STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER G. NORMAND GLAUDE

MARCH 31, 2008  

(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)  

RETURNING FROM THE MARCH BREAK, WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA AHEAD OF US OVER THE SPRING MONTHS. TODAY, I WILL ADDRESS SEVERAL MATTERS IN BOTH PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR TODAY.  

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO SPEAK TO A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL MADE IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR  TO GIVE CONTEXT FOR MY COMMENTS, I WILL OUTLINE ONLY BRIEFLY THE BACKGROUND OF THIS DECISION.  

IN 1993, A TEENAGE GIRL THEN 16 YEARS OLD, WHO IS REFERRED TO AS C-12 TO PROTECT HER PRIVACY, REPORTED TO THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE IN ALEXANDRIA THAT SHE HAD BEEN  - 2 - SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY TWO TEENAGE BOYS WHO WERE 16 AND 17 YEARS OLD.  

COMMISSION COUNSEL PROPOSED TO CALL THE EVIDENCE OF C-12 AND HER MOTHER, C-13, IN THE SPRING OF 2007. THERE WAS OBJECTION BY THE OPP. ON JUNE 6, 2007, I RULED THAT I HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE OF C-12 AND C-13.  

THE OPP APPEALED MY DECISION TO THE DIVISIONAL COURT. THAT COURT AGREED, IN SEPTEMBER 2007, THAT IN DECIDING TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF C-12, I HAD NOT ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE MANDATE OF THIS INQUIRY AND THAT IT WAS OPEN TO ME TO FIND THIS EVIDENCE REASONABLY RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS INQUIRY.  

THIS DECISION WAS FURTHER APPEALED BY THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE, JOINED BY THE OPPA, THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, AND THE CORNWALL COMMUNITY POLICE SERVICE. THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO INTERVENED.  

IN ITS DECISION OF JANUARY 18, 2008, THE COURT OF APPEAL INDICATED THAT CONSIDERATION OF THIS TESTIMONY WAS OUTSIDE MY MANDATE.

- 3 - 

I REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ITS REASONS. IN ADDITION, SEVERAL PARTIES ASKED ME TO CONSIDER THE COURT’S DECISION AND ITS IMPACT ON EVIDENCE I HAD ALREADY HEARD, AS WELL AS ON CERTAIN EVIDENCE COMMISSION COUNSEL INDICATED THEY WISHED TO CALL. THE OUTCOME OF THAT PROCESS WAS MY RULING OF FEBRUARY 28, 2008.  

I FOUND THAT, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, THE EVIDENCE ALREADY HEARD OR PROPOSED TO BE ADDRESSED FELL WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK GIVEN BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT NO PARTY IS APPEALING MY RULING.  

TAKING ALL THIS INTO ACCOUNT, I HAD A FURTHER DECISION TO MAKE: WHETHER OR NOT TO APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.  

AFTER SOME CONSIDERATION, I DIRECTED MY COUNSEL NOT TO APPEAL THE DECISION. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE SERVED BY CONTINUED UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE LEADING OF THIS EVIDENCE – AND THE POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER DELAY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MOVE ON WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TESTIMONY THAT HAS ALREADY STARTED.  

- 4 - 

I DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE GUIDANCE GIVEN TO ME BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO THE DECISIONS OF OUR COURTS AND SO I WILL CONTINUE TO DILIGENTLY DIRECT THE FOCUS OF OUR WORK, IN THE WORDS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, TO “THE IMPORTANT WORK THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD ASSIGNED TO THE COMMISSIONER.”  

HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE YOUNG WOMAN AND HER MOTHER WHO PREPARED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS INQUIRY BUT NOW WILL NOT TESTIFY.  

I REGRET THE LONG PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY, AS DECISIONS WERE MADE, APPEALED AND APPEALED AGAIN. ON A HUMAN LEVEL, WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND THAT IT MUST BE DIFFICULT TO PREPARE TO TESTIFY AND THEN HAVE TO WAIT AND NOT KNOW THE OUTCOME FOR MANY MONTHS. AND IT MUST ALSO BE DIFFICULT TO READ OF PERSONAL MATTERS IN THE CONTEXT OF DEBATES OVER LEGAL JURISDICTION. CLARIFYING THE LAW OF JURISDICTION IS A NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT PART OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT EASY FOR THOSE INVOLVED IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY. PLEASE ACCEPT MY THANKS FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO TESTIFY AND GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE CHANGE.  

- 5 - 

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, TO THIS DAY, DESPITE BEING SUMMONSED, PERRY DUNLOP HAS DECIDED NOT TO TESTIFY AT THIS INQUIRY. GIVEN HIS DECISION, I WILL NOW DISCUSS THE POSSIBLE USE OF AN OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (ODE) IN RESPECT TO MR. PERRY DUNLOP. OF COURSE, THE BEST APPROACH TO RECEIVING EVIDENCE CONCERNING MR. DUNLOP IS TO HEAR IT IN PERSON. THIS PERMITS THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THE VOICE OF THE MAN TESTIFYING AND HIS RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS.  

SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF MR. DUNLOP’S TESTIMONY, WE MUST CONSIDER ALTERNATE METHODS OF BRINGING FORWARD EVIDENCE RELATED TO MR. DUNLOP, INCLUDING THE USE OF AN ODE OR SOME OTHER MEANS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON THE ISSUES ARISING IN THE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO HIM. SHOULD MR. DUNLOP DECIDE TO RETURN TO THIS INQUIRY TO TESTIFY, HE IS WELCOME TO DO SO. HIS ORAL TESTIMONY WOULD BE A VALUABLE ELABORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD AND EVIDENCE GIVEN BY OTHERS. HIS RECOMMENDATIONS MAY BE HELPFUL TO THE INQUIRY.  

I UNDERSTAND THAT A DRAFT OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATED TO MR. DUNLOP HAS BEEN CIRCULATED TO ALL PARTIES. IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE THAT THE USE OF

- 6 -

SUCH A DOCUMENT BE ADDRESSED SOONER, RATHER THAN LATER, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE COMMENCED THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE EVIDENCE OF THE CORNWALL POLICE SERVICE.  

A FINAL MATTER I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS REGARDING PHASE I IS THE DATE ON WHICH WE EXPECT TO COMPLETE THE TESTIMONY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL WITNESSES. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PROJECTED THAT THE EVIDENCE IN PHASE I WOULD BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF JULY. HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF UNEXPECTED OCCURRENCES IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. THESE INCLUDE THE REFUSAL OF PERRY DUNLOP TO TESTIFY AND SUBSEQUENT CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE CANCELLATION OF HEARINGS FOR SNOWSTORMS AND DANGEROUS DRIVING CONDITIONS, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES AFTER THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WAS RENDERED, WITNESS ILLNESS AND PARTY SUBMISSIONS ON THE CONTENT OF THE FACTUAL OVERVIEW RELATED TO PROBATIONS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE RESULTED IN A NEED TO EXTEND OUR HEARING DATE BEYOND JULY. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE DESIRE OF THE PARTIES TO HAVE A SUMMER BREAK.  

WE PLAN TO CONTINUE THE HEARINGS UNTIL THE END OF JULY, ADJOURN AND RESUME IN AUGUST. THE LENGTH OF THE BREAK MAY DEPEND ON PROGRESS. THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS WILL  

- 7 - 

CONTINUE INTO THE FALL. THE HEARING SCHEDULE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS IS ORGANIZED TO USE AVAILABLE TIME EFFECTIVELY. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN POSSIBLE, TWO WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY ON THE SAME HEARING DAY. IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO ENSURE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE HEARING PROCESS IN THE REMAINING MONTHS OF THE INQUIRY, WE ALSO SEEK THE CONTINUED CO-OPERATION OF COUNSEL IN FOCUSING THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATIONS ON THEIR PARTY’S INTEREST AND REFRAINING FROM ASKING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CANVASSED IN DETAIL BY COMMISSION COUNSEL DURING THE EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OR BY ANOTHER PARTY IN CROSS-EXAMINATION. WITH THESE MEASURES, I AM CONFIDENT THAT AN ADDITIONAL TWO TO THREE MONTHS BEYOND JULY WILL BRING US TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PHASE 1 HEARINGS.  

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS PROGRESS RELATED TO PHASE 2 OF THIS INQUIRY.  

FIRST, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, A WINTER STORM IN EARLY MARCH MEANT THAT WE HAD TO RE-SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP ON A PHASE 2 PARTY RESEARCH PAPER ENTITLED “AN OMBUDSMAN FOR SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE”.  

- 8 - 

THAT WORKSHOP IS RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 22, 2008, AT THE BEST WESTERN PARKWAY INN & CONFERENCE CENTRE, STARTING AT 7:00 IN THE EVENING. I URGE YOU ALL TO ATTEND.  

AS WELL, I REMIND YOU THAT ON APRIL 15, 2008, WE HAVE AN EVENING MEETING AT THE CORNWALL CIVIC COMPLEX ON TECHNOLOGY AND CHILD EXPLOITATION. THIS EVENT IS PARTICULARLY DIRECTED AT PARENTS, TEACHERS AND ADULTS WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND YOUTH. IT WILL LOOK AT BOTH RISKS AND PREVENTION STRATEGIES. SURVIVORS OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE HAVE TOLD US OF THEIR HEARTFELT DESIRE TO REDUCE RISK OF ABUSE FOR A NEW GENERATION. THIS IS ONE OF THE EVENTS WE HAVE ORGANIZED THAT IS AIMED AT DOING THIS.  

NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A NEW ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT. PART OF PHASE 2 INVOLVES CREATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RESEARCH TO BE DONE TO SUPPORT IDEAS AND INITIATIVES THAT FOSTER HEALING AND RECONCILIATION. WE HAVE BEEN “ROLLING OUT” COMPLETED RESEARCH REPORTS OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, AND HAVE SCHEDULED RELATED WORKSHOPS.  

IN APPROVING RESEARCH PROJECTS, I HAVE CONTINUED TO “LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN” FOR COMMUNITY-BASED INITIATIVES

- 9 -

FROM CORNWALL. WHILE WE WERE NO LONGER CONSIDERING RESEARCH PROPOSALS FROM OUTSIDE CORNWALL, THE ADVISORY PANEL AND I THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE TO BE OPEN TO PROPOSALS FROM THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE ARE BASED. IN PARTICULAR, WE HAVE BEEN SEEKING PROPOSALS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING OF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS IN CORNWALL.  

I AM PLEASED TO TELL YOU THAT AN ADDITIONAL PHASE 2 ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL THAT MET THE CRITERIA AS A COMMUNITY BASED PROPOSAL AND HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR FUNDING.  

A GROUP CALLING THEMSELVES – FOR NOW – “SHELTER 2015” HAVE COME FORWARD TO DO THE RESEARCH RELATED TO UNDERSTANDING THE NEEDS AND BARRIERS FOR APPROPRIATELY SUPPORTED HOUSING FOR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE 16, 17, OR 18 AND IN NEED OF MORE STABLE HOUSING. THESE YOUNG PEOPLE CAN BE VULNERABLE TO ABUSE, AND IF THEY ALREADY HAVE A HISTORY OF ABUSE BUT NO SUPPORT, THEY MAY RESPOND IN SELF-DESTRUCTIVE WAYS. THE GROUP HOPES THAT FINDING WAYS TO INTERVENE EARLIER COULD PREVENT POSSIBLE HARM OR FURTHER HURT. THE GROUP ALSO WANTS TO LOOK AT OTHER POPULATIONS WHO MAY CURRENTLY BE HARD TO SERVE WITHIN  

- 10 - 

THE CORNWALL COMMUNITY; THIS INCLUDES ADULT OFFENDERS REQUIRING SOME DEGREE OF SUPERVISION.  

THOSE MAKING UP “SHELTER 2015” INCLUDE GLEN GRANT, A LONG-TIME SOCIAL SERVICE SUPERVISOR AND MOST RECENTLY AN EMPLOYEE OF CORNWALL HOUSING. MR. GRANT, WHO IS THE GROUP’S INTERIM CHAIR, SAYS HE PLANS TO MAKE THIS VERY WORTHY PROJECT HIS “RETIREMENT PROJECT”. HE IS JOINED ON “SHELTER 2015” BY MR. WAYNE KYTE OF LAURENCREST, MR. CLAUDE LEGAULT OF THE PROBATION & PAROLE OFFICE HERE IN CORNWALL, MS. DENISE PAQUETTE OF CAREFOR, AND CORNWALL CITY COUNCILLOR MARK MACDONALD. THE FAMILY COUNSELLING CENTRE OF CORNWALL HAS AGREED TO ACT AS THE GROUP’S ADMINISTRATOR AND BANKER. I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THIS GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS ON THEIR INITIATIVE. I LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING THEIR REPORT THIS FALL.  

IN TERMS OF PHASE 2, MUCH OF MY STATEMENT TODAY IS IN RELATION TO CONSULTATIONS HELD IN LATE 2007 AND EARLY 2008 REGARDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-EVIDENTIARY OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS TO EXPRESS THEIR EXPERIENCES, AND EXPLAIN THE IMPACT ON THEIR LIVES OF SUCH EXPERIENCES. THIS CONSULTATION IS IN THE CONTEXT OF RECOGNIZING THE

- 11 -

HEALING EFFECT OF “TELLING ONE’S STORY”, OF REDUCING A LONG-CARRIED BURDEN OF SHAME, GUILT, AND REPRESSION OR DENIAL. SUCH WORK IS ONE PART OF THE PHASE 2 HEALING AND RECONCILIATION MANDATE.  I WANT TO OUTLINE THE THOROUGH CONSULTATION PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH IN TRYING TO FIND THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED:  

·        WE DEVELOPED A CONSULTATION PAPER WITH SPECIFIC MODELS AND SAMPLE SUMMARIES AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ABOUT INFORMAL TESTIMONY  

·        WE MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH COUNSEL OF ALL PARTIES  

·       WE ALSO POSTED THE CONSULTATION PAPER ON OUR WEBSITE AND MAILED IT OUT TO THOSE INVOLVED IN PHASE 2  

·       MY ADVISORY PANEL AND INQUIRY STAFF HAD SEVERAL DAYS OF CONSULTATION MEETINGS LATE LAST YEAR AND IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.  

- 12 - 

FROM THE MIX OF OPINIONS EXPRESSED, WE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION THAT HAS ASSISTED ME IN DETERMINING HOW WE WILL PROCEED.  

THE DECISION WAS A DIFFICULT ONE FOR ME. I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT SUPPORTING AN INDIVIDUAL IN TALKING ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES CAN HAVE A THERAPEUTIC EFFECT. ONE OF THE CONSULTATION OPTIONS WOULD HAVE ENGAGED ME PERSONALLY IN THIS PROCESS. AND THERE WERE MANY, INCLUDING PARTIES TO THIS INQUIRY, WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS IMPORTANT. HOWEVER, WITH REGRET, I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS NOT PRACTICAL FOR ME TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED. AND SO WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH ANOTHER PROCESS THAT WILL SERVE THOSE WHO WILL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL THEIR STORY PRIVATELY IN PHASE 2.  

WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IN CONSULTATION DID PERSUADE ME THAT THE HEALING PURPOSE OF TELLING ONE’S STORY IS BETTER DONE BY SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ALREADY IN AN ADJUDICATIVE ROLE. AND, BY PURSUING AN OPTION THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE COMMISSIONER OF THIS INQUIRY, WE ARE ABLE TO OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL ONE’S STORY MUCH SOONER, AND TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME TO GIVE THEIR INFORMAL TESTIMONY, IF THEY 

- 13 - 

NEED IT. THE NEED FOR MORE TIME WAS ANOTHER MESSAGE THAT CAME FROM CONSULTATION.  

MY ADVISORY PANEL TOLD ME THAT MANY SAID TO THEM THAT HAVING TO WAIT MANY MONTHS TO START THIS PROCESS WAS FRUSTRATING. AS A RESULT, THEY SUPPORTED A PROCESS THAT COULD START THIS SUMMER – NOT NEXT YEAR. I HAVE LISTENED TO THAT ADVICE IN COMING TO A DECISION. THIS DECISION ALSO HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF ALLOWING US TO WORK CONCURRENTLY IN PHASE 1 AND 2, AND THIS SUPPORTS AN EARLIER REPORT DATE.

LET ME GIVE A BASIC OUTLINE OF THE PROCESS I HAVE APPROVED, A PROCESS THAT BUILDS IN AS MUCH CHOICE AS POSSIBLE:                          

-- IN TERMS OF THE MODEL CHOSEN, IT WILL BE A PRIVATE SESSION WITH ONE ADVISORY PANEL MEMBER ACTING AS THE PERSON RECEIVING THE ACCOUNT; INDIVIDUALS CAN CHOOSE THE ADVISORY PANEL MEMBER THEY SEE AS MOST APPROPRIATE, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE;                          

-- THOSE ATTENDING TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT WILL BE ABLE TO BRING UP TO 5 FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO SUPPORT THEM AND LISTEN TO THEIR ACCOUNT; 

 - 14 -                         

-- INDIVIDUALS GIVING INFORMAL NON-EVIDENTIARY TESTIMONY WILL BE GIVEN A CHOICE OF A SUMMARY OR NO SUMMARY; IF THEY DO NOT OPT FOR A SUMMARY, THERE WILL BE NO RECORDING; INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOOSE A SUMMARY CAN REVIEW AND COMMENT BEFORE COMPLETION AND THEIR RECORDING WILL THEN BE DESTROYED WITHIN 30 DAYS; 

 -- SUMMARIES WILL BE PREPARED AND PUBLISHED AS PART OF THE PHASE 2 REPORT; THEY WILL BE ANONYMOUS BUT WILL TRY TO CAPTURE THE WORDS AND SPIRIT OF THOSE GIVING THEM, WITHOUT NAMING INDIVIDUALS; IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO KEEP THE SUMMARIES TO A REASONABLY SHORT LENGTH;                          

-- PROCEDURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE SO THAT I WILL SEE THESE SUMMARIES ONLY AFTER WE HAVE SENT THE PHASE 1 REPORT TO PRINT;                         

 -- WE WILL IMPLEMENT THE WITNESS SUPPORT AND

PREPARATION SUGGESTIONS OUTLINED IN OUR CONSULTATION PAPER, WHICH WERE GENERALLY ENDORSED; I WILL GIVE DISCRETION TO MY STAFF                          

- 15 - 

MANAGING WITNESS SUPPORT TO ENSURE ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.  

COUNSEL AND OTHERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC AREAS I HAVE NOT FULLY COVERED. I DIRECT THEM TO COLLEEN PARRISH, OUR DIRECTOR OF POLICY, WHO WOULD BE PLEASED TO FILL IN THE DETAILS. WE WILL PUT IN PLACE THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES TO CARRY OUT THIS DECISION. IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS AND DATES FOR THE OPPORTUNITIES WILL ALSO BE ON OUR WEBSITE, WHEN WE ARE READY TO GO.  

WE WILL NOW RESUME WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE EVIDENCE OF THE CORNWALL COMMUNITY POLICE SERVICE. THEN, IN MAY, WE WILL HEAR FROM OUR THIRD INSTITUTIONAL PARTY: THE DIOCESE OF ALEXANDRIA-CORNWALL. FOLLOWING A SCHEDULE SET MANY MONTHS AGO, THE DIOCESE’S EVIDENCE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THAT OF THE TWO SCHOOL BOARDS, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY. THIS WILL THEN LEAVE THE LAST INSTITUTIONAL PARTIES TO GIVE THEIR RESPONSE EVIDENCE, THE OPP AND MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.