House of Commons Hansard #80 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was colombia.

Topics

Question No. 342Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Passport Canada that in response to (a), Passport Canada finances its operations from the fees charged for passports and other travel documents. The agency must generate sufficient revenues to meet expenditures. It periodically reviews demand patterns to evaluate whether it is feasible to open new offices. Where demand is not sufficient to sustain a passport office, the agency now offers passport services through partnership agreements. In 2003, 30 passport offices were operating across the country. Since then, the agency has opened three additional passport offices and, through partnerships with Canada Post and Service Canada, now has 230 passport points of service. Consequently, 95 per cent of Canadians now have in-person access to a passport point of service within 100 km of their residence.

As a Special Operating Agency, Passport Canada does not receive an annual parliamentary appropriation-- the service the Agency provides is supported by applicants rather than taxpayers. Passport Canada operates under a revolving fund which allows it to accumulate an annual surplus (or deficit) of up to $4 million. Passport Canada can also carry over surplus revenues from year to year to offset future shortfalls.

(ii) Other than a new regional office in Kelowna, British Columbia, scheduled to open in 2010, Passport Canada’s long-term plan does not include the opening of additional permanent full-service passport offices.

In response to (b), the cost to adequately equip and provide the security required for a full-service passport office ranges from $1.2 million to $4 million. Were Passport Canada to extend full-service status to all 320 Service Canada outlets, the required investment would be significant. The existing Service Canada network would also require substantial physical modifications to accommodate additional applicant volume and to meet security criteria. Current and new employees would also need considerable training to perform their new duties.

In response to (c), front-line examiners are trained to make decisions about whether a passport can be issued. The training is intensive, in-depth and is part of the expense required for each new regional office. Passport Canada’s human resource practices are fair and transparent. Positions are posted as they become available and all applicants are screened against a series of criteria including skills, knowledge, education and abilities.

In response to (d), Passport Canada’s receiving agent network has considerably broadened access to passport services throughout the country, especially in rural, remote and northern locations. Given the existing broad access to service, any passport expansion would result in marginal improvements in service to the majority of Canadians at a significantly higher cost.

(i), the Passport Canada Mobile Passport Unit, created in 2007, has increased accessibility in rural regions and border communities. This minimizes delays due to incomplete applications. Since January 2007, the Mobile Passport Unit has held 166 clinics and accepted more than 42,000 applications.

Passport Canada continues to explore ways to improve client services while prudently managing its funds.

Question No. 343Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

With respect to the defence of the former lieutenant governor of Quebec, Ms. Lise Thibault, regarding the allegations of her spending while in office: (a) how much has the government spent on legal fees associated with the defence of the former lieutenant governor of Quebec; and (b) how much will the government spend on legal fees associated with the defence of Ms. Thibault?

Question No. 343Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice Canada is not implicated in the defence of Mrs. Lise Thibault.

If proceedings are eventually undertaken against Mrs. Thibault, employees from Canadian Heritage may be called as witnesses. Counsel from our office could then be consulted to advise government employees of their rights and obligations and of the progress of the proceedings.

In certain cases, if the situation and interests of the Government of Canada require it, government employees may be accompanied by Justice counsel.

We estimate that the time and fees incurred by the Department of Justice in this case will remain minimal and will be incurred only to preserve the interests of the Government of Canada and its employees.

Question No. 344Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

With regards to Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, passed during the First Session of the 38th and: (a) the Post-Secondary Education Infrastructure Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were allocated; (b) the Public Transit Capital Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; (c) the Affordable Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; (d) the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; and (e) the Northern Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated?

Question No. 344Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, trusts are financial vehicles used by the Government of Canada to transfer funds to provinces and territories in order to meet urgent, short-term pressures in areas of shared national priority. The trust mechanism gives provincial and territorial governments the flexibility to withdraw funding in support of the identified objectives, according to their respective needs and priorities, over the lifespan of each trust.

In response to (i) and( ii), trusts established pursuant to Bill C-48, five trusts were established pursuant to Bill C-48, An act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, which received Royal Assent in July 2005. These trusts were highlighted in the budget presented to the House of Commons on May 2, 2006:

$1 billion for the post-secondary education infrastructure trust, to support investments to promote innovation and accessibility, including investments in university and college infrastructure and equipment. The funding is notionally allocated over two years on an equal per capita basis among provinces and territories;

$900 million for the public transit capital trust, in support of capital investments in public transit infrastructure both as a means to reduce traffic congestion and to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions. The funding is notionally allocated over three years on an equal per capita basis among provinces and territories;

$800 million for the affordable housing trust to help address short-term pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing. The funding is notionally allocated over three years on an equal per capita basis among provinces and territories;

$300 million for the off-reserve aboriginal housing trust to help provinces address short-term housing needs for aboriginal Canadians living off-reserve. The funding is notionally allocated over three years among provinces based on the provincial share of the aboriginal population living off-reserve; and

$300 million for the northern housing trust to help meet short-term pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing in the North. The funding is notionally allocated over three years among the three territories as follows: $50 million each for the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, plus an additional $150 million for urgent needs in Nunavut.

Payments to the trusts were made on September 27, 2006, after the Government was able to confirm that sufficient funds were available from surpluses in the two fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

In response to (iii), Projects receiving funding, allocation, and amounts involved, operating principles were established for each trust. Once the funds have been transferred to the trustee, the trustee, and subsequently the provinces and territories, are accountable for the distribution and use of those funds.

Question No. 346Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantee has the government issued through the Department of Canadian Heritage, over $1,000, since January 1, 2006, and in each case where applicable: (a) the name of the recipient; (b) the constituency of the recipient; (c) the program for which the grant, loan, or loan guarantee was given; (d) the date the application was received; (e) the amount of the individual grant, loan, or loan guarantee; (f) the date the payment was made; and (g) the total amount from all programs received by the recipient in that calendar year?

Question No. 346Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.

Conservative

James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s information systems do not capture financial information by federal riding.

Question No. 348Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

With regard to government advertising, since January 24, 2006: (a) how much was spent per print advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (b) in which constituencies were the print advertisements distributed; (c) what dates did the print advertisements run; (d) how much was spent per radio advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (e) on what stations did the radio advertisement air; (f) on what dates and times did the radio advertisements air; (g) how much was spent per internet advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (h) on what websites were the internet advertisements posted; (i) how many hits did each internet advertisement receive; (j) how much was spent per television advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (k) on what stations did the television advertisement air; and (l) on what dates and times did the television advertisement air?

Question No. 348Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the information requested in question No. 348 is too voluminous and costly to produce. The data required to adequately respond to the question is contained on 29,472 pages, in English only. Furthermore, given the magnitude of this question, it is not practical or cost effective for the government to translate these documents.

The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.

These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html

Question No. 350Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

With respect to the Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD): (a) is the 2010 compliance deadline purely an internal deadline or one that should be of concern to product license applicants; (b) is the current deadline is not enforced given the current large unaddressed backlog of applications; (c) will the backlog be solved simply through wholesale product rejection; (d) are reasonable application reviews taking place so that Canadians can enjoy access to safe, high quality natural health products; (e) will the government amend the Food and Drugs Act to establish a separate regulatory category for natural health products; and (f) will the government provide long term funding to the NHPD to act as the regulator for natural health products?

Question No. 350Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Nunavut Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Health Canada has set a goal for itself to address the Natural Health Product, NHP, product licensing backlog by March 31, 2010. This date is not set out in law or regulation--it is an internal deadline adopted by Health Canada. The only date set out in the regulation is December 31, 2009 at which time all natural health products which were previously issued a drug identification number under the Food and Drug Regulations will be required to have a product licence, as per Section 108 of the Natural Health Products Regulations.

Health Canada is confident that, building on our progress to date, we can address the backlog by March 31, 2010.

In response to (b), the Natural Health Products Directorate, together with the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate, are currently developing a compliance strategy for 2010.

Significant progress has been made to address the backlog of applications: as of June 2009, 47% of the product licence application backlog has been completed or is in the process of being completed and of the remaining 6661 applications, 48% have been addressed--meaning that the applicant has received at least one deficiency notice from NHPD as part of the assessment of their application. Of the product licence applications not considered in the backlog, 59% have been completed or are in the process of being completed and of the remaining 4836 applications, 25% have been addressed--meaning that the applicant has received at least one deficiency notice from NHPD as part of the assessment of their application. Of all product licence applications received since 2004, NHPD has completed or is in the process of completing 70%.

In response to (c), Health Canada continues to review applications and issue regulatory decisions. Some of those decisions will be refusals. To date, however, there have been more licences than refusals.

The Natural Health Product Regulations, NHPR, require that an applicant submit information to support the safety, efficacy and quality of a product for assessment by the NHPD. An estimated 25-30% of applications received do not include enough information or relevant information to allow the directorate, on behalf of the minister, to conclude that the product is safe and effective.

An applicant that does not include sufficient information in an application, to allow a licence to be issued is provided with an opportunity to submit further information to support the licensing of the product; in 26% of submissions, the applicant chooses not to take this opportunity and does not respond to a request from the NHPD to do so.

In response to (d), Health Canada’s priority is to protect and promote the health of Canadians by ensuring access to natural health products that are safe, effective, and of high quality. Only NHPs that are supported by adequate levels of evidence and carry appropriate labels will be authorized for sale and issued a product licence.

The safety and efficacy evaluation of a natural health product, NHP, includes an assessment of its recommended conditions of use and the existing totality of evidence related to the NHP.The information that is considered acceptable by NHPD in reviewing applications includes a range of data including:

(i) safety and efficacy information that is developed by the NHPD and made available to product licence applicants such as ingredient and product monographs and labelling standards (nearly 150 of these are now available and has been used by applicants to allow for the licensing of thousands of products);

(ii) reference to safety and efficacy information published reference texts and pharmacopeia (e.g., texts for homeopathic medicines and traditional chinese medicines);

(iii) reference to safety and efficacy information from small-scale trials that is publicly available from a variety of sources;

(iv) reference to relevant decisions made by other regulatory agencies.

In response to (e), Bill C-51, An Act to Amend the Food and Drugs Act, died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of Parliament in September 2008. Consultations with stakeholders resulted in revisions and additions to the Bill, which were to be introduced during review by Committee.

One proposed addition was the introduction of a definition for NHPs at the level of the act, clarifying that NHPs are separate from drugs. It is important to note that the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act would not have affected the way that NHPs are regulated in Canada. Under the Natural Health Products Regulations, NHPs are already regulated separately from drugs. The standards of evidence used to assess the risks and benefits of NHPs will continue to incorporate history of use, traditional uses and cultural practices.

In response to (f), Health Canada remains committed to ensuring safe, effective and high quality NHPs. In budget 2008, $33 million over two years was dedicated to implement a new approach to the regulation of NHPs and ensure the safety of Canadians. The government is committed to ensuring that the regulation of NHPs balances the protection of consumers’ health and safety with the freedom to choose alternative products.

Question No. 353Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

With regards to the Canadian Institute for Health Research: (a) how much has their budget been for each year since their inception; (b) how much of that has been spent each year on research related to reproduction technologies; (c) how much of that has been spent each year on research related to stem cell research; and (d) how much of that has been spent each year on embryonic stem cell research?

Question No. 353Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Nunavut Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s, CIHR, total parliamentary appropriations since inception are as follows:

2000-01: $401.3 million

2001-02: $553.8 million

2002-03: $651.2 million

2003-04: $696.9 million

2004-05: $757.9 million

2005-06: $813.1 million

2006-07: $863.5 million

2007-08: $993.7 million

2008-09: $974.1 million

CIHR currently estimates its 2009-10 total appropriations to be approximately $983.9 million, $973.1 million of which has already been approved by the Treasury Board.

In response to (b) total estimated funding for reproductive technology per fiscal year since inception to 2008/09 is as follows:

2000-01: $294,000

2001-02: $341,000

2002-03: $1.2 million

2003-04: $2.8 million

2004-05: $3.4 million

2005-06: $3.4 million

2006-07: $4.2 million

2007-08: $5.1 million

2008-09: $5.0 million

In response to (c), total estimated funding for stem cell research per fiscal year since inception to 2008/09 is as follows:

2000-01: $7.9 million

2001-02: $10.2 million

2002-03: $13.9 million

2003-04: $17.1 million

2004-05: $20.3 million

2005-06: $23.6 million

2006-07: $29.9 million

2007-08: $35.0 million

2008-09: $38.0 million

In response to (d), total estimated funding for embryonic stem cell research, a subset of stem cell research, per fiscal year since inception to 2008/09 is as follows:

2000-01: --

2001-02: $189,000

2002-03: $492,000

2003-04: $619,000

2004-05: $766,000

2005-06: $770,000

2006-07: $1.2 million

2007-08: $2.3 million

2008-09: $3.6 million

Question No. 360Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

With regard to interest on advance deposits from corporate taxpayers: (a) what is the total amount of outstanding deposits; (b) what are the 30 largest amounts of outstanding deposits by company; (c) what has been the amount of interest paid over the last five years; and (d) over the last five years, which companies have refused to be repaied outstanding deposits?

Question No. 360Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Jonquière—Alma Québec

Conservative

Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, with respect to advance deposits from corporate taxpayers, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, to the above-noted question. Please note that the CRA’s reply includes information from fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008.

In response to (a), the total amount of outstanding advance deposits from corporate taxpayers, as of May 31, 2008, was $4.4 billion.

In response to (b), please note that the confidentiality provisions of the Income tax Act, specifically Section 241(1), prohibit the CRA from either directly or indirectly disclosing “taxpayer information”. As a result of this prohibition, the CRA cannot provide the information in the manner requested.

In response to (c), as the CRA data banks do not separate refund interest related to advance deposits from any other type of refund interest paid to corporate taxpayers, the information cannot be provided in the manner requested. However, the total amount of refund interest paid over the previous five years, 2004-2008, including interest on advance deposits, was $3.1 billion.

In response to (d), please note that the confidentiality provisions of the Income tax Act, specifically Section 241(1), prohibit the CRA from directly or indirectly disclosing “taxpayer information”. As a result of this prohibition, the CRA cannot provide the information in the manner requested.

Question No. 364Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

With regard to the Joint Supply Ship program: (a) what is the total amount of spending to date on the project; (b) what is the current staffing level of the project; and (c) what are the expected costs of a possible cancellation?

Question No. 364Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), total expenditures on the joint support ship project as of 17 June 2009 were $44 million.

In response to (b), the staffing level of the joint support ship project as of 17 June 2009 was 31 personnel.

In response to (c), as the only contracts currently in place are for engineering and management support on an as required tasking basis, there would be no costs associated with any project cancellation.

Question No. 365Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

With regard to National Defence Public Affairs: (a) for the previous 12 months, what is the total number of media requests received; (b) what is the average time of response to questions; (c) what is the total number of questions which did not receive a response; and (d) what number of requests came from international media?

Question No. 365Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), readily accessible departmental records indicate that the total number of media queries received by the Department of National Defence between June 23, 2008 and June 23, 2009 was 2,900, which includes all queries received at National Defence Headquarters and those reported through the regional and local offices.

In response to (b), the average response time was 12 hours.

In response to (c) approximately 17% of the total number of queries were not answered by the reporter’s stated deadline.

In response to (d) readily accessible departmental records do not provide information on the origins of the media requests; therefore, it was not possible within the time allotted to determine which requests came from international media.

Question No. 366Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

With regard to Canadian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program: (a) what has been spent on the project, broken down by year and program component; (b) what have been industrial regional benefits associated with the program, by year and project component; and (c) what would be the future costs of becoming a level two participant in the program?

Question No. 366Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, in response (a), total Department of National Defence expenditures to date (29 June 09) on the joint strike fighter program are US $142.57 million. Spending is not tracked by year and project component but rather by phase as outlined below.

i) For concept development, which occurred between 1997 and 2001, the Department of National Defence spent US $10 million.

(ii) For the system design and development phase, which began in 2002 and will conclude in 2013, the Department of National Defence has spent US $94.35 million. No further payments are required for system design and development.

(iii) For production sustainment follow-on development, commencing in 2006 and continuing until 2051, the Department of National Defence has spent US $38.22 million.

In response to (b), to date, the total value of joint strike fighter program contracts awarded to Canadian companies is CND $325 million.

In response to (c), level II participation was only possible in the system design and development phase of the program. The program no longer distinguishes between levels of partners.

Question No. 370Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

With regards to the case of Omar Khadr, currently held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: (a) what recommendations have been made by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade or any other government agency to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or his staff, with regards to Omar Khadr; (b) in which meetings was the topic of his legal situation and future plans for reintegration raised and in what capacity; and (c) what documentation exists in this regard?

Question No. 370Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the case of Omar Khadr, like other consular cases, is the subject of regular advice from and discussion among officials, including legal counsel in light of ongoing litigation. These discussions and any documents generated in connection therewith cannot be disclosed given the ongoing litigation, Privacy Act concerns as well as other protections afforded to information exempt from disclosure under the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 371Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

With regard to the operation and budget of Canadian diplomatic missions: (a) which embassies and consulates have experienced budget cuts since 2006; (b) which embassies and consulates have experienced personnel downsizing; (c) which embassies and consulates have been closed since 2006; and (d) how many Canadian diplomatic missions, including embassies and consulates are there around the world?

Question No. 371Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), diplomatic mission budgets are subject to constant fluctuations due to evolving operational requirements. Budget increases and decreases occur regularly in-year and from one year to the next for a variety of reasons including position creation and deletions, currency fluctuations, adjustments to previous year's anomalies in reference level, incremental positions to support growth of representation from other government departments, among others.

In response to (b), since 2006, 26 diplomatic missions have experienced a decrease in personnel.

Abidjan (Ivory Coast)

Alma Ata (Kazakhstan)

Athens (Greece)

Bandar Seri Begawan (Brunei)

Bangkok (Thailand)

Brasilia (Brazil)

Bratislava (Slovakia)

Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Colombo (Sri Lanka)

Conakry (Guinea)

Denver (Usa)

Dusseldorf (Germany)

Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)

Lisbon (Portugal)

Lusaka (Zambia)

New Delhi (India)

Oslo (Norway)

Prague (Czech Republic)

San Jose (Costa Rica)

Seoul/Pusan (Korea)

Tallinn (Estonia)

Tehran (Iran)

Tunis (Tunisia)

Vatican Vienna -- Embassy (Austria)

Warsaw (Poland)

In response to (c), since 2006, 11 diplomatic missions have been closed, namely: Phnom Penh (2009); Hamburg (2009); Tucson (2009); Cape Town (2009); Sarajevo (2009); Lilongwe (2009); Milan (2007); St. Petersburg (2007); Fukuoka (2007); Osaka (2007); and Libreville (2006).

In response to (d), there are currently 318 diplomatic missions abroad. These include: Embassies; High Commissions; Embassy/High Commission of Canada Program Offices; Offices of the Embassy / High Commission; Representative Offices -- Multilateral or Permanent; Consulates General; Consulates; Consular Agencies; and Honorary Consulates.