House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, in early April, I asked the Minister of Finance to explain to Canadians why his party was choosing to pursue unnecessary corporate tax cuts rather than focusing on important priorities for Canadians.

I will put this in perspective. Before entering public life, I was a business leader. I remember during the 1990s us petitioning to try to bring down corporate taxes. I will share with the House some of KPMG's tax figures. I recall back in 2000 when the federal tax, including a surtax, was 29.1%. It went down in 2004 to 22.1%. In 2007, it was 22.1% again. In 2010, it is down to 18%.

I also recall in mid-2000 the business community saying that if it could only get to 17% it would be a good corporate tax rate. It is at 18% now and there have been a lot of changes to our economy and a lot of requirements that are needed for investments in our country to ensure we have the kind of country that we want to have going forward.

What the Liberal Party is advocating is that rather than continuing to decrease tax rates from 18%, possibly getting down to 15%, we press the pause button.

I asked the Minister of Finance a question about whether it would not be better to take some leadership as a country and make strategic investments in our country.

We know there is a perfect storm coming. We know, for example, that we have aging demographics, a pension crisis, a skilled labour shortage and our health care costs are sky-rocketing. In the future, 50% to 70% of provincial revenues may be used toward health care costs. We need to find some solutions to those issues.

We also have a change in our economy. We are moving from an industrial economy to a knowledge based economy. We need to make big investments to ensure we have the workers for the jobs of tomorrow and to ensure we take care of some of the concerns that we have as Canadians.

Instead of pushing the pause button on decreasing corporate taxes, the Conservatives are actually increasing payroll taxes by some 35% over the next five years. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. They say in one sense that they will decrease corporate taxes and bring them down even below what the corporate community was calling for but on the other hand they will increase payroll taxes by some 35% over the next five years.

We need to make investments in innovations, in science and technology and in the jobs of tomorrow. We need to make investments in the care of Canadians, in learning, in early childhood education, in ensuring that everyone has access to post-secondary education and in ensuring that people have the right kinds of skills needed in our country.

We had a conference a couple of months ago where we engaged Canadians on the type of Canada they wanted to have by the time we reach our 150th anniversary. We talked about some of the changes that are occurring in Canadian society. Some of the knowledgeable speakers who came to see us spoke about the rising level of unemployment in our country. Another million people will be joining the unemployment ranks over the next number of years. By the time we reach 2017, over another million Canadians will be unemployed but at the same time there will be over 1.7 million job vacancies. That is because of the skill shortage in our country.

Why would the minister not consider making some very important leadership choices and decide to press the pause button on corporate taxes and make some very big investments in our communities?

6:35 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Speaking of choices, Mr. Speaker, we need to reflect on the choices that the former Liberal government made during the 1990s. In her comments, the hon. member spoke about education, so let me just reflect on a couple of comments.

The former Liberal government radically slashed transfer payments to provinces and territories. We all know that. It has been referred to in here many times. Let me quote some of the groups that were blindsided by this shortsighted policy.

The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations said the Liberal federal government:

chose to cut investment in education in the mid-1990s to reduce the deficit. Due to these cuts, Canada faced a brain drain.

Let me also quote the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when it said:

the mistakes of the nineties...pushed deficits off the balance sheets and onto the streets of cities and communities. The damage done to Canada's cities is still evident

On the other hand, our Conservative government has taken real action to support students and higher education. We are ensuring, and we will continue to ensure, that provinces and territories have the ability to provide the health care, educational and other social services that families need. But shamefully, each and every time, the Liberals have voted against that support.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Against? You've got to be kidding. Shameful. I cannot believe that.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Absolutely. They voted against it. I know my hon. colleague behind me cannot believe that.

We lowered taxes for students when we made post-secondary scholarships and bursary income a student receives tax-free. The Liberal opposition once again voted against that.

We announced $45 million to establish new post-doctoral fellowships valued at $70,000 per year.

We also provided additional funding to support world-class research and researchers, including new resources for the research granting councils. Unfortunately, the Liberal opposition voted against all that.

Since forming government in 2006, we have made landmark investments in Canada's educational system.

We made Canada number one in terms of research and development spending in higher education when compared to all other G7 countries. The Liberal opposition yet again voted against that.

Clearly, our Conservative government is providing positive support for higher education.

If the Liberal opposition does not take my word for it, they should talk to the presidents of the 13 leading Canadian universities, including the University of Ottawa's president Allan Rock, a name familiar to many of us, who wrote an open letter in newspapers right across Canada that praised budget 2010. Here is a small sampling:

In past debt-elimination drives, federal transfers to provinces were rapidly reduced. Provinces then passed the cuts on to universities and colleges, hospitals and municipalities. Budget 2010 reduces the chances that this adverse history will be repeated.

This budget has also given universities a clear signal to get on with the job of laying the foundations for a sustainable economic recovery. We welcome that signal and the support that goes with it in a period of tough choices.

These...are very positive initiatives.

For that vote of confidence in higher education and advanced research, we are indeed grateful to the government and to Canada's taxpayers.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Yes, Mr. Speaker, tough choices had to be made in the 1990s.

I recall as a business leader sitting around boardroom tables talking about the fiscal crisis in our country. The fiscal crisis was so bad that the International Monetary Fund was about to enter Canada. Can members believe our debt-to-GDP ratio was somewhere in the seventies? We are talking about a serious problem and the legacy of the former Conservative government. When we took over power in the early 1990s, we were $42 billion in deficit, $500 billion or more in debt.

It is unbelievable that the member who spoke did not credit the Liberals for having the solid banking system that Canada enjoys today, for ensuring that we have the room within our fiscal framework to ensure that we could make the investments. I am sure the member opposite would also agree that we made the investments during the 2000s. It is truly unfortunate that since the Conservative government has taken power, we have slipped back into deficit after 10 years of surplus where we could actually start making investments in our country.

I am sure that when we are given the opportunity again, should we ever be given the opportunity again, we will make sure that Canada once again is strong.

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Well, Mr. Speaker, let us hope that never happens.

I know the hon. member is trying to avoid the fact that the Liberals did actually hurt education. They hurt Canada's economy, because they stalled the education of young people, and that is where our entire future depends.

Clearly the question today is why Liberals are pretending to support post-secondary education when they voted against all of our initiatives, including removing taxes from scholarships and bursaries.

We are doing this to help students get the education they need for the future. Helping students was clearly not a priority for the former Liberal government. As the Liberal member for Kings—Hants has publicly noted, the Liberal government:

balanced its books by slashing transfers to the provinces by forcing the provinces...to...face deficits, and health care systems and education systems in a crisis as a result of the its inability and irresponsibility to actually tighten its own belt more significantly.

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, it relates to a question that I posed to the Minister of Agriculture a back some time ago concerning the Canadian Food Inspection Agency when it comes to Ms. Weatherill's report when it came to the CVS system.

Clearly, one of my questions will be, has the government indeed implemented the CVS and has that audit been completed?

Of course, I partially know the answer to that because the most recent report talks about a third-party review of CFIA food safety inspection resources that is under way and is expected to be completed by September 2010.

Unfortunately, in this House, last fall the minister said it would be this spring; this spring, he said this summer; and now, clearly, the ministry says it will be September.

Clearly, one of the questions is when, and if, the CVS audit will actually get completed, because to date it has not been done.

The other piece relates to the fact that U.S. decided to change its standards for what it needed to have in terms of inspection in Canadian plants and we had to comply if we wanted to export, which meant there was a differential between us for domestic product and international markets. We said we would try to cover that off, and we have been doing that with overtime.

So the second question becomes, is the overtime still continuing? Clearly what we said in committee was the number of inspectors we were supposed to get. Mr. Cam Prince said, during committee, that it takes a while to get folks trained, and as of that time, they had 35 inspectors in the system.

So the third question is, are the 35 inspectors out of the system and on the front line? Are we making any progress in hiring the next 35 inspectors that Mr. Prince said, back in March, were needed and would probably happen in the next four to six months, who then said they got additional moneys from the ministry, which I believe to be correct, and said that would hire an additional 100 inspectors? However, of course, he said it is difficult to find these folks.

It seems to me that we needed 170 front-line inspectors for ready-to-eat meat plants. It was accepted that we needed to get that done last fall, and the government said that there would be money available to hire them. The dilemma becomes, as Mr. Prince, who is responsible for human resources, says, there are only 35 in the system, not inspecting but in the system, getting through the hiring process, through the training process, and not out there doing front-line meat inspection.

Clearly, if we have a need to inspect to ensure that the Americans are getting what they require for export, and we are saying from this side of the House, and this member is certainly saying, that if indeed what we need is to have the same compliance for the domestic market, then how are we doing that when it was accepted that we needed 170 new inspectors last fall before the Americans made the change? We are already short 135 inspectors, by Mr. Prince's own estimates of what he needs for manpower, and we now need more because we are working overtime to cover off the demand by the U.S. that we do something different. We have now said we will do it for the Canadian one. The minister clearly said, during committee, that we are not quite doing it yet domestically when it comes to the same standards to the U.S. He said we are doing it in the bigger plants but not quite in all the domestic plants yet.

So the fourth question for the parliamentary secretary is, do we have them all covered now, or are we still trying to do it with overtime?

6:45 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, certainly food safety is of key importance to Canadians. I thank the member for raising these issues because Canadians want to know that our Conservative government is committed to continuous improvement in order to protect the safety of our Canadian food supply.

Since 2006, CFIA's inspection staff has increased by a net total of 538. Last week in the House, the Minister of Agriculture tabled a memo he received from CFIA that demonstrates the progress that CFIA has made in hiring inspectors since we formed government. I would invite this member to read that. It is a hiring process that the opposition has tried its best to undermine by voting, time and time again, against our budgets and the additional funding we allocate for food safety.

This is a very important point. This member rises in the House today. He has gone to all this trouble to raise these questions tonight in the House, and what does he do when it comes time to allocate new money, new funding to food safety? He votes against it not once, but time and time again.

Our Conservative government is committed to implementing all 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report. I am happy to tell Canadians that many of the recommendations concerning the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have already been implemented. Actions taken to date have focused on prevention, surveillance, detection and better response.

These would include strengthening the CFIA directives regarding control of listeria and federally registered, ready-to-eat meat processing plants; equipping CFIA inspectors with better tools and technologies such as laptops, cell phones and better network connectivity; updating federal, provincial and territorial protocols for managing food-borne illness outbreaks and enhancing laboratory capacity and research into the development of rapid test methods.

The CFIA and Health Canada have developed a new screening method for listeria in meat that allows for a more rapid response during food safety investigations. Furthermore, we have launched a food safety portal on the web that is accessible to Canadians and provides Canadians with comprehensive food safety and food-borne illness information.

Ensuring that Canadians are not exposed to contaminated foods is the agency's top priority.

Canadians can rest assured that their food safety and public health networks are actively working on this. Canada is better able to target its actions because of the lessons we learned from the listeriosis outbreak in 2008.

What I have highlighted is that we have tougher food safety requirements than we have ever had before, but what we need and what Canadians need are members such as this one voting to support the measures that we take to improve food safety. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, each and every time we allocate additional funding and additional resources to CFIA, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to implement the Weatherill report, this member and all of his colleagues vote against it.

This member has an opportunity to vote for these measures when we pass the supplementary estimates in the budget coming up. He has one minute to address this. I would like to know how he will vote. Will he vote yes to improving food safety in Canada?

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has clearly decided that my voting record is more important than food safety. Ultimately, he still cannot answer the question about how many inspectors they have. They still do not know. Why do they not know? It is because they have not done the very thing that Sheila Weatherill said was the most important thing to do, and that was to get the CVS audit done.

That was her number one recommendation, to get it done and get it done immediately, because it is an absolute failure on behalf of the new system. What do we have? We have delay after delay. Now we are into next fall.

Here is the bottom line: If they want to make sure that the food in this country is safe, they need to get inspectors hired and they need the audit done. We needed it done last September, not September of this year. Of course, they are not there yet.

The question is clear. Will this parliamentary secretary confirm tonight that the audit will be done by September 2010?

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really have to go back to my previous point. The hon. member is speaking about food safety, but when it comes to concrete action, his voting record speaks for itself. He voted against our food safety agenda outlined in the Speech from the Throne. He voted against budget 2010, which provided $13 million to hire 100 new inspectors. He voted against supplementary estimates C, which provided the first $8 million out of the $75 million for CFIA related to the Weatherill report.

He has a chance to redeem himself. The current supplementary estimates A includes an additional $17 million in further response to the Weatherill report. How will this member vote? Will he stand up and put action behind his words? Will he vote in favour of food safety and additional funding for food safety?

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise an issue regarding the unethical behaviour of the government.

On April 9, the Prime Minister asked his former minister for the status of women to resign. The Prime Minister stated that it was related to matters of a criminal nature.

Then we heard about the former Conservative MP for Edmonton--Strathcona, who had been charged with driving under the influence and with possession of cocaine. He was using the Conservative logo on his website as well as the MP cards for his Green Power Generation, despite the fact that he was no longer a member of Parliament.

The former Conservative caucus chair also misused a special government passport to promote a green energy company in Cuba, leaving the impression that his overtures had government approval.

To add insult to this unethical or ethical injury, the Minister of Industry appeared in a promotional video for a chemical company owned by a prominent Conservative in his own riding. Where are the ethics? Where is transparency? Where is accountability?

We then have the Conservative member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast, who is linked to a mortgage fraud investigation and is currently being sued for ignoring repeated requests to turn over records related to five real estate transactions.

We have constant examples of unethical behaviour. The ministers of Labour and Natural Resources have declined to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to discuss lobbying access to the green infrastructure fund, followed by a timely announcement from thePrime Minister that he would not allow staffers to attend and be questioned, especially when those staffers were interfering with the inquiry.

There is unaccountability, non-transparency, and the Prime Minister is the person who should be accountable and he should ensure that this accountability takes place.

The Prime Minister and his cabinet's effort to ban political staff from appearing before committees, after blaming them for recent cover-ups, is an attempt to avoid accountability to Parliament.

Then we have committees treated as circuses by the Minister of Transport, who shows up at committee meetings to stand in for the Prime Minister's spokesman.

One of the major problems we face when looking at ethics is that we are either ethical or not ethical, and the government just does not get it. It has so many examples of trying to circumvent ethics, it just does not know where to stop, and when questions are posed and ministers are asked to be accountable, the Prime Minister has shown no leadership. In fact, he obfuscates every time.

The Conservatives control how information is released. They control who releases information. They control the information that is being released, and that is not transparent, especially when the government brought forward the Federal Accountability Act. Governments have to walk the talk. The public deserves better.

Can the government please tell me how it will deal with the growing problem of the ethically-challenged decisions on behalf of the Conservative Party.

6:50 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister passed the Federal Accountability Act, the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. It included expansion of the access to information system, whistleblower protection, and more powers for the Auditor General. We will continue with our agenda of accountability.

I would like to note today though the exciting news that Canada's economy grew by 6.1% in the last quarter. I notice that the member did not raise that point. I wonder why she would not celebrate this news with us.

This means more jobs, more hope and opportunity for families. Businesses will be able to reinvest more and hire, and expand, making customer service an even bigger priority. It means that the government will, we hope, receive more revenues to balance its budget quicker so that we will have the financial resources available to go ahead with scheduled tax reductions and to investment in the things that matter most to Canadians.

This success in our economy is due to Canada's economic action plan. We have lowered business taxes, also known as the tax on jobs, so that businesses can hire more. We have lowered the GST to keep costs down so that families can afford to stretch their dollars a little bit further.

We have lowered income taxes so that people keep more of what they earn. We have introduced special tax credits to help parents with the cost of kids' sports, students with the cost of textbooks, passengers with the cost of public transit passes, and tradesmen with the cost of tools. I could go on. I think the House is gathering that this is a government that has lowered taxes in order to generate prosperity.

We have also brought in the Conservative tax free savings account which allow people to put aside $5,000 a year every single year. That number accumulates over time. All of the interest dividends and capital gains on those investments are tax free. That will attract billions of dollars in additional investment into Canada's enterprises. It will also help Canadians prepare for their retirement and save for a new home or other dreams that they may have for themselves and their families.

These are the exciting things that are happening in Canada. I wish the member would join with us, work with us, in order to build on that success and create a brighter future for all of us.

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that my colleague is totally ashamed of the government's record on accountability and transparency. It appears there is one rule for the Conservatives and another rule for the rest of Canadians.

This past fall Liberals filed a complain with the Ethics Commissioner regarding the presentation of government cheques from 12 Conservative MPs in excess of $594 million in either their own name or that of the Prime Minister. She ruled this type of branding as inappropriate. However, the ethically-challenged government keeps on indulging in more unethical behaviour.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise to Canadians that he would never appoint senators. In one year the Prime Minister has made 32 such appointments, unequalled in Canadian history.

Also large numbers of more partisan appointments were made to the courts, government boards and agencies.

The Prime Minister is fixed on rewarding Conservative insiders rather than focusing on issues like job creation and health care.

Therefore, when will the government put its money where its mouth is and be accountable? Do not give us legislation which it cannot follow itself.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about putting our money where our mouths are. In fact, we put money back in the pockets of taxpayers, the people who earned that money.

We have lowered the GST, cut income taxes, lowered the tax on jobs, also known as the business tax, instituted special tax credits for kids' sports, students' textbooks, passengers' bus passes, and tradesmen's tools. We have brought in a revolutionary idea in savings, called the tax free savings account allowing people to put aside $5,000 every year and that number adds up. Every single year it accumulates. The interest, dividends and capital gains remain tax free.

That allows people to multiply their savings by taking advantage of the growth in the economy so they can have more to set aside for their own futures, more to invest in Canadian businesses that ultimately create jobs, hire people, and that great cycle keeps going. This is the exciting news that all of us should be celebrating today.

7 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed withdrawn. The House will now go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering votes under natural resources in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates, Ms. Denise Savoie in the chair)

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Denise Savoie

Order. Tonight's debate is a general one on all of the votes under Natural Resources. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. The first round will begin with the official opposition followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

As provided in the motion adopted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, parties may use each 15-minute slot for speeches or for questions and answers by one or more of their members.

In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how the time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.

When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the party.

I would remind hon. members that, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 25, during this evening's debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained.

We can now begin this evening's session. The hon. member for Halifax West.

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Madam Chair, all of our members will be asking questions. I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon and the member for Vancouver Quadra in this first opening session.

I would like to know how much the Government of Canada is committed to carbon capture and storage? Has it increased from the $850 million already earmarked? How much of the departmental budget is committed to research into a major oil spill? How much is committed to oil spill emergency response?

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources

Madam Chair, there already was a $1 billion clean energy fund, of which $205 million was earmarked for energy efficiency and renovation projects. Currently, $466 million is being invested in three major projects and $166 million is being invested in 19 other carbon capture and storage projects.

As far as oil spill response is concerned, this is handled by the National Energy Board, which is responsible for regulating drilling and exploration.

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Madam Chair, is the minister really saying that he does not know how much is dedicated to cleaning up a major oil spill? It seems to me that we do not know how much is committed to research in a major oil spill. Is the minister telling us that the NEB is responsible for that and he is not really interested in that question? Is that what the minister is telling us?

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Chair, that is completely false. The National Energy Board is a quasi-judicial body that runs on a cost recovery basis. It can also ask companies for money up front, as a guarantee in case something happens. This is done on a case-by-case basis and is not part of the core budget of the Government of Canada.

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Madam Chair, the minister is saying that none of the budget is committed to research into a major oil spill. That astonishes me. And none of it I gather is assigned to oil spill emergency response. That would, I think, be very disconcerting to most Canadians. If the minister does not know the answer and there is other information, maybe he could provide it to us later.

On May 26, in question period, the minister said Canada has “the highest standards in the world”. However, witnesses told the natural resources committee that Canada's regulatory process is, in fact, getting softer while the U.S., Greenland and Norway are getting tougher. Could the minister explain why we are falling behind the rest of the world?

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Chair, no, I do not agree. Canada has strong environmental laws and standards, a robust safety regime, and experienced independent regulatory agencies. The health and safety of Canadians and the protection of Canada's environment remain the Government of Canada's top priorities.

Canada and the United States must ensure that robust regimes are in place to protect the health and safety of workers and to protect the environment. Canada will review any findings related to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico with a view to enhancing the safety and environmental performance of our regime.

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Madam Chair, can the minister tell us why exploration permits are being issued before the National Energy Board has a chance to regulate the drilling?