Lines in the Sand:
A Guide
to the Pivotal Constitutional Amendment Proposals of the
2005 Convention of the
Conservative Party of Canada
by
Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons),
M.A., LL.B.
Released on March 9, 2005
(click
here for .pdf version, which is better for printing and e-mail distribution
purposes)
On October 16, 2003, the
leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (the "PC" party)
and the Canadian Reform Conservative
Alliance (the "Alliance") announced that they had signed an Agreement
in Principle ("AiP") to merge their respective parties. In
December of 2003, the memberships of
the two
parties ratified the AiP. The result was the formation of a new
federal party named the Conservative Party of Canada (the "CPC").
The AiP set out
nineteen “founding
principles” for the new CPC. Sixteen of them
were, word for word, the “Aims” and “Principles” set
out in the then constitution of the federal PC party. The Principles
of the Alliance appeared nowhere in
the Agreement-in-Principle. To the sixteen PC Aims and Principles were added
three more founding principles: commitments to bilingualism,
to socialized
health care, and to “free and fair” global trade.
Pursuant
to Article 8(b) of the AiP, the development and adoption
of the
first
constitution of the new CPC was a duty assigned to
an Interim Joint Council of individuals appointed by each founding party.
According to Article 13 of the
AiP,
the
CPC's
first
convention was responsible for "review and amendment of the constitution,
including the statement of principles". The date time and place of the
CPC's first convention was to be decided by the Interim Joint Council.
On December 4, 2004, the Interim Council
of the CPC adopted the party’s first constitution
(the “Constitution”). The 19 "founding principles" set out in the
AiP became Article 2 of the new CPC constitution: no principles were added,
deleted,
or substantively altered. Thus, the CPC currently is founded largely upon
the principles of the former PC party.
The CPC will hold its first ever Convention
from March 17 to March 19, 2005. At that
convention,
as many
as
57 Constitutional
amendments
will be voted upon by delegates to the convention. It is not clear whether
the CPC membership proposed amendments to the CPC's founding principles,
but the list of proposed resolutions that will be addressed at the founding
Convention make it clear that no amendments to the CPC's founding principles
will be discussed or voted upon at the Convention. The Aims and Principles
of the former PC party will remain the founding principles of the CPC.
To be sure, the range and nature of a
party's policies are largely determined by a party's founding principles.
However,
no less influential in the policy determination process are issues of process:
leadership selection, co-operation with provincial political parties, the
issue of whether members or party officials adopt party policy, and the effect
of regional representation. These matters of process are determined largely
by the CPC's constitution and, at the party's first Convention, several Amendments
will be discussed that will be pivotal in determining
the ultimate nature
and
the
direction
of the CPC
for decades
to come.
This guide focusses upon these pivotal Amendments, and describes the impact
of each. It is hoped that this guide will be a useful reference both for
voters at the Convention, and for onlookers and commentators.
PIVOTAL AMENDMENTS: FOUR GROUPS
The amendments that appear most pivotal
in determining the nature and direction of the CPC fall into 4 groups:
- Election of the Leader:
Members vs. Regions
- Who Determines Party Policy: Bottom-Up
vs. Top-Down
- Who Determines Party Resolutions:
Members vs. Regions
- Association and Co-operation
with Provincial Parties
I will address each of these groups of amendments separately, and then summarize.
At the end of this guide, I provide a Table that summarizes the nature each
Amendment, and that categorizes each as being in the tradition either of
the PC party or of the Alliance.
1. ELECTION OF THE
LEADER: MEMBERS vs. REGIONS
Currently,
Article 10.9 of the Constitution states:
"10.9. The election of the Leader
shall be by way of a direct vote of members in every electoral district,
as follows.
10.9.1 Each member of the Party will have one vote.
10.9.2 Each electoral district will be allocated 100 points.
10.9.3 Leadership candidates will be assigned a point
total based on their percentage of the vote in each electoral district.
10.9.4 To win the leadership, a candidate
must obtain a majority of points from across the country."
In other words, the constitution currently
does not use the principle of one-member-one-vote in the Leader selection
process. Rather, it weights each
riding equally, regardless of the number of members in each riding. This way,
a Constituency Association ("CA") with a small membership (e.g., one in Quebec)
can have the same influence as a CA with a huge membership (e.g., one in Calgary).
Proposed Amendment C-45 seeks
to tweak this aspect of the Constitution. Specifically, rather than giving
every CA 100 points automatically, each riding would have the lesser of (a)
a number
of
points equal to the number of voting members in the CA, or (b) 100 points.
The idea is to ensure that CAs with fewer than 100 voting members have less
influence than all other CAs. The system sought in proposed Amendment C-45
is the same as that used in the 2004 Ontario Progressive Conservative Leadership
race.
Proposed Amendment C-44 proposes
that Articles 10.9.2, 10.9.3, and 10.9.4 (emphasized above) be deleted
from the constitution. The effect of deleting those Articles would be to
eliminate weighting, and put the party on a one-member-one-vote system
for the purposes of selecting a Leader. Owing to the party’s history, this
amendment could (at least temporarily) give members in western provinces
a greater say
than they currently have in the selection of the party Leader. This system,
sometimes called “pure one-member-one-vote”, is the system that
was used by the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Reform Conservative
Alliance. Obviously,
if proposed Amendment C-44 is adopted, proposed Amendment C-45 becomes
irrelevant.
2. WHO DETERMINES PARTY
POLICY: BOTTOM-UP vs. TOP-DOWN
Before
discussing this group of proposed Amendments, it is necessary to define some
terms appropriately. Like the old PC Party of Canada constitution, the CPC
Constitution
currently
distinguishes between “resolutions”, “policies”, and the planks of an election “platform”:
- A resolution is a policy proposal that members have voted, at a convention, to recommend.
- A policy is a proposed change
to the law or governance of Canada that the party has officially adopted:
it is no mere wish, like a resolution. It is the result of a decision
maker deciding that the party will stand for the thing set out in the
policy.
Policies, not resolutions, are what the party advocates.
- A plank in an election campaign platform is
a policy that the party will promote during an election.
It will be noted that, pursuant to Article
10.2 of
the current CPC Constitution:
“The Leader shall promote the Party,
its principles and policies”.
Interestingly, the word “its” does not
precede the word “policies” in Article 10.2, as would be expected were the
Leader required to promote the party's policies (rather than
ones he makes independently of the party, perhaps on behalf of government).
However, if we can assume that, despite the questionability of
omitting the word “its”,
the Leader is required to promote the party’s policies,
then it
is clear that the Leader is not required to promote mere resolutions of
the members. Accordingly, it is immensely important to know how policies are adopted, and by
whom they are adopted.
At present, the only real hints concerning
policy adoption are set out in Article 13 of the current CPC
constitution.
Unfortunately,
the hints come in the form of omissions: despite talking about a "policy
resource", the constitution is actually entirely silent on the matter of
(a) how a policy is adopted, and (b) who is empowered to adopt policies.
The omission from the Constitution of clear rules about how a policy is to
be adopted is no mistake. The same omissions are to be observed in the
old PC Party of Canada
Constitution,
and in the current Liberal Party of Canada constitution. In each case,
the fact
of the matter is that members do not
adopt policies. Rather, in each case, members develop and adopt resolutions at
party conventions. In the case of the old PC party and in the case of
the CPC, those resolutions then form part of a “permanent
policy resource” ("PPR") for use by the Leader and his caucus.
Consider Article
13 of the current CPC Constitution:
"13.1 Prior to each national meeting where policy
is to be considered, National Council shall create a membership driven policy
development process that promotes the development and maintenance
of the permanent policy resource." (emphasis added)
In short, 13.1 indicates who determines the process for development of
a resource.
It is silent about policies themselves.
Article
13
continues:
"13.2 The purposes of the permanent policy resource are:
13.2.1 to facilitate policy discussion within the Party and serve as a policy resource to the Leader and parliamentary caucus;
13.2.2 to provide information from a variety of sources that shall
serve as a source of policy expertise and education;
13.2.3 to identify policy
areas needing study;
13.2.4 to serve as a means
of communication between
members, electoral district associations, Presidents Forums and other
affiliated organizations, the Leader and parliamentary caucus." (emphasis added)
Summarized, 13.2 states that the purpose of the PPR
is
to facilitate discussion, provide information, identify areas
for study, and
serve as a means
of communication. The PPR is not a statement of official party policy.
It is merely what it says it is, a resource, and there is nothing in Article
13.2
that
requires
party
to
adopt
any
part
of
the PPR as party policy. Finally, Article 13.3 states:
"13.3 The National Council
shall by by-law determine the rules governing the development and maintenance
of the permanent policy resource and the process
of policy development.” (emphasis added).
Again, this Article is not talking
about party policy but about the
PPR. To summarize, the CPC Constitution
currently does not disclose (a) how party policies are
adopted, or (b) who is empowered to adopt party policies.
It is clear that, at the 2005 CPC
Convention, the issue of who adopts party policies, and how they are adopted,
will be hotly contested. There are three (3) different
Amendments on the issue: C-50, C-51, and C-52. Each
proposed Amendment differs from and is mutually inconsistent with
the other two. The choice of one of these three Amendments, or to not
adopt any of them, is
sure to dictate the nature and direction of the CPC for decades to come.
I will describe and address each proposed Amendment in turn.
Proposed
Amendment C-50 states:
”It is moved to delete
Article 7.2.2, and to delete Article 13.1 and substitute the following:
13.1 Prior to each national meeting, National Council shall create
a policy development process which respect sand encourages the participation
of all members and which culminates in the adoption of policy resolutions
at national meetings that become the Party’s official policy declaration
document, from which the party’s election campaign platform will
be developed”. (emphasis added)
If C-50 is adopted, the membership will indeed determine the content of the
parties “official
policy declaration document” (the “Declaration”). However, C-50 arguably allows
room for policies that have not been voted upon by the membership to be promoted
in an election campaign platform. The reason: C-50 is entirely silent on the
issue of whether the party’s
platform can contain policies that are not in the Declaration. The phrase “from
which the party’s election campaign platform will be developed” could be interpreted
in a way that allows the platform merely to be “based” on the sentiments set
out in the Declaration.
Proposed Amendment C-51 is less ambiguous
and more grass-roots oriented than C-50. C-51 states:
"It is moved
to delete Article 13.1 and substitute the following:
13.1 Prior to each national meeting where policy is to be considered, National
Council shall create a membership-driven policy development process that
results in the adoption of policy resolutions by delegates to national
meetings and these adopted policies shall become the Party's policy
declaration document, our
official policy position until the next national meeting."
Unlike C-50, C-51 leaves no wiggle room for the Leader or others to put into
the election campaign platform policies that are not already in the Declaration.
Under Amendment C-51, the members alone make and adopt policy, and the Leader
- even in his election platform - is
required
to
promote
whatever
policies
are
adopted at the most recent convention of the members (and, arguably, only those
policies). For those who believe that the members alone should determine party
policy in a "bottom-up" fashion, there is no substitute for proposed
Amendment
C-51.
Proposed Amendment C-52 is arguably
the Amendment that would give members the least influence over party policy.
It begins:
"It is moved to delete
Article 13 and substitute the following:"
It then goes on to propose a new Article
13. Proposed Articles 13.1 and 13.2 are fairly innocuous. Proposed Article
13.1 simply states that there will be a policy committee that shall serve
as a "policy resource". It does not give the policy committee
the power to adopt policies:
"13.1 National Council shall establish
a policy committee whose responsibilities shall include:
13.1.1 facilitating the promotion
and maintenance of an ongoing policy process of the Party, and ensuring
that the policy process is at all times accountable to the members;
13.1.2 facilitating and supporting
policy discussion within the Party and serving as a policy
resource to
the Party, the Leader and the parliamentary caucus;
13.1.3 providing information from
a variety of sources that shall serve as a source of policy expertise and
education;
13.1.4 identifying policy areas needing
study; and
13.1.5 serving as a means of communication
between members, electoral district associations, Presidents'
Forums, and other affiliated organizations, the Leader and the parliamentary
caucus
on policy issues."
Proposed Article 13.2 simply states who
will be on the policy committee:
"13.2 The policy committee shall
consist of:
13.2.1 a chair appointed by National
Council;
13.2.2 the Chair of the National Council;
13.2.3 two members of National Council
to be selected by National Council;
13.2.4 two representatives from each
province selected by the presidents of the electoral district associations
in each province; and
13.2.5 one representative for the
three territories elected by the presidents of the
electoral district associations from the territories."
However, Article 13.3 of proposed Amendment
C-42 then makes
it very clear that policies are not to be determined by party members:
"13.3
Between national meetings, interim policies of the Party shall be
determined by the
parliamentary caucus and the Leader with interim approval by the
policy committee provided
such policies
are consistent with the Party's policy declaration
document. Final approval of interim policies shall occur at national
meetings and these
policies
shall become the Party's policy declaration
document and the Party's official policy position until the next
national meeting
at which policy
is discussed." (emphasis added)
In other words, policies are "determined"
by the parliamentary caucus and the Leader, not by the membership. Under
proposed Amendment C-52, members at a national meeting are merely the final
rubber stamp on policies that are "determined by the
parliamentary caucus and the Leader" between Conventions.
Policy
will be "discussed" at a national meeting, but nowhere does Article
13 suggest that the members will propose polices and vote upon the
policies that they propose. Once the membership has rubber stamped
the policies "decided by the parliamentary caucus and Leader", those policies
(and those policies alone) "become" the party's policy Declaration.
Thus,
proposed Amendment C-52 would allow the CPC to make policy in a manner more
or less
indistinguishable from the old PC Party of Canada, or from the Liberal Party
of Canada. It is the proposal to make policy-making in the CPC a top-down affair.
Proposed Amendments C-50, C-51, and C-52
offer competing visions for the future of the CPC. Proposed Amendment C-50
suffers from ambiguity: ambiguity merely assures disagreements in the future.
The real debate, ultimately, is whether the party should allow the members to decide policy (by adopting Amendment C-51) or whether the party should
leave policy making to the Leader and his parliamentary caucus (by adopting
Amendment C-52). C-51 allows the party to make policy in a manner
akin to the old Reform Party of Canada, whereas C-52
allows
the party to make policy in a manner akin to that of the old
PC Party of Canada.
3.
WHO DETERMINES PARTY
RESOLUTIONS: MEMBERS vs. REGIONS
As explained above, resolutions adopted
by members at party conventions are not policies under the current Constitution.
However, as discussed above,
under both Amendments C-50 and C-51, party resolutions supported by the members
at a national meeting would form the official party policy Declaration. In
the case of proposed Amendment C-51, that Declaration would be the unambiguous,
sole statement of the party's official policies. Therefore, proposed Amendment
C-53 becomes extremely important in the event that either of Amendments
C-50 or C-51 are successful at the 2005 Convention.
It will be recalled that the current
Article 13.3 states:
The National Council shall by by-law
determine the rules governing the development and maintenance of the permanent
policy resource and the process
of policy development.”
Proposed Amendment C-53 would add to
that sentence. It states:
"It is moved to amend Article 13.3 to
add the words:
"provided that at
a national meeting, a policy resolution must receive a majority of votes
cast by delegates and
a majority of votes cast by delegates from each of a majority of
individual provinces."
Thus, proposed Amendment C-53 replaces
the current single majority - one member, one vote - and replaces it with
a triple majority. If successful, proposed Amendment C-53 would prevent the
adoption of a resolution that lacked support across most of the country.
Put most succinctly, Amendment C-53 is designed to prevent the CPC from adopting
regionalist policies. Among members who think that there is an imbalance
in the Canadian federation, Amendment C-53 will find little support.
In contrast, proposed Amendment C-53 can be
expected to have passionate support from those who are of the
view that the CPC needs to dispel the notion that it is or remains a western
rump party.
4. ASSOCIATION AND
CO-OPERATION WITH PROVINCIAL PARTIES
In several provinces, there exist more
than one provincial “conservative” party. For example, in Alberta there is
not only the Progressive Conservative party, but also
the Alberta Alliance party (among others). In Ontario, there is not only
the “Progressive Conservative” party, but also the Freedom
Party.
In a given province, some parties may be conservative only in name (i.e., “big
C” conservative), and others may be conservative in reality, but not in name
(i.e., “small-C conservative). Currently, section 15.1 of the CPC Constitution
states:
“The Party shall not establish
provincial political parties. The party shall promote and maintain relationships
with existing Progressive Conservative parties.” (emphasis added)
Also, section 7.5.5 of the current CPC
Constitution grants the leaders of provincial parties named "Progressive
Conservative" the entitlement of voting as delegates at a national meeting:
7.5 The following shall be entitled to vote as delegates to a national meeting:
[...]
7.5.5 leaders of provincial Progressive Conservative parties;..."
That entitlement
extends even to provincial Progressive Conservative party leaders who are not
members of
the CPC.
In other words, the current constitution
entrenches affiliation with big-C “Progressive
Conservative” parties,
whether or not the values of those parties are the same as the
values of the CPC. Indeed, under the current Constitution, even if a
big-C “Progressive
Conservative” party
holds
liberal values (i.e., is a small-l liberal party), the Constitution
currently requires affiliation
with the provincial Progressive Conservatives. Clearly, given that party-name
loyalties on the decline, that some “Conservative” parties
hold small-l liberal values, and that there is a greater tendency of
the voter and activist to look deeper into matters of actual policy substance,
some CPC members are uncomfortable with giving preference to the Progressive
Conservative parties in each province.
They want a CPC
that is free to associate with any (or even all) small-c provincial conservative
parties that may best share the values of the CPC. Accordingly, members have
proposed two Amendments that give the CPC greater freedom to determine
its provincial counterparts.
Proposed Amendment C-54 states:
“The Party shall not establish
provincial political parties. The Party shall promote and maintain relationships
with all provincial conservative parties.” (emphasis added)
Proposed Amendment 54 would allow the
CPC to associate with any or all small-c provincial conservative parties,
regardless of the names of those parties. In other words, it would allow
the CPC to “promote and maintain relationships with” such parties as the
Alberta Alliance and Freedom Party of Ontario, et cetera.
Proposed Amendment C-14 states:
"It is moved to amend Article 7.5.5 to delete the words "Progressive Conservative"
and add the words "who are members of the Party", so that it reads as follows:
7.5.5 Leaders of provincial parties who are members of the Party [i.e., of
the CPC]"
Combined, Amendments C-54 and C-14 eliminate
the last vestiges of association with the old PC party provincially, and
put the CPC on an entirely independent footing. At the same time, those Amendments
allow
the CPC to forge new alliances with other small-c conservative parties at
the provincial level.
SUMMARY
The very existence of the proposed Amendments described above
makes it clear that some fundamental issues concerning the nature and direction
of the CPC require resolution. Largely, where competing Amendment proposals
exist (e.g., C-51 and C-52), they appear to differ according to the traditions
of the two founding parties: the Alliance and the PC party. The outcome of
the votes on these pivotal Amendments will ultimately determine whether the
CPC is more akin to one of the founding parties than to the other. For this
reason, it is fully expected that the Amendments described above will be among
the most hotly contested at the 2005 Convention. However, perhaps more importantly,
the outcome of voting on these pivotal Amendment proposals promise to shape
the Canadian political landscape for years to come.
TABLE
It is perhaps easiest to
capture the spirit of the Amendments described above by characterizing
them according to which of the founding party's traditions they reflect.
The Table below, characterizes them accordingly.
Proposed Amendment |
Effect |
Founding Tradition of the... |
C-14 |
Provincial PC party leaders no longer
automatic delegates to CPC Conventions. Instead, any provincial
party leader who is
a CPC member is a convention delegate. |
N/A |
C-44 |
Eliminates 100-points-per-riding
system for leadership elections. Replaces it with pure one-member-one-vote
system. |
Alliance |
C-45 |
Tweaks the 100-points-per-riding
system for leadership elections. Instead of 100 points, each riding gets
lesser of (a)
a number
of
points equal to the number of voting members in the riding association, or
(b) 100 points. |
PC |
C-50 |
Members determine what policies
comprise the official party policy Declaration. However, election campaign
platform merely "developed from" the Declaration: platform possibly will
contain policies not adopted by members. |
N/A |
C-51 |
Members determine the policies of
the party. This Amendment does not permit the election campaign platform
to include policies that have not received approval of the membership. |
Alliance |
C-52 |
The Leader and his parliamentary
caucus develop policy. Policy committee approves between conventions.
Those policies "shall" be approved at conventions. Those policies shall
comprise the party's official policy Declaration and shall be the
party's official policies. |
PC |
C-53 |
Requires a double majority (majority
of delegates from a majority of provinces) to adopt a resolution at
a Convention. |
PC |
C-54 |
CPC no longer forced to promote
and maintain only provincial parties named "Progressive Conservative".
Allows CPC to promote and maintain relationships with any or all provincial
small-c conservative parties. |
Alliance |
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paul McKeever is an employment lawyer in
private practice in Oshawa, Ontario. He is the author of "Two
Birds in Hand,
Something Hiding in the Bush" which was a guide for Alliance and PC party
members who were about to vote on the merger of those two parties. He has
also studied the constitutions of numerous political parties in Canada in the
course of developing a constitution for
the provincial party that he leads, the Freedom
Party of Ontario.
Paul McKeever founded, owns and operates mondopolitico.com, a
non-profit, non-partisan, educational political web site designed to encourage
greater
involvement and understanding in politics. He has given numerous speeches and
has been published in Wealthy Boomer magazine and in Consent. His letters have
been published in the Toronto Sun and National Post newspapers.
Articles about Paul, his political activities, and his court
cases have been published in the National Post (Jon Chevreau), the Globe and
Mail (Murray Campbell), Toronto Sun (Christina Blizzard), Belleville Intelligencer
(Jennifer Bell), Oshawa This Week (Martin Derbyshire), Wealthy Boomer magazine,
the Lawyer's Weekly, and CA Magazine (the official magazine of chartered accountants
in Canada). Paul has made numerous television and radio appearances, including
appearances on Michael Coren Live!, Rhonda London Live, On the Line (CTS),
CFTO TV News (Matet Nebres, CTV), Jim Chapman Live (Rogers), CBC Television
(Ontario elections 1999 and 2003), Rogers Community Television (Ontario elections
1999 and 2003), Studio 2 (TV Ontario, with Steve Paikin), Here and Now (CBC
Radio 1, with Avril Benoit), The Christina Cherneskey Show (CFRB radio, Toronto),
Warren on the Weekend (CKNW radio, Vancouver), Talk of the Town (CJBK, London,
with Jim Chapman) and more.
Happily married, Paul is the proud father of two young children. Actually,
three, if you include his labrador retriever.
You can contact Paul McKeever via e-mail
(pmckeever@mckeever.com) or by calling his Oshawa office: 905-721-9772. You can
write to him at: 106 Stevenson Road South, Oshawa, Ontario L1J 5M1.
REPRODUCTION and ABOUT
THIS PUBLICATION
"Lines in the Sand:
A Guide to the Pivotal Constitutional Amendments of CPC Convention 2005" is
published by Paul McKeever, on his own behalf, and not on behalf of any association
or political party. Copyright, 2005, is held by the author.
Permission
is hereby granted to all news media companies to quote or to reproduce
this publication
in
whole
or
in
part.
Permission is
hereby granted to all members of the Conservative Party of Canada (effective
March 9, 2005) to
distribute this publication, in its entirety, to other members of the Conservative
Party
of Canada.
"Lines in the Sand:
A Guide to the Pivotal Constitutional Amendments of CPC Convention 2005" is
available in both HTML and .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) formats at www.paulmckeever.ca.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
|