? Mr. Speaker, Highway 413 is a generational investment into infrastructure across this province. We're investing $20 billion over the next 10 years, whether it's Highway 413, the Bradford Biopass Highway 11 and 17. I urge that member and the Liberals to get out of the Queens Park bubble, get onto the roads of Milton, of Brampton, of Mississauga, of Bonn, and see firsthand the gridlock and the necessity for this project. Flashback to June 2, 2022, Mr. Speaker, when this Governor received one of the largest majority governments based off their commitment and promised to build Highway 413 and we will get shovels in the ground. Member from Waterloo, we'll come to order the supplementary question. You know what is generational, Speaker? It's going to cost generations of Ontarians to pay the bill for that. That's what that minister will share with Ontarians. The government's expert panel said Highway 413 would save drivers only 30 to 60 seconds per trip. The same expert said that if this government used Highway 407 better, it would solve the problem. But when the NDP put forward a solution to relieve the burden of tolls for trucks on the 407, the Conservatives said no. This Premier won't even say how much this Highway through the Greenbelt is going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario. So I want to know why is the Premier ignoring solutions that would save drivers money and time today in favour of a project that will only be complete in decades and has no price tag? The member for Renfrew, Nipissing Pembroke will come to order. The member for Kitchener, Conestoga will come to order. Pardon me. Minister of Transportation. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I urge both the Liberals and NDP to talk to the people of Milton, talk to the people of Mississauga, talk to the people of Brampton, of Bond, Mr Speaker. This is going to make a significant difference in commuting for all of them. Over 30 minutes saved each direction, Mr Speaker, per order. We have seen over a million people come into this province in the last two years. The NDP and Liberals have opposed every project that we have put forward, whether that's public transit or whether that's building highways, Mr Speaker. This highway will support 3,500 good paying jobs, have an impact of over $350 million to their GDP, Mr Speaker. We need to continue building infrastructure for 15 years. We saw what the Liberals did. Absolutely nothing, Mr Speaker. They cancelled projects. Our government is about getting shovels in the ground and building for the future generations of this province, and that is exactly what we are going to do. With a 413, we'll have shovels in the ground, and we're going to build this 52-kilometer long highway. Member for Hamilton Mountain will come to order. Please stop the clock. We are 15 minutes into question period, and there are a small number of members who are repeatedly ignoring my requests to come to order, like I'm not even here. I am here. We're going to revert to warnings if you completely ignore it. Please stop my request to come to order. We know where that leads. Start the clock. The next question. Member for Halliburton, 4th and Lake Clark. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Ontarians need access to affordable electricity. They never want to return to the days of the skyrocketing hydro rates we had under the previous Liberal government. People want their homes and their businesses powered by clean and sustainable power. At the same time, they also want to be sure that our government continues to fight the costly Liberal carbon tax and keep costs low. Speaker, can the Minister share with this House what our government is doing to ensure Ontarians have clean, reliable and emission-free energy while the opposition wants to take a step backwards and lean on a terrible carbon tax? The Minister of Energy. Thanks very much. Thanks to the great member from Halliburton, Core, the lakes brought for the question this morning. We are continuing to increase the province's supply of clean, affordable, reliable and safe nuclear power in the member's own region, Mr Speaker, with four small modular reactors, world-leading small modular reactors that are going in at the Darlington OPG site. We're refurbishing the can-do reactors that are there. OPG and our building trades and skilled trades, workers and engineers are ensuring that those refurbishments aren't just on time and on budget. They're actually ahead of schedule and on budget, Mr Speaker, which is a tremendous success story, and that's given us the confidence to move forward on the refurbishment of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. And just yesterday, I was down announcing a $1 billion refurbishment of the Sir Adam Beck Hydroelectric Facility in Niagara Falls, clean, reliable water power for the province's future. We're building out a clean grid, but it's the Queen of the Carbon Tax, Bonnie Crosby and Cromby and her friend, Justin Trudeau, that are increasing the carbon tax, driving people into poverty, Mr Speaker. Supplementary to Member for Haliburt and Cortholexprox. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the Minister of Energy for his incredible work. And I am very proud of our government's continued advocacy for Ontario's incredible nuclear industry and the skilled tradespeople that work in it, many of them from my riding of Haliburt and Cortholexprox. We know that these refurbishments are massive undertakings, and by completing them ahead of schedule and on budget, we are demonstrating that major energy infrastructure projects can be built here in Ontario, on time and on budget. That's why it's disappointing to see the opposition completely neglect Ontario's nuclear industry, Speaker. They would rather support a regressive carbon tax that punishes hardworking individuals and families in Ontario. Speaker, can the Minister explain what the NDP and Liberal opposition to our nuclear sector means for our Ontario's skilled nuclear workforce and the businesses that make up our nuclear supply chain? I bet you he did. Through energy. Thanks, Mr Speaker, and we certainly know the NDP energy critic stands when it comes to nuclear power, Mr Speaker. They're against nuclear power. 76,000 people are working Canada's nuclear sector every day, and 68,000 of them are working in Ontario's sector in the supply chain and operating the plants, Mr Speaker. Those are hardworking people, skilled trades, engineers, plant operators that get good paychecks every single day, and they're providing almost 60% of the province's baseload power, clean, reliable, affordable electricity. It's our party. It's our government under the leadership of Premier Ford that is supporting not just the current crop of skilled trades workers and nuclear operators, but those who are training you to become nuclear engineers at our universities and are going to be operating the new can-do or large nuclear plants that are being built at Bruce and the small modular reactors which are world leading in the G7 that are coming online later this decade that are going to continue to provide our province with the clean, reliable, affordable electricity that we'll be able to count on for decades to come. The next question, the Member for Sudbury. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. This week is National Medical Laboratory, Speaker, and instead of celebrating their important work, the Conservative Government is discussing the potential closure of six of the 11 Public Health Ontario labs. Those are labs in Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Irelia, Hamilton, Kingston and Peterborough. The mission of Public Health Ontario is to enable informed decisions, get actions that protect and promote health and contribute to reducing health inequities. Closing six of 11 community-based PHO labs goes against that mission. Many of these labs are hundreds of kilometres, several hours from the next closest location. Closing public labs will increase health inequities. It will endanger northern rural families. We deserve access to the free, diagnostic testing needed to be healthy. Speaker, not everyone in Ontario knows where Walkerton is, but we all remember what Walkerton was. Seven people died, 2300 people became ill. My question, Speaker, is will the Premier learn from Walkerton and keep these labs open? Yes or no? Deputy Premier and Minister of Health. Thank you, Speaker. Perhaps that member opposite wasn't here yesterday when I answered this question very clearly. And because we have the benefit of answer, I will repeat that answer. Let me be clear as I can possibly be. There is no one in the province of Ontario or in this legislature who believes that putting well-water testing at risk is on the table. I want to be very clear on this matter. Of course, the Ministry of Health funds Public Health Ontario to provide testing services for individuals who rely on private drinking water systems to serve our households. We all know that. The Ministry has not made any decisions about changes to the provincial well-water testing programs, including which laboratories conduct testing or water samples. Order. I want to be very clear. There has been no changes. Yes, it is Medical Lab Technology Week today. And, you know, we have a learn and stay program. Order. The supplementary question, Member for Hamilton Mountain. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the Premier. Hamilton Public Health Labs completes thousands of water samples and timely sensitive medical tests every day and often takes overflow from other locations that are beyond capacity. In fact, Hamilton Lab has one of the largest workload volumes in the province, which includes water testing for more than 11,000 private residents and hundreds of beaches. And yet, closure is looming. The province should be improving access to health care and increasing our public health capacity, not cutting it. So I ask the Premier again. During National Medical Laboratory Week, why are you not investing in our public health infrastructure, which is needed to keep Ontarians safe and healthy and keep all of these labs open? Minister of Health. Care Speaker. Look at the numbers. We are investing in our public health units. We are investing in our lab techs. A critically important piece, clinicians, in our health care system, where we've actually improved and encouraged through a learn and stay program led by the Minister of Colleges and Universities to fund new individuals who want to practice and train as medical lab techs in the province of Ontario. That's the expansion that we're doing. That's the investments that we're making. The member opposite needs to get her facts right and actually look at the numbers to see the investments that we have made, not only in the training, but in our public health system in a whole. Thank you. Order. The next question, the member for Etobicoke Lakeshore. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, families and business owners in my right of Etobicoke Lakeshore and across the province are concerned about the negative repercussions of the liberal carbon tax.  Speaker, this is unacceptable. To make it worse, the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Cromby and her small liberal caucus are happy to see this tax increase. The opposition NDP and the independent liberals need to stop playing politics. Listen to your constituents enjoy this government and call for the elimination of this tax. Through you, Speaker, can the Minister please tell this House how the government is supporting Ontarians by keeping this cost down? Member for Oakville. Thank you very much, Speaker. And thank you to the great member from Etobicoke Lakeshore for a very good question. And if I could give advice to everybody in the chamber here today and everybody watching on TV, fill up your cars today. Gas is going up 14 cents a liter tonight. And the Bonnie Cromby and the federal liberals, provincial liberals do not care. When we put forward motions and legislation that would keep costs down for Ontarians, the liberals showed their true colours by voting against every single measure. Speaker, even the independent bank of Canada has come out and said that the carbon tax drives up inflation, yet somehow the liberals continue to support it. Instead, our government is focused on keeping costs down, extending our gas tax cut until the end of the year, helping families save hundreds of dollars. This government and this premier are the only ones that are standing up for the hardworking people of Ontario. Remind the members to make the comments through the chair. Supplementary question. Karen, I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for that response and the advice to fill up our cars today. You know, the carbon tax harms individuals and families across this province. As many Ontario families continue to struggle with high interest rates and the rising costs of living, the last thing they need is more burdens. Our government, led by Premier Ford, has been clear from day one, we need to keep costs down and put money back in the pockets of Ontarians. But, Speaker, the liberals in this House have refused to stand up with us against this tax that is driving up prices and it's really hurting your own constituents. We know that they had a choice and they had a chance and if they would keep this burdening, keep continuing to burden Ontario's with more tax grabs. As we know, the liberals don't see a tax they don't like. That's why our government will always stand up for Ontarians. We will always stand up and safeguard their hard-earned paychecks. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the parliamentary assistant if he can tell this House how our government is protecting Ontarians from new taxes on carbon. Parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Finance. Thank you, Speaker. And again, a great question from the member from Atopico Lakeshore. The liberals in Ontario are taking their cues from their federal cousins in playing politics that are costing the people of Ontario way too much. But this government won't stand by and allow Ontarians to be hurt further by the Queen of the Carbon Tax, Bonnie Cromby and our Liberal Party. Unfortunately, the federal budget yesterday did not eliminate the punitive carbon tax. Premiers from different political parties across Canada have demanded the government scrap the federal carbon tax, and provincial liberals are playing politics and still not condemning the federal carbon tax. That is why our government is ensuring that no government can ever bring in a punitive carbon tax without first holding a referendum. Speaker, it's time the independent liberals put partisan politics aside, stand with us as we continue to call to scrap the tax. Thank you very much. The next question, the member for University, Rosdale. Thank you, Speaker. The federal budget came out yesterday, and I'm worried Ontario is going to miss out because the Conservatives are failing to be bold on housing. There is federal housing infrastructure available for provinces that say yes to fourplexes and legalising gentle density, which means this government has two choices. You can either continue saying no to more housing, or you can say yes to fourplexes to ensure Ontario gets its fair share of infrastructure funding. What is this government going to choose? Reply, the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I listened to the federal budget yesterday like a number of Canadians across the country who were disappointed in what they saw. Listen, massively increasing taxes, not helpful to getting more homes built, massive inflationary spending, not helpful to getting more homes built. Inflationary spending, which leads to higher interest rates, not helpful to getting more homes built, not eliminating the carbon tax, not helpful to getting more homes built across the province of Ontario. No return, no path to a return to a balanced budget, not helpful to getting more homes built. What we saw in yesterday's federal budget is a government whose spending is out of control, not focused on what matters to the people of the province of Ontario, which is affordability, giving them the opportunity to buy homes and giving the people who build the homes the opportunity to build those homes. We need lower interest rates, Mr Speaker. We can't accomplish that with a federal government whose spending is out of control and who will not reduce taxes on people in the province of Ontario so that we can get our economy moving. They're dividing provinces against each other. That's not what a federal government does, Mr Speaker. It's up to Ontario again to lead the way. And the supplementary question. Back to the Premier. What I'm worried about is that the Conservatives are forcing Ontario to miss out on needed federal investment to build the housing that we need for Ontarians. The Conservatives refuse to submit a credible affordable housing plan to secure federal funding for affordable housing. And the government is refusing to say yes to increased density to secure federal funding for infrastructure. Ontario wants you to show leadership on the housing file, and for that to happen, you need to make a deal. Is this government going to make a deal with the federal government yes or no? Mr Paul Ferris in housing. Well, Mr Speaker, I've already announced that we will be working with our municipal partners to bring forward a plan that we can take to the federal government, Mr Speaker. The reality is, what we've done is unilaterally on our own brought forward the most comprehensive, the largest investment in infrastructure in the history of this province, Mr Speaker, because we heard from our municipal partners and from home builders that the number one obstacle to actually getting homes built is infrastructure, sewer and water, Mr Speaker. That is the number one obstacle. We have a plan to do just that. The Minister of Infrastructure has brought forward the largest plan in our history. Now, Mr Speaker, where the NDP can be helpful, but we know that they won't be helpful, colleagues, because unless it's increasing taxes, unless it's making things more unaffordable for people, they just talked against the 413, even though they got wiped out in the last election about it, they're talking against building communities, but where they can be helpful, where they can be helpful is picking up the phone, calling Jagmeet Singh and saying, do not support a budget that does not make the appropriate investments in getting shovels in the ground and making life more affordable for the people of the province of Ontario, and we can move forward with the government in Ottawa. Thank you. The next question. The member for Orleans. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Ontarians know all too well that the Premier's gravy train is running down the tracks and it's filled with his friends, his family, and his insiders. And in an attempt to make some more friends, the gravy train stopped in Ottawa a couple weeks ago, Mr Speaker, where the Premier promised to re-upload Highway 174 to the province. The problem, Mr Speaker, is that the communications department said things like potential provincial ownership of the road and that the deal would, in quotes, explore and assess the considerations related to ownership. Further, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Minister signed an agreement, the Deputy Minister of Finance signed an agreement that says relating to Highway 174 in the event that an asset transfer is considered. Now, Mr Speaker, that sounds like a lot of wiggle room for the gravy train to backtrack. Ottawa's know that the Premier often likes to say one thing while his government does something else. So will the Premier commit yes or no to uploading Highway 174 back to the province before the next election? The Member for Napaean will come to order. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can do that. You know, Mr Speaker, I absolutely love having this liberal party here because they highlight every single day why they will never, ever form another government. Now, we went to Ottawa, we signed a new deal with Ottawa which was roundly applauded by the Mayor of Ottawa which was applauded by the community as a whole, Mr Speaker. Now, I'm trying to... A guy who built a train in Ottawa that does not work is giving us advice on infrastructure, Mr Speaker, coming from a party who had asked to build bridges in the province of Ontario built from upside down, Mr Speaker. So I'll tell you what we'll do. I can't do it. Yep. The Member for Ottawa South is warned. My patience is exhausted. Supplementary question. Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, my question is for the Premier. The Premier and his government and too many politicians in Ottawa are grasping its straws if they think that a fake deal to upload Highway 174 that won't happen for years is going to convince anyone. Now, Mr Speaker, just about two years ago the government published the transportation plan for Eastern Ontario. It's 35 pages on how the government plans to prepare for the future, connect people, improve safety, and et cetera. You know what, Mr Speaker? You know what there's no mention of in that transportation plan for the future of Eastern Ontario? Highway 174, Mr Speaker. Highway 174 and 17, which connects Eastern Ontario from Hawkesbury through Alfred and Wendover and Rockland and Cumberland and Orleans and all the way into Ottawa, not a single mention in the master transportation plan for the province. Mr Speaker, since the government, since the Premier will commit to uploading the Highway before the next election, will his government to updating the plan to ensure that the improvements that are needed for 174 actually happen? The member for Napien is warned. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can reply. Again, Mr Speaker, not only are we going to upload Highway 174, we're going to make sure that transportation in Ottawa actually works, Mr Speaker. Now, for 15 years, the members opposite had the opportunity to do anything, but they did nothing. But we're not only doing that on the advice, of course, of the members of Parliament, from the Ottawa area. We heard that the need to make investments in law and order in some of the parts of Ottawa and social housing in those areas. I want to thank the member for Napien and for Carlton for bringing those forwards. They played a critical role in helping us negotiate a deal with the City of Ottawa, which the City of Ottawa has said will move that city forward, will ensure that we have a national capital, that we can continue to all be proud of, Mr Speaker. We'll have safer communities, we'll have better transit transportation. The member for Napien was fighting for how many years to get an exchange off of what was it? Barnsdale. Barnsdale. Barnsdale. We wouldn't build a Barnsdale exit, Mr Speaker. It was the Liberals. We're supposed to take advice from the Liberals on anything to do with transit transportation. I think not. The member for Richmond Hill. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy, who is always bringing good news to my residents in Richmond Hill. I wish the federal government can also bring the good news to us by scrapping the carbon tax. Carbon tax is making life more expensive for everyone. Residents in my writing of Richmond Hill have raised concerns over the high cost of groceries and gas. They want the federal government to scrap the carbon tax speaker. Unfortunately, their plea fell on deaf ears. What worse is that under the leadership of carbon tax queen, Bonnie Cromby, independent Liberals continue to endorse the terrible tax. While they choose to ignore the hardships of Ontarian continue to face as a result of the carbon tax, our government is fighting for the people. Speaker, can the Minister please tell the House how our government is supporting Ontarians and making life more affordable? Minister of Energy. I'm going to bring some more good news for the residents of Richmond Hill this morning. The government is actually trying to make life more affordable for people by reducing the cost of gasoline by 10.7 cents a liter. Now unfortunately, I do have to deliver some bad news, but it's not because of anything our government is doing, Mr. Speaker. If you heard the organization this morning Canadians for affordable energy on news, on TV and radio this morning, they're talking about a 14 cent jump at the pumps tonight, Mr. Speaker. Part of this is because of the federal carbon tax that increased a couple of weeks ago. A carbon tax that Justin Trudeau, when he had the opportunity to hit the pause button or take off of the cost of living in Ontario, decided no, I'm going to increase it by a whopping 23%. So tonight we're going to see the price of gas go to a buck 80. 80 on average across the province. And the teeny tiny liberal caucus here is more than happy to support Justin Trudeau's carbon taxing. A supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister for all your insights and sharing with us and we know it's really bad news as we go to the pump. Experts, provincial governments and Ontarians have been cleared. The carbon tax is making life more and more unaffordable. Families and businesses feel the burden of energy bills every month. Unfortunately the liberals are not listening and they do not care. Earlier this month they went ahead with 23% hike on the carbon tax that is ludicrous. The last thing Ontarians need is in the other tax hike the carbon tax must be scrapped. Can the minister please explain why people and businesses in Ontario cannot afford the liberal carbon tax? Minister of Energy Speaker, it's pretty simple when the price of gasoline jumps to a buck 80 like it's going to tonight and that's with our 10.7 cent per liter reduction that Premier Ford and our government has brought forward in our budget. Yesterday the federal liberals up on Parliament Hill had an opportunity in their budget to provide some relief to the people of Ontario and they didn't provide any relief and now as a result tonight we're seeing the price of gas increased by 14 cents a liter to a buck. It would be a buck 90 if we weren't taking 10.7 cents a liter approaching $2 a liter but that's what Justin Trudeau and that's what the queen of the carbon tax Bonnie Cromby want to do. They want to make the price of gas more expensive that's why they're putting this federal carbon tax on there and the queen of the carbon tax is happy to have that federal tax in place. It's unacceptable for people who are living in an affordability crisis in Ontario and across the country to have this punitive carbon tax in place do what we're doing try and make life more affordable for the people of Ontario. The next question member for Toronto Centre. Thank you very much speaker. My question is to the Premier an Ontario family that has been waiting three years for the trial of the reported murder of their beloved brother has just been told that they'll have to wait another year because that is the next available date at the Toronto Superior Court.  This is all happening under the Premier's watch. The first step to getting help is admitting that you have a problem. Yes or no? Question to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that public safety is in chaos because the Ontario courts have not been his priority? Attorney General I read the same articles about the federal government not appointing enough judges but we're not going to stand by and let that be the cause of anything. When we put $72 million into the criminal backlog strategy they voted against it. When we hire Crown attorneys when we hire case management coordinators, critical homicide assistants community justice coordinators, bail vetters, Ontario victim witness assistance program they vote against it. We've hired over 350 additional full times and we have done things that have changed the system, the digital evidence management. We are the second largest front line in the government and our people are working hard. We're adding to their resources. We're making sure that they have what they need. When we, I can't even believe the member opposite voted against supporting independent legal advice for sexual assault survivors they voted against every thing that we do. I'll tell you what they do want which is to defund police so there are less cases in the system Mr. Speaker. Back to the premier. If every excuse from this minister was actually tabled it could fix the problems that we have but the justice system is clearly on his watch is failing him. Failing him in all Ontario and Speaker we have record high, record high historic backlogs. This is the worst record across the country. But this government works harder at putting out press releases than they do at fixing the courts. They search for old funding announcements so that they can re-announce them again instead of finding qualified workers to actually staff the courts. Nathaniel Bertel's murder trial was delayed yet one more year. His sister told CTV, my life has been on hold for three years. I'm suffering badly from survivor's guilt. Now there's another weight on top of that. I'm not in a good place. Speaker for the families watching, does the premier believe that is reasonable to make Ontario families wait four years for murder trial date? Mr. Speaker let me use just one example of what we are doing different. Back when I was a court clerk the NDP were in charge of this province Mr. Speaker and if the court collapsed in two hours I got paid two hours and sent home. It was precarious employment Mr. Speaker and when they were done with what they were doing the Liberals took over and you know what they did? They did absolutely nothing. Well you know what we're doing Mr. Speaker? We're offering full time employment to those workers. We're increasing their pay Mr. Speaker. We're making sure we have the resources in place and it took this government to pay attention to invest in the justice system to make that happen. Member for Windsor West come to order. The next question the member for Haldeman Norfolk. Thank you Speaker. My question is to the single question in this House is met with the same response and we see it again this morning the carbon tax. So let's actually talk about it. It's a distraction from the real issues like the Greenbelt scandal, the healthcare crisis, $9.8 billion deficit, the increase in the Premier's office staff many of whom are enjoying an income greater than a combined income of families in my riding of Haldeman Norfolk. In January I launched a petition calling on this government to follow the lead of Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe no response except for carbon tax referendum legislation that does absolutely nothing to help the people of Ontario today. It's a publicity stunt.  If the carbon tax is front and centre here at Queens Park then obviously the members opposite could take real action. Speaker through you to the Premier will this government follow the lead of Haldeman Norfolk providing real relief to the people of Saskatchewan today. Order. Premier. They call saving taxpayers money a publicity stunt. You know Scott Moe is one of my best pals there. We share the same values but if you call saving taxpayers of money by reducing 10.7 cents off the gas prices when everyone's going to wake up tomorrow morning and pay another 14 cents on top of this 17.5 cents, getting rid of the license stickers, getting rid of the registration, making sure we got rid of the 412 and 418 tolls. That's a publicity stunt. We're the only government in the history of Ontario that have never raised the tax on your parents making sure they're going to have a job, the students up there making sure that we created 700,000 new jobs putting more money on people's bills and being able to pay rent and put a deposit down for a house. You call that a publicity stunt by the way you won't have a job next election. Those kinds of comments are not helpful. Start the clock. Remember for Haldeman Norfolk. Thank you Speaker. I actually except what the Premier is saying is actually good news because he didn't say Ontario can't create affordability and that he's talking about isn't quite cutting it for families who are continuing to pay more, get less and fall further behind. What this government doesn't talk about is that it has its own carbon tax on industrial emitters, a result of the scrapping of Ontario's cap and trade system. This government collects compliance payments from the biggest industrial producers of greenhouse gas and will break in nearly half a billion dollars by 2030. How many times they say the word carbon tax during question period. What I don't find cute is the families who come to me telling me they're choosing between heating and eating. If this government will not provide meaningful relief for Ontario families and has no other plan against the carbon tax than to consult, it's time you stop talking about it and focus on the issues you can control here in Ontario. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Mow has truly taken Ottawa on just to remind the member. We took the federal government to court. It was forced upon us. The carbon tax is the worst tax you could ever put on the backs of people. It's going to cost parents more money to take their kids to school. They take them to events. They go home from work back and forth. But guess what? We're building Ontario. We become an economic powerhouse under the Liberals and the NDP. You destroyed the province. You bankrupt it. You created hallway healthcare. You didn't build any hospitals. We're building 50 new hospitals or additions. We're building 413 and the Bradford Bypass. We're putting $190 billion into infrastructure to make sure people have an opportunity to get from point A to point B. But most importantly, we've landed $28 billion in EV sector. Tens of thousands of jobs. 300,000 people are working today. That weren't working five and a half years ago under your watch. You lost 300,000 jobs. Thank you. Thank you. I remind the members to make their comments through the chair and not directly across the floor at each other. The next question, the member for Thunder Bay, Atticokin. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Minister of Northern Development. Northern tax is making life more unaffordable for all Ontarians, especially those in northern Ontario. That's not a publicity stunt. That's reality. Northerners already pay more at the gas pumps than in the rest of the province. They need relief, not a punitive tax burden. As many Ontarians continue to struggle with rising costs, the independent Liberals and opposition NDP remain silent. They don't care that this regressive tax Ontario businesses and our economy. Speaker, everyone in the province that has enough of the carbon tax, the federal government must scrap the tax. Speaker, can the Minister please elaborate on the negative impact the carbon tax has on northern Ontario? Great question. Minister of Northern Development, Minister of Indigenous Affairs. Speaker, I just got back from Sudbury, Nickel Belt and on beautiful spring day in northern Ontario, there was lots to say but I think it's important to just have some context here, Mr Speaker. The nation was in the grips of a soap opera called the Carbon Tax Paradise, Trouble in Paradise last week as Jagmeet was unsure of his commitment and Justin was confused with the position. By Monday, a tired broke nation from paying the carbon tax found out that Jagmeet reaffirmed his commitment embracing the carbon tax on families, communities and businesses. The next episode started this morning when Premier Fury from Newfoundland said that he felt baited by the Prime Minister Mr Speaker. He says he's being very sclerotic in his approach to this ideological marriage. We've divorced ourselves from the carbon tax fully and completely. We stand up for families and businesses in northern Ontario who are probably looking at a $2 per liter gas price tomorrow, Mr Speaker. Scrapped it. A supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. It is unfair that northern businesses and families are disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax. Rather than standing up for Ontarians in the north, the NDP and the independent Liberals are choosing to stand idly by. Northern Ontario has distinctive challenges related to fuel costs that need to be considered. While the Liberal and NDP members opposite continue to ignore the repercussions of the carbon tax on rural, remote and northern communities, our government will not stop calling for an end to this disastrous tax. Can the minister share with the House the detrimental effects that the carbon tax is having on northern businesses? Thank you. Thank you. A couple of important quotes here in all seriousness, Mr Speaker. Quote, it can seem punitive to consumers, unquote. Quote, so in that sense it's not something I endorse, unquote. Who did these quotes come from? Jane Goodall. Perhaps one of the most prolific climate change fighters there is out there. I've got all the respect in the world for her. I've met her, Mr Speaker. My daughters adore her. But she gets it, Mr Speaker. She knows that families and businesses are suffering under the pressure of this carbon tax. In Sudbury-Nickelbelt yesterday, I spoke to a young couple who started up a new business, and they're bringing out all the trail groomers from ski hills and snowmobile trails from across northern Ontario. George from Canora and Timmins all the way down to Sudbury for repairs. And I said, what is this cost in your business? He says it's almost out of business. He doesn't make financial sense to get this heavy machinery down to their shops in Sudbury. Mr Speaker, whether they're steel fabricators in Nickelbelt, or folks that do the real work, Mr Speaker, preparing for mining equipment. Thank you. The next question. The member for Niagara Central. Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the Minister of Health, my office continues to hear from constituents, including seniors across Niagara, suffering through unthinkable wait times for crucial surgeries. Elizabeth Cook, 83 years old, is in perilous condition as a result of a gastrointestinal issue that is causing fecal matter to leak through her reproductive organs. Two recent surgeries scheduled to occur at the Niagara Health System were cancelled. And she is again waiting for surgery after four years of dealing with intestinal issues. What does this Minister have to say to all of you and the thousands of patients who are suffering through unacceptable wait times in Niagara and across Ontario? What I would say to Elizabeth and the many individuals across Ontario who want to get their critical diagnostic and surgeries done faster is, first of all, why is your representative, why is your NDP member opposed to innovation in the health care system? Why does your NDP member continue to rail against innovation in our hospital sector? Whether that is expansion of surgical and diagnostic centres in our communities so that we, yes, can continue to decrease wait times for diagnostic and surgical interventions. You know, it is really unfortunate that we have a member who represents a party who is diametrically opposed, philosophically opposed to innovation in our health care system. We need to encourage that innovation to make sure that your constituents like Elizabeth, like organisations and individuals across Ontario, get access to that order. This government has had six years to fix it and it's gotten worse, not better. That's not innovation. An Ontario Health Coalition report released yesterday uncovered the extent to which private clinics are using deceptive tactics to charge patients extra fees for OHIP covered surgeries. In the case of cataract surgeries, they found clinics charging for extra eye measurements, tests and special lenses, and unnecessary add-ons they say are better than OHIP covered services. Seniors reported being charged for appointments, membership and fees for primary care as well as user fees. Why is this minister ignoring the fact that seniors in Niagara and across Ontario are being ripped off by private for-profit clinics? Speaker, as we make one change in the cataract and minor eye surgery space for expansions of existing community centres, we saw 17,000 people who had access to that surgery in the last year and a bit. That is the change that we need to have in the province of Ontario to ensure that people can get back to living. They can get back to volunteering, they can get back to driving their car, they can get back to reading books to their grandchildren. Those are individuals who access clinical services in community without the weight ensuring that they will be able to participate and be part of community. And again, I will say an organisation and an NDP I'm going to ask the member for Spadina 4 York to withdraw the unparliamentary. I withdraw the next order. The next question. The member for Essex. Thank you speaker. Speaker, my question is for the minister of services and accessibility. Just a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of hosting the minister in my writing of Essex where we visited towns like Kingsville and Amersburg and LaSalle. It was an opportunity to gather with seniors from communities and talk about the importance of staying active and staying connected. Speaker combating social isolation is important for the health and well-being of our seniors. Our government must continue to invest in initiatives that help seniors stay fit and active and healthy in their own communities. Speaker, can the minister share with the house what our government is doing to help seniors stay fit and active and healthy in Ontario? Great question. Minister responsible for seniors and accessibility. Thank you to the excellent member from Essex for the question this MPP is doing Marvel's job advocating for seniors. I was honored to join him along with the MPP for Winslow to come see to visit the new senior active centers in Kingsville and Amersburg. They each will receive $50,000 in new funding for seniors in the community. This means places like Kingsville community center can expand their activities and allow even more seniors to participate. It was amazing to see the energy of the senior in Essex. It makes such a difference in the lives of seniors when they come together. Thank you back to the member for Essex. Thank you and I thank the minister of seniors and accessibility for that response. It's great to see our government making investments that promote wellness and help seniors stay active and connected. This funding will lead to more services and permanent services for older adults in my riding and especially in the towns of Kingsville and Amersburg. Speaker we often hear the minister say that social isolation is enemy number one for seniors. They need access to programming that enables them to be engaged with their communities. Speaker can the minister share the importance of the seniors active living centers and how it is helping seniors in Ontario stay healthy and stay socially connected. Minister for seniors and accessibility. Mr. Speaker thanks to this premier and the hard work of the minister of finance we are investing record amounts for seniors. We now have 316 senior active living centers. I travel all around the province and to see and understand the benefits of these centers. I celebrate new center in Havillac with the MPP Peter Kawatha. I joined MPP for Innisfil to celebrate the new mobile senior active living center that will bring programs to the region. Mr. Speaker I see seniors so happy because they are active socially connected and having fun. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker my question is for the premier. In Waterloo region 770 acres of prime farmland in Wilmout Township are at risk of being expropriated for an undisclosed industrial site. Waterloo's regional official plan accommodated all anticipated growth until 2051 significant farmland loss. This is very important for the people of the region of Waterloo. Yet a month ago farmers in Wilmout were offered an insulting cash offer per acre and given 7 days to accept an offer or face expropriation. This government's current legislation makes it possible for what is happening in Wilmout to happen anywhere in Ontario with no transparency and no community consultation. I don't need any more Vegas deals on Ontario land in this place. My question to the premier why is this government undermining the farming sector and encouraging backroom deals with developers? Mr. Speaker Actually doing no such thing Mr. Speaker I suggest the member speak to the regional municipality if she has specific questions. What she references in the bill is an issue that came before this house when the minister of economic development and trade was trying to encourage the Volkswagen plant to operate or to establish itself in St. Thomas. The member will recall that a bill was brought forward into this house seeking to provide that community with the ability to provide incentives to help us land that. To the best of my recollection Mr. Speaker that was passed unanimously by all members including the member opposite. So if she has a problem if the member opposite in the party have a problem with what they unanimously passed I would suggest that they chat with themselves about why it is that they would want to put at risk massive investments like the VW plant, like Stalantis and all of the investments that we're bringing that helped us create 700,000 jobs for the people of the province of Ontario. Thank you sir. Thank you very much. Question period for this morning.


Hi, my name is Shawn Harris and I'm going to be an instructor for the 10 full domains that's covered on the CISSP exam. I've been in this industry for many years before anybody actually really cared about it. When I started in security, I said that I was very interested in it because it was complex. You have to really understand technology before you can secure it. And 10 years ago I was told, well, that's nice that you are interested in security but you'll never have a full-time job in it. Well, not only do I have a full-time job, a lot of people have a full-time job in security because the importance of it. Hi, I'm David Miller. I'm going to be the instructor for this computer-based training course. I am a Microsoft Subject Matter Expert, a Microsoft Certified Trainer, numerous certifications in the Microsoft arena. I've been a CISSP, CWNA, CNE, CCNA, Licensed Pen Tester, Certified Security Analyst, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I've been a computer consultant and network engineer since about 1990. I've been a Microsoft Certified Trainer since about 1998. And since then I've been a lecturer and author of multiple curricula. Hi there, my name is Ken Mayer. I'm a part of many instructors that are going to present to you the course on Certified Information Systems Security Professional.  I don't even remember what name we gave it. During that time I've had the opportunity to work in a lot of different fields, whether it was from operating systems, servers, mainframes, infrastructure with routers and switches, whether it was with firewalls by Cisco, Juniper, or Palo Alto, or even on the Windows side of security, as well as working with CISA, CISM, and many other types of auditing courses and auditing work. Having been involved in doing penetration testing, having clients that ask me to help evaluate their security. So I've had a lot of, like I said, experiences in many places covering many of the different domains. In fact, for a short while there, I even worked in law enforcement to help with the ideas of physical security. Now, in this domain, it's information security and risk management. They used to call it security practices or security management practices. And we're going to go over kind of what they call the soft skills, development of policies, development of a risk management program, development of standards, and we're going to get into what security governance actually means and how to do a structure with that. We'll talk about the type of training and the type of awareness that needs to be in place. So in this domain, it's more of what a lot of people call the soft skills instead because it's not overly technical. But this is where a lot of companies actually are moving into. A lot of companies have their head down in technology. And because of all the regulations and now because security is a business issue, these things are much more important or get a lot more attention than they did in the past. So there's actually a gap in the industry of people who really know how to do these things compared to configuring a firewall or configuring a KDC or something like that. So this is important. You may think it's intuitive and you understand it, but when you actually have to put it in practice, a lot of people have a hard time because it's a new thing. Now our mainframes, of course, got smaller, more efficient. They could do more different types of batch jobs. But at that time it was really interesting because that was a glass house. We called it a glass house where the mainframe was. There's only a handful of guys who actually understood how the mainframe worked, interacted with it, and actually when anything went wrong, they didn't just do a configuration like we do today. They went into the code and modified it there. Now the mainframe, at that place, we all took our batch files to the mainframe for whatever job we had to have taken place. And then we figured out that a processing needed to come closer to the actual users. So we moved a lot of the processing power from the mainframes down to the user desktops. Now why do you think information security is so important today, compared to five, seven, ten years ago? Well, seven to ten years ago we worked in this mainframe environment. Only a handful of people could interact with the system itself. So at that time who knew what TCPIP was? Who knew what the OSI model was? What an API was? At that time, the knowledge about technology was very small, so there wasn't as many people who could do damage. Now, as our culture has grown, we personally actually depend upon more technology than we realize. Health care, the energy that we use, and businesses can't run without technology. We actually take technology as, for granted, it's always there and it provides us a lot of functionality.  And so that's where the attackers have come in. The hackers came in and they knew that that was a weakness. Now in the beginning, hacking was just a lot of fun.  But now that's actually changed. There's actually, hacking has changed from some kids who are interested into it to a much more organized crime. That's what we're going to get into identity theft and the types of crimes that are taking place. But the reason that security is so important is because we're so dependent upon it. It protects our money. It protects our data. And as the technology came from the mainframe down to the employees' desktops, now they can interact with it, which means that they can make mistakes. So there's a lot of reasons that security is important. It's going to be around for a long time. And now, it's not just general security information you need to know. People actually have to specialize, just like doctors have to specialize, maybe into web services, application security. So this is not going to go away. It's only going to increase because the complexity of our environment is going to increase. So if you look at our environment today, talk about complex. We have networks. We have routers. We have firewalls. But then we're growing outside these bounds. We have wireless. We have road warriors that have to communicate with the corporate environment and the assets. We're setting up things like web services, which allow different companies to use each other's services in open standards. We have cell phones that are basically computers. And the software itself is increasing in the complexity because we want more and more functionality. So our environment is going to only get more complex in the devices that we put on it and the software. Now, why does that have anything to do with security? Well, security and complexity do not get along. The more complex something is, the harder it is to secure it. Like in Windows 2000, there's 40 million lines of code. And that was Windows 2000. How do you secure that much code? So in our environments, not only do we have devices like routers and switches, we have software that works on them. We have operating systems. We have applications. We have users. And now we don't even have a closed environment. We're interacting with other companies, with the internet, with partners. So our environment is becoming much more porous. And the complexity of it is going to increase. And so if you're in security, you're always going to have a job. Now we're going to go through some security definitions. And this is a part that a lot of people think is simplistic and kind of boring. But what's a class without definitions? But on the exam, not only are you going to need to know the definition of a term, you're going to have to have examples, you're going to have to know examples of them, and be able to think about them in a cognitive way, in a real world way. So we'll first look at a vulnerability. A vulnerability is a lack of account or measure, or some type of a weakness. Then there's a threat. Now the threat is that something or somebody is going to find out about that vulnerability and exploit it. That's what the threat is. Now risk. A lot of people don't have what, down the definition of risk. Risk is the business impact and the probability of that vulnerability being exploited. And then there's account and measure. That's what you're going to put in place to protect the vulnerability. And then there's exposure. Exposure means you have a vulnerability. It's there. You're exposed to, maybe you don't have antivirus in place. You're exposed to an infection. Now there's actually a lot of types of vulnerabilities. And you need to think outside of the box. Or you need to broaden your horizon on the types of vulnerabilities that are within your environment. When we talk about vulnerabilities, unfortunately a lot of people think about open ports on a firewall. Well that is a vulnerability. But what about your people who aren't trained on how to properly configure things? Or your people maybe answering the phones aren't properly trained about social engineering? Or you're not watching your physical security. These are all vulnerabilities. And this is what's difficult about information. Security is thinking about all the bad things that could take place. Now here are some examples of vulnerabilities that a lot of people don't think about. The first one I put up is it's a lack of understanding. Our environment, our industry as a whole, we are continually learning more. We're maturing. This is a very immature industry. And because of our immaturity, because of our lack of knowledge, this is why a lot of attacks and a lot of bad things could take place. So that's one thing. Education, understanding what the bad guys are going to do and how to make sure they're not going to do it to you. There's another one that's called authorization creep which is all over the place. Authorization creep means that somebody has too much access. Let's say I started a company, I'm a clerk. Then I'm given rights and permissions and such. And then I get promoted and now I'm a manager. Then I get other rights and permissions added on instead of subtracted. And this happens on and on as somebody moves from one department to another. They have too much access. And almost every organization today, users have too much access. Why do we care? Well, the reason is because now this allows that user to carry out mistakes and also allows that somebody actually gets a hold of that account. Now they can access a lot of resources. So in the next domain, we're actually going to talk about identity management and how the industry is trying to get a hold of this authorization creep issue. Ways of detecting fraud. A lot of companies actually have attacks that have gone on for years, successful attacks, social security numbers have been taken, personal information have been taken for years and they don't have the right things in place to actually detect that those things are going on. So there's a lot of different types of vulnerabilities. It's not just technical. It's at those different layers, operational, tactical, and strategic. Now I said that most people don't understand the term risk. And that's because we use them interchangeably. We use vulnerability, threat, and risk interchangeably. Hey, we have this type of risk. Hey, we have this type of vulnerability. Now it may not seem important to you about having distinct definitions and knowing what they are, but it is important because they're totally different things. For example, one time I was asked to be on a risk management panel. We're a bunch of experts on a panel and we're going to talk about risk management to about 500 people. We were going to talk about specific tools and I was given a list of tools that we were to discuss and say what part was great and what part wasn't so great. And what happened is I wrote back to who was putting this conference together. I wrote back and said, I don't think you want me on your panel. Because the tools that they actually listed were vulnerability management tools. They were not risk management tools. And in the industry today, a lot of products say they're risk management and they're not. The easiest thing to do is define a vulnerability. That's a weakness or a hole. The hardest thing to do is actually calculate the business impact of that vulnerability and the probability that that vulnerability is going to get exploited. So the understanding of risk, I think, is very critical. And I'm a consultant. I work in a lot of different environments. And I see the confusion that when people don't have the right definitions down, they're speaking apples and oranges. So in our industry today, risk management is getting more and more and more important because of regulations, because the business people actually get what security means. Again, risk is the probability that a vulnerability is going to be exploited and then the business impact. How bad is that going to hurt us? Now, how do these all work together? Some people think they're interchangeable, but they're not. Any environment, any organization has a whole bunch of vulnerabilities. Can you plug them all? Can you fix them all? Well, only if you have all the time in the world and an infinite amount of money. You can't address all the vulnerabilities and you actually don't need to. So you have a whole list of vulnerabilities. And what you have to do is you have to associate a threat to that vulnerability. Because you can have a vulnerability if there's nothing that can actually take advantage of it. It doesn't matter. So let's say you have an open port that faces the Internet. That port may not have a service that could be exploited and anybody can do anything about it. You're not going to pay any money or do any configuration for that. So a threat is that somebody is going to find a vulnerability and exploit it. So again, the first step is find all your vulnerabilities. You have to associate them to a threat. Is there something that could take advantage of them? And then you have to calculate the business impact and the probability if that comes true what that is, you're calculating the risk. So you find vulnerabilities and we've had tools out there for years that finds vulnerabilities. So associate them to a threat and then calculating the risk is really where the skill comes in, how it relates to the business. So usually you have a whole bunch of risks listed and you can't address them all. But you're going to say these are the top risks. We're going to address those in the first three months. These are the next 12 months. So it's really important to understand how all of these work together. And I just see it's not only important for the exam. I'm in the industry. I see the confusion between these things where people don't think definitions are important but it's actually not the definition. It's the concept and what is the right tool for the right issue. Now we've talked about the definition of vulnerability threat and risk. But where does risk lie? Who is actually responsible for it? That's very important. Who's responsible for it? Who's responsible to ensure that risk is properly mitigated? Now in the past security was all in IT. IT understood that the company needed to be protected but they knew technical security and they knew that the company needed to spend more money to protect itself. But the business people and senior management didn't get it. They didn't want to hear about it. Now as regulations have come down we've got GLB and SOX and HIPAA. Now that's come from the top. So security isn't coming from the bottom anymore. It's coming from the top also. So who is responsible for risk? Well that's senior management, board of directors. On the CISP exam it will actually specifically say senior management. But in the industry it's not just senior management. On publicly owned companies it's also the board because they're responsible to ensure that the shareholders are properly protected. The company is running smoothly and that all of these risks are identified and dealt with properly. Now another interesting thing is that risk should actually be delegated. The risk should not just be within the security realm or just on the CISO's desk or just on the CISO's desk. The risk needs to be delegated to like the business management owners or whoever the department heads are. They need to be held responsible for identifying risk in their department and know how to approach it. It doesn't mean that they have to be security experts. It means that they have to be held responsible for making sure that any types of risks are actually being identified. So although senior management is ultimately responsible it's important that we get it out throughout the company that each business unit manager or the department head or somebody is responsible because that department head actually understands that department. Understands the type of risk that can take place. Remember it's not just technical. So ultimately yeah senior management but they can't do it all. They don't understand all the risks that can happen throughout the company. So they need to delegate it and they need to keep people's feet to the fire. Most companies are not holding any type of business unit manager or department head actually liable or responsible for any type of risk. So it's mainly lip service. So since a lot of companies don't understand risk they just ignore it. They don't deal with it. They're being forced to. Just like with any security nobody really wants to do security. The company doesn't really want to understand or pay money for security. They need to profit. They need to make money. But this is life. Security within the corporate world and within the government sectors is only becoming more important and risk management is really becoming something that is the most important. This is also something that the auditors are looking at. What type of risk program do you have in place? How are you identifying and mitigating those risks? Now some other definitions we definitely need to know about are availability, integrity, confidentiality. It's called the AIC triad. It used to be called the CIA triad, but for some reason I guess they thought you'd get confused with the real CIA. So we're going to look at examples of availability, integrity, and confidentiality. But the main concept here is that every single type of countermeasure that we put in place is going to provide one of these services. It's going to provide some type of integrity. It's going to provide some type of confidentiality. So not only do you need to know the definitions and some examples, but you need to know how they match up. This type of countermeasure provides this type of service. Now in availability, a lot of people don't put availability within security. Most people just think about confidentiality, secrecy. But availability is very important because if a resource isn't available, you can't do your work. So there's attacks that take place against resources so they're not available. Those are DDoS attacks, distributed denial service attacks. There's also availability issues that take place that are not attacks, but things get overwhelmed or they go down. So mainly in operations, that domain, we're going to look at the different types of technologies that provide availability, which is redundancy, fault tolerance, those types of things. Now integrity also falls under this triad. And integrity, a lot of people think it's just the integrity about data. And that's true. The data needs to have its integrity when it's being held on a server, when it's going from one place to the other. We need to make sure that it's not been modified by somebody or even it's been corrupted. But in reality, it's not just the data that we need to worry about the integrity. What about the integrity of the environment? What about the actual systems themselves, integrity of the systems? Do you want people to just install patches as they see fit without actually testing them? If that happens, the integrity of the environment is horrible. You don't have your configuration management in place. So it's not just about data. We need to think about the system, the application, the software, the environment, that things aren't changing in an uncontrollable manner so that integrity is compromised. Now confidentiality is pretty simple, at least conceptually. This is what people usually think about when they think about security. So we want to make sure that whatever somebody's not supposed to have access to, they don't have access to. And we're going to go through, in each one of these domains, we're going to have some type of control that is going to provide confidentiality. Access control, encryption, a lot of different things. Because usually the goal is to protect your data. Data today is the goal of the organization. That's usually what needs to be protected the most. So not only do you have to know the definition of confidentiality, but examples of what provides confidentiality. Now one thing that a lot of people may know about is shoulder surfing. Shoulder surfing is when somebody's looking over your shoulder and they see some type of sensitive information they're not supposed to. That's why when you type in your password you have those X's that come up so nobody can look over your shoulder and see those passwords. So that's shoulder surfing where somebody's looking over and seeing something they're not supposed to. But that's not the whole thing. You've got to think outside of bigger within the environment. What about the people who have worked with the backup tapes? Do they have the actual access level to be able to access that data on the backups? Maybe not. Maybe there's sensitive data that they shouldn't have access to. When I was in the information warfare unit, everybody had to have a top secret clearance, even the janitors. Because the janitors have keys to everything. And they're usually around when nobody else is around. So they had access to top secret information. And what about the people who are doing surveillance? Let's say in a room you have a camera that's surveilling the environment. Well if you are in an environment that has top secret or even secret information that's being worked on on a computer, then that camera can capture what's on those screens. Whoever's doing the surveilling and whoever's maintaining those tapes, do they have the actual clearance? Should they be accessing this type of information? So shoulder surfing, that's simple, where yeah okay it's looking over your shoulder, but you need to think about if you actually have sensitive information, who else could be looking at it? Another thing is the area. Do you have it just sitting out? It's not just digital information that we have to protect. It could be an even paper format. Now social engineering is very interesting. It's not an attack, a technical attack. It's an attack against people. Social engineering is skillful lying to get whatever it is that you're after. So there's a lot of different ways to do social engineering. You're basically trying to convince somebody else that you have authorization to assist them or some type of data that you don't have the authorization for. So somebody can come in and be dressed as a repairman and get past the front desk and get to where they want to go. A lot of social engineering happens over the phone where somebody calls and says, hey, I'm the administrator. We're having a hard time right now with the systems. We're going to reboot them. I need you to change your password to password. So somebody says this is the administrator. I'll do what I'm told. They changed their password to password. Now the bad guy has their credential set. And social engineering is one thing that the corporate environment doesn't think about as much. The military and the government think about it more and they do a lot of assessments that include social engineering attacks. In the corporate world, it's usually just about the technical issues and the policies and such. But people are the weakest-length. They're the ones who are going to give out sensitive information. It's actually easier to do social engineering and get information from people than ever trying to go through a firewall or a HACA system. It's always easier to go through people. And the assessments that are done like in the government, you pick out people who would have some information like the commander's secretary or a pilot or somebody that you pick them out and you meet them not at the job but maybe you meet them at a bar or you meet them somewhere else, play racquetball or something. And you see what little tidbits you can actually get out of them because if an attacker is serious about attacking a specific target what they're going to do is gather as much information about that target before they attack. And that's called footprinting. There's an amazing amount of information in the public sector that can be learned about a corporate environment. You go through the air and database for all the IPs that a company has. You go through who is database for all the domains that a company owns. You look at, let's say somebody has a job opening. In their job description that they need somebody to fill, they can list the actual type of technology that they have, the type of firewalls, the type of intrusion detection. They'll say we need people with this type of experience. Now you've just told people what you're actually using in security. And another big way that attackers are getting information is in chat rooms. We have chat rooms and forums for everything and we have forums where people will help each other out. So let's say I have Sidewinder firewall and there's a question I have about configuration. So I'll go to a forum and I'll say, hey, we have this type of firewall. I don't know what to do. Can anybody help me? Now there can be an attacker in there specifically to find out who doesn't know what they're doing. If they could figure out what company it is, which is easy to do, they'll know that that firewall is not configured properly. So social engineering, there's a lot of different ways for data to be leaked out and this is one thing that is not looked at within the corporate world. You need to test your people to know what they're supposed to say and what they're not supposed to say and you need to educate them on this. Now people who are in security get a little cockier. They think the whole world is just about security. I fall into it sometimes myself. I see other people, my peers that fall into it. But you need to remember that business people and they just have their own jobs. Security isn't their life. So you have to understand that somebody else, like a business person, already has a 60-hour a week job. They don't even know about security. They don't even want to know. So sometimes security people get a little full of themselves and they know so much about what somebody should and shouldn't be doing. But we have to be sensitive. We have to properly educate, which that doesn't happen through acting superior or acting so knowledgeable. We have to be able to be humble and put security information in different languages that people understand. There's mid-management and then there's senior management and they'll speak different languages. So we need to know their language so we can make a business case so everybody can understand the security issues within the organization.