It is now time for all questions. I recognize the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Thank you and good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The government's own housing affordability task force strongly recommended the legalization of four plexes across the province over two years ago. But now the Premier is saying not in his backyard. So my question is why is the Premier blocking people who can't afford a single family detached home from the communities they want to live and work in? Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Positions should know, of course, that there is no law banning this province-wide. What we have said is that we trust our municipal partners to make decisions that are in the best interest of their community. That is something that we have been talking about for months in this place, Mr. Speaker. At the same time, we will allow communities to make the decision if that is appropriate in their areas, Mr. Speaker. I think it has become very clear that some communities like Toronto have approved as of right for, where other communities have said that they don't want four-story buildings to be built in parts of their communities. They neither have the infrastructure nor were they built around four-story buildings in the middle of communities. So what I am saying to the leader of the opposition is that we will continue to trust our municipal partners to work in the best interest of the people of the province of Ontario along with us, Mr. Speaker, but we will not force them to do something blanket across the province of Ontario that is not in the best interest of the community. Supplementary question. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should speak to the Premier, because the Premier doesn't seem to get this at all. The Premier is ruling out affordable housing options in the middle of a housing crisis. People need a place to live and this government's solution is to go to war against four-plexes. It makes no sense. For many people, an apartment in a four-plex is going to be the only home they can afford, and it's a good option. Why does this Premier believe that these people don't deserve to achieve that dream and don't deserve the same options as everybody else? Mr. Speaker, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That, of course, is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. What we're saying is that we're not forcing municipalities a blanket policy across the province of Ontario. Of course, municipalities have the right already to make this decision. We've seen Toronto make that decision, Markham has made that decision and a host of other municipalities. Still, others have said to us, Mr. Speaker, that allowing a four-story building in the middle of a community that was neither built to accommodate a four-story building that does not have the infrastructure to accommodate a four-story building, Mr. Speaker, is not in the best interest of other communities across the province, Mr. Speaker. So what we'll continue to do is be targeted in our approach, remove red tape, Mr. Speaker, ensure that our municipal partners can meet the goals of building the 1.5 million homes. That is why we are doubling down on ensuring that sewer and water infrastructure is in place so that we can build not only hundreds of homes, but millions of homes across the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I mean, even the housing minister doesn't seem to understand the difference between a four-plex and a four-story. It's mind-boggling. And look, every housing expert in this province, in this country, is saying we need more housing options, not less. That is what Ontarians want too, right? They want leadership from their government to provide more options so that we can actually find homes for our children, for the next generation, for the people that right now are at risk of losing their homes. It is unbelievable that the Premier and this housing minister would rule out some straightforward options like legalizing four-plexes. And you know what? They're playing into the same kind of fears that have held back density for generations. So I'm going to ask one more time, Speaker. Why does the Premier think that people who can't afford a single family detached home don't deserve options like four-plexes? Mr. Secretary, it's both fairs and housing. Speaker, for me to legalize something, it would have to first be illegal, which it is not, Mr. Speaker. It is currently legal across the province of Ontario for communities to build four-plexes, four-story buildings. What we're saying is that as opposed to doing what the Leader of the Opposition wants, forcing our municipal partners to do things in areas that were not built around that, Mr. Speaker, that don't have the infrastructure in place, that don't have the parking in space, that might not have the schools available to them, what we're saying is plan, continue to plan your communities in the best interest of your community and ensure that you can meet the targets that we've set. And we've listened to our municipal partners who have said one thing, one thing only, that the biggest obstacle to building 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario is the availability of infrastructure, an infrastructure deficit that we inherited from the Liberals. And that is why last week the Premier made an historic announcement of over $1.8 billion to get sewer and water. We don't want to build hundreds, we want to build millions of homes. Thank you. The next question. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. When the previous Liberal government were in power, they spent millions and millions of dollars on purely partisan ads. The party and government now, the Conservatives at the time, even their Deputy Premier, said they were going to stop that practice. It was actually their platform. In fact, the now Deputy Premier tabled a bill. It was called, let me see, the End the Public Funding of Partisan Government Advertising Act. My question to the Premier is, does the Premier still agree that we need to end government funding of partisan advertising? First, I'd like to go to the Treasury Board. Thank you, Speaker. Of course the members opposite are upset that the people of Ontario are doing better under this government than they were under the previous government. The province has a great story to tell, whether it's the billions of dollars of investments that we're attracting from manufacturing and electric vehicles alone, the historic investments we're making in infrastructure, the Bradford Bypass, Highway 413, the Ontario Line, the millions of dollars we're spending on schools and hospitals and we're building childcare spaces, Speaker, and nearly 700,000 new good-paying jobs have been created since we took government, Mr. Speaker. The people of Ontario should be proud of this province, as I am, and I hope the members opposite can find a way to stand up for the people of Ontario instead of standing in the way of the hard work that we're doing to build a stronger and more prosperous Ontario. Thank you. And the supplementary question? Speaker, that's just the kind of gas-laining that Ontarians are fed up with, I can tell you. Now, there are families in this province sitting in— I'll caution the member under her choice of words, and ask her to continue with her questions. Ontarians are sitting— I'm sorry. Stop the clock. I'm having a little trouble hearing. I'm quite congestive. I'm going to ask the member to withdraw, to give her a question.  Thank you. Okay? That is unacceptable, and people in Ontario are darn sick of it. I want to ask the Premier, does he still agree, again, that we need to end government funding of this government's partisan advertising? The President of the Treasury. Speaker, well, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying just actually doesn't make any sense. What she is saying is that she doesn't believe that the Government of Ontario should inform Ontarians about important government programs, including health programs that we are funding to make sure that we have the investments in hospitals, in healthcare, in childcare, in education. Mr. Speaker, they're saying that they don't believe that we should provide important health information like vaccination campaigns and public health measures just like we did during the pandemic. They're saying that they don't believe the people of Ontario should be told what the government is doing to build new homes, so that young families can finally achieve the dream of home ownership. They're saying that they don't believe that the Government of Ontario should inform Ontarians about how we're spending their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to build a stronger economy and create new jobs. And they're saying that they don't believe that we should promote Ontario around the world as a great place to come and invest and create jobs to build a better economy and a more prosperous future. The final supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Does it promote tourism? No, it does not. Does it tell people, here's a service. You can use it. No, it does not. It does not. That is not the ads we were talking about. We are giving this government a chance to show Ontarians who they truly are. Enough is enough. We need to close the loopholes and stop spending Ontarians' hard-earned dollars on these purely partisan ads. So my question again to the Premier is, this afternoon, when we retable the bill that the Deputy Premier herself tabled under the previous Liberal government, is this government going to support that bill? Thank you. That's a pleasure. Speaker, are the dollars that we're spending to attract new business to Ontario working? Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, we are becoming a global leader in electric vehicle manufacturing because we are doing the hard work of promoting this province as the best place to do business anywhere in North America. I'm afraid about the changes that we're making. Our government is making under the leadership of Premier Ford.  After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement, we're reversing the trend of chasing jobs out of this province. We are creating jobs and people are going to get a chance finally under our leadership to build the lives that they deserve. The next question, the member for Waterloo. Thank you very much, Speaker, to the Premier. Speaker, this government's self-congratulatory, It's Happening Here at campaign, has cost taxpayers $8 million. You know what is happening here, Speaker? 2.3 million Ontarians are desperate for primary care. 203 emergency room closures, largely due to the shortage of nurses, largely due to Bill 124, this government's legislation. Shelters designed for six weeks days are housing folks for months because of a lack of affordable housing options. Nearly half of Ontario's universities are running deficits saying they're at a breaking point. Speaker, that is what's happening here in Ontario. And we heard all of this during our pre-budget consultations with folks from across this great province. So instead of meeting the needs of Ontarians, this government is selling them partisan ads about what a great job they're doing. Speaker, why does this government continue to ignore the real problems that Ontarians are facing? Speaker, you know what's happening here? What's happening here is 8,000 new physicians have joined and registered since 2018. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we are making investments that are making an impact in communities across Ontario. An historic $110 million investment in primary care multidisciplinary teams, multidisciplinary teams that are going to be in Kitchener Waterloo, that are going to be in Ottawa, in London, across Ontario to ensure that people who want to have a primary care physician have the opportunity to do that. Those multidisciplinary teams are making an impact in the communities that we serve and the people of Ontario need to know that it's happening here. Speaker, this minister should vote for the legislation that we're introducing later on today. It is exactly the legislation that she introduced when the Liberals were doing the same games. Budget consultations, we heard from Ontarians about the continued underfunding of health care, about housing and around education, around basic public services in Ontario. Meanwhile, this Conservative government spent $24 million on partisan ads campaigns in 2022-23. When the Conservative government was in opposition, they were dead set against partisan advertising and the current Minister of Health stated, and this is a quote from Hansard, It's inappropriate. People see through it and it must stop. We agree with that statement, Speaker. My question to the Premier, is the government fixated on partisan government advertising because they know that they are failing the great people of this province? Premier? Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, this is very clear. They wouldn't be able to come up with a marketing plan if their life depended on it. We're business people. We want to market Ontario to the 16 million people that are here that have relatives and friends and businesses all around the world, not to mention how we're marketing everywhere down in the U.S. Our number one trading partner, we do about $460 billion of two-way trade, telling the world that Ontario is open for business, come and invest. And guess what, Mr Speaker? They've invested. They've invested in a big way, $28 billion with EV, tens of billions of dollars attacked, $3 billion life sciences, and my favourite one, the manufacturers out there. They created more jobs in all 50 U.S. states combined. Our province is moving forward, we're an economic powerhouse in North America. Thank you. The next question, the member for Niagara West. Thank you very much, Speaker, and I have a question for the Minister of Energy this morning. Hardworking families and workers in my riding in Niagara West, they're concerned about the 23% liberal carbon tax increase coming on April 1st. And with far too many people struggling to make ends meet, I know that the people in my riding are looking to governments of all stripes for more support and relief, not more taxes. Speaker, I know that that's why Premier Ford and this government has fought the regressive liberal tax all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. But it's not just the people of Ontario who oppose the liberal carbon tax increases. We're seeing premiers from Newfoundland, Labrador, PEIs, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, they've all come out to speak against the liberal tax hikes. The Federal Liberals and the Queen of the Carbon Tax, Bonnie Cromby, aren't fooling anyone here in Ontario. So my question, Speaker, is could the Minister please tell this House why the people of Ontario cannot afford another federal liberal carbon tax hike? The Minister of Energy. Speaker, let's just be really clear about what the member from Niagara is talking about this morning. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, this is the officer that oversees the finances on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, has said that the increased carbon tax coming up a week from today is going to cost an Ontario family almost $1,700 next year, $1,674 next year. That means increasing grocery bills. It means increasing cost of home heating. It means increases certainly at the gas pumps as well as you're filling your vehicles. And as the member rightly points out, the Queen of the Carbon Tax, Bonnie Cromby, isn't fooling anyone, Mr. Speaker. Cromby is one of only a few leaders across the country, and there's hardly any anymore that aren't speaking out against the federal government's carbon tax, and that includes GDP, Liberals and Conservatives right across Canada. She continues to support the Trudeau government's mammoth 23% increase. We have to scrap this tax. There's still time to do that, Mr. Speaker. The supplementary question. I want to thank the minister for his response. It really is hard to believe that Bonnie Cromby, or anyone else, frankly, is still able to support the job-killing Liberal Regressive Carbon Tax. And it's not the first time that we've seen Bonnie Cromby step forward to support this regressive tax. As a Liberal MP, we saw that Bonnie Cromby was one of the first people in Canada to back one of the most extreme Liberal Carbon Tax policies that were ever proposed. And it's why we can't count on her or any other Liberal members of this House to speak out against the unjust Liberal Carbon Tax hike. Our government has, and will continue to fight against the Liberal Carbon Tax because we know it's not what the people of this province expect or deserve. So, Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell this House a little bit more about why the Liberal Carbon Tax has created financial hardship for so many hard-working families and workers here in Ontario? Minister of Energy. Thanks again, Speaker, and thanks to the member from Niagara. We're urging the federal government to treat Ontario families fairly. The Liberal Caucus here in Ontario doesn't seem to understand that. They're in full support, actually, of the federal government's carbon tax. As a matter of fact, in a comment made last week by the federal environment minister, Minister Gibo, he said it's my understanding of her position, speaking of the Queen of the Carbon Tax, Bonnie Cromby, that she was happy to fall back on the federal system, Mr. Speaker. Our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, has been focused on driving costs down for the people, whether it's cutting gas taxes by 10.7 cents a litre, bringing in one fare for all transit systems across the GTHA, scrapping the license plate, sticker fees and other fees, Mr. Speaker. Eliminating the tolls on the 400 series of highways, Mr. Speaker. We've taken many, many steps to ensure that the cost of living is more affordable for the people of Ontario, but a week from today, the feds are going to drive up the carbon tax. Question number four, Ottawa Centre. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Recently, Metrolinx put out insulting ads that were called See Beyond the Construction that ran in movie theaters across the GTHA.  But these ads mocked transit riders who were legitimately complaining about broken deadlines and massive cost overruns in the Egerton Crosstown LRT. But following public outrage and loud groans in movie theaters, believe me, the ad campaign was yanked from Metrolinx's YouTube page. But we have since discovered that this ad campaign alone cost $2.5 million. Oh, my. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier rise in his place today and apologize to transit units, apologize to taxpayers of Ontario for this terrible ad by Metrolinx? Thank you. The Associate Minister of Transportation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker, when Liberals and NDP were in dormant, they built nothing, Mr. Speaker. NDP and Liberals, they are choosing on attacking the public servants like engineers, like railway experts and planners, Mr. Speaker. Our government under the leadership of Premier Ford, we are focusing on building Ontario, Mr. Speaker. We have Ontario line shuffling the ground, Liberals and NDP voted against this. We have shuffling the ground for Scarborough, Sabay, Liberals and NDP voted against this, Mr. Speaker. Even we made one fair possible saving $1,600 and Liberals and NDP voted against this, Mr. Speaker. We won't take lessons from Liberals and NDP. We will continue to build Ontario and we will get it right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I guess back to the Premier, the transit riders of the GTA just got your answer. No apology. That's right. Metrolinx can have a million dollar CEO that runs insulting ads at cost of the people of this province, $2.5 million. And no one on that side of the house today will stand up and apologize. That's a shame. But you know what also is a shame, Speaker? I've learned from an eternal source at Metrolinx that they have over 400 staff alone in communications and marketing. 400? If you eyeball a $60,000 salary, Speaker, that's $8.5 million. Wow. What limits? Is this government going to allow Phil Verster, their million dollar man, to go in spending the people's money and insulting transit riders as they fail to build transit? Speaker, for the sixth time in this house, I will rise and insist that this government do the right thing and fire Phil Verster. There we are. Associate Minister of Transportation. Mr. Speaker, no other government is doing more for transportation infrastructure than this government under the leadership of Premier Ford. Mr. Speaker, we have fast Metrolinx to build the largest transit expansion in the history of North America, Mr. Speaker. These are public servants. They are engineers. They are planners. They are experts in transportation, Mr. Speaker. They are globally recognized public servants from our local communities, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to build transportation, Mr. Speaker. 80% of the priority projects are head of the schedule, and we are focusing to make sure we get to build these transit right for the future generation, Mr. Speaker. We will never take a lesson from NDP or Liberal who chose to build nothing, Mr. Speaker. The member for Newmarket, Alola. Mr. Speaker, we're the Associate Minister of Transportation. Since the federal government imposed the carbon tax, people in our province and across this great country have been paying more for everything. Whether it's at the grocery store to buy food or at the gas pumps, they are finding it challenging to keep up with the rising costs. To add insult to injury, the Liberal NDP coalition are now hiking the carbon tax yet again on April 1st. Speaker, that's unfair to the hardworking people and families of Ontario who are already struggling to buy the necessities for their living. We know the opposition doesn't care to intervene, so that's why our government must continue to fight this tax and make life more affordable for Ontarians. Speaker, can the Associate Minister tell the House what steps our government is taking to fight the carbon tax? The Associate Minister of Transportation. Thank you to the member from Newmarket, Alola, for her work and for advocacy, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to hear when things are made in Ontario. What I'm not happy to hear about, Mr. Speaker, is the carbon taxes made in Ottawa by Liberals and NDP. Mr. Speaker, there are many commuters in my riding. I hear firsthand the concerns about the carbon tax, Mr. Speaker. It is inconceivable to put a tax on commuters, Mr. Speaker, who must travel to make a living. Mr. Speaker, we hear from the people of Ontario why that's why we are making sure no government put carbon tax on the people of Ontario. In the past, carbon tax will require a referendum on the other done act, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, we will keep the heat in our homes, not on the finances of the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, share not the carbon tax and yes to common sense. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Associate Minister for the response. I know that people in my riding were ecstatic to hear that our government introduced legislation that would protect Ontario workers and families from the high cost of a carbon tax. Speaker, the federal government has increased the carbon tax on gasoline five times so far and they are planning another seven times increases by 2030. Grocery prices are already unaffordable for far too many people as are the cost for other products and services. This tax is only adding further strain to Ontarians household budgets. While the opposition, NDP and independent Liberals continue to ignore their constituents, our government is advocating for Ontarians and calling for the end of this tax. Speaker, can the Associate Minister tell the House how our government is combating the Liberal NDP tax ikes? Here, here. The Associate Minister, transportation. Thank you to the member for that question, Mr. Speaker. Some things never change. The Liberals ran deficit in Ontario. The NDP ran deficit in Ontario. Now the Liberals and NDP are teaming up to the same thing in federal, Mr. Speaker. I don't remember these carbon taxes being part of their campaign promise to Speaker to make sure the Liberals and NDP can control their spending habits and not to take a loan against Ontarians, Mr. Speaker. We are making sure carbon taxes are a matter of referenda. Speaker, Commuters don't deserve to be treated this way at all by Liberals and NDP. Mr. Speaker, even now they want to heckle because they don't want to hear the truth. Mr. Speaker, our message is very clear. Ontario's economy will grow, but not from the tax pockets, but from the hard work and innovation of the people of Ontario. The member for Tamiskaming Cochran. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. On March 5th to 7th, Inglard Hospital's emergency room was closed, first time ever in history. So people who don't have access to primary care for that time didn't have access to an emergency room either. Now we're here and many hospitals are in danger of collapsing because the extra costs they're paying for agency nurses. And while this is happening, at exactly the same time, the government is spending advertising dollars saying how great the health care system is. So my question to the Minister of Health, is she the Minister of Health or the Minister of Self-Promotion? The Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Now we are investing more in Northern Ontario particularly as it relates to health care than any other previous government. In fact, our Northern Ontario School of Medicine has an additional 108 seats available for physicians to practice, train and live in Northern Ontario. And to suggest that the people of Ontario shouldn't know when we do expansions of a Learn and Stay program that is an opportunity for young people to apply to cover their nursing education, their paramedic training, in exchange for serving in underserved communities speaks to how the member opposite is not looking at this in a holistic way. When we expand the scope of practice for pharmacies, ensuring that people can go to their local community pharmacy and get 19 minor ailments treated, we have to educate and inform people so they take use of that service. A service speaker that has had over 800,000 Ontarians use it since we brought it in in January. Thank you, Speaker. So this member previously brought forward a bill to stop partisan advertising what the previous Liberal government was doing, which they are doing now. And I'd like to read a quote. This issue is a total flip-flop from the Liberal members opposite, Joan said in 2017. What's that line? That was then, this is now. What has changed, Speaker? It appears that the Premier will only maintain those principles when they are convenient. My question is to the Minister of Health, you introduced this bill initially. What happened to those principles? Just to make their comments through the Chair, the Foreigner, Minister of Health. When we make policy changes that impact the people of Ontario, it is important that we communicate those changes. Two years ago we did not have minor ailments available within community pharmacies. That's over 5,000 community pharmacies where people can go and get treated for minor ailments. And that impact, when we communicate those changes, when we ensure that people know from minor ailments they can go to their local community pharmacy, we see the impact. As I said, 800,000 individual Ontarians have used and accessed that service. A service that was not available prior to January of 2023. So yes, I absolutely will continue to encourage us promoting new policy and new initiatives that impact the people of Ontario. Thank you. The next question, the Member for Don Valley West. Thank you, Speaker.  It's the day we find out whether or not this government will comply with one of its own laws. Speaker, the Conservatives campaigned saying they wouldn't pave over the green belt and they would reduce Ontario's debt. We know they failed on the green belt and so they're being criminally investigated by the RCMP. What people may not know is they have also failed on the second. This government has added $93 billion in new debt since taking office in 2018. And that is despite creating their own law. In 2019, the government amended the Fiscal Sustainability, Transparency and Accountability Act to require that the government provide a debt reduction strategy each year with the budget. But they have yet to do so. My question to the Premier, will he take responsibility for the ballooning debt under his government and uphold his law of the land by providing a debt management strategy in tomorrow's budget? Right there. You know, again, I can't believe what I'm hearing. That's the party that bankrupt this province that chased 300,000 jobs out of the province that raised taxes more than any other government in the history of Ontario. Made sure they had the largest sub-sovereign debt in the entire world. Highest energy cost. You know what we did? You know what we're proud of? As they chased 300,000 jobs out of this province. We created the environment and conditions for 700,000 more people working today than there was five and a half years ago. And my good friend Minister Vic Fidele, he just told me the new numbers in trade with the U.S. went from when you were in office, 390 million, about 390 billion, up to 494 billion dollars in two-way trade, almost a half a trillion dollars, because everyone in the world knows Ontario is open for business. War boom and we're going to continue being the economic leader around the world. That's your question. Thank you, Speaker. I'll repeat the number. 93 billion in new debt. The people of Ontario are getting used to this premiere in his government playing the blame game, breaking promises, helping their insider friends, and changing the rules of the game when they don't like them. But, Speaker, the government has only itself to blame for not adhering to its own law. They have been called out by the Auditor General every year for the last four years for failing to meet the requirements set out by their own law. The government is being investigated by the RCMP for their $8.3 billion green belt scandal. And given what they're doing at Ontario Place, the Science Centre, they seem well underway to more investigations. So once again, to the premier, will he commit today to following his own law and put forward a debt management strategy in tomorrow's budget? Come on. And to reply, the member for Bruce Gray Owen Sound, the Parliamentary Secretary. It's been a very exciting day for this province, and I want to add to the brilliant answer that the premier just gave on what this government is doing for the economy here in Ontario. Because on all fronts, whether it's $185 billion in infrastructure, in transit, in highways, in healthcare, in education, or the 700,000 jobs that have been created under this government, as noted by the premier, more than anywhere in the entire North American segment. We're doing that here in Ontario, and we will keep doing it for the benefit of Ontarians, the benefit of our economy, the benefit of Ontario families. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The next question, the member for Halliburton, Coral Lake Spawn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. At a time of high interest rates and increasing cost of living, it's incredibly important to find ways to make life more affordable for people in Ontario. But, Speaker, the federal carbon tax is only making life more expensive for the folks who work hard to make a living. Families and farmers in rural areas like mine in Halliburton, Coral Lake Spawn are concerned about how much more money they need to pay for gas and heating because of this tax. They're looking to our government for help in keeping costs down so their hard earned income can stay in their pockets where it belongs. That's why we need to keep pushing the federal Liberals to eliminate the carbon tax and provide Ontarians with much more financial relief. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy please explain how the carbon tax is creating hardship for Ontarians in rural communities? Well done. Minister of Energy. To the members for Halliburton, Coral Lake Spawn who, incidentally, will be hosting all of us later this fall in Lindsay when she hosts the international plowing match. I challenge the Liberal members of this House to show up at the IPM and when farmers are looking them straight in the eye telling them that they support the federal government's increase, the colossal increase to the carbon tax, it's going to be a 23% increase one week from today. What is that going to mean for the farmers across Ontario? It's going to mean increased costs for fertilizers. It's going to mean increased costs for their tractors that are working in the fields to produce the crops. It's going to increase the price for those that are transporting those crops to the terminals and to the grocery stores. It's going to drive up the cost of everything, Mr Speaker. Yet this Liberal caucus under the leadership of the Queen of the Carbon Tax, Bonnie Cromby continues to support the federal carbon tax and as a matter of fact members of this caucus say that people in Ontario are better off with it than without it. It's hard to believe. Supplementary question. Thank you Mr Speaker. The Minister is correct on how it's affecting the people of Halliburton, Coral Lake Spawn and Brock in the province and you can hear firsthand when you came up. But once again the federal Liberal government and their NDP allies are going to raise the carbon tax next month. While everyone has been speaking out against this tax height, the new Liberal Leader and her caucus have been silent. Speaker, we know that life is already expensive for the hardworking people of our province. They need a plan to improve affordability and the cost of living, not a 23% tax hike. The federal government needs to listen to Ontarians and get rid of the regressive tax now. Unlike the NDP and the Liberal members in this legislature, our government will not stop fighting until the carbon tax is eliminated once and for all. Mr Speaker, can the minister please explain what our government is doing to protect the people of this province and of my riding? Minister of Energy. Thanks, Mr Speaker, and thanks again to the great member who does such an outstanding job standing up for the people in her riding.  And the member of the Liberal Party over here continues to talk about his cap and trade program and, you know, alluding to the fact that it won't have any impact on the people. Well, you know, we ran a campaign and the Premier was leading that campaign back in 2018 where we promised to cap taxes and trade Kathleen Wynn and that's exactly what we did and this party has been paying the price ever since. Seven seats, eight seats, nine seats. You can count them up on two hands, Mr Speaker, because the people of Ontario have rejected the increased way of life that comes with electing a Liberal government. And the people in Ottawa are finally feeling a pinch. The people here should be realizing it too. Stan... Thank you for that question. The member for University of Rosedale. Thank you, Speaker.  The Conservatives have spent the last six years accusing everyone in this room of being nimbies when the real NIMBY is sitting right there in that chair. The Premier is sending a very clear message, a very clear message that first-time home buyers don't deserve to live in certain neighbourhoods. So my question is to the Premier. Can this government reverse course and allow four plexers as of right in the upcoming housing bill? Mr. Secretary, is there housing? Again, Mr Speaker, there is no law that forbids municipalities from having this type of development. But what we've said quite clearly is that we will continue to work with our municipal partners to ensure that we meet the goals that we've set with respect to housing. But overwhelmingly, Speaker, what we have heard from our stakeholders, from municipal partners and from those people who actually build homes is that the real problem is the infrastructure deficit that was left behind by the previous Liberal government. We have looked at that and we said that although we have been asking every single provincial Premier across this country has been asking the federal government to redirect funds into infrastructure because they have refused, we are going to go it alone, Mr. Speaker, because we're not interested in building hundreds of homes. We're interested in building millions of homes for the people of the province of Ontario. And the only way you will do that is if you put infrastructure on the ground to unleash the building of millions of homes in every part of the province, and that's what we're doing. Stop for the answer question. This government cut $9 billion in infrastructure funding because of Bill 23 and that's on you. My question is back to the Premier. Mrs. Saga, under former Mayor Cromby, was denied funding by this government because they failed to meet their housing targets. And now we learn that the federal government is looking at denying the Conservative government funding because they failed to meet their affordable housing targets. We are on track to lose $357 million in federal funding because the Conservatives couldn't get their act together to build enough affordable housing. My question is simple. Can this government present a credible plan to build enough affordable housing to address our affordable housing crisis? Mr. Mayor, I would like to make the comments through the floor. Minister, Mr. Flores and Housing. Surely the member knows, Mr. Speaker, that housing in the province of Ontario, affordable housing in the province of Ontario is done by our municipal partners through service managers, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the province of Ontario through its partnership with municipalities, which is the law of the province, has constructed over 11,000 units of affordable housing, which the federal minister has rejected and said, no, doesn't count. The federal minister has said, no, long-term care homes that are subsidized don't count. No, student housing doesn't count, Mr. Speaker. Every turn, the people of the province of Ontario have been making investments, and the federal government has unilaterally decided to cut funding to the province of Ontario. They are treating Ontario differently than any other province. And that is the hallmark of this federal government. They put one region against another.  Order. Start the clock. The next question. The member for Guelph. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. People are sick and tired of this government's failure to address the housing crisis, which is the primary driver of the affordability crisis. Rents are sky-high, and young people are wondering if they'll ever be able to afford to own a home. And now the Premier says, no, to legalizing missing middle homes. No to the fastest way of increasing housing supply where infrastructure already exists. No homes that ordinary people can afford in the communities they love. So I say to the Premier, build homes people can afford. Legalize missing middle homes province-wide. So, Speaker, the Premier has a choice. He can either choose to be Premier NIMBY or he can choose to say yes to removing the barriers to housing. Which one will he choose today? Mr. Ms. Wolf-Harrison-Houser. This caucus will choose to be the caucus that delivers 1.5 million homes, Mr. Speaker. You know how? By investing in infrastructure, we have an infrastructure deficit across this province that we inherited from the previous Liberal government. In fact, the Mayor of Guelph, who I met with just last week, said the number one obstacle to building homes in his community is the lack of sewer and water in that community. In Niagara Region, the lack of sewer and water is holding up the development of thousands of homes, homes across the spectrum, Mr. Speaker. When I go to every community across this province, they say you could choose to build millions of homes or you could choose to build millions of homes. Millions of homes come with sewer and water and that is why we are doubling down on the things that actually get homes built. I will let them talk about all-in-the-sky discussions on how you get things done. We'll get it done because we'll put the investments in place to get it. Supplementary question. Speaker, respectfully to the minister, he's always welcome to come to Guelph, give us money for meeting our housing targets. But here's the bottom line is this government took $5.1 billion for infrastructure away from municipalities. They've given half back. That will not get the job done. Especially when the premier says no to building homes where the infrastructure already exists. We know that the cheapest and fastest way to increase housing supply is to build missing middle homes where we already have infrastructure. As a matter of fact, if only 18% of single-family homes became a foreplex, that would be 2 million homes where we already have infrastructure. So the government needs to say yes to more homes that people can afford. Yes to more choices. Yes to vibrant communities. The question is, will they say yes to removing the barriers to missing middle homes province-wide? There's a plan, Mr. Speaker. So let's tax the people who build homes even more because somehow that will magically get more homes built. Let's be very clear what the opposition is talking about. They're talking about building four-story buildings in communities that were not built to handle that. In communities that don't have schools. In communities that don't have parking. What we're saying is that we trust our municipal partners to understand where it is best to meet the housing challenges and targets that we have set. In Guelph, in his own community, they said the number one obstacle is sewer and water capacity. So when the members opposite talk, what they're really saying is that they don't actually want to meet the targets. They're the ones who want to stop homes from being built. They are terrorized by the fact that we're going to put billions of dollars of infrastructure in the ground that will help us build 1.5 million homes across the province. We'll get it done and we won't allow them to stop. The next question, the member for Peterborough, Northup. Thank you, Speaker. My question this morning is for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development. Unlike other parts of our province, the North faces unique barriers regarding fuel costs. That's true. Northern residents rely more heavily on their vehicles to go to work, to visit family and friends, and to run their daily errands. The carbon tax is negatively impacting in these communities as they're hit hardest at the gas pumps. Speaker, it's disgraceful that the federal government is forcing this burdensome tax on the people who need financial relief the most. That's right. And it's also disgraceful that the liberals and the NDP in this legislature continue to downplay the impact of carbon tax on individuals and families in Northern Ontario. Speaker, can the Minister please tell this House why Northern and Indigenous communities in Ontario cannot afford the federal carbon tax? Good question. Minister of Northern Development, Minister of Indigenous Affairs. Member for the question, Mr. Speaker, no doubt we live in big country out there in Northern Ontario and it costs a lot to get around. Just this weekend I read a post from Kiwetnong. He pointed out that a fruit salad costs $30.35. We learned that butter is $8 a pound. Flower, more than $25 for 10 kilograms. Mr. Speaker, these are all double the cost that we would pay here in Southern Ontario and those prices are already high. Now, I don't want to refute the member's notion that the grocery stores up there, including the Northern store, have a peculiar pricing model but there is no dispute about the fact that it's the cost of transporting those goods and the carbon tax that it's embedded in it that is driving those costs. When communities are asking for upgrades to roads to build bridges in infrastructure they're facing 25% cost increase and that's unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, the minister for that response. The previous liberal government propped up by the NDP neglected the North. In fact, a liberal member referred to it as no man's land and now at a time when the carbon tax is making everything more costly the NDP and the liberal members in this legislature continue to ignore the needs of Northern and Indigenous communities. Speaker, that is shameful. While our government continues to take leadership in addressing Ontarian's affordability concerns we need all parties in this legislature to do the same. Speaker, can the minister please explain the detrimental effects that the carbon tax is having on the people, communities and businesses in Northern Ontario? Mr. Northern Development Mr. Speaker, when the minister of energy and I sit down with a community leader from way up north the first thing he wanted to express was his concern about further increases to diesel fuel which is the source of energy for that community. I was in Ottawa last week Mr. Speaker speaking to some of my federal counterparts. Tom Def is the feeling I left with Mr. Speaker. Perplexing. How is it Ontario perhaps advancing the single biggest environmental policy as a sub-sovereign government bringing from earth to electric vehicles and mines to motors this amazing incredible opportunity for a fully integrated supply chain Mr. Speaker that will reduce GHG emissions yet a carbon tax is going to be slapped on every single aspect of the production of those critical minerals to make this world a greener place to live Mr. Speaker. It's unacceptable on every level and it's time to just scrap the tax. The next question the member for Ottawa West Thank you Mr. Speaker. Under this government a quarter of elementary schools and a third of high schools are facing daily teacher shortages nearly half have daily EA shortages. Instead of fixing the problem the government invested millions of dollars to try and convince parents with ads that the auditor general said are too partisan and not supported by any evidence. Why does the Minister of Education think it's okay to spend on partisan ads but not invest in our kids? Minister of Education Mr. Speaker it is ironic to get a question from new democrats or liberals on the teacher supply issue when they opposed a common sense provision supported by every trustees and principles association to allow and leverage retired educators in their front of class now Speaker it isn't surprising in a way because this is part of a track record of opposition to common sense they opposed 3,000 more frontline teachers 7,500 more education workers in our schools today they opposed a provision that cut certification time months by 50% in bill 98 the better schools of the Sunoakos Act of course they opposed the removal bill of regulation 274 the punitive regulation on seniority hiring because they conceived it but Mr. Speaker it is our premier who's standing up to ensure we have qualified educators that go back to basics in Ontario schools will take no lessons from members who have opposed every step of progress in the way instead of standing up for quality education in this province If the Minister was actually doing a good job Speaker he wouldn't need to spend millions trying to convince parents he is Minister the auditor general has called out the ministry of education multiple times for partisan ads that are attempting to foster a positive impression of the government our kids don't have access to social workers, EAs, qualified teachers or even school buses and yet the minister is running ads to congratulate himself on a job well done will the minister of education support the NDP motion today to ban partisan advertising like his party in 2018 Mr. Speaker we are proud as a government proud as a government to have delivered deals with every teacher union in this province providing stability in the classroom for 2 million children we're proud Mr. Speaker to have increased mental health funding by 550% compared to Liberals we're proud to have invested $15 billion to build schools over the next decade after Liberals closed 600 we are proud to finally see improvements in reading, writing and math in every single grade, three, six and nine of assessment because our government is actually investing in the foundations of learning going back to the basics Mr. Speaker we are making a difference and we know there's more to do but the most important thing we can do as parliamentarians is stand up to ensure children remain in school without disruption and that's exactly what our premier, exactly what our government is doing ensuring stability, hope and opportunity for the next generation of students in this province the next question, remember for these things let us in out of here and thank you Mr. Speaker my question today is for my good friend the Minister of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Mr. Speaker many farmers need to use massive fans to dry down their crops so that they can store them over time because if not properly dried that grain or the corn is cold but Mr. Speaker a lot of those fans are powered by natural gas which of course is subject to a carbon tax as a result many farmers like my friend Max Kaiser and Greater Napa Needs in this province are having to pay an additional cost of two to three thousand dollars per year just in tax Mr. Speaker the hard working farmers in Ontario are vital to our growth and our economic prosperity they should not be punished by this horrific regressive and harmful tax our government must continue to stand with them and oppose this disastrous tax so Mr. Speaker can the Minister please explain how the federal carbon tax is negatively affecting all of Ontario Minister of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Thank you very much and I appreciate the question from the member from Hastings, Lenox and Addicton because he does really get it because he's working and listening with farmers every day which I wish the federal liberals and provincial liberals would do as well because if they did they would actually be hearing firsthand how the carbon tax is costing everything to go up with regards to production you know just on Thursday I was at the Christian Farmers Annual AGM and the chair actually asked me to thank the Premier for listening to give you an example how the farmers have estimated by the 2030 year the province the grain farmers across the province of Ontario will be paying $2.7 billion in carbon tax supplementary questions Thank you Speaker and thank you to the amazing minister for response Speaker, carbon tax are harming hardworking individuals businesses and farmers across this province since the introduction of the carbon tax production costs for our farmers our greenhouse growers and our food processors have risen substantially the delivery of every single consumer good in our province particularly processed and fresh foods is being affected by one of the most economically harmful taxes our province has ever seen farmers need to be able to produce food at a competitive rate or the industry's export opportunities will be hindered and our own cost of groceries continue to climb so Speaker, can the minister please explain why our food producers are being punished by this carbon tax Minister of Agriculture Absolutely, with all honesty the liberal ideology that's driving the provincial party over here the van that goes to Ottawa to support the Prime Minister and his ridiculous tax actually is doing nothing but to drive up the cost of food you know just Saturday I was at the Great Bruce Federations of Agriculture meeting and specifically the apple farmers from Georgian Bay fruit growers specifically ask that the federal government pass C-234 immediately because it too will bring up the cost of cooling their buildings so that they can keep apples year round for Ontario consumption moreover those Speaker you need to know the greenhouse growers have been charged an additional 16 million in 2023 but by 2030 when the carbon tax triples they're going to be paying almost $90,000 an acre Again, do the on Good morning


Today, we're gonna talk about some popular programs to help active duty Air Force members transition into the Air National Guard. Those programs are called Palace Chase and Palace Front. And before we do any of that, I do wanna give a big thank you to Airman Vision for providing the forum for us to talk casually about these programs and just help members make the best decision for them. I'm Andre Costa, I'm a technical sergeant in the Air Force and a recruiter for the California Air National Guard. If you have any questions about the California Air National Guard, feel free to give me a call at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Again, you can also text. You know, I remember at the 13 year mark of my career, I transitioned into the Air National Guard through a program called Palace Chase. I remember just thinking like, what's Palace Chase? What does this mean? Essentially, it's separating mid enlistment into the Air National Guard. Now there are some parameters, at a minimum you have to have completed at least half of your initial enlistment and you do have to be within good standing within the Air Force to make that transition. Thinking about service obligation, it's usually whatever time you have remaining on that enlistment will double. So if you have two years left on that enlistment contract, you know, you might have an additional four years to serve in the Air National Guard. But I have heard that since right now the Air Force is so over, man, they're doing one to one ratio. So if you only have, you know, for example, two years left on your contract or one year, you just have to serve about that remaining time in the Air National Guard. So right now it's a great time to apply for Palace Chase. Another option is Palace Front. Palace Front is separating at the end of your enlistment. So what that means is if you're on your four year or six year enlistment, you finish that up and then you just continue serving with the Air National Guard thereafter for usually a three year or a one year enlistment. Again, you do have to be within good standing, you know, within the Air Force. If you're into AFIs, that's Air Force instruction, you wanna research a little bit more details about these programs, the AFI is 36-3205. You can also reach out to your local ISR, that's the local Air National Guard in-service recruiter. There is one assigned to each Air Force active duty base. Their primary job is to help active duty members make that transition into the Air National Guard. I do wanna answer some additional questions that I get, like, hey, can I cross train? You know, if I Palace Chase or Palace Front into the Air National Guard, can I cross train? And then the answer to that question is yes.  I didn't really understand what the jobs were because I was brain new. I ended up, you know, getting open general and then, you know, the Air Force basically picked for me, right? But now when I transitioned into the Air National Guard, I knew a little bit more of what the jobs were and this was the opportunity for me to be picky and I appreciated the Air National Guard let me do that, right? You know, I could kind of be picky when it came to selecting my job. So that's something I do wanna let you guys know, you know, it's a great reason to go make that transition because maybe you can get your Air Force Dream job, right? Another question I get is, can I get a bonus? You know, if I do Palace Chase or Palace Front, am I still eligible for a bonus? And the short answer to that is no for Palace Chase because you're leaving, you know, early from the active duty side, but yes for Palace Front. So you can be eligible for a bonus if you're, you know, taking advantage of the Palace Front program. And lastly, why go Air National Guard at all? If you've already served on active duty, you know, you might be thinking, I've already done my service, I'm ready to transition to the civilian world again. And my two answers for that are, one, keeping your benefits, and two, why not control your Air Force career? Talking about that, that one, keeping your benefits. So what that means is continuing your service. You've already done four or maybe six years or so, right? Why not keep those benefits going? Keep those retirement benefits going so you're heading, you know, towards retirement. This is a way to add to your retirement benefits, whether that's, you know, TSP or the pension. One thing that can be shocking for a lot of members is the cost of health insurance. Being a member of the Air National Guard, you'll still be able to access low-cost health insurance through TRICARE. Another big thing is just having access to the base, being able to go to the commissary. Here in Southern California, where I'm at, you know, things cost a little bit more. So being able to get discounted grocery store, you know, access to that, that's important and it adds up, you know, gas. Gas out here is $4 a gallon, which is pretty crazy, right? So going, being able to go on base and use the gas station on base, again, saves me almost a dollar a gallon. Being able to go to the MWR, that's around welfare and recreation and get access to Disneyland tickets, you know? So all those benefits, you know, they save you a couple bucks in the end of the year that comes out to thousands of dollars. When you're serving in the Air National Guard, you're getting paid for every day you're wearing the uniform, right? That equals extra money in your pocket. Who doesn't need or want to have extra money around? And then lastly, it's about controlling how much Air Force you participate in. You don't have to PCS if you don't want to. In the Air National Guard, you choose where you're being stationed. So you have control and then because you're serving part-time, you have all this time to focus on what your priorities are. So whether that's spending more time with family, whether that's going back to college, right? Whether that's working on passion projects or enhancing your career, you have all that time. So I hope that's helpful and you guys learn a little bit. If you want to do a little bit more research, check out the GO ANG website. That's G-O-A-N-G website. It'll also tell you where all the different locations you can serve in the Air National Guard. Also your ISR, the Air National Guard in Service Recruiter which is assigned to every Air Force active duty base. You know, they're there to help active duty members make that transition into the Air National Guard and a great resource to answer your questions. But if you've got any questions for me about the California Air National Guard, just feel free to give me a call or send me a text. My phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> again,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Thanks, y'all, take care.


From our studios, in the heart of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto, California, this is a CUBE Conversation. Hello everyone, welcome to this special CUBE Conversation here in our studios in Palo Alto, California. I'm John Furrier, host of theCUBE. We are two great guests for an exclusive interview. Abhijit Goh, CEO of Confluera, as well as John Thompson, venture partner at Lightspeed and personal investor, as well as the chairman of Microsoft. Abhijit, John, welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. John, good to see you again. Nice to be with you. So, hot startup, you're an investor, you're the chairman of the board of Microsoft, also investing, venture partner at Lightspeed. Got a hot start, you guys have a seed funding announcement. How much you guys have raised, tell us the story. Absolutely. So we have raised $9 million, and we are announcing that now. And this is our entry into the cybersecurity space to change the paradigm. Confluera is the first industry's platform to detect and respond to advance attacks in real time before the damage happens. So we love startups funding because it's a signal one when you have entrepreneurs inventing things. It's interesting, but what's also interesting about your company is the cast of characters are on the founding team, the origination story. John, you're an investor, but also the other co-founder is a big time entrepreneur. Absolutely. Tell the story, who else is involved, who's co-founding it, and who are the investors? Absolutely. So my co-founders are Bipol Sena, he's CEO at Rubrik. No one knows who he is. He's a big time. And Milai Mukherjee, he's our chief architect. So the story goes back, I mean I know Bipol from back in IIT Kharagpur, and we have stayed in touch, and we have talked about technology trends, ideas that come. So as this thing was emerging, we started talking about it, and it looked really promising. It seemed like we were really up to something, solving a problem that the industry faces today. So we got together, we pitched to Lightspeed, Lightspeed did series A funding for us, and then John, Frank Slutman and Lane Bess, they have also contributed to our series A. Yeah, I mean this is a great example of Silicon Valley in my opinion. You have two smart people went to school together, kind of knew each other, keep in touch, networking. You know networking, he knows storage, but he's not a storage company. Rubrik is not a storage company. It's a software company. With the cloud era that we're in now, the game is changing. John, you're the chairman of Microsoft, and you have all these big time members, Frank Slutman, Data Domain, Service Now, Snowflake. I mean the visibility of the kinds of pedigree of people you have involved is pretty impressive. What was attractive John for this investment? Obviously Lightspeed has got a great track record as a VC, and they kind of got a pulse there, but this is kind of a special company. Why the investment? Yeah, good question. The first and most common or important link for me was in fact Bipol. I had been involved with Bipol through our relationship at Rubrik, and he came to me one day and says, gee, I've got another idea of a new company that I've been involved with. And I said, okay, tell me about it. And he says, well, it's in the security space. And since you know a little bit about that, perhaps we should connect. And so he connected me with Abhijit, and from there we started to evolve the conversation about what is Confluary trying to do and how is that different than what's being done today in the security space? And the issue for me was twofold. As I said, yes, I'll make the investment. The first of which was the team themselves. For me, it's always about the founding team and the founding team's track record. But then, is it something unique and different? And what I believe the company is really trying to accomplish is a shift from real-time detection to real-time prevention. And what we tend to do in the security space is segment and isolate problem after problem after problem, and therefore to aggregate a view of what's going on in the enterprise across all of those stacks is never easy. It's okay if you want to do post-event incident response, but if you want to do real-time detection and prevention, boy, that's got to have a layer that is much different than what has evolved in the security space over the last five or 10 years. And how much did you dig in? Obviously, you must have rolled your sleeves up. Again, you have a security background, a lot of background in the computer industry, but how involved were you in the early stages? Well, in the early stages, for me, it's as much about the idea and the team as it is me getting in and wanting to argue with them about, gee, are you doing this the right way? At my core, I'm a sales and marketing guy, not a technologist. So I have to believe that the technologists that are in the room. You've got some two gurus. Okay, Jack. Exactly. But the TAM, I mean, the Market Opportunity. Well, no question about it, yeah. Well, think about it this way. Here's another way to approach the problem from the perspective of Confluera. If you look at a large enterprise, each and every one of them, particularly those that are in highly regulated industries, will have literally 100 to 200 security products deployed in their environment. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the source of insight from each of those products is shared in such a way that you can do something in real time. The source of insight is post-incident, not real-time as the incident is occurring. And there's been acquisitions. We saw phantom got acquired by Splunk. That's log file, extraction, post-president. I was an investor in phantom. And so as Splunk acquired phantom, one of the things that triggered my investment here was, aha, what they're trying to do is real-time incident prevention, not detection or understanding of what the incident was. It's the holy grail. Abhijit, talk about the problem statement, specifically under the hood. What's the problem statement you guys are solving technically? And how does that render as an impact to the customer? Absolutely. So today, the attack surface is really large. The attacker can, there are many ways of getting in. But once they get in, it's really about that progression. It's a life cycle from that initial foothold to the final target. It's a process of privileged escalations, lateral movement, creating more ingress points to get in. So when that progression happens, this, the manifestation is separated in time. It appears on different machines. And there is nothing deterministic out there to put all of that together. But in fact, the thing is that everything is related through system events end of the day. So that's what we do. We take those system events and create this causal map of activity that is happening. One after the other. And that lets us create, understand this progression. And it also lets us take results from different sources, map it to that activity continuation and figure out a sequence as it is. Where in the stack are you operating? Network layer, through the application, what specific do you go? So we are at the operating system there. Okay. As you're down and dirty. Okay. So talk about the value of the customer now. It saves them time. Is it alerts from alerts? And again, real time is really hard problem. What's the value to the customer? Absolutely. So any of these breaches, they are in fact multi-stage attacks. And today there is nothing out there to detect a progression like this. So that is number one. This is actually about detecting these breaches and understanding where the attacker is live right now and respond and prevent that attack from going forward. Other things are that in fact, the visibility today is collected into log stashes. There is alert fatigue. People don't have time and it cannot be investigated through manual triage. So. So one of the things where we've been, we've talked a lot on theCUBE is malware, that's idle, you know, just sitting dormant and then it waits. So this, at real time, it's kind of an interesting term.  Absolutely. Is that kind of what you guys are helping solve? Because once they start moving around, you see them or what? As that happens, we see the behavioral manifestation. That's where the value is. Exactly. And we figure that out. And what happens in this phase of the life cycle is that the attacker trips many wires and there are signals coming from different sources. It needs to be put together. Okay. So let's do a little role play here. I'm the CISO big time company. John, you're the sales marketing guy pitching me the product. You're the SC guru. Buy it now. Why do I want to work with you? I have so many products. I got so many people pitching me products. What are you selling me? Why should I work with a startup like you guys? What's the value? What's the pitch? Absolutely. Yeah, so you have following challenges.  You have, your team is facing alert fatigue. You are dealing with siloed security solutions which cannot be brought into a single context. And today, you suffer from disruption to business when you want to apply security response. So you don't have these solutions. That's why you are talking to us. We get into your environment. We detect an attack progression like that. We take all your results, apply it contextually, and give them the right home for producing valuable security solutions.  Absolutely. Almost like the old network management discovery days. Identify what's out there. Give a surface area kind of a dashboard. Is it a dashboard? Is it a? Yeah, so we have a user interface through which the customer gets in and they see the overall security posture of the environment. They basically see attacks as they are emerging in real time. We show the progression and then they can dig deeper into it. We tell them about what response to take from there because we are showing the entire history as it has evolved and we are showing the live footprint of the attacker that they need to act against. You know, I've done a lot of interviews going back to the Hadoop days and the big data fields. This is data problem security. You all kind of know that. It's kind of not new information. Everyone knows that. What we're finding though is that as data tsunami comes in, more data is better telemetry for security. Absolutely. It works better. This has been a problem for some CISOs and companies where they want more data. So sharing data has been a conversation. For you guys to be effective, I'd imagine that you got to have that visibility into all the data. What about the objection of it's not all available? You're only seeing what you can see. How do you respond to that one? So which is where we get deployed in the overall environment? We are looking at that assets and we are looking at the interesting information in there which can particularly describe this attack progression. To us, that is the most important factor. We are not looking at content. We are not looking inside network traffic or files. We are looking for information to describe this causal map of activity. What's your partners and who's your competitors? So for us, since we are able to build a map like this, for us partners will be anybody who produces a result which we can map to that, that trail that we have. And maybe who's specific we like. It could be firewalls. Just a mini global system integrator, hardware manufacturers. It could be firewalls, it could be interviruses, heads, anybody who's producing a result that we can use. So you think you can play in an ecosystem? We can, so that's why we are a platform. We are building this real-time ability to detect progressions and take other results to produce this holistic result. John, I want to get your thoughts as a historian and also as an active investor, also chairman of the Board of Microsoft because you have some visibility into the big picture here. Over the years, you have these inflection points. Mainframe, mini computers, PC, internet working. Now you've got cloud. Changes the game at many levels. People, the developer equations changing. Stacks are changing. How people are deploying. Applications are changing. Security certainly has been impacted. And this has been a discussion around security can't be security for the cloud and security for on-prem premises. It's got to be frictionless around both environments because you don't want to fork technologies. What's your view of the directionally correct vector that companies should be thinking about when they look at the cloud and cloud security? Because it's not just cloud anymore.  Framework for cloud companies will be deploying their IT and cyber. What's in your view on this? Because this is the big architectural conversation. Well, I think it's very true or clear that every large enterprise is going to move some percentage of their workload to the cloud. The question is how much and over what period of time? We are at the very, very early stages, obviously, in this migration. And so it's more about what functionality does your cloud deliver juxtaposition to every other one that's available, if you will, in the marketplace. And I think some of the things that Microsoft has done themselves vis-a-vis open source has certainly made them a more attractive platform for many, if you will, across the industry. That being said, the same is true for security. I mean, security has become a very, very hot investment opportunity for every venture capital firm in the world, and many of them have invested in all of these little point product solutions that have solved real problems for customers. But as the complexity of the attacks grows, as the frequency of the attacks grows, as the scale of the infrastructure continues to expand to be not just on-prem, but on-prem and cloud, having a common platform to allow you to understand what is going on with the events and incidents that are occurring within your ecosystem becomes critically important. And if you can translate that into something that is real-time prevention, as opposed to real-time detection, that is huge in my opinion. I'm going to come to you in a second on the network traffic as it traverses outside the enterprise. It's not their network anymore, so we'll get to that in a second. But I want to stay on this thread about Microsoft because you brought up a good point about open source. We were commenting before we came on here, and people who know theCUBE know, I've been talking about Microsoft in a very big way around how successful you guys have been as a digitally transformation. Obviously, Saty Natela, he's been on theCUBE before, before he became CEO. But you commented about how capable he was, but you look at the stock price and the performance of Microsoft, everyone's all going gaga over. The performance of the company. You guys have successfully digitally transformed. I've said on camera, publicly, I can't point to one thing that I can say that they, that was a big product launch or a big new announcement that made them change. And you kind of schooled me on that. I want you to share your thoughts because there is one thing that they did that enabled, besides all the cultural stuff, share the schooling that you did. I think the real issue is if you would reflect on Saty's evolution as a part of the Microsoft team, he ran the search business, he ran the enterprise infrastructure business, he ran the cloud business. And so his knowledge about kind of broad compute, enterprise level compute, is certainly much, much more robust than many of the candidates, external candidates we looked at, that's point one. Point two was as he looked at where Microsoft was and where its most relevant competitor was for him and the cloud, the difference between the size and scale of their infrastructure as a service footprint was so massively different than Microsoft's. And so when he had his first developer conference after becoming CEO and he stands on stage and says, Microsoft loves Linux. I mean, that's something that never would have been done by the prior regime by any stretch of the imagination. So that simple change followed by the acquisition of LinkedIn that really was a very different platform than anything that they'd ever done before, followed by the acquisition of GitHub, which is all about open source development platforms, if you will. And so I think he's done a remarkable job of shifting subtly the focus of the company away from Windows, but more toward today's compute environment. Big Bang, we got in and launched this new shiny toy. He said open source was going to be the catalyst. And just to put an explanation on that, we covered his, when he open sourced, a lot of data stuff to open compute before he became CEO. That was again the tell sign of what now is a digital transformation. This is an example of digital transformation. Well, this is also an example of how the industry has changed because the monetization of the industry in the past for many companies was all about my IP portfolio, not just what I can sell to end users. And when you embrace open source, it's not about the strength of your IP portfolio from simply a financial point of view. It's more about the strength of your IP portfolio and the usage perspective. You know, I've been involved with Microsoft going back to when I was in college in the 80s and I was been following and been part of my own jobs there, been tracking them. Developers has been part of their key value chain. So open source obviously makes a lot of sense and strategically it wasn't just a Hail Mary. It totally made sense from a company standpoint that was levered there. So I want to ask both of you guys, as the cloud continues to take territory around and what it enables, combined with how enterprises are going to be running their business both on premise and in the cloud, you look at the developer environment, you're seeing a lot more enterprises bringing developers back in. They outsource everything in the 80s and 90s, 2000s to consulting firms to run their IT. Now they're rebuilding. And so you're seeing security companies and some kind of bringing that core competency back in house with cloud, the developer equation has changed. So how has the developer equation changed for security? And in general IT, I'd love to get you guys thoughts on this. Yeah, absolutely. So today the attack vectors around applications. I mean, that is huge, right? And the developers would like to be in control of that. The thing is that whatever they can do, there is still a large surface around it. And once the escapes happen, they need a last line of defense, right? I mean, the application can be compromised. Now from there, what happens? And that's where our value comes in, that yes, there is a vulnerability you may introduce. Once the developers get a last line of defense or a security net like that, they can feel more comfortable about that. So networking was a problem with the developer. Active Developers aren't networking guys, we know that. Dev Ops kind of solved that with the cloud. Are you saying that this is like a security, similar paradigm happening in the security space? Absolutely, yeah. So security has to go with application development. And that, it cannot become a roadblock to the development, it's all about DevSecOps.  Yeah, we definitely feel that something that is integrated in that way into their development environment and gives them that security, it's a huge boost. Your thoughts on the developer value chain? The developer world has essentially embraced open source to the point where, pick a number, 99, 99 point, 99 point point are all on open source platforms. And it's as much about the rate and pace with which they want to move things for their organization. And if I can write a little piece of code and attach it to something that's already been written and works, boy, that accelerates my ability to deliver functionality for my organization. So the embracement of open source by the developer community is all about improving the pace of execution and quite frankly, the performance and reliability of the end product. It's an interesting point, John, because a lot of the pundits would say early on with cloud computing, oh, it's not secure. Actually, clouds turn out to be more secure than on-prem, some say, given all the attack vectors and phishing and everything else. Same with open source, turns out open source is actually more secure because you have a lot more collective intelligence going in, a lot more complexity that could be used as a way to kind of make it more secure. So I got to ask you guys, with that notion, if security is built in, what does it look like? So that's what we're hearing, just build it in. Like I'm a developer, I don't want to be a security guy. Who do I call for that? I want to build it in, I want, I don't want to worry about it. That's the number one question. How do you build in security? Right, yeah. So it has to be part of the ecosystem. The infrastructure has to support that. The reason you say that the cloud is more secure is because so much of the security has been built into the infrastructure. What we are saying is that there is still an important gap that is left. You need to look at the problem throughout as an infrastructure-wise problem, in terms more holistically, in terms of taking all these signals together and making sense of that. So that more we can add to the cloud, security we can add to the cloud infrastructure, better that is. Absolutely agree. John, you sit on the board of Microsoft, you're here in all those conversations.  Obviously Microsoft's been very successful with the cloud and with their transformation for open source reasons. But also they had a lot of infrastructure. They were running, again, MSN, all the search, all the browsers all around the country, they had a global footprint. So they brought that together, I get that. But they're now competing on a lot of deals in these modern deals, whether it's DOD deal with Jedi to large enterprise deals. They're not losing, winning. What is it? I wish we could say we never lost. Well, you guys do lose, and I'm not winning everything, but surely we got the collaboration, a big announcement we saw on the news today, a $2 billion deal of AT&T. Congratulations on that. So again, big cloud win, wins are happening. Oracle's not having the same luck. And other companies have abandoned the cloud, HPE, Dell Technologies, Cisco. They don't have clouds. They're like, we can't do the cloud. So the cloud is kind of having a shakeout. Success form is all about agility and being successful. What's your thoughts? What's the success? Yeah, well, I think Microsoft has always had a, what I would call a two-tier or two-stage strategy. They've always had a infrastructure strategy and an app strategy. And the infrastructure candidly got somewhat constrained as open source started to evolve and as the cloud evolution really, really did pick up. So unless they were willing to embrace that, they were going to be stuck simply in the app tier. The great fortune that they had was the wisdom to be able to recognize that I could shift office to the cloud and it would prove the value and reliability of my cloud platform in an application area that may not be about revenue this minute. And therefore, its sensitivity may not be quite the same, but I could prove my reliability and performance in that app that's so critical to every employee in your organization. And the classic system software, app software suite, the cloud is essentially an operating system which validates all of our predictions. Thank you very much. The cloud is an operating system, it's a system. Correct. It's a distributed system. That's correct. Okay, now back to the security for you guys just to kind of wrap this up. You got the nine million dollars in funding, you got the cloud as it basically a distributed operating environment. You got on-premise contained system. Is the enterprise just an edge now because you got IoT edge, you got 5G coming? Again, the service area is not getting smaller, it's getting bigger, there's no perimeter anymore. This is the big problem. It is, it is definitely, it's a huge problem. And that is where the approach of extending the scope of security, right? Not have point solutions, not have narrow visibility. You got to increase that. You're going to increase your visibility, you need to increase the sources from which you can take relevant information. So that is crucial for- And you think as it gets bigger, you can have a low latency, real-time attack alert system? Absolutely, so we are- Prevention system, sorry. Yeah, so we are architected that way, right? We are taking relevant information into our central processing system. We have a distributed ledger-based architecture which can deterministically stitch things together in presence of massive scale. We are built like that. John, you're obviously like a coach for a lot of startups. You're like a legendary coach for tech startups. You got Frank Slutman. You got a lot of people, Bipple's a co-founder. You got Lightspeed, ExperienceBC. What's the coaching advice these guys? Run hard, hire fast. What's the playbook? What are you guys coaching the team to do? Well, for me, with any of these early-stage companies that I get involved in, it's all about focus and execution. And the team that stays focus and executes most consistently on that focus is almost always the team that wins. And so as I look at what Abhijit and the team at Kung Fu Era are doing, how focused are you? Have you really defined what it is you're trying to get done? And are you executing well against that focus day in and day out? And candidly, they've gone from an idea to having a product resting in two or three customers at this point in about 15, 16 months. I think that's pretty good focus and a pretty good example of good, solid execution. And the entrepreneur environment is ripe for rapid deployment. You guys are in beta. Talk about the product real quick. Give a quick overview. What's the name of the product? Yeah, so it's Conflaura IQ. We can deploy on Linux, Windows environments. We get deployed on, the customer identifies the environment on which they would like a protection like this. We get deployed. It stops to our central brain that could be either in the cloud or on-premises. We analyze, we collect the telemetry, analyze the data and figure out if there is an attack in progress and then provide recommendations to take response steps or we can, policy-based, we can automate that for the customer as well. And the focus execution on your end for the team is what? Hiring, get the plug in. What are you guys looking for? Absolutely, yeah. So hiring was the first challenge. We definitely, we have, we're very proud of the team. Excellent background from systems, networking, security, internet scale, data management capabilities. So excellent team that we have had. We built the product. We are going to launch the product in Black Hat in a few weeks. So, yeah, we're very excited about it. She's looking for, go to market as well. You've got a product available now. So you're going to need a field. You're going to go to market with the sales team, indirect or through partners or. So we have a direct sales team now. We have our sales leader joined already. Great. Well, thanks for coming. I really appreciate it. Abhijeet, John, great to see you. I'm good to see you too. Tell Satya we said hello. We want to see him at his next event, bring the cube there. All right. And come back on and visit us. I know he's super busy, but it's been great work. Okay, special cube conversation here. Start up launch Confluera, getting $9 million of fresh funding. Abhijeet Kosh, CEO and John Thompson, venture partner at Lightspeed, as well as an investor and a chairman of Microsoft. Thanks for watching.