How Liberal and Conservative are Americans?

Updated June 2016

In a very interesting twist, a recent poll by Pew shows how American's views on social issues has changed over the past 15 years.  While both sides of the political spectrum seek to appeal to their traditional bases, this poll suggests that the political leaning of the United States as a whole may be evolving.

Here is the first question in the poll:

"Thinking about social issues, would you say your vies on social issues are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?"

For the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999, the number of very conservative and conservative respondents and liberal and very liberal respondents was tied, each coming in at 31 percent with moderates coming in at 33 percent.  Here is a graphic showing the results of the same polling question back to 1999 showing how the share of social liberals has grown and the share of social conservatives has declined:

In the latest annual poll, 5 percent of Americans declared themselves as very conservative, down from a recent high of 9 percent (in 2009, 2010 and 2012).  Twenty-six percent of Americans declared themselves as conservative, down from a peak of 33 percent in 2009, 33 percent declared themselves as moderate, down from a peak of 39 percent in 2005, 21 percent declared themselves liberal, down from a peak of 23 percent in 2011 and 10 percent declared themselves as very liberal, tied with 2014 for the highest percentage in the past 15 years.  The percentage of very liberal Americans is up significantly from its lows of 4 percent in both 1999 and 2003.

Here is an interesting graphic that looks at the percentage of Republicans and Republican leaners who  describe themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal on social issues:

It is interesting to see that the 53 percent of Republicans that describe themselves as social conservatives is the lowest since 2001, well below the peak of 67 percent back in 2009, this, despite the Republican Party's strong objections to the Obama Administration.

Pew explains that these changes in the degree of social liberalism are mainly a result of an increasing number of Democrats who describe themselves as liberal rather than moderate and likely reflects the shift of Democrat attitudes on social economic and political issues further toward the left as we see on this graphic:

Changes in social liberalism are evident in how Americans feel about issues like same-sex marriage (60 percent approval in 2015 compared to 27 percent in 1996) as shown on this graphic:

...the legalization of marijuana with 51 percent approval in 2015 compared to 34 percent in 2004 and the impact of immigrants on the United States as shown on this graphic:

It is believed that these shifts are due to changing demographics.  As an older, more conservative demographic cohort passes on to their great reward in the skies and younger, more socially liberal Americans replace them, attitudes have morphed.  This change will have a significant impact on the 2016 election cycle as candidates adjust their platforms to appeal to a more socially liberal electorate.  At the very least, this swing in the political winds will have a particular impact on Republican candidates who will find themselves needing to be somewhat less strident about their conservative social stance if they want to appeal to a broader audience that has become more socially liberal.

Merger or Coalition - Who Cares?

I've been following the stories in the mainstream media for the past few days about the impending merger of the Liberals and the New Democrats.

Here's yesterday's quote as reported in the National Post from Mr. Ignatieff when asked about the merger:

“No one has any authorization to even discuss this matter. It’s ridiculous. I’m a Liberal. I’m proud to be a Liberal. The people around me are Liberals, we’re going to form a Liberal government, which means a progressive, compassionate, fiscally responsible alternative for Canadians and that’s our job. That’s what we’re going to do.”

And here's the quote from Mr. Layton:

“I can only imagine the kind of talks that are going on within the Liberal party, and there certainly is a lot of co-operation between the Liberal party and the Conservative party these days, and that’s, I think, what ought to concern Canadians right now. We have our work to do as a party and we’ve been working away at it for 60 years, and it has to do with trying to create the kind of country that respects the average individual and makes sure that everybody has a place in this country. And we intend to carry on with that work and that means trying to stop Mr. Harper’s policies from being implemented where they are wrong.”

So, in other real world words (not Ottawa-speak), the merger talks are on.

I'm concerned because I don't really believe that either Party has the best interests of Canadians at heart, they both just want power so badly that they can taste it. The Liberals know that they can't win the next election on their own with Mr. Ignatieff at the helm; the very best that they can do is to win a minority if all other things remain equal (i.e. Stephen Harper leads the Conservative Party of Canada, the economy doesn't circle the toilet etcetera). The New Democrats know that they don't have a hope of ever forming the government, let alone becoming the Official Opposition, no matter who they have as a leader. The very thought of forming a potentially winning coalition must have the NDP salivating. At last, at LONG last, they stand a chance of, at the very least, forming the number two Party in the House! It must be so hard for them having been the rather homely bridesmaid at so many weddings.

If the Liberals would only do what is really needed to win. While I think that Mr. Ignatieff is a fine gentleman, he seems way over his head outside of the world of academia where everyone behaves in a predictable manner and yes, there are some heated disagreements and discussions, but everything is settled in a gentle fashion without the use of nastiness. That is far from the case in both the House of Commons and the political world. The Liberals seem to know intuitively that they must replace their leader for the second time in as many years; certainly two weak leaders in a row must have them shuddering in their boots thinking that they will never again be Canada's ruling Party.

The New Democrats have a strong, grassroots labour base. Somehow, I just can't see Harvard mingling comfortably with General Motors. I suspect that many of the labour-based New Democrat rank and file would end up leaving the coalition; unfortunately, they really don't have anywhere to go politically. I also suspect that Liberals disenchanted with the whole coalition idea would end up leaving as well, the environmentally conscious voters would head toward the Greens and the centrists (those who are fiscally conservative) may end up heading toward the Conservatives out of desperation.

In general, Canadians do not find Mr. Harper a compelling leader; he seems distant and disengaged from average Canadians. Polls over the past few months show his Party locked in an approval rating of between 30 and 35%, well out of majority territory even with the Liberal's current weaknesses. My suspicion is that if Mr. Harper delivers a third minority government, he'll be guided to the exit door by the Conservative Party "men in smoke-filled rooms". This is why I find the very idea of a merger so puzzling. A lot of the pressure is now on Mr. Harper to deliver a majority government next time out. If, between now and the next election, the Liberals replace Mr. Ignatieff with a leader than Canadians find appealing, the election could be theirs.

Overall, unless things change markedly, I'd be very surprised if Canada ended up with a majority government after the next federal election, merger or no merger. What is most likely to happen is that Canadians will elect to stay at home in record numbers during the next election with voter turnout dropping well below the 58.8% that we saw during 2008.

Canadians are rapidly becoming disenfranchised and disengaged from the political process; a merger of the Liberals and NDP is not going to change that.

This just in:

The EKOS poll, available here, taken the week of June 2nd to 8th, 2010 reveals that support for the Conservatives has slipped from 31.7% last week to 31.4% this week. Why this is even making the news is beyond me since the slip is well less than the 2.3% margin of error. What is meaningful is the drop from the peak of just over 40% back in October 2009 to today's number of 31.4%.

Just think think where the Opposition would be if they had a leader that received Canadian's stamp of approval.

Helena and Vic on CBC

1.) Helena makes an appearance on Monday Night Live with Peter:

Watching Monday night's CBC interview with Helena Guergis was, to put it mildly, painful. I did manage to make it all the way through and have picked out a few salient points that have been somewhat glossed over by the mainstream media.

Here's what I saw:

1.) I found it fascinating how they opened up with a discussion and viewing of the CATSA video of Helena's behaviour in the Charlottetown airport. Peter Mansbridge's comment that he had seen worse behaviour from the sweaty masses started off the interview on an interesting foot. Since the Charlottetown incident was the beginning of the end for her political career, if this incident is minimized or dismissed as being no big thing, the foundation of the CPC and media case against her is destroyed. This leads to the illusion that everything that has been said about her has been fabricated.

2.) When first asked if she used drugs she said "No, no, no" but then when pushed by Peter Mansbridge, she admitted that she had tried to smoke marijuana when someone tried to offer it to her when she was 14 years old, claims that she coughed and got nothing out of it. Her defence was another case of the old standby Bill Clinton "I didn't inhale" syndrome? Further along, you'll see how I manage to work Bill into her interview yet again.

3.) She claims that Rahim did not use her Parliamentary email or office for his business or personal affairs. She claims that he has his own accounts, emails etc. I'm not sure, but these emails from the CBC website seems to prove otherwise. She also claims that he promised her that he would not lobby but in the same breath, she tells Peter that she didn't know his business and what it did, yet, she still insists that he did not lobby. Either she knows about both his business and his lobbying or she doesn't. Either he lied to her or he didn't.

Here's an example of Rahim not using Helena's Parliamentary email:

...and here's another:

Yes, Helena is right, it does appear that he did have his own email address but he does seem to use her Parliamentary email too, well past the 2 week period after he got turfed as an MP by the voters of Edmonton-Strathcona when she claims he had to use her office to go through his confidential MP files. Since all members of Cabinet are bound for life by the Privy Council oath of secrecy, I would suggest that any access Rahim had to her email account could have easily led to a breaching of that oath.

4.) The Ontario Provincial Police charged Rahim Jaffer with cocaine possession, driving under the influence and speeding to which he pled guilty to careless driving. He told his wife that he had no idea how the cocaine ended up in his jacket and she believed him. Every warm-blooded Canadian male would love to have a wife that believed each and every story he told her. Rahim is one lucky guy.

5.) Helena claimed to be a compassionate person and reminded us all that she came from a good, Christian family, just in case we forgot, right around the time she burst into tears. Her very transparent appeal to the religious right who vote for the CPC reminds me of the media coverage during the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair when Bill was shown walking out of church with Hillary in one hand and a Bible in the other just to show us what an upstanding fellow he was. Was Helena trying to tell us that, "Sure, I married a Muslim, but hey, I'm still a card-carrying member of my local church so please vote for me next time out?".

6.) I noticed that Helena had trouble pronouncing the surname of Mr. Gillani and referred to him more than once as "the gentleman or the guy I went out to dinner with". She stumbled over his name the same way Stephen Harper stumbled over the name "Guergis" when he announced that she had "resigned" from Cabinet/been tossed under the bus. Did she take a page from the Harper "See, I don't really know the person in question that well because I can't pronounce their surname properly" handbook? They must have the same spinmeister/handler/talking point consultant.

She had the appearance of a wounded deer compared to her usual cocky, overly self-confident demeanour. While I am very suspicious of Mr. Harper's motives for tossing her under the bus, this interview did nothing to convince me that she deserved to be a Junior Minister in any government. I am sure that her appearance did convince some Canadians that she has ben wronged but not this Canadian. There are just too many inconsistencies in her story to make me a believer. I did find it interesting that when the CBC went back to the streets of her riding to talk to "the man on the street" this time, they broadcast commentary from those who were sympathetic to Helena. This is in sharp contrast to their earlier coverage where they broadcast only those who wanted her gone. Viewers never know how much media censorship goes into the broadcasting of these street-level interviews; the CBC could easily select only those interviewees that agree with the tone of whatever viewpoint they are taking on any given day.

2.) Changes to the Rules for Granting Pardons

Yesterday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced changes to the National Parole Board's policy of granting pardons to convicted criminals. I agree that changes are much needed. Mr. Toews noted that this change was part of the Conservative government's "Tough on Crime" stance. What he forgot to mention was that the Conservatives have now formed the government for the past 4 years and had made no effort to change the policy of granting pardons until the Graham James 2007 pardon was uncovered by the media back in early April. Why wasn't the Harper government aware that Mr. James had been granted a pardon 3 years ago? Who was minding the store? If the media hadn't publicized Mr. James' pardon, would the Harper government have made any changes to the legislation? Not likely. This government tends to be reactive rather than proactive, preferring to wait to see what the public wants and the polls show before taking any action on an issue. So much for leadership.

My suspicion is that the Harper government acted so quickly on this issue once it actually reached their radar screen because they are afraid of the public backlash when Karla Homolka is eligible to apply for a pardon this summer. Reactive again? You betcha.

Helena yet again...the story that never ends

From various press reports this week, it appears that Helena Guergis is most upset that she is being passed over as a potential nominee for the CPC in the Simcoe-Grey riding where she now resides as an Independent since being tossed under the bus by her former boss, one Stephen Harper.

I took the opportunity to look through the Conservative Party of Canada Constitution which is freely available to any one who lives in the Simcoe-Grey riding, any other Canadian or any resident of Planet Earth that might care here.

From the CPC Constitution, I have taken the following excerpt from section 14:

14. CANDIDATES FOR PARLIAMENT

14.1 The rules and procedures for candidate selection set by National Council may provide for a candidate selection committee at the national level, and a candidate selection committee in each electoral district. The candidate selection committee at the national level shall have the right to disallow the candidacy of any person before or after nomination by the electoral district association, subject to the appeal of such a decision to the National Council whose decision shall be final and binding or who may refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee for decision by a panel. (my bold)

14.2 Every electoral district association shall provide organizational and financial support to the Party’s candidate in the electoral district.

Okay, maybe the nomination process isn't fair, it isn't right and it borders on benevolent dictatorship but it is quite clearly there in black and white. It isn't even in legalese so should be easy for just about everyone to understand. If Ms. Guergis didn't read the CPC Constitution before she offered as a nominee her first time out, if she didn't understand what it said or if she didn't believe that it applied to her, she's got no one to blame but herself. Maybe she should just admit that the bus ran over her, get up, dust her pride off and get on with life after politics.

What is surprising about the CPC Constitution is the control that the central Party has over who is nominated and whether they are acceptable to "the men in the smoke-filled rooms". Remember, the CPC morphed out of the ashes of the Reform/Alliance Party where the the membership had control over a substantial part of the Party's agenda and that the grassroots basically were the Party. This change tells us something about the control the CPC Leader has exerted over the direction of the Party.

Just in case Helena decides to change her political stripes and run for the Liberals, here's an excerpt from the Liberal Party of Canada Constitution regarding the selection of candidates from page 44:

CHAPTER 12 – CANDIDATES

ELIGIBILITY

(1) To be eligible for selection as a candidate of the Party for election to the House of Commons, a person must:

(a) be a member of the Party;

(b) be eligible to be a candidate in an election of a member to serve in the House of Commons under the Canada Elections Act;

(c) have complied with the rules made by the National Election Readiness Committee under Section 60 and with the Canada Elections Act.

(2) If the National Campaign Committee or the Leader, acting in their absolute discretion, declines to approve a person to be the candidate of the Party in the next election, then that person is not eligible for selection as a candidate of the Party for election to the House of Commons. The decision of the National Campaign Committee or the Leader is not reviewable by the Permanent Appeal Committee. (my bold)

Well, so much for that idea. I guess it's off to the NDP.

Here's where I ran into a wall. I attempted to search for the NDP Constitution on the internet, unfortunately, it cannot be found anywhere even on their own website despite the fact that, as an individual, you have to click in a box agreeing that you promise to abide to the (missing) Constitution of the NDP if you wish to become a member. Strange but true. Maybe Helena would fit best there what with the secrecy and all the under the table stuff!

Now it's off to the Green Party of Canada. While Helena doesn't particularly strike me as the "green type', one never knows. Here's an excerpt from their Constitution regarding becoming a candidate:

Bylaw 5 Selection of Candidates for Member of Parliament

5.1 Candidates shall be selected by the Party as follows:

5.1.1

Where there is an Electoral District Association, the electoral district shall select the candidate in accordance with the association's Bylaws.

5.1.2

Where no Electoral District Association exists, candidates will be selected in accordance with a process determined by Federal Council or by Bylaw.

5.1.3

Where there are no Party Members in an electoral district, selection of a candidate shall be by a General Meeting, Federal Council, a committee established by a General Meeting or Federal Council, or by a procedure mandated by a General Meeting or Federal Council.

So, after examining all of the options for you Helena, I've got to say, I think you should go Green. It looks like there won't be anything or anyone standing in your way. Go for it unless, of course, the bed and bath business is looking more appealing.

As an aside, I have no idea why she'd want to run for a party and a leader that publicly humiliated her by tossing both her and her husband under a very large bus but I guess that's why I'm not in politics and they are. I'm guessing that sense of entitlement runs REALLY deep.

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/helena-guergis-decries-tory-retaliation/article1558921/

Bev Oda lights a match under MATCH

Yesterday, Bev Oda, International Co-operation Minister announced that funding for the non-profit group MATCH International had been cut, allegedly due to performance issues.

Let's take a look at MATCH International. It is a non-profit group that had as its mandate the following which I have copied directly from their "Our Mission" page on their website:

"MATCH International Centre is a Canadian women's international organization guided by a feminist vision of sustainable development which recognizes the diverse realities of women and respects their efforts for self-determination. (my bold)

To fulfill its mission, MATCH works in partnership with groups in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and South America towards the empowerment of women and the practical enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms through civil, political, economic, social and cultural justice.

MATCH also undertakes public education in Canada on development and women’s issues; and works to build and strengthen the women's movement nationally and internationally."

MATCH has been in existence since 1976. Their programs in African countries assist women in self-supporting economic activities such as setting up micro-businesses through the use of micro-credit, assisting with clean water supply and helping women manage the water supply in their villages and raising awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and how women can defend their own sexual health. They are also helping African women by educating them on their legal rights and offering them legal assistance and support when they need it. What is most interesting to see is that they work with local groups rather than "reinventing the wheel".

Having lived in Africa, I have first hand knowledge of the importance of this type of assistance to African women. They are often undereducated or illiterate and benefit greatly from the combined assistance of both domestic and overseas aid organizations.

As soon as I read through the MATCH Mission Statement, I could see their problem right away. They used the trigger words "feminist vision". I cannot see that particular choice of words or actions sitting well with the misogynists of the Harper government. As well, MATCH is also working to help women empower themselves, another thing that will not be well received by the Harperites.

If indeed it is true that there were performance issues related to some financial irregularities, why didn't Minister Oda offer assistance to this non-profit group to help them improve their performance, financial or otherwise? She also offered no detailed description of how exactly Match International had transgressed. MATCH Internationals Executive Director Kim Bulger told the CBC that CIDA had never requested additional performance information. Their funding from the government through the federal Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) totalled $400,000 annually, actually, a relative pittance compared to Ms. Oda's annual salary of $233,000.

In addition to the cuts to MATCH, the Conservatives have cut funding to an additional 14 women's groups in the past 2 weeks. Those cut include the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, the Centre for Equality in Accommodation and the New Brunswick Pay Equity Coalition. While I realize that the funding requests made by every special interest group that steps forward cannot be met, it seems to me that there is a pattern here, especially in light of the comments made by Senator Nancy Ruth this week .

When combined with the federal government's announcement on April 26th that they would not fund abortions in the G8 child and maternal healthcare initiative for developing countries and Senator Nancy Ruth's comment that international aid groups should "...shut the fuck up..." about the Harper decision or face the potential of further measures against abortion and family planning abroad AND possibly domestically, we can see a pattern developing. Nancy Ruth has warned us that Canada still has free and accessible abortion and that Canadians should not open Pandora's box because that could change under the Conservative government (and most likely would if the Harperites were able to achieve a majority).

The Harper government has shown time and time again that women's issues are not its priority. Canadian women need to remember that when they pick up the pencil the next time they mark an "X" on a ballot.

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/05/04/ottawa-match-international.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/803859--aid-groups-advised-to-shut-the-f-up-on-abortion?bn=1

How much are Canadians spending on novelty cheques?

Yesterday, Mary Dawson, Commissioner for Conflict of Interest and Ethics released her "The Cheques Report" on the use of partisan or personal identifiers on ceremonial cheques or other props for federal funding announcements. Just in case your eyes have glazed over already, this report was written to address the ethics of using, in specific, the Conservative Party logo and Conservative MP signatures on those lovely novelty cheques that are more suitably delivered by a celebrity like Ed McMahon showing up at your front door than a Canadian MP. While this may seem like a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things in Ottawa, it is symptomatic of both the waste and entitlement that our elected officials have developed when it comes to spending OUR money.

The report was made in two parts, the first is under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons and the second is under the Conflict of Interest Act. In the fall of 2009, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner received numerous complaints about the use of Conservative MP photos, signatures, names and Party logos on the aforementioned ceremonial/novelty cheques. The Opposition was concerned that the use of personal and Party identifiers could be misleading to the public who would associate the expenditure with the Conservative Party and/or the individual MP rather than the government as a whole. This would serve to personally benefit the MP or Minister and the Conservative Party because it could enhance the chances of their re-election. Interestingly enough, complaints about props with partisan identification also came from a great many members of the public at large.

As a reminder, Mary Dawson ruled against a previous complaint that government communication about Canada's Economic Action Plan with the Canadian public had the look and feel of Conservative Party of Canada promotional materials. The inquiry into this request was terminated solely because Ms. Dawson determined that the Conservative Party of Canada was not a "person" as defined under the act. As I said a month ago, a moot point indeed.

In her report, Ms. Dawson notes the following:

"Some Members have used ceremonial cheques or other props to make announcements in their local communities for decades. These were usually plain, bearing only the Canadian flag or coat of arms, and did not display a name or signature. The use of ceremonial cheques has become more widespread over the past 15 years, and more recently there also seems to have been an increasing tendency for elected representatives in various jurisdictions to include personal identifiers on them, in particular names and signatures"..."The Board of Internal Economy, which governs how Members use the allowances and services provided to them by the House of Commons, restricts the use of some of these benefits for partisan political purposes. For example, Members may not use printing services to solicit memberships in, or contributions to, political parties. There are also restrictions on the use of advertising and printing services for election purposes. However, there do not appear to be any rules governing the production and use of ceremonial cheques and, even if there were such rules, they would only apply if funds from a Member’s office budget, allocated by the Board, were used."

She also adds another rather humorous line:

"The question of what constitutes a partisan identifier will always be a matter of some debate."

I'm sure that most Canadians outside of Parliament would willingly help Ms. Dawson determine what is and what is not a partisan identifier should the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commission require assistance. I'd suggest that the use of any Party logo is a clear partisan identifier.

Here is Ms. Dawson's finding regarding the use of novelty cheques by MPs and Ministers et al:

"The use of cheques and other props with partisan or personal identifiers may have helped to raise the profile of the Members, Ministers, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretaries in question, thereby helping them gain partisan advantage or improve their electoral prospects and those of the Conservative Party of Canada. I conclude, however, as explained in the analysis section of each report, that these activities do not further “private interests” within the meaning of the Code or the Act. I have found that the interest in enhancing political profiles is a partisan political interest and not a private interest, and have found accordingly that none of the individuals named in the requests received by my Office has contravened the Code or the Act."

She continues:

"At the same time, the practice of using partisan or personal identifiers in announcing government initiatives goes too far and has the potential to diminish public confidence in the integrity of elected public officials and the governing institutions they represent. I recognize that Members have political interests and these interests are important to them and their parties. It is to be expected that Members will look for occasions to enhance their images with constituents. However, public spending announcements are government activities, not partisan political activities, and it is not appropriate to brand them with partisan or personal identifiers. One of the purposes of the Code is to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of Members and the House of Commons. It is also one of the rationales underlying the Act in relation to public office holders, including Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries."

It saddens me to inform Ms. Dawson that public confidence in the integrity of elected public officials and the governing institutions they represent could hardly be lower.

Basically, Ms. Dawson concludes that the government needs to further strengthen policy that would address the politicization of government communications. She also suggests that the use of all communications materials could be subjected to scrutiny by an independent third party within or outside of government. She acknowledges that there has been an incremental increase in the partisan nature of government communication with the electorate. Think of the "10 percenter" program that has just been discontinued if you want an example of partisan politicking with tax dollars.

She's not kidding about the need for strengthened legislation. It appears to me that the Federal Accountability Act, under which the Office was created, could be termed the "swiss cheese" of legislation; it has so many holes that it is more air than substance. This legislation, brought into existence by the Harper government in 2007, pays no more than surficial lip service to the ethics problems that plague the Hill. We need think no further back than a month ago when there was great debate in the House about the use of $10 million tax dollars to fund "10 percenters".

In conclusion, having just filed my tax return, I'm strongly adverse to the idea that that one cent of the tax money that I send to Ottawa goes to paying for large, comical and nonsensical novelty items that are best suited for television game shows. The fact that they are being used as partisan propaganda by any Party is reprehensible and a breach of public trust. I think most Canadians would agree that we supply the money for these projects through our taxes and that no politician of any stripe should take any credit.

April 30th in history:

1945 - Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun commit suicide in his Furhrerbunker in Berlin.

References:

"The Cheques Report"

http://ciec-ccie.gc.ca/resources/Files/English/Public%20Reports/Inquiry%20Reports/The%20Cheques%20Report%20-%20Code.pdf