The Reform Act, 2014 - How the Trudeau Government Broke the Law

With both Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott being "non-persons" in the views of the Liberal Party of Canada and with the Trudeau government repeatedly assuring us that they are alway mindful of the rule of law, let's take a look at some pertinent legislation from 2014.  

Under the Reform Act, 2014 also known as an amendment to the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (candidacy and caucus reforms)which was assented to law on June 23, 2015, we find the following:

"Whereas Members of Parliament are elected by their constituents to represent them in the Parliament of Canada;

Whereas the leadership of political parties must maintain the confidence of their caucuses;

And whereas, in Canada, the executive branch of government is accountable to the legislative branch in accordance with the concept of responsible government, which is the foundation of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Division C.1

Caucuses

Definition of “caucus”

49.1 In this Division, “caucus” means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.

Expulsion of caucus member

49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if

(a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed; and

(b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members." (my bold)

This law was put into place to protect voters and maintain democracy.  Without the law, a vindictive party leader could  remove members of his or her caucus simply because they disagree with his or her stance on any given issue, thereby disenfranchising thousands of voters.

Notice how clear the requirements for expulsion from caucus are defined and how little room there is for interpretation by a misguided party leader.  At least 20 percent of the members of the Liberal caucus must supply the caucus chair with a written notice; in the current Parliament, prior to the expulsion of the two aforementioned members, there were 179 Liberal members meaning that no less than 36 had to supply written notice to the Liberal caucus chair.  As well, the expulsion of the member must be approved by a simple majority of the entire membership of the caucus (i.e. not just the ones that are present at the time of the vote).  Given that there are 177 Liberal members in the caucus, at least 90 members would have had to vote to remove both Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott from the Liberal caucus.

So, given that we know that Justin Trudeau made the decision on his own (by his own admission) as we see in this excerpt from his speech to his caucus on April 2, 2019:

"That's why I made the very difficult decision to remove Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott."

So, what did the Liberals have to say about this breach of law?  Here's what Francis Scarpaleggia, Chair of the National Liberal Caucus had to say after clearly admitting that the Liberal caucus did NOT vote to expel Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott

"That's not the way that we do things in the national Liberal caucus.  We don't vote typically.  We never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill by Michael Chong.  We operate by convention and our party's convention is that membership in the caucus is determined by the leader of the party informed by caucus." 

Here's the key sentence - "...we never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill".  Pardon me if I'm wrong, but the rules aren't "suggested", they are part of the law as you read at the beginning of this posting.  Obeying the law is not optional. 

Basically, it boils down to this.  According to the Liberal philosophy, they only follow the rule of law if it's a law that they agree with or one that they made.  If it's a law that was made by a previous Canadian government, then it doesn't apply to them and they can do whatever they wish.

Interesting, isn't it?  Oh that we would all have the privilege of obeying only those laws that we like.

Just in case you were wondering, the recent law-breaking moves by the Trudeau government resulted in 29,416 Liberal voters in Ms. Philpott's riding and 23,643 Liberal voters in Ms. Wilson-Raybould's riding being disenfranchised.  I'm guessing that the 53,059 Liberal voters in those two ridings aren't particularly happy about the state of democracy in Canada today.

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.

Rebuilding the Liberal Brand - An Open Letter to Alfred Apps

An Open Letter to Alfred Apps, President of the Liberal Party of Canada

Dear Mr. Apps,

Now that Canada’s 41^st Election is behind us, I thought I’d take this opportunity to contact you and offer a few of my thoughts on the debacle of May 2nd, 2011.

You’ll soon be looking for a new leader.  This time out, I would strongly suggest that you actually hold a full leadership convention with an actual slate of candidates, that is, if anyone actually wants to take the helm of an obviously sinking ship. I realize that it is going to be difficult to attract quality candidates but you and the Executive team of the Liberal Party have to do your best.  Surely it can’t be that hard to find a candidate that is more dynamic and more likeable than Mr. Harper, can it? 

Here are some character issues that are best avoided if you want to have a successful campaign in 2015 (or whenever Mr. Harper decides to allow Canadians to vote the next time):

1.)   You should probably rule out anyone with an academic background since they seem to really have a difficult time actually relating to the “sweaty masses”.  Sure, they get out there, roll up their sleeves, kiss a few hands and shake a few babies but they really don’t look like they are enjoying it.  Canadian voters may be a pretty dumb lot but we know sincerity when we see it...and we certainly haven't seen it for a while.

2.)   Candidates that have more than 4 years of University education are acceptable but only if they have degrees in economics, law or political science so they at least appear to be Mr. Harper’s intellectual equal.  Where possible, degrees should be domestic unless they are from a university that is obviously inferior to the University of Calgary.

3.)   I’d also suggest that you steer clear of candidates with job experience outside Canada.  After all, you found out that anyone that has worked anywhere other than Canada is most likely not really a Canadian and has only their own interests at heart and could pack up and leave at any time because they left their heart "...in San Francisco..." or wherever.

4.)   Former politicians (Bob Rae) with allegiances to another political party (Bob Rae) are best avoided at all costs (Bob Rae).  Any actions, inactions or missteps that they (Bob Rae) took while in office, whether it was their fault or not, are great fodder for the next round of Conservative television, radio and print media attack ads that are sure to start in the next couple of months even while the Liberal Party is leaderless.

For the next federal campaign, I would suggest that you do your best to hire someone who has been trained at the “Karl Rove School of Political Dirty Tricks and Innuendo” to manage the Party’s campaign efforts.  As we all know, the Conservative Party of Canada certainly learned a few tricks from watching the master.  By hiring a person of this ilk, you know that he or she will have no conscience when it comes to fighting back should the CPC use their political propaganda machine to once again attack your candidate mercilessly over something they said, did, inferred or thought decades in the past.  After all, Mr. Ignatieff’s biggest fault was appearing to be the consummate gentleman and perhaps if a “bastard” prodded your next leader behind the scenes, the new leader would be able to stoop to the level of discourse that the CPC is so fond of and that at least some voters appear to swallow without thinking.

While campaigning, stick to one and only one theme.  Mr. Harper was very successful with his use of two, simple words – the dreaded “separatist coalition”.  Even the least intellectual of Canadian voters understands the word “separatist” and knows in his or her heart of hearts that separation is a very evil thing.  Over the past 6 weeks, if Mr. Ignatieff had only stuck to the message of “contempt” and used it over and over again, perhaps it would have stuck to Teflon Steve eventually.  Instead, Mr. Ignatieff entered a verbal battle to the death wearing only kid gloves when faced with a nuclear arsenal of nasty verbiage from Mr. Harper.  This is the New Canada of Stephen Harper; political battles are not a duel between gentlemen any more.  This is political trench warfare and it’s going to get really ugly because, the next time out, you’re going to be trying to unseat a Prime Minister with a majority in the House that he’d been waiting for since he first found himself in Ottawa in the 1990s.

In closing, I’d like to offer my suggestion for your next leader.  He was born in Ottawa 43 years ago so it doesn’t get any more Canadian than that.  His father was a former MP, Senator and Governor General so his political credentials are apparently genetic.  This candidate is fluent in both official languages but does not have the Quebec albatross hanging around his neck.  His cultural background is Acadian rather than Quebecois and he hails from New Brunswick, one of the nice, non-threatening provinces where people take their politics seriously but are still pretty polite about it.  He is well-educated with a law degree from the University of New Brunswick and, rather unfortunately, a Masters of Law from the dreaded Harvard, but I’m pretty certain he stayed just long enough to get his degree and get the heck out of the United States.  He was first elected to the House of Commons in the election of November 2000 and has served on many committees over his tenure along with being named as Official Opposition Critic for Justice and the Attorney-General and the Official Opposition Critic for National Defence.  He did take a run at the leadership of your Party in 2008 but backed down in deference to Mr. Ignatieff, your Party’s overwhelming and misguided choice as the heir apparent.

Mr. Apps, I think that you need to do the Liberal Party of Canada and all Canadians a favour, sit down and have a chat with Dominic LeBlanc.

One last thing.  Remember democracy?  After the anointing of Mr. Ignatieff in 2009, Canadians aren’t so sure.   Don’t just appoint someone to the job of Leader.  You know how well that worked the last time.

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.

Trotting out the Spectre of Karla

Today, Canada's tough-on-crime Prime Minister trotted out the spectre of Karla Homolka applying for a pardon in July 2010 to scare Canadians into believing that the soft-on-crime Liberals would have given her a pardon based on the same National Parole Board system that pardoned Graham James.

Let's look at a bit of history. The Conservatives under Stephen Harper took power in January 2006. He's been in power for 4 years and 3 months. The National Parole Board was pardoning criminals for that entire time. On April 4th, 2010, the Canadian media released the information that Graham James had been granted a pardon three years previously on January 8th, 2007. It's taken the Harper government over 3 years to figure this out and they probably wouldn't have without the help of the Canadian media? Do they not have access to this information? Perhaps they should make a submission under the Access to Information Act to learn the names of those who have been granted pardons over the past 4 years!

Who's been minding the store? If Canada's media could figure out that Graham James had received a pardon, why were all three of Stephen Harper's Ministers of Public Safety Vic Toews, Peter Van Loan and Stockwell Day unable (or unwilling) to discover that James had received a pardon? Why didn't any of these three Ministers do something to fix the pardon issue years ago? After all, they've had control of the portfolio for over 4 years.

It's a little late to blame the Liberals for the weaknesses in the pardon system when you've been in power for 4 years. If it's changes to the justice system that the Conservatives want, Canadians shouldn't have to wait for the government to play catch up. We also shouldn't have to wait for the media to figure out and inform us about what's wrong with the justice system. That's what we pay our elected officials big salaries to do.

Mouseland

The Prince Edward Island political scene needs to be driven by a new grassroots movement whose objective is the formation of a viable, electable, responsible alternative to the existing Conservative and Liberal parties. The leader must not be a Larry McGuire-type who has a personal issue with Premier Ghiz, it must be a leader that is palatable to the electorate, a leader that does not have a personal grudge, a leader that wants to lead because they see that it is time for change. It must also be a party with integrity and vision for change.

In 1944, Tommy Douglas, the first CCF/NDP Premier of Saskatchewan and founder of Canada's universal health care system gave his famous "Mouseland" speech. Historically, Saskatchewan had been governed by a succession of Liberal and Conservative/Progressive-led governments that did not necessarily have the best interests of Saskatchewan residents at heart. In brief, Tommy Douglas describes a place called Mouseland where the mice had a parliament where they elected big, fat, black cats every year.

The cats weren't all that bad. They passed good laws, well, they were good laws if you were a cat! Eventually, things became so difficult for the mice that they had no choice but to vote out the black cats and vote in the white cats. The white cats promised change and change came. Things got even better for the white cats and worse for the mice. As time went on, the mice voted time and time again, replacing white cats with black cats ad nauseum. Finally, they realized that their problem wasn't the colour of the cat, the problem was that they were governed by cats who had only cat interests at heart. The mice had an idea. They realized that they needed to elect a government made up of mice. A government comprised of cats of any colour was never going to look out for the interests of the mouse population.

On Prince Edward Island, we have a similar political situation. We have been governed by a succession of Conservative and Liberal governments for the past 137 years. While these parties repeatedly campaign on platforms that stress their differences (for example, the Liberal Party of PEI used the slogan "Islanders First...For A Change" during the 2007 election campaign), in fact, it is readily apparent that the differences are superficial at best. This became apparent during the recent Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) where immigrant investors invest money in PEI businesses to expedite processing of their immigration requests. This program commenced under the Binns Conservative government and continued under the Ghiz Liberal government. It appears that under both governments, PNP units were allocated to politicians, their families or to those well connected to the party that was in power at the time. What a surprise - the cats weren't looking after the mice who elected them. They were too busy looking after the cat population!

I named this blog "Viable Opposition" because it is something that has been on my mind for the past two years. Prince Edward Island politics have been dominated by a two party system since it joined the Canadian Confederation in 1873. This has resulted in an unhealthy democracy. The two parties are similar to the black and white cats of Tommy Douglas's "Mouseland". As the electorate, we can only choose cats, there are no other viable options. Canadian history has shown that grassroots driven, third party alternatives are viable and are necessary to balance political power in a two party state. We need look no further than the rise of the CCF/NDP in Saskatchewan during the 1930's and 1940's. We have another great example in Alberta with the recent rise of the Wildrose Alliance Party under Danielle Smith where grassroots dissatisfaction with Premier Ed Stelmach has led to the birth of a new and viable alternative. As well, the early history of the Reform Party in the 1980s under Preston Manning was driven by Western Canadian alienation under both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative federal rule.

It is time for the mice to take charge of "Mouseland". It's time for "Viable Opposition" on Prince Edward Island.

References:

These links will take you to the history and written versions of Tommy Douglas's "Mouseland" speech as well as an audio file of the speech. I would urge you to read or listen to this amazing speech.

http://www.saskndp.com/history/mouseland.php3

http://www.saskndp.com/Multimedia/audio#mouseland

This link shows the results of Prince Edward Island elections since 1873.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0011866

This link discusses formation of the new Island Party.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2009/12/08/pei-island-party-mcguire-584.html

Avastin - now only 140,000 Canadians with no coverage!

In November 2009, then Prince Edward Island Health Minister Doug Currie announced that PEI could not afford to cover the cancer drug Avastin and that it would not be added to the provincial formulary. Prince Edward Island is now the only province that does not cover this drug. Avastin was approved for use by Health Canada in 2005, however, the governments of each province must decide for themselves whether to cover the cost for their residents. In the case of Prince Edward Island, Minister Currie estimated that, if Avastin was covered, the cost to the province would be approximately $600,000 per year and that it was unaffordable.

Avastin works to stop the formation of new blood vessels in tumours thus preventing further growth. It is often used in combination with other drugs to treat cases of advanced (metastatic) colorectal cancer. It is also used to treat certain breast and lung cancers as well as wet macular degeneration. Avastin is an extremely expensive drug with an 8 month round of treatment estimated to cost approximately $40,000. This is well beyond what most Islanders can afford.

I find it difficult to imagine that the manufacturer of the drug, Roche the world's largest biotech company, can morally justify charging $40,000 for a round of treatment. It is far more immoral that the Ghiz government has put a price on the lives of Islanders. This is particularly irritating when our elected Liberal MLAs voted to spend $1 million on the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, gave $600,000 to Cavendish Farms for "employee re-training" and granted $400,000 to the Liberal promoters of the failed Alanis Morissette concert in 2008 among other questionable expenditures.

What is particularly devasting is that many Islanders may be surprised to find that they are not covered for Avastin with their supplemental health coverage through Medavie Blue Cross. Most unfortunately, it seems that no matter how well we plan for our futures, in this case, we are forced to rely on our government to look after our needs.

I urge you to contact our new Health and Wellness Minister Carolyn Bertram by email at cibertram@gov.pe.ca or by telephone at 368-5250 and strongly request that she act without delay to add Avastin to the provincial drug formulary before it is too late for even one more Islander.

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2009/11/26/pei-avastin-stein-currie-584.html

A Minority, Minority Government

It is interesting to look back at the statistics from the 2008 Canadian election. We all know that there was a record low turnout at the polls with only 58.8% of registered electors taking the time to cast a ballot. It is most unfortunate that Canadians are becoming increasingly disillusioned and disconnected from the political process in Canada. It is this disconnect that allows our Prime Minister to comment that Canadians are not concerned about the most recent prorogation of Parliament.

The Elections Canada website is a goldmine of data about all Canadian elections. From their data I have extracted the following statistics for the 2008 Canadian election:

Total number of registered voters: 23,677,639

Total number of votes cast: 13,929,093

Average % voter turnout: 58.8%

Highest % Provincial turnout: Prince Edward Island at 69%

Lowest % Provincial turnout: Nfld and Labrador at 47.7%

Number of votes cast for the Conservative Party: 5,209,069

Number of votes cast for the Liberal Party: 3,633,185

Conservative % of total votes cast: 37.4%

Conservative % of total registered voters: 22%

Let's compare this to the September 1984 election:

Total number of registered voters: 16,774,941

Total number of votes cast: 12,638,424

Average % voter turnout: 75.3%

It is interesting to note that there were only 1.3 million fewer voters in the 1984 election even though there were nearly 7 million fewer registered voters than in the 2008 election. Average voter turnout dropped by 16 percentage points.

From the results of the 2008 general election, it becomes quickly apparent that it is rather amazing that the Conservative Party, which garnered only 37.4% of the total votes cast, is governing Canada albeit in a minority capacity. As well, because of the record low voter turnout, they are governing with only 22% approval of all eligible voters. That is why I refer to this government as a "minority, minority".

Canadians are becoming increasingly disenfranchised with and disengaged from our politicians and our political system. We are becoming increasingly apathetic toward our system of government because many Canadians do not believe that our elected officials have the interests of the electorate at heart. We feel that many of our politicians are more interested in re-election than they are in public service.

While we cannot control the quality, qualifications, effectiveness and honesty of our politicians, we must demand changes to the electoral system to encourage voter participation from a much higher percentage of Canadian voters. We must all feel that we are well represented in Ottawa. We must feel good about voting.

References:

Elections Canada Website with statistics from the 2008 Election

(expand the "Tables" button on the left side of the page to see the raw data)

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2008/default.html