Long overdue. The lack of data hampers knowing what, if any, policy response is needed:
British Columbia will require home buyers to disclose their citizenship to help the government monitor foreign ownership and address a housing boom that has made Vancouver one of the least affordable cities in the world.
Proposed changes to the property transfer tax will enable the government to collect information on property buyers, including their citizenship status and whether they hold the property as bare trustees. Bare trusts are typically used for real-estate assets and pass taxes and benefits directly to the beneficiary.
“We think it’s time to start collecting again,” Finance Minister Michael de Jong said in a briefing in Victoria. “At least we’ll be in a position to aggregate the information and provide data for the public discussion.”
The measures are meant to provide more transparency in the country’s hottest real-estate market. Prices in Vancouver are the highest in Canada, topping C$1.3 million ($940 million) for a detached home in January, a 28 percent rise over the prior year, according to that city’s real estate board, with sales up 32 percent in that period.
More transparency is not meant to slow investment from abroad, de Jong said. The province will continue to spend taxpayer money to promote the province as an investment destination.
Jennifer Wells on the need to legislate diversity in the boardroom (because it’s 2016?):
German Justice Minister Heiko Maas offered a more vibrant take, declaring the legislation “the greatest contribution to gender equality since women got the vote.” In other words, the greatest contribution in 100 years.
Here’s the message: when companies won’t budge, legislate.
Here’s the underlying message: left to their own devices, companies won’t budge.
Germany’s experience is not unique. Of course it isn’t. Watch as jurisdictions introduce voluntary quotas. Observe the snail’s pace of change across a decade or two.
Observe Ontario. Nine months after securities regulators, including the Ontario Securities Commission, adopted their so-called “comply or explain” policy, a toothless bit of silliness if ever there was one, fully 65 per cent of TSX issuers sampled reported that they had not adopted a policy aimed at identifying and nominating women directors.
Let me amend that: it’s not that those issuers had yet to adopt the recommended policy, but that they had made the decision not to adopt.
We are in the dark ages.
In 2002, women in Norway comprised six per cent of the country’s board members. The government of the day initially took the voluntary approach, appealing to publicly listed companies to up their game. That didn’t happen. The solution: amendments to company law. New rules, introduced in 2006, demanded that boards of publicly listed companies be comprised of at least 40 per cent women. That did happen.
France took a two-stage approach, giving publicly listed companies until 2014 to reach 20 per cent representation. As of next year, the requirement jumps to 40 per cent.
Iceland (40 per cent). Spain (40 per cent). Finland (40 per cent). There are too many examples to be documented here.
Some quota skeptics have been brought on board, including an initially resistant Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund.
One of the arguments against quotas is that board parity, or a move toward parity, hasn’t thus far equated in the research to a significantly higher number of women in top management. Women CEOs remain as scarce as hen’s teeth.
Yet it has been demonstrated, most recently in a report this week by the Washington-based Petersen Institute for International Economics, that the representation of women in the C-suite correlates to improved corporate profitability. “For profitable firms, a move from no female leaders to 30 per cent representation is associated with a 15 per cent increase in net revenue margin,” the authors found. (The report was based on a survey of 22,000 firms across 91 countries, albeit it was a single-year snapshot.)
The researchers qualified their analysis as possibly too crude — their words — to discern the significant positive effects of board quotas. But they did cite a correlation between the presence of women on boards and the presence of women in executive ranks. “If increased gender diversity in corporate leadership contributes to firm performance, if quotas have negligible costs, and if the presence of women in the C-suite enhances the pipeline effect by encouraging more women to pursue these positions, as is often claimed, then some kind of quota system may warrant consideration.”
What we do know is that any expectations that boards will organically reshape themselves into balanced assemblies of men and women have not, and will not, be met.
In June 2014, Kellie Leitch, then Canada’s minister for the status of women, announced that a reasonable national goal was to “aspire” to 30 per cent representation on boards by 2019. The result: inertia.
I find “aspire” to be a very genderized word. Like “upset.”
Let’s choose instead “anger” and a need to “force” a dynamic outcome.
Quotas are the way forward. We can discuss a range of sanctions for failure to conform, from empty board seats (I agree) to, as in Norway, threatened dissolution for non-compliant companies (a step too far).
A chorus of voices will no doubt rise in opposition here, citing the argument that directors should be chosen on merit. Excellent idea. Move to parity and you just might find that future members are indeed chosen on merit and merit alone.
It has been called “one of the most important blocks of black history in Toronto,” a place where African Americans, fleeing slavery, found refuge to live, work and worship.
On this tract of land, just north of Osgoode Hall, a handful of African Methodists built a small wood frame church in 1845. It served as the spiritual and political centre of the city’s growing black community, which was asserting its voice in the abolitionist movement and welcoming an influx of families seeking freedom via the Underground Railroad.
Eventually, the congregation outgrew the tiny church and replaced it with a handsome brick temple. But after more than a century, membership dwindled, the congregation moved and the temple was sold off. In the late 1980s, the building was demolished to make way for a parking lot and, until last fall, the church was largely forgotten.
Now, with that same lot being prepared for the development of a new state-of-the-art provincial courthouse, the rich history of Chestnut St.’s British Methodist Episcopal Church has resurfaced, along with that of the 19th-century neighbourhood surrounding it.
J.V. SALMON
The British Methodist Episcopal church on Chestnut St. as seen in 1953, around the time the dwindling congregation moved to Shaw St.
Hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered at the 0.65-hectare site — larger than a football field — near University Ave. and Dundas St. Infrastructure Ontario, the government agency overseeing construction, provided the Toronto Star with unique access to the five-month dig, considered one of the most extensive urban archeological projects in North America.
Unearthed ceramics, tools, toys and remnants of clothing are helping to compose a fascinating and largely untold story of the distant origins of Toronto’s diversity.
“Archeology often becomes the voice for the people without history,” says Holly Martelle, the consulting archeologist for the dig.
Rosemary Sadlier, past president of the Ontario Black History Society, visited the site before the excavation wrapped up in December. “It was an incredibly powerful experience,” recalls Sadlier, whose late relative, Rev. Thomas Jackson, served as a preacher at the church in the 1950s. “I was literally walking on ground that had been walked on by my ancestors.”
Karolyn Smardz Frost, a historian who has written extensively about black settlement in Toronto, describes the location as “one of the most important blocks of black history in Toronto.”
Infrastructure Ontario officials say they fully recognize the importance of the church site and its surroundings. Given the uniqueness of the archeological discoveries, the question now facing the provincial government is how will this history be commemorated, and what sort of stewardship will the artifacts require?
No real surprise here that Canada is not exempt from this trend of some women living in the West, hard as it is to understand why, both objectively and from their families’ perspective.
These studies are helpful to highlight this (fortunately small) trend, and more important, inform counter-extremism strategies:
Canadian women are helping to grow the so-called Islamic State.
According to researchers at the University of Waterloo, three Canadian women have given birth to children of ISIS fighters, while another two are pregnant. The new details are part of a larger study following foreign fighters who flee to Syria and Iraq. The women travelled separately over the past two years, leaving their families back home devastated.
“They’re quite worried about what is going to happen to their daughter, but also their grandchild,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, a co-lead author of the study. “For most of the parents, I think there’s kind of a double reaction. First they’re kind of happy a grandchild is involved, but at the same time, they’re quite devastated that a child was born into a war zone, to somebody they’ve never met.”
Amarasingam said the women are between the ages of 19 and 22, and are from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Families agreed to speak to the research team with the promise that specific personal details would be kept confidential. “Because there are so few Canadian women that have gone over, it will be quite obvious… who they are, if I talk (specifically) about where they are from.”
The researcher also said the challenges these women face are quite obvious. Although they have a place to live, it is difficult to find basic supplies like clothing and diapers. Some of the families back in Canada are keen to help their daughters, but are afraid of the legal consequences.
“If you were to send diapers to Syria, I don’t know if that contributes to real support of a terrorist organization, but it does rest on very shaky legal ground, in terms of what you’re allowed to send to a place like Raqqa,” said Amarasingam.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said this is “obviously a very disturbing development,” and recommitted to opening a national counter-radicalization office.
“We will be moving forward shortly, as rapidly as we can, on the creation of this new office for community outreach and counter radicalization,” said Goodale.
“I’m concerned with every dimension about this type of problem, it runs contrary to everything Canada stands for, in terms of values in the world,” he added.
The creation of a new office was part of a mandate letter from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the public safety minister late last year. The Liberals aren’t saying yet if funding for the office will be included in the upcoming budget, but there are signs this program will be a priority.
Amarasingam said the challenges these women face become more complex because of their age. “These girls are very young,” he added, “they don’t have much experience in how to raise children, but they’re also raising these children under circumstances many others don’t have to worry about.”
Interesting wrinkle and will be interesting to see how it is resolved:
As the Toronto office of Lifeline Syria scrambles to accommodate thousands of refugees, the question the charity’s chair Ratna Omidvar and her team hears most often is: “Can I get a tax receipt?”
In many cases, the answer is no.
Canada has so far welcomed more than 13,500 refugees since the Liberal government’s program began last November. Of that total, close to 5,000 have been supported by private sponsors.
Refugee support initiatives such as Lifeline Syria say allowing donors to receive a tax receipt when they are donating to a registered charity and suggesting a particular family to receive support would encourage more donations, ease the government’s burden and make integration easier. Currently, charities can issue tax receipts to donors who indicate they’d like their donation applied to a specific area of interest, such as refugees, but not when the donation is directed to a particular family.
“The more Canadians step up and promote charities, the less the government is going to have to do these things,” says Estelle Duez, a tax lawyer at LaBarge Weinstein in Ottawa.
“As Canadians, we are used to the notion that when we make a charitable donation, (we) will get some kind of tax relief,” says Paul Clarke, executive director of Action Réfugiés Montréal. He says despite the extraordinary support Canadians have shown for Syrian refugees to date, questions around tax deductibility dissuade some people from sponsorship.
Mark Blumberg, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in non-profit and charity law, says the Canada Revenue Agency could make donating and sponsoring easier by clarifying the rules. Although money given to a registered refugee charity is normally tax deductible, Blumberg says the situation becomes more tricky when a donor instructs the money should go to a specific person or family, sometimes referred to as a “general direction” or “directed gift.”
The CRA’s position is that “All decisions regarding use of the donation must rest with the charity.” In other words: it cannot issue a tax receipt if a donor wants the charity to give the funds to a specified person or family, because “such a gift is made to the person or family and not to the charity.”
Exceptions add to the confusion. For example, a “general direction” to use the gift for a “particular program” is acceptable, provided “no benefit accrues to the donor” and the gift “does not benefit any person not dealing at arms’ length with the donor.”
If the CRA provided greater leeway, “there’d be more people making donations,” says Blumberg. He cites the partial receipting of tuition costs at religious day schools.
Good overview by Kathryn May of the demographics of the public service and recruitment challenge:
Knowing the talent pool of the public service will need to be renewed to push forward its agenda, the Liberal government is trying to figure out how to attract more young people to a sector where the average age of a new hire is pushing 40.
The rising age of new recruits was flagged for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is also the minister of youth, as an “area in need of increased attention.”
According to Privy Council Office briefing documents, the average age of new hires has hit 37, and few young people are being hired. Once hired, however, people stay in the public service until they retire at about age 60.
“Sustained efforts are needed to recruit young people and to attract highly skilled professionals from other sectors, especially those with the skill sets needed for the future work of the public service,” say the briefing documents.
The average age of entry into the public service has been creeping up, rather than decreasing, as more and more jobs require university degrees. A decade ago, the average age of a new hire was 36 — 35 for women and 36 for men.
The public service is an older workforce compared with the private sector. It emerged out of the restraints of the Conservative era smaller and slightly older. Today, it is largely middle-aged, with more than 60 per cent of the employees between 35 and 54, and the largest concentration huddled between 40 and 54.
Over the past five years, the number of bureaucrats under 35 decreased and those over 50 increased. The average age is now 45, and more than half have worked in the public service between five and 14 years.
It’s an issue Treasury Board President Scott Brison quickly seized upon when he made a pitch last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos to the millennial generation — those under 35 — to work in government.
In an interview, Brison signalled he is reviewing how to tackle the problem to give millennials the “chance to make a difference in the future of the country.
“The complexity of decisions today is greater than it has ever been in the history of government or democracy, and now more than ever at any point in our history we need bright, talented people in government,” he said.
“And we also have the most talented, most educated, and most globally connected generation. So it seems pretty obvious to me that we need to find ways to bring millennials into these key decision-making roles in government.”
The public service never has a problem attracting people, especially when the economy slows. The big challenges are getting people with the right skills and keeping them. Young people tend to see the public service as a slow, rules-bound hierarchy with little tolerance for risk or creativity. It has countered with campaigns over the years, including one branding itself as the “employer of a thousand opportunities.”
But Brison said the image of the public service took a major beating under the Conservatives, which mistrusted public servants and “gratuitously took pot shots at public servants whenever they had the chance”
“They toxified relations with the public which was incredibly stupid given governments need the engagement of public servants to implement their agenda … We have a progressive agenda and need a motivated public service. We recognize the importance of renewing talent.”
Linda Duxbury, professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, said Brison has every reason to be worried. After a decade of being “beaten down by the Conservatives the word public service has a bad connotation.”
The big attraction, she said, for many workers in their 30s is not the work as much as job security, pensions and benefits — reinforcing a long-standing characterization of public servants who join for the benefits and stay for the pensions.
But Duxbury said the problem is that employees attracted by such “extrinsic motivators” don’t tend to be the entrepreneurial, creative thinkers and innovators the government wants to shake up the way work is done and services are delivered.
“I would like to see what is attracting them to the public service at age 37,” said Duxbury. “This isn’t just an age issue but who is attracted by what you have to offer, and if what you have to offer are extrinsic motivators like a good pension and benefits, those may not be the people you want.”
The Public Service Commission in its 2013-14 report noted the number and proportion of employees under age 35 had declined four years in a row, even though the number of new hires from this group increased. At last count, they represent 17 per cent of all permanent employees after peaking at 21.4 per cent in 2010.
At the same time, the number of people leaving or retiring outnumbered those coming into the public service. The commission warned this gap could have “implications for the renewal and future composition of the public service.”
By the Numbers: Composition of the Public Service
37: average age of new hires
45: average age of public servants
50.4: average age of executives
50: percentage with 5 to 14 years experience
22: percentage with 15 to 25 years experience
58: average retirement age
36: percentage of baby boomers in public service workforce
21: percentage of millennials in the public service
257,000: number of employees in public service
87: percentage of employees who are permanent or indeterminate employees
13: percentage of employees who are term, casual and student employees
55: percentage of employees who are women
42: percentage of public servants working in National Capital Region
Sharp contrast to some of those opposed to the new Ontario sex education curriculum and their fears that it undermined parent values, as well as a good example of school-parent relationships:
It took one complaint from a parent “as a Christian” to undo all Andrew Moffat’s work teaching children respect for people of different sexual orientation. A meeting of 40 parents followed with calls for an apology and the removal of books he had used in lessons.
Above all, the parents objected that he had told children he was gay. Moffat felt he could no longer continue and resigned. Far from retreating to a safe haven, however, he crossed Birmingham to take up an even greater challenge: assistant headteacher at Parkfield Community school, where 98.9% of pupils are from Muslim families.
The award-winning school is in the heart of a devout area where three inquiries have been held into the alleged “Trojan horse” plot by hardline Muslim governors to take over state schools, though Parkfield was not affected.
That was two years ago. With the backing of Hazel Pulley, the headteacher, Moffat went on to introduce a No Outsiders policy promoting diversity at the 770-pupil school, where 23 nationalities are represented. That includes welcoming people of any race, colour or religion and those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
A gay teacher teaching gay rights to pupils from a faith that believes homosexuality is a sin, punishable by death in some countries? It doesn’t seem possible and yet the school’s Muslim parents appear to have accepted that children can be taught about Britain’s anti-discrimination laws without undermining their religious beliefs. Learning from his unhappy experience at his previous school, Moffat has been careful to centre the policy around the Equality Act 2010, to first gain the support of the governing body, and to keep parents fully informed, inviting them in to see the books that would be used.
Moffat felt he had no alternative but to leave his previous school: “I knew I was letting down any pupil who might in years to come identify as LGBT and remember what had happened to me – if you ‘come out’ you risk a backlash and having to disappear. I was worried about that but in the end I decided that leaving was right for me and the school.
“It was a very difficult time and I was quite damaged by the experience. However, it gave me the opportunity to pick myself up and start again, learning from mistakes. There was no point in going to an area where it would be an easy task. I had to go where I might meet the same challenges in order to find a different way to meet them. I was determined to make LGBT equality a reality in any community. I could not afford to get it wrong a second time.”
Pulley says she appointed Moffat because she already knew of his work, in particular on improving pupil behaviour and on diversity. “I thought his approach was admirable. We already had similar work going on at school but we needed someone to lead it and give all the staff confidence,” she says.
It is possible to teach the law against discrimination in Britain without undermining any religious faith, she says: “Everyone knows we respect Islam here. One parent asked if he could not contradict what the school said. I told him that whatever parents said in the home was their decision but it’s lovely that the children will hear both views.”
The good relationship between governors, teachers and parents has helped, she says, and the fact parents have confidence in the school’s high standards – 97% of 11-year-olds reached or exceeded the expected standard for their age in both maths and English last year.
Last week parents, collecting their children before taking them to madrasas, the religious classes, spoke of their support. The school is “shedding light” on the minds of children, said one mother. Parents’ initial response had been “How dare they? How can the government make this law?” But their anger had abated once they learned more about the approach, they said.
“If they don’t learn about gay, lesbian and transgender people in society from school they will learn it from the outside world and they could hear things like ‘that’s disgusting’. I don’t want that,” said another. “I agree,” said a third. “I’d rather my children hear it at school. When they are at home we teach them that in our culture gay is not allowed but we respect people who are different from us and hope they too will respect us and the boundaries of our religion.”
The parent of a 10-year-old admitted her views differed from her husband’s: “My husband is a strict Muslim and my son asked him about the difference between what the school says and our religion. He did not give him a good reply. My reply was that God has created us and he is the only one who can judge us. I have told my son that it wouldn’t matter if he came home to me and said he was gay, you are my son and I will love you no matter what.”
More on the changes to the US Visa Waiver program and their impact on Iranian dual nationals living in Europe (and Canada) and, should European countries apply reciprocal treatment, on Iranian Americans. The US administration has signalled it will not implement this measure (Congress Just Put Iranian-Americans and Others At Risk for Becoming Second-Class Citizens):
This legislation altered the Visa Waiver Program to exclude any foreigner who is a citizen of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, as well as any foreigner who has visited any of those countries since 2011. The single exception is if the foreign national was in one of those countries to perform military or official government service for a country included in the Visa Waiver Program.
Not only is this law discriminatory and unreasonable as a method of safeguarding national security, but the inclusion of Iran on the list of prohibited ethnicities to have and countries to have visited begs the question, why was it included?
While the US government has designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, there has been no terrorist threat posed by the hundreds of thousands of citizens of Visa Waiver Program countries who also have Iranian citizenship. Similarly, there has been no terrorist threat posed by the thousands of tourists from the Visa Waiver Program countries who travel to Iran each year. It is difficult to come up with a rational argument for the inclusion of Iran; it is far more reasonable to conclude that it was added for no other reason than to undermine the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which has ushered in an era of re-engagement between the United States and Iran.
Regardless of the motives behind including Iran, it is easy to imagine countless scenarios in which these new exclusions would play out in absurd and irrational ways to affect the large Iranian diaspora in the countries included in the Visa Waiver Program.
Here are just a few: A British citizen born in London to British parents – and never having set foot in Iran – can still travel to the United States visa-free. But if the Briton was born in London to an Iranian father – despite never having set foot in Iran – the exclusion would apply, since Iranian nationality is inherited by birth. Or, let’s say a British citizen travelled to Iran since 2011, but only to provide medical assistance or humanitarian aid; the exclusion would also apply here.
Many Iranian-European dual nationals who routinely travel between Europe and the United States have already suffered the humiliation of being treated differently by the United States than their Europeans counterparts fortunate enough to have the right birthplace or bloodline.
Dr. Amin Shokrollahi – a German mathematician, computer scientist, and professor at Switzerland’s École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne – was scheduled to travel to the United States to deliver an address on low-energy-consumption technology at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference in California. But because he also has Iranian citizenship, the US government revoked his authorization to travel visa-free through the Visa Waiver Program. Due to the length of time it would take to process Dr. Shokrollahi’s visa application under the new restrictions, he was unable to attend the conference.
Rana Rahimpour – a British journalist working for the BBC in Britain – was also prevented from travelling to the United States after her request for authorization to travel visa-free was denied because she also has Iranian citizenship. Ms. Rahimpour had planned to surprise her brother and his family in New Jersey for her nephew’s birthday.
By implementing legislation that creates barriers of entry to the United States based on national origin, the US government has put its own citizens at risk of similar discriminatory treatment overseas. Reciprocity was built into the Visa Waiver Program; that is to say, because the United States allowed German citizens to travel to the United States visa-free, Germany allowed American citizens to travel to Germany visa-free.
However, now that the US government has amended the Visa Waiver Program to create a category of second-class German citizens, Germany could respond in kind. In fact, just before Congress passed the new visa restrictions, the US-based ambassadors of the 28 European Union member States, 23 of which participate in the Visa Waiver Program, published an open letter warning that the “indiscriminate action against the more than 13 million European citizens who travel to the U.S. each year . . . could trigger legally-mandated reciprocal measures.”
The Iranian-American community, as the largest dual national population in the United States affected by the changes to the Visa Waiver Program, has much cause for alarm. Many proud, accomplished Americans have already expressed their fear of discriminatory treatment on the basis of their Iranian heritage if Europe were to impose reciprocal visa restrictions. And bipartisan House members have introduced a bill to remove the discriminatory “dual national” restrictions from the Visa Waiver Program with the express purpose of protecting Americans. According to Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), one of the bill’s sponsors, “the recently enacted visa law could harm countless Americans – even United States-born citizens – who have limited or indirect connections to countries of concern. It’s not okay to subject Americans to different standards for travel on the basis of ancestry.”
If there is one thing that we should all be able to agree on, it is that the US government has an obligation to protect its citizens. That obligation includes exercising sound judgment and foresight, and should unquestionably preclude imposing discriminatory and harmful restrictions on a multi-national program predicated on the principle of reciprocity. All Americans should be deeply disturbed by the prospect that our government would make a decision that could have such detrimental consequences for US citizens. The US government must act swiftly to repeal the discriminatory travel restrictions against foreign nationals, before our own citizens are subjected to the same second-class treatment overseas.
Between xenophobia and xenophilia, a solution to Europe’s cultural wars lies in facing up to a few uncomfortable home truths first. Some of the right’s critique of immigration is correct. Some of the left’s concern with hosting refugees is correct. Some of the Muslim concern with racism and bigotry is correct. But the old world models of Populism, multiculturalism and Islamism—of divisive identity politics—are not the answer. They cannot be the answer. They are tearing us apart.
Candor, consistency, leadership and integrity are the only ways to cut a liberal, secular and humane path through this polarized political mosaic. As the left-of -center columnist Nick Cohen has noted, making a distinction between economic migrants and genuine refugees would be a start. But the debate must go further.
The mass sex attacks in Cologne over New Year highlighted that even after striking a middle ground on a sensible migration policy, once refugees are in Europe there is little excuse for neglecting a policy that focuses on integration and language skills. New arrivals must adapt to the liberal culture they have sought to make their own.
The Populist Right, Islamists, and the Regressive Left share a bigotry: they insist that Muslims, Islam and Islamism are one and the same. They either attack, or defend all three as one and the same thing. Simple minds require a simple world. Simple right-wingers need Islam to be the only evil. Simple Muslims need Islam to be the only true faith. Simple left-wingers need Muslims to be the only victims.
In between these simplifications, intelligent debate is lost. Liberalism provides freedom of religion and from religion. Free speech allows for the advocacy of ideas like Islamist theocracy, but it also means that others can advocate their own ideas, in the form of cartoons. Bigotry can exist against minorities and also by minorities.
Human rights is a double-edged sword of justice. It works both for and against people, including for and against minorities. We should be able to hold two thoughts at the same time. And to those vested in dividing our communities along narrow identity lines, a plague on all your houses.
