Carolyn Parrish

[Tobacco, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

The American tobacco company, Liggett Corporation, has publicly admitted that smoking is addictive, that it causes cancer and that the industry deliberately targets its marketing at young people between the ages of 14 and 18.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell Canadians the significance of this announcement and how it affects our efforts to curb tobacco consumption among young people?

[Immigration, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party usually advocates much tighter regulations on refugee immigration. They appear to have switched over and are now concerned that we have put on some restrictions.

Despite this I have a lot of concerns coming to me from my own riding which has a lot of immigrants and refugees.

Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration clarify the newly imposed regulation she has put on refugees?

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are being very consistent. The consistent desire of the Liberal government is to increase health protection for the youngest child to the oldest senior. We are consistent in wanting to charge adults who lure children into smoking. We are consistent in that the penalties are for the crass people who purposely sell to children without asking for ID. We are very consistent in being very concerned about their health.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am continually amazed and appalled at the desire of members of the Reform Party to criminalize as many people as they can. Their net is now including 14-year-olds which I find appalling.

It is illegal to sell cigarettes to kids. We should be going after the adults who are doing this and making a profit off the health of young people. But to collect a bunch of 14-year-olds, charge them, take them to court and turn them into criminals is not the idea of the government or any other government.

Again, I find it appalling that the Reform's law and order goes beyond all limits when it wants to see 14-year-olds arrested.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-71, the government's tobacco control strategy.

Over the past few months I have been part of a group of concerned caucus members encouraging and providing support to the Minister of Health in his efforts to introduce the legislation. I am pleased to see his efforts have finally been realized.

It is estimated that more than 40,000 Canadians die each year due to the effects of smoking, mostly due to lung and heart disease. Twenty-one per cent of all deaths in Canada can be attributed to smoking. This makes smoking the number one preventable cause of death and disease in Canada.

We are all well aware of the links between the use of tobacco and serious disease. We can also assume that as tobacco use continues to rise among Canadians the death toll will increase accordingly.

It is not only by reducing the demand for tobacco now that we will be able to reduce the number of Canadians who will die painful tobacco deaths in the future. This is why the health minister's new tobacco control strategy is so important.

When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down certain elements of the tobacco producers control act in 1995 it left the Canadian government, representatives of the Canadian people, with too little control over tobacco regulation. Alternative control measures became a necessity. This is not an entirely new initiative.

The government has been exploring its options ever since the Supreme Court ruling. Many of my constituents have been critical expressing their disappointment with how long it has taken for the government to act. I shared some of their concerns but it was important that all available options were studied thoroughly. This time we had to get it right.

Late last year the government released a blueprint on tobacco control outlining the various options available. Since then we have received comments from many different Canadians, doctors, business people, the tobacco industry, consumers, parents and various credible advocacy groups. These new regulations are a product of this ongoing study.

I am confident they will arm us for a successful battle to curb future tobacco use in Canada. Tobacco use is not simply a problem for the individual who smokes. Tobacco use is costly to every member of society in a number of ways. It is estimated that in 1991 the cost of smoking in Canada totalled $15 billion in direct health care costs and lost productivity.

Smokers visit the doctor more than non-smokers. They spend more time in hospitals and they occupy more spaces in long term health care facilities. In total smoking alone costs the health care system $3.5 billion.

Smokers are absent from work more than non-smokers. It has been estimated a smoking employee costs over $3,000 year more to employ than a non-smoker due to lost days. In addition, lost productivity from smoke breaks, waiting for smoke breaks and thinking about smoke breaks cannot be calculated.

Finally, 40,000 smoking related deaths amount to about $10.6 billion in lost revenue for Canada. Compare this figure to the $2.6 billion the federal excise tax and duty on tobacco products generates. In the end smoking costs the Canadian economy billions in lost productivity, health care and social assistance to the families of those who are incapacitated by smoke related diseases. The new tobacco legislation will see many positive improvements. It will limit youth access to tobacco products to fight tobacco use before it becomes an addiction.

I recall visiting the Woodlands Secondary School in my riding as the local trustee the year we banned student smoking rooms and

smoking areas in schools. I was asked by students why we were banning smoking rooms for kids and allowing the teachers to smoke in the staff room. At the time I gave a very facile answer. I said: "They are adults and they are old enough to kill themselves if they choose to".

The real answer was that they were all addicted. By banning student smoking areas we were trying to stop the influence of one smoker over another and stop young people from smoking.

Immediately after the visit to the school, though, we put a proposal before the board of trustees to ban all smoking on all school property for adults as well as students, and those rules still stand today. The interesting part is that teachers have to put on their coats in the bad weather and walk up and down the street to smoke. This is not a very glamorous image. The kids are beginning to see how horrible it is, how addicted the teachers are, and how foolish they look walking up and down the street.

Almost 30 per cent of 15 to 19 year olds and 15 per cent of 10 to 14 year olds are currently smokers. This is both frightening and unacceptable. Eighty-five per cent of smokers begin their addiction before they are 16 years of age when they are most susceptible to peer pressure and the desire to fit in. The new measures introduced in the legislation will specifically target youth prohibiting self-service displays, banning vending machine sales and requiring photo ID to confirm age.

The new legislation will also limit the marketing and promotion of tobacco products including restrictions on tobacco advertising, packaging, sales promotions and promotions through sponsorships. Promotional materials containing tobacco brand names will be restricted to publications with primarily adult readerships.

Some will argue that these regulations unfairly hurt the tobacco industry as well as the events they sponsor. However this concern must be tempered with the concern for the health of our children. We cannot afford to sacrifice the health of the country by allowing another generation of smokers to begin this life threatening habit.

Marketers of tobacco products use a range of lifestyle advertising to sell their products. They are very appealing methods to attempt to create a link between tobacco and an attractive lifestyle. They are particularly fascinating to children and youth. "Smoke Marlboroughs and be a real man". "Smoke Slims and men will fall in great stacks at your feet".

The government has no intention of telling tobacco companies what they can or cannot sponsor. Nor is it prohibiting the sponsorship of a whole category of events. The government is simply restricting the extent to which companies can relate tobacco brand names to activities which convey a desirable, glamorous and exciting lifestyle.

The new tobacco strategy in Canada will also see increased health information on tobacco packages, the establishment of an enforcement mechanism to regulate the chemical contents of cigarettes, control of the practice of supercharging with addictive nicotine and the adding of other chemicals to enhance the effects of nicotine. Altogether I am confident these measures will eventually have a significant impact on the consumption of tobacco products in Canada.

This is not the end of government action in this area. In addition to the actions of the Department of Health other ministries will be taking part in this initiative. The federal and some provincial governments will raise their taxes on tobacco products to a combined rate of $1.40 a carton, together with an extension of the federal surtax on tobacco manufacturers at the rate of 40 per cent for three years.

Many of my constituents have been calling for such measures. They serve the dual purpose of increasing the price of tobacco products as well as increasing government revenue to pay for some of the costs associated with tobacco use. This tax increase will be accompanied by anti-smuggling initiatives to make sure the increase does not result in the resumption of cigarette smuggling. In fact, it is estimated that since the government began its anti-smuggling initiatives in 1994, enforcement has prevented $2 billion worth of illegal products from reaching the streets in Canada.

The final element is also one of the most important. Fifty million dollars over five years have been committed to enforce this legislation and to provide health education programs. I can say from experience that education programs are essential in fighting tobacco use among young people.

As testimony to that fact, the government is focusing its initiatives where they most matter, to prevent Canadians, particularly youths, from becoming addicted to tobacco products. Retailers will only be marginally affected by the legislation. Retail displays will be limited and photo ID will be required for purchase but the government will not regulate who can sell tobacco products at this time. This is very reasonable legislation.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity speak on behalf of this long awaited legislation. I am particularly proud of the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary for their diligence in the face of so much organized and well-funded opposition.

Tobacco use in Canada is a health problem. We must ensure that the health of the country is not lost to this addictive product. We already have one of the best records in the world and we must strive to make it even better.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the GST and Ontario's attitude toward it.

The government is working very hard to come up with a proper harmonization position with Ontario. I recall that the premier in Ontario said when he was running for election that the first order of business would be to come up with a harmonized tax with the federal government. He seems to have forgotten that promise so I am going to do all I can to encourage him to harmonize, as he should do so all the residents of Ontario can benefit.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question.

As a parent, as a responsible Canadian and as a former teacher, any form of child poverty is intolerable. The Minister of Finance mentioned that when he presented his budget.

The 1.5 million Canadian children that live in poverty are a blight on all of us. However, the situation was not created overnight and it cannot be repaired overnight. The minister has made it very clear that it is a serious concern of the government. However, unless we get the deficit under control, unless we get the economy back in shape and get everything in order, there will be more than 1.5 million children in poverty.

We are trying to do what good government does. It is a balancing act. It is repairing the deficit damage which will hurt more children, while slowly turning the corner to help as many children as we can.

It is a start and we will do much better as the economy gets stronger and stronger.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak in favour of the Liberal government's 1997 budget.

This budget, the fourth of the Liberal government, is likely the one that defines the true nature of the Liberal government, balancing the needs of fiscal health with the concerns about key social issues.

Over the past three and a half years it is clear that the economic priority of the government is deficit reduction. We are the first government in history to have seriously attacked the deficit and wrestled this country's finances under control.

Previous governments talked about deficits while continuing to overspend. We acted. In 1993 our finances rivalled those of third world countries. We spent fully $42 billion more than we took in, 6 per cent of gross domestic product. In fact, throughout its stay in office the previous Tory government was overspending its budget by approximately 30 per cent every year.

This year the deficit will be no higher than $19 billion and by 1998-99 it is projected to stand at $9 billion or about 1 per cent of gross domestic product. In four short years a balanced budget is finally within our grasp.

How did we work this magic, a magic that eluded the best Tory minds? We have stopped spending more than we earned. We cut government spending and began to live within our means. Canada is now on a clear path toward fiscal health and is the envy of most of the world's industrialized nations.

Renewed confidence in the Canadian economy has also helped to keep interest rates down, 19 reductions over the last 20 months. In the last year alone short term interest rates fell 5 percentage points. The prime rate is at its lowest since 1956. For the first time in more than decade interest rates are lower in Canada than they are in the United States.

Our current deficit reduction course has increased investor confidence, allowing interest rates to decline. Lower interest rates make it easier for consumers to buy homes and durable goods and

for businesses to invest in new facilities, equipment and employees.

The economy as a whole is benefiting. Exports are at record highs, successive Team Canada missions have attracted $22 billion in deals for Canadian business. Exports account for 37 per cent of our GDP. The importance of trade to this country's economy is more than obvious. It is estimated that for every $1 billion in exports we have 11,000 to 12,000 quality jobs in Canada. In 1997 Canada's economy will grow faster and have a higher job creation rate than any other G-7 country, including the U.S. A sustained and successive attack on the deficit inspires world confidence, world trade and world envy.

Many have urged the government over the recent months to ease the purse strings and to announce major increases in expenditure. Some see the light at the end of the tunnel and want to start spending. I do not agree with these people. I believe that major spending increases at this time would send the wrong message to the international community and to the Canadian public. It would tell Canadians that the hard work we have invested into reducing the size of government can all be negated, that past efforts should be undone. It also threatens to undermine our deficit reduction strategy prematurely, quitting in the last hours of a long and tiresome job, a job that is not quite done. It would also cause many old Tory wags to nod sagely: "There goes those tax and spend Liberals again buying the next election".

The deficit battle has inevitably affected some more than others. It is our responsibility as good government and as good Liberals to respond to those affected. To this end, the government has targeted key areas for investment. It is this type of targeted funding that leads to real impact, real changes and real solutions to social problems.

Among the announced initiatives are increased tax assistance to students, the creation of a foundation to support research infrastructure, investment to aid in the reform of Canadian health care, an increase in the child tax benefit and an increase in incentives for charitable giving.

The time has ended for throwing money at problems. This fourth in a series of responsible budgets shows us government spending must be clear, concise, planned and focused.

From 1985 to 1991, I served as a trustee on the appeal board of education, several years as chair. At that time, budgetary pressures were beginning to set in and it was clear that new strategies would have to be adopted. During my stay, along with some other colleagues, I suggested the administration implement rolling budget targets, setting spending goals at least two years in advance, not only as a constraint on board spending but as a realistic monitor of financial progress. We were unsuccessful at that time.

We have only to look at the current difficulties of school boards in Ontario to see where the lack of long term planning and preventive action have taken them. They have learned painfully that one can no longer live for today. One must continually plan for tomorrow, as the Minister of Finance has done.

Our current level of unemployment is still unacceptable. We should be doing better. But if there is anything we have learned in the last decade it is that throwing money into random job creation programs is not a long term solution. Governments cannot create jobs. They can create, foster and maintain the conditions necessary for a healthy economy in which the private sector can create jobs. In fact, our successful fiscal management has done just that.

Economists are predicting the economy will grow over 3 per cent in 1997 and 1998 creating between 600,000 and 700,000 new jobs over that period. In fact, since the government took office and put this country's finances back on track, the Canadian economy has created 715,000 new, primarily full time jobs.

Earlier I spoke of Canada as a model of modern economic change. Canada is making the most headway in deficit reduction and, at the same time, realizing the best job creation record in the G7 this year. Government overspending leads to economic ruin. Fiscal management leads to economic growth.

There are other alternatives in this budget that I would like to talk about a bit more specifically. I have been supporting for some time now the idea of targeted tax reductions to benefit children. I was an active supporter of the recent private member's bills initiated by the member for Mississauga South both on increasing the child care expense deduction and creating a tax credit for stay at home caregivers.

Children need proper resources and proper care in order to flourish in this society. Any level of child poverty is intolerable. We must do all we can to improve assistance to children of low income families. This budget has proposed a spending increase in the child tax benefit of $600 million annually in addition to the $250 million announced in the 1996 budget. The budget will also enrich the working income supplement by $195 million.

These measures are all specifically targeted to low income families to improve living conditions for Canadian children and give low income families the support they need to stay in the workforce rather than rely on continued public assistance.

The second area of particular interest is the voluntary and charitable sector in Canada. In 1995, I chaired a caucus subcommittee looking at government grants and contributions, primarily to

the volunteer sector. Our committee met with many charitable groups, including the National Volunteer Organization and the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. They realized that reductions in government grants and contributions were both necessary and inevitable as governments scale down across the board.

The committee agreed that scarce government funds should also be more specifically targeted and that reform of granting process was needed. The government should consider ways to stimulate private charitable giving while it continues to reduce direct funding.

This budget recognizes that the charitable and voluntary sectors in Canada are extremely valuable to our social well-being. While we cannot continue to provide increased direct funding to these organizations, we must make every effort to ensure this sector does not die.

The 1997 budget increases the amount of donations for which a person can claim a tax credit from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of income. Further, this budget has facilitated larger charitable donations, putting the Canadian system on par with the U.S.

We have also reduced the rate at which capital gains on charitable donations are calculated from 75 per cent to 37.5 per cent. These measures will encourage private charitable giving and ensure that the charitable and voluntary sectors in Canada have access to the funds they need to remain in operation.

Additional measures announced in the budget will address the question of accountability in Canada's third sector by giving Revenue Canada additional resources to ensure charities comply with the Income Tax Act and by increasing the availability of information filed by charities. These are measures which many of us have been calling for for some time.

For the benefit of my constituents, I would like to address the GST question. Over the past year I have proposed that the government should use the savings generated by its beating successive deficit targets-about $5 billion-to reduce the GST by two points or 30 per cent. In fact, I have been saying that the government should make this reduction since the summer of 1995. I believe reducing the GST by one-third would stimulate retail spending and provide some relief to Canadians without undoing all of the hard work we have accomplished since we took office. However, the Minister of Finance took the time to personally explain to me why this will not work.

While we may be able to afford to do it in year one and year two, by year three we would not have the money to continue. In short, we cannot absorb the revenue loss. I accept his explanation.

I have always maintained that we should remain on our present course of deficit reduction. In fact, we have not saved $5 billion. We are still paying off horrendous national debts.

As my responsibility to the constituents of Mississauga West I brought this proposal to caucus, I fought for it and I learned about its deficiencies. That is the essence of dialogue.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on yet another outstanding budget. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on its merits.

[Privilege, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege in that I was named by the member for Saint-Hubert as someone who would verify her attendance at all the NATO sessions. In fact, I was at a 12 hour voting session of NATO on the plenary session and the member

was touring the Versaille with one of my assistants. So the member was not there.

[Criminal Code, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of private member's Bill C-252, calling for a domestic ban of anti-personnel land mines.

I have a particular interest in this issue, since last week at a conference of the North Atlantic Assembly I was elected Special Rapporteur to the Science and Technology Committee to report to the assembly on anti-personnel land mines with the objective of banning them. In the coming months I will be studying this issue very closely.

In recent years, due in part to the efforts of numerous international non-governmental organizations, as mentioned by the previous speaker, the issue of anti-personnel land mines has been brought to the forefront of international relations. We are becoming increasingly informed and aware of the destruction and havoc caused by such weapons all over the world.

These efforts have led to an international campaign to ban anti-personnel land mines, a movement in which I am proud to state Canada has taken a lead role.

In October of this year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs held an international strategy conference toward a global ban on anti-personnel land mines where representatives of 70 governments, non-governmental organizations, multilateral agencies and private citizens attended. The Ottawa conference concluded with the adoption of the Ottawa declaration calling for an international ban on anti-personnel land mines.

The problem is enormous. It is estimated there are 119 million uncleared active land mines around the world in more than 64 countries. Currently, as the previous speaker mentioned, only 100,000 are being cleared and disarmed yearly at great expense.

The United Nations has projected that if no further land mines were laid, it would still take 1,000 years and $33 billion to clear the land mines that are already in place. However, each year two million to five million new mines are put in the ground. We cannot sit idly by and allow the situation to continue unchecked.

These horrible weapons currently claim more than 2,000 victims a month and over the last 50 years have probably inflicted more death and injuries than nuclear and chemical weapons combined.

While the use of land mines began as a counter to tanks, the use of anti-personnel land mines have become increasingly popular. They have become the weapon of choice for parties involved in guerrilla type operations and international conflicts as they are cheap, as little a $3 a piece, easy to lay and highly effective in killing and maiming human beings, particularly women and children. They are used in some cases to deny access to farm lands, irrigation channels and power plants. The effect of these usages is devastating in a country recovering from war.

Once land mines are laid, they are indiscriminate in their actions since they do not have to be aimed or fired. They are nameless and faceless weapons. Unless they are cleared they go on killing long after the end of any conflict. In fact, the United Nations has estimated that land mines are at least ten times more likely to kill or injure a civilian after a conflict than a combatant during hostility.

Moreover, floods, landslides, moving sand dunes and natural erosion can shift their positions long after they have been laid and marked. In Namibia 88 per cent of post-1980 land mine casualties were civilian. The same situation is reflected in many other countries where land mines are numerous.

The effects of land mines are gruesome and abhorrent. One person is killed or maimed by a mine every 20 minutes and nearly a third of the survivors have at least one limb amputated. On a current election monitoring trip to Bosnia I was shocked to note that about one in every ten adults and children walking along the street in a town called Gorazde had either a hand, an arm or a leg missing.

By comparison, in the U.S. there is one amputee per 22,000 inhabitants. In Cambodia, one of the countries most affected by mines, there is one amputee per 384 inhabitants. A study in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique found that the number of mine incidents in these four countries more than doubled between the early 1980s and the early 1990s.

Land mines cause havoc in a society and severely hamper post-war reconstruction. Most mines strike those who are poor and must go into debt to pay for their medical bills if they can afford medical treatment at all. Gorazde has 20,000 people and two doctors from Doctors without Borders.

The day before I arrived in Gorazde a little boy picked up a red lunch pail and blew his arm off at the shoulder. All the doctors could do is cauterize it and send him to Sarajevo. No one knew what happened to him after that.

Mines also prevent the use of land for agricultural production in many parts of affected countries, severely limiting economic recovery. For example, in Libya only 27 per cent of arable land is usable because it has been covered by mine fields since World War II. Mines make reconstruction of rail and road networks, power lines and waterways slow, dangerous and costly.

When I was in Bosnia they only had power for two out of 24 hours. It was erratic. It could not be repaired. Sometimes the electricity came on from two until four in the morning, the time when most people do not have much use for it.

Not only do anti-personnel land mines prevent the use of resources, they also place a strain on the budgets of countries affected, especially since those countries are likely among the poorest in the world.

In addition, land mines prevent the settlement and resettlement of refugees which is essential to the success of the peace process. Peacekeepers are also at risk in these circumstances and we have many Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia right now, over 1,000.

A total of 203 UN peacekeepers have been injured by mines and 60 have been killed to date. A further 39 UN civilian personnel have been injured and 7 have been killed by mines. One of the most important briefings I got repeatedly before I went to Bosnia as a civilian election monitor was all the rules and regulations on how to avoid getting maimed or killed by a land mine. I was in one of the most beautiful countries in the world yet I could not step off the sidewalk or the road on to the grass anywhere.

For all of these reasons, land mines make it difficult, if not impossible, for countries to make the transition from conflict to peace through economic recovery, which is what those countries desperately need in order to reduce the chances of future armed conflicts.

Land mines are not a significant source of revenue for most countries. About 100 companies in some 55 countries produce approximately five million land mines a year comprised of about 360 different types of anti-personnel land mines. Few countries profit significantly from the sale of conventional anti-personnel land mines, most of which sell from $3 to $30 each.

Not only are clearance costs between $300 and $1,000 per mine, the human costs are overwhelming. Each victim will incur lifetime expenses and each country will incur serious human and economic costs from those injuries. We can be very proud. Canada has one of the best trained forces in the world in disarming these mines.

The review conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons adopted on May 3 a revised version of the convention's protocol II regulating the use of "mines, booby traps and other devices". Some of the revisions include an extension of the protocol to apply in both international and non-international armed conflicts, a clear assignment of responsibility for mine clearance to those who lay the mines, and a requirement that all mines be mapped and recorded. Of course that requirement is useless in many countries. As soon as the weather changes the mines shift and it is impossible to find them. Self-destructing mines may be used without any specific restriction but they are few and far between.

While I am pleased that such efforts are being attempted it is not enough. The provisions will be phased in over nine years. In addition to this delay, many of the provisions are costly, difficult to ensure and unlikely to be followed, particularly in the midst of war.

Even if states comply with the recording and mapping rule these techniques are only marginally effective when land mines shift easily over unstable ground. Self-destructing mines can be delivered in huge quantities and are extremely difficult to map. Their use could lead to an even greater increase in civilian mine casualties.

The limited military usefulness of land mines must be overridden by humanitarian priorities. I have had the opportunity to witness firsthand, as I have mentioned repeatedly, the destruction caused by anti-personnel land mines.

On the trip to Bosnia the most nervous part of the whole trip was not fear that I would be shot at or fear that there would be conflict between the people we were there to observe, it was the fear for my own person. I thought to myself there are many people, young people, who do not have work, 85 per cent unemployed, and they have the added fear that if they step anywhere that they should not, off a road, off a sidewalk, they can be maimed for life.

I can only imagine the dangers the average citizen faced on a day to day basis there. Fighting had technically ceased. Just because the

act of war was over did not mean the citizens were out of danger. Rather, they faced a whole new set of problems, not the least among them was trying to rebuild a country with so many obstacles in place.

Canada must take a lead role in achieving a global ban on anti-personnel land mines. Bill C-252 is non-partisan. It has been presented by a member of the Reform Party but I wholeheartedly endorse it in a non-partisan fashion. It draws our attention to this very important subject and provokes serious debate and consideration of the issues involved.

I strongly urge thoughtful consideration of this bill because ongoing dialogue is essential to any future progress.