I didn’t really hear an answer to the question there. I guess I would like to ask the Minister if he will consider meeting with these outfitters to discuss the possibility. I fully understand that there may be restrictions.
Secondly, I have to ask the Minister when we will know whether or not there are restrictions on the Bluenose-East herd. I don’t have the numbers. I think Mr. Bromley probably has the numbers of animals, total animals in the herd and number of animals harvested. I don’t have them with me, unfortunately, but I think should it be proven that the herd is sustainable with both an unrestricted Aboriginal harvest and a limited or unrestricted caribou harvest and there’s still some caribou left over, why can’t we give out those tags? Those two things: Are there restrictions on the Bluenose-East herd and, if not, when will we know, and secondly, will the Minister consider meeting with the outfitters?
What exists today is voluntary targets for the Bluenose-East, no resident harvest, no outfitters, no commercial harvest. Just a voluntary harvest for Aboriginal subsistence hunting. So what we have started is the process, given the numbers that we do have that tell us the Bluenose-East, in our opinion, even though we weren’t able to complete the full survey, are in the hundred thousand animal range, that we’re back to being able to sustain additional harvest.
That process has to go through not just ourselves and myself as Minister making the determination, but we have to work with all the appropriate boards, the Wek’eezhii board, the Sahtu board, the Inuvialuit board. We’ve initiated that process to have that discussion. We’ll look at what’s possible.
Right now we’re looking at reinstating the resident harvest. If in fact the discussions lead us down the path that Ms. Bisaro referenced where the general determination in the minds of all the folks that are involved in this are that it could in fact be expanded, then we’ll, of course, look at those recommendations from the various boards as well. It’s very rare that a Minister will reject the recommendations of boards. It’s remote but, yes, we’re going to look for the advice of the boards based on the best information we have.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro, your time is up. We can put you back in the queue if need be. Next on my list I have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to pick up with the same subject Ms. Bisaro has raised. Specifically two areas I’d like to discuss.
In my Member’s statement and questions back in October, I talked about identifying what’s considered a number that will trigger our system to be re-engaged on an outfitter participation level. That would be question one. Recently in some discussions with some outfitters, as few as a hundred tags could make that much of a difference and we would no longer have to subsidize their lodges. It could get them back into business. Two questions there.
Would the Minister be able to do some work on and evaluate and possibly support 100 tags per outfitter, and at the same time, when is the work coming forward that would help identify normal thresholds when we can get them back into the business of outfitting?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work on thresholds is underway. There has been a singular success at this point with the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. The agreement they reached in the very complex political jurisdiction with the threshold I believe the Member is talking about, that triggers certain responses without any politics, it’s just based on the science and the numbers. In my opinion, that approach would serve as well across the North. We are working towards that.
Having said that, at this point the boards have been requested to review the numbers of the Bluenose-East, and the request that they consider that they look at supporting and seeing if the numbers support reinstating the resident harvest. That work is underway. We are aiming towards next fall and we’re doing it on the Ahiak-Beverly-Qamanirjuaq as well. So that process will be reviewed, and if, as I just indicated to Ms. Bisaro, the discussion and numbers are such that there is a general consensus and recommendation that we can go beyond reinstating the resident harvest but go back to unsustained Aboriginal resident harvest as well as back to commercial, we’ll seriously consider the recommendations and they’re going to be based on the same science that we all have available to us.
Finally, if I may just reach back a bit, I did not answer part of Ms. Bisaro’s question. Yes, we’d be happy to sit down with the outfitters to talk about where we are and what the world looks like on a go-forward basis here for the coming year or coming couple of years.
I appreciate the answers from the Minister. I would like to come back to the issue of 100 tags per outfitter. I would not try to characterize that I know the science or the numbers best, so I’m not going to imply that in any way, but what I would say is anecdotally at the same time I would say that the impact of that 100 tags per outfitter, I don’t see that as causing an irreparable ripple effect to the system, especially when we have the Bluenose-East growing in the manner it’s demonstrating itself in. Would that not be a position that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources could offer their expertise and knowledge to the board for their consideration and, furthermore, for the department’s willingness to support? In essence, would the department support a 100 tag allocation per outfitter?
These are public boards. We have our officials involved with the boards, as well as we provide, with the Wek’eezhii especially, advice and recommendations, along with the Tlicho Government, to the boards on various matters of interest before the board.
I don’t think it would be appropriate for us to sit here today and pick a number out of the air and do wildlife management, caribou management in the bounds of this Assembly. I appreciate the Member’s intent, and we are looking at what’s possible given the numbers that we do think are there, even though we could not conclude all the work that we needed to do to get a more accurate count on the Bluenose-East.
Thank you for that. I appreciate the Minister’s response. The issue of what’s possible, is this a concept that the department could get behind and evaluate, investigate and perhaps provide some consideration for the board? I’m not going to split hairs, 90 tags, 110 tags. Let the experts help drive that answer that makes sense. Caribou tags at 100 tags per outfitter, which I think we’re only talking about five outfitters here that are probably active that could be saved. Is that something that your department could investigate and see whether they could support and perhaps provide some information to the board to allow them to make their decision?
The issue here that can’t be forgotten is that the outfitters are an un-resourced organization, so all their studies and work are done on their own. They’re just trying to save their outfitting lodges, and provide tourism opportunities and employment opportunities here in the North. As we all know, upwards of 75 percent or more of that actual caribou meat is given back to the people who need it. There are a lot of plusses in this matrix of opportunity here.
Back to the point, which is, is that something that your department could investigate and see if you could help support and provide information to the board to allow them to make their final decision?
Before we leapfrog to the outfitters, we have to first sort out the resident harvest, which right now there is none, and what type of modest reinstatement could there be. Are we back to the stage, not only in addition to the resident harvest, but are we back to the stage of unrestricted Aboriginal harvest? If those two questions get answered in the affirmative, I would suggest to the Member, then, that yes, part of the discussion would be what else is possible in terms of trying to get harvesting back to its full status that it was prior to the various restrictions given the plummeting numbers of the various herds.
I would disagree with one area: that we may never be back to full harvesting status. I’m not sure what that would look like, nor am I in the business to understand fully what that looks like. It could look like a combination of things and that’s why I’m asking about what support the Minister can offer in looking at this perspective from the outfitter point of view of keeping their lodges open.
I’m not going to ask him, and I know he won’t answer by saying how many tags are you prepared to offer today. We have to look at science; I agree with that point. We have to reinstate Aboriginal First Nation unrestricted hunting. I support that. I certainly can’t disagree with resident hunters being looked at in succession to those things. I just see that the missed opportunity here, as the herd grows, is that the outfitters might be ignored. It’s the balance of asking from their perspective of when is the government ready to get behind them.
We are intending to go back this spring to see if we can harden up the estimates of the Bluenose-East. At this point we have to work with the processes that are there. We have to err on the side of not overdoing the harvest.
The folks, the various boards and ourselves will look at all of the information that we currently have. In fact, we are going back in the spring to try and harden up those numbers. Collectively, we’ll work with the various boards to come up with their best recommendations and we’ll look at that. We can’t just manufacture herd numbers. They are what the science tells us, the counts tell us. If that changes in the spring and it’s a much bigger number, then clearly we’ll have more latitude. Right now we have some harvest restrictions all the way up and down the ladder. There’s voluntary harvest for Aboriginal subsistence harvest, no resident harvest, no commercial harvests or outfitters.
We would be as happy as everybody else would be in the North if the numbers of the herds rebounded to the point where there was absolutely no need to worry about looking to the future, other than managing ourselves so that we avoid similar circumstances that we are now in. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Hawkins, your time is up. We are moving on with questions. I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start with the Bathurst herd of caribou. As we all know, they have essentially been closed for just about three years. With the residential harvest being well below a few hundred for several years before that, I know many harvesters that quit hunting three or four years before the closure, as did I. Yet there’s been essentially no recovery and certainly not in the reproductive potential of this herd where there’s been no change in the number of females. I’m wondering if the Minister knows why and what additional measures are being taken this year to address this very serious and delicate situation of the severely depleted herd and one that happens to serve some of our major population centres.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll make some general comments and then I’ll ask the deputy, who is much more knowledgeable about this than I am. We had a herd that was in a precipitous decline, that if we had not have stepped in, in my humble opinion as Minister, would now have ceased to exist if we had just let hunting proceed. It’s been under significant trauma. I agree with the Member that there’s only been stabilized with a marginal increase probably within the margin of error that they have for these kind of counts.
Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I’ll ask the deputy to speak further to what some of the possible reasons or why the number of females, the cow/calf recruitment hasn’t really rebounded.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since the herds were declining circumpolar, they seem to line up with these long-term highs and lows. It’s been a struggle for everybody to pinpoint what exactly it is. So we continue to do work in areas such as predators, we continue to look at options on how to increase harvesting to predators such as wolves. We continue to do some work in that area, as well, on trying to determine what is being harvested by those animals, with some extra work and putting collars on them.
We continue to do the den site survey work with predators. I know we’re doing work with mines and others on grizzly bears. We’ve done some work, and I understand we continue to do work, on insects for an example, and, of course, climate change with weather, we continue to look at that as well.
Of course, we’re working with our partners, the traditional knowledge side of things as well. We continue to do some work there as well. But as far as pinpointing exactly what we think causes these long-term fluctuations, again, it’s been a struggle for everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chair, there are some great mysteries out there and there doesn’t seem to be anything else we can do. I am aware that we are permitting some harvest on this herd, despite this situation and failure to recover after three years of closure. I even have heard that those tags we do permit are not able to be fulfilled because of the small population and difficulty in finding these caribou. It’s, indeed, a grave situation. I know there’s certainly cultural loss happening amongst many cultures, perhaps all cultures of the Northwest Territories, as a result of this situation.
I agree with the Minister; they had to step in. I am just very disappointed that they didn’t step in much before this. It certainly wasn’t news to anybody. There was a trend over many, many surveys, as the Minister well knows, and the destruction that was going on along the winter road was obvious to many people. Yet we are allowing some harvests to continue because we are taking a responsible approach and we recognize a need out there.
However, let me contrast that with the Bluenose-East where, for three years now, we are in the third year now, where this population has been at, according to our survey information, near record numbers. Our policy, as I understand it, is there’s a 4 percent harvestable surplus of a herd especially once it reaches those kinds of numbers. That is 4,000 animals. We decided to permit, as a government, 2,400 with open harvest by Aboriginal people, as is correct given their special rights. Those people have been taking under 1,900 caribou. For years now, others who have been completely closed, no recognition that they have an interest either, completely closed out from this harvestable surplus.
I appreciate the Minister is finally going to move on this and encourage the board to look at it, but I just don’t get the sense that there is anybody speaking up for those without Aboriginal rights here. I’m wondering – the Minister wants the new numbers – are we going to set the standard before we get the new numbers or are we going to change it after we get the numbers. People are becoming suspect. I hope the Minister will consider those sorts of things.
I completely agree that conservation is first and foremost and I agree with order. We need to provide for Aboriginal rights. We need to provide for resident hunters. We need to provide for the sport harvest for outfitters. But here we have 4,000 surplus animals, according to government policy, and at least 2,100 of those are not being taken advantage of, or any portion thereof. Again, I think resident harvesters are talking pretty modest numbers to make people happy. We are talking opportunity, not necessarily animals.
Our outfitters, I understand that there are two of them that are in the area that biologists have told them they are taking Bluenose-East caribou primarily, perhaps almost exclusively. Those are the outfitters that I think we are completely concerned about in this case, because the Bathurst simply cannot take any more harvest. We know that. Whereas the Bluenose has sat there unharvested, despite demonstrable surplus. That is where we’d like the Minister to not just pose a question to the board but encourage the board to consider opportunity.
I’m sure the Minister is aware of these sorts of things. He says he needs to take some careful steps. I just wonder if there’s a double standard here. I’m all for careful steps, but I think we should have careful steps for everybody, and when we have a herd that’s up at 100,000 with a surplus of 4,000 according to our policy, and we’re harvesting under 1,900 of those with an open harvest for some of the people, there are some opportunities that I think we’re being irresponsible with.
So I’d appreciate some comments and assurances from the Minister on what we’re going to do to correct this situation, and I do agree with the suggestion to make these automatic, ideally before we go out and survey herds and can change our stance. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, the government, myself as Minister, my obligation is to all Northerners, recognizing our unique circumstances, structures and processes, which is why we have initiated the process to go to the boards to ask and suggest that there is now enough numbers that we know, and that there’s a need to reconsider and relook at the other restricted harvests, the resident harvests as a first step. I’ve indicated if the discussions are such that it leads to not only the resident harvest, but the suggestion that we can sustain at least for the outfitters in that area, that we’d return to that outfitters’ harvest and that recommendation comes back, we will absolutely look at that with great interest. As I’ve indicated to a previous answer, it’s very seldom in my history that I can recollect ever turning down recommendations from the boards that provide very well-thought-out, good advice.
So we do have a standard. We have a standard we’re trying to apply fairly and we will look at this. We’re pushing it so that we can have a decision made by the upcoming hunting season, the fall of 2013, and we’re not going to change the numbers. We’re basing it on the numbers we now know, which will give us a good starting point. We don’t want to sit and wait here until the spring because the weather doesn’t permit. We will have lost a number of months here that we need to actually do the work with the various boards. So we’re going to do that and the Member and I agree, and I’ve said this ever since I became involved with the Porcupine Caribou Board, the need for that same type of approach, I think, is critical in all these areas, especially where you have areas where there’s overlapping jurisdiction with boards. It would make life simpler and much clearer and cleaner for everybody in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, your time is up. If you’d like to go back on… Thank you. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the Minister’s comments. I hope that the boards are aware of the science that’s available on what is harvestable for the caribou in a conservative way, and that their decisions are based on that best information and, in fact, that they can be encouraged to make timely decisions when the evidence is clear.
I would like to ask a question with regard to the Wildlife Act. I know we’re still working at it and I’m hoping that it gets tabled soon. I do appreciate the Minister’s support. I believe he formed a committee he’s calling SWAAG, I believe it’s the Stakeholders Working Group. I’m not sure what the SWAAG stands for, but I believe they did get support to draft a report. They submitted that report some time ago. My understanding is that they still have not got a response. My further understanding is that they were assured that they would have the opportunity for an iterative back and forth approach as all other stakeholders have had an opportunity to get a response from the government and respond again to that response. So if the tabling of this act is imminent, obviously the opportunity is going to be very, very modest to non-existent here, and I guess my question is: Will the Minister assure that there is a good healthy opportunity for this group to finish their input to the Wildlife Act before its tabled in the House for our consideration? I am looking forward to that tabling. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The acronym SWAAG stands for Stakeholders Wildlife Act Advisory Group, there’s a double A in there that tends to throw people off.
They did provide a report and we’ve been looking at that work along with all the last-minute work that the working group has been taking care of. I just signed, this very day, the letter, the response to the report with, as well, a copy or a confidential draft copy of all the work that’s been done in terms of rewriting the legislation and I will be meeting next week with the board, sorry, with the advisory group, to talk about and go over the work that they did, the response that we’ve provided and the act as it has now been crafted. So that work, we’re just trying to conclude that. The intent is to bring it into the House for first and second reading, the Wildlife Act, early in March to give us a chance to conclude these final important meetings. Thank you.
That’s good that we’re finally getting a response back to this working group. Now, my experience is that there’s generally a 10-day mailing period if it’s mailed by the government when they say it’s mailed in Yellowknife to a group in Yellowknife, is that the sort of timeframe we’re looking at here?
The intent is to use the fastest means we have available, electronically probably, to get the information disseminated. Like I indicated, we’re sending out the work today with a plan to sit down I think mid-week or so next week to have a meeting with the SWAAG folks. So those are the timelines, keeping our eye on the calendar where we want to introduce this for first and second reading early in March so we can get it into the legislative process for committee before this session is concluded. Thank you.
Thanks for that comment. I hope the Minister does use the fastest way to get that information out there. These days it’s possible.
My last question has to do with bison, Mr. Chair. I know we’ve gone through, again, some serious kafuffles with the bison herd, the Mackenzie Bison herd. I know at one point we had opened harvest up to those with Aboriginal and treaty rights to shoot cows and calves and whatever they wanted along the road and so on, or even off the road, shortly before we had the anthrax issue and now we’ve got a decimated herd. I don’t believe there were any extraordinary harvest opportunities given to those without these sorts of rights. Of course, this is a new species of wildlife in much of the range that’s never been there before within our living memory and so on. Is that the sort of approach we can expect with these sorts of harvesting opportunities? I know I am responding to a lot of concern I’m hearing from constituents. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the anthrax outbreak, as the Member said, it came pretty close to decimating the herd. I mean, we cut it down significantly, as much as 40 percent. We didn’t find all the animals that were killed by anthrax, so there’s a total no harvesting ban. We are going to do a survey in March to see what the herd numbers tell us. These are a threatened species. This is a management area, so we have to look at keeping somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 1,000 animals, what’s considered acceptable for mammals like that as a healthy herd. We allowed tags, once we knew they were at that level or exceeded that.
Once again, as we go forward, they’ve had draws before in Providence and I would anticipate, once again, everything will depend on the herd health and what’s possible. Same criteria apply as it does for caribou for subsistence harvesting. So we’ll see what that work tells us in terms of the count. Then we’ll be able to have that discussion about what’s possible. Thank you.
I am all for being careful, very careful, when our herds decline like that. Perhaps the Minister can consider all people of the Northwest Territories who he does represent as the herd recovers – hopefully they will recover with our careful management – and consider increasing the opportunity for all people of the Northwest Territories that might be interested in harvesting bison. Not that there’s a lot of them but, as the Minister knows, the cost of living is high. We want people to be on the land, and tied to the land and recognizing value of the land, so they will fight for it when they need to and look after it. So I appreciate his commitment to fulfilling that representation for all people when making harvest decisions. Thank you.
I want to assure the Member again that I am very aware that I am a Minister for the territorial government representing all Northerners and we are charged with representing everybody. In this case, we have been working to do that, recognizing the circumstances.
I’d point out, in the South Slave, for example, we are taking the steps to reinstitute the bison harvest for non-Aboriginal people and we have other species where there are still tags available for moose and such. So when conservation issues come to bear and become a priority, we take the decisions necessary, hard as though they may be at times. I’ve been called a number of things, from what I can recollect over the last number of years. I’ve been called a conservative, racist, bigot. I’ve been called any number of things, but in this job you have to do the right thing. I’m very committed to representing all Northerners. I was Health Minister for five and a half years and I can assure you we have some of the best systems in place for all Northerners. I take this job very, very seriously, as I do the requirement, my obligation, my fundamental, absolute obligation of representing everybody fairly. Thank you.
Committee, we are on page 13-25, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, operations expenditure summary, $15.286 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 13-26, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, wildlife, grants and contributions, contributions, $973,000.
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 13-27, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, wildlife, active positions. Any questions?
Agreed.
Seeing none, page 13-28 and 13-29, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, land and water, operations expenditure summary, $5.752 million.
Agreed.
Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions here. The first has to do with municipal wastewater and federal regulations which seem to be downloaded, so to speak, to municipalities. I’m not sure; I presume, since this is water, I can discuss this here. My concern has to do with the need for communities to adhere to regulations or whatever has been imposed upon them by the federal government. I’d like to know from the Minister whether or not there is an agreement between the NWT and the federal government to require all NWT municipalities to adhere to the new and updated regulations regarding municipal wastewater. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The regulations are, in fact, guidelines that the Member is referring to. There has been a lot of discussion around the FPT table with Environment Ministers. They are looking, especially in the North, at some of the challenges that those guidelines could have. The federal government has told us clearly that they’re working on the guidelines, but don’t expect any more money than you already have through the various funding sources that are already there. There is a huge concern by all jurisdictions that there could be significant costs attached to whatever is agreed to. So it’s being looked at very carefully. At the same time, people are working towards it and we want to make sure we can reassure people, and people know that they have proper drinking water, and we do the right things when it comes to treating water and releasing it back into the environment. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister for that response and for correcting me. Thank you. I recognize they are guidelines, but they seem to be… The impression I get is, yes, they are guidelines, but you’d better adhere to them. I’m glad to hear that this is a concern across the country. I think particularly for some of our smaller communities and some of our more northern communities, it’s going to be a lot harder for them to adhere to these guidelines.
Does the government have any policy in terms of assisting communities to improve their systems or wastewater systems to match the guidelines the government is putting forward? I heard the Minister say there’s no money from the federal government, but do we as a territorial government maybe recognize that municipalities can’t handle these things on their own, and do we have any policy to financially assist municipalities trying to upgrade their wastewater systems? Thank you.
That would be a question best posed in due course to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. We have assistance to communities for water and waste treatment. We have subsidy programs. At the same time, we also do have standards. They aren’t just all guidelines. We have Health departments involved. We have concern as a government. We want to be involved basically from the headwaters, which is why we’re negotiating transboundary water agreements to the tap so when people turn on the tap, they can do so in comfort and confidence that the water meets the best Canadian standards. So that assistance is available to communities, but I don’t have that information available here in this budget that’s before us.
Thanks to the Minister for that. My other question has to do with our Protected Areas Strategy. It’s been moving along. We’ve been adding sites and approving sites over time. I wondered if the Minister could indicate, first of all, the number of protected area sites. I guess I want to know between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Have we approved, has there been a trend, a downward trend or an upward trend, I guess is what I’m trying to say, in the number of protected areas and number of sites that we’ve added to our strategy?
The Protected Areas Strategy is one that’s under review with both ourselves and the federal government. There are currently six candidate areas that we’re looking at that have reached, I think it’s about step five or so of an eight step process, consolidating all of the information. As we move towards devolution, the issue of how do we manage this is becoming more critical.
We’re pulling together all of the work and reports and recommendations. There are national wildlife areas that are being proposed. In some cases we have a major area, Edehzhie in the Deh Cho that has been under discussion now for some time. We are, we believe, very, very close, if not in agreement with all parties on that particular site. There are five other ones that are under discussion and review. We’re working with the federal government, who has some money in their base, to deal with those particular areas. What’s the best way to proceed which gets us, if I may, back up to a higher level here?
One of the things in the Deh Cho, for example, that we want to look and focus on, is coming to grips with the land use plan. The land use plan will set the plan for the region and will help inform what the best way to proceed with those various sites that have now been nominated. We need that plan so that we’re clear that we’re not just doing protected areas strategies and over here we’re going to have some development, we think we’re going to have a park over here. We have to get our thinking clear.
Then if I can back up one more step, the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that we’re doing as a government is providing us with a frame to be able to approach with clear thinking, and clear policies and guidelines on how we approach the table for land use planning. It also captures the economic strategy that Mr. Ramsay is talking about, the Mineral Resource Strategy that he’s talking about. Even the Water Strategy fits under that broad Land Use Sustainability Framework.
The protected area is one piece and we’re going to get to that and deal with it in due course. We have to get some of these other pieces sorted out and clarified so that we make the best informed decision possible.
Thanks to the Minister for that comprehensive answer. I didn’t really hear whether or not the number of our protected areas sites has gone up or down over the last little while. I gather that if there’s a review happening, we’re not adding any more protected areas sites. Is that correct?
Yes, at this point we’re consolidating and examining what the best tools are, and we’re also very interested in using northern tools in addition to strictly relying on the federal government who will soon be vacating the field anyways through devolution.
