Tag Archives: China

QP: Being ham-fisted on the hunting rifle concerns

Posted on by

The prime minister was off having a photo op with Doug Ford about electric vehicles, and his deputy was also absent, leaving Pierre Poilievre as the only leader in the Chamber. Poilievre led off in French, worrying about a report released today that predicts the price of food will increase by another seven percent next year, but blamed the federal government’s “inflationary spending” for it, which is utterly risible because we know that food price inflation has bene in large part because of climate change causing droughts in food-producing regions around the world. Randy Boissonnault noted that high food prices are global, because extreme weather events have led to poor harvests and supply chains remain snarled, while the government has taken action like the doubled GST credit and dental care. Poilievre switched to English to blame rising food prices on carbon prices, which is again not the problem. Karina Gould praised their measures to help vulnerable Canadians, and noted that if Poilievre was sincere about affordability, he would have voted for their measures. Poilievre then claimed that the government was trying to ban hunters because the of the sweeping nature of the list in the amendments at committee, and demanded the reverse the “ban.” Marco Mendicino first noted that tomorrow is the 33rd anniversary of the École Polytechnique shooting, and they remain in solidarity with victims. Poilievre insisted that they too are concerned about gun crime, but the problem are guns coming across the border rather than hunters, and demanded they reinforce the border rather than attacking hunters. Mendicino reminded him they invested $450 million in the border over the past two years, and invested in CBSA, while the Conservatives voted against all of those measures. Poilievre insisted that the results of the Liberal policy was an increase in violent crime, and that their expensive policies are not working, and switched to French to demand to know why the government isn’t targeting “real crime.” Mendicino repeated his previous response in French.

 Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and raised a report that raises the alarm about species at risk, while the government has authorised oil exploration off the shore of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the right whale’s habitat. Julie Dabrusin read that the marine protected area will remain protected and any exploitation activities in the area will be determined on a case-by-case basis, and that the tender process does not authorize production activities. DeBellefeuille repeated her question, calling it special treatment for oil companies. Dabrusin repeated that any proposal to drill in those areas would be subject to the Impact Assessment Act, but they are not there.

Leah Gazan rose for the NDP, raising the murder of three more Indigenous women in Winnipeg to an alleged serial killer, and the decision by the city not to look for remains in a landfill, and demanded more help. Marc Miller said that he too was concerned and that he spoke with the mayor and wanted to do more where he could. Niki Ashton took over by video on the same issue, raising that the alleged killer has ties to white nationalism, and again demanded more action. Miller said that he was concerned and has a meeting in January about coming to solutions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, LNG sales aren’t being blocked

Posted on by

It seems that Pierre Poilievre, and by extension other members of his caucus like Michael Chong, are trying to sell another false narrative to the Canadian people, and this time, they are claiming that the prime minister is “blocking” LNG sales to Germany. This is patently false, but that’s not surprising considering that this is coming from Poilievre, and he is without any sense of shame when it comes to outright lying at all times. His “proof” is a National Post article with a framing device claiming that Canada “snubbed” Germany on LNG, so they are signing a deal with Qatar.

The federal government has not blocked any LNG projects. We did not “snub” Germany either because they know full well we don’t have the export infrastructure, and by the time we could build it, it would be too late for Europe, hence why they came looking for hydrogen and got it. It wasn’t the government blocking any LNG terminals from being built—it was the market. There is very little supply along the East Coast to try and tap into for supply for export (indeed, there is one import terminal in New Brunswick), so unless you’re piping it all the way from Alberta or the United States, at an increased cost, there has been little sense in constructing it (and no, fracking is not going to happen in New Brunswick). There are terminals being constructed on the West Coast, where there is supply, but they are still being built, because it took a long time for them to secure the export contracts to make construction viable. If Trudeau was really “blocking the sale” then why would these projects still be allowed to proceed? It makes no sense.

There is also the consideration that Canadian LNG is more expensive than that coming from Qatar, which is a large part of why it has been unattractive to the European market (especially when it was coming pretty cheaply from Russia). It’s why most of the proposals aren’t getting off the ground–these projects won’t make their money back for thirty or forty years, by which time we will be deep in decarbonizing and reaching Net Zero targets. Even if we could somehow build an export terminal and a pipeline to supply it, the market for the product is likely to rapidly decrease, which means we’d be stranding those assets and have billions of dollars in these terminals going nowhere. The market doesn’t want to invest for a reason, and it’s not the Canadian government.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 283:

In a rare admission, a top aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that between 10,000 to 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since Russia’s invasion began in February. (The Russian losses have been much higher). The International Atomic Energy Agency says a deal aimed at safeguarding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is almost completed. Here is a look at how school children in Kyiv are faring between Russian bombardments and blackouts. Meanwhile, here’s a look at a Canadian-funded work doing de-mining work in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sanctimonious outrage over unsavoury characters

Posted on by

There was another bout of sanctimonious outrage in the House of Commons yesterday as a notorious Holocaust-denier attended an event put on by MPs of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group, and the Conservatives (and Melissa Lantsman in particular) demanded apologies and denunciations. While at least two Liberals, Salma Zahid and Omar Alghabra, denounced, there hasn’t been much of an apology, but noted that said denier was not invited, but that an open invitation went out to the Palestinian community and he was one of 150 or so who showed up. One would think that with a topic as sensitive as solidarity with the Palestinian people that there would have been more of an emphasis on ensuring that someone like this didn’t show up, but they didn’t. In QP, Alghabra was not incorrect in noting that they can’t control the attendance at every public event and that sometimes unsavoury people will show up, which is true—but again, you should know with an event like this that it’s going to attract certain characters, and to beware.

What is rich, however, is that when far-right extremists showed up at Pierre Poilievre’s rallies, or when he cavorted with the occupiers on Parliament Hill in February, or when he went on that walk with members of Diagalon, that he and his caucus insisted that he couldn’t be held to account for those people showing up. And lo, they have a different standard when it happens to others. It’s something of a pox on all their houses situation—the MPs who hosted the Palestinian event should have been more careful, and headed off trouble when they saw who showed up, while the Conservatives need to own when they were attracting extremists, and consorting with them. But I have little doubt that either side will own this, and the sanctimonious outrage will continue, back and forth from each side, in perpetuity.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 282:

Russian shelling has taken out power in over a third of recently liberated Kherson, and Ukrainian officials are reiterating their call for civilians to relocate for the time being. Meanwhile, here’s a look at the grinding battle near Bakhmut, whose strategic importance is questioned, but nevertheless, the well-fortified Ukrainians are exacting a heavy toll from Russian forces, even though it is costing between 30 to 50 Ukrainian casualties per day.

Continue reading →

QP: Legitimate points lost in the partisan noise

Posted on by

While the PM was off at a photo op in London, Ontario, to praise the rollout of the kludge they are calling dental care, only two other leaders were present in the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the increase in violent crime statistics, and wondered why the government wasn’t investing in police or CBSA and were banning hunting rifles instead with an estimate that the buyback could cost an additional billion dollars. Marco Mendicino offered the bland reassurance that their legislation doesn’t target farmers and hunters, but targets assault weapons like have been used at mass shootings. Poilievre switched to English to list some of the rifles in the list to be banned, insisting they were about ducks and vermin on farms, while Mendicino insisted that the goal was to target assault-style rifles. Poilievre cited a statistic that 82 percent of guns used in crimes in Toronto were smuggled across the border, and accused the government of targeting hunters. Mendicino accused Poilievre of spreading disinformation (though there is some grey area here because there are concerns about some of the guns listed), and accused the Conservatives of not voting in favour of supports for CBSA. Poilievre switched topics, worried about particular survey results about housing affordability, and wondered how people can’t afford housing in the country with the second-largest landmass on the planet (which is a really, really stupid talking point because we’re not building residential subdivisions on Baffin Island or in the middle of the Canadian Shield and he knows full well that’s the case). Ahmed Hussen pointed to their funding for municipalities to help accelerate their processing and permitting, along with other measures like their rent-to-own programme. Poilievre switched to French to decry this same shortage of housing, along with some disinformation about inflation, but somehow managed to blame the federal government for preventing housing from being built, which is utter nonsense. Hussen repeated his points, with the added jab that the Conservatives don’t have their own housing plan.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about Chinese interference, along with his particularly odd accusation about Chinese money flowing into the prime minister’s riding. Marco Mendicino got up to recite the lines about creating the two independent panels and their conclusion that there was no interference. Blanchet demanded an inquiry into his allegation about the money going to the prime minister’s riding, and Mendicino shrugged it off with some more talking points about the two panels.

Alexandre Boulerice appeared by video to lead for the NDP to worry about the state of hospitals, demanding the government act, somehow. Adam van Koeverden read a script about the federal government working with provinces. Charlie Angus demanded that the government end the underfunding of Indigenous children in care, and to end the court challenge, to which Patty Hajdu reminded him that they have put forward a record sum of money in partnership with First Nations leaders.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bill drawn up by deranged constitutional saboteurs

Posted on by

The fallout of the rollout of Danielle Smith’s “Alberta Sovereignty in a United Canada Act” carried on for much of the day, starting with a “clarification” that the province’s justice department sent out, but it didn’t clarify anything because it contradicted the plain language of the text, and I am forced to wonder why we aren’t seeing a raft of resignations because this whole affair has been an egregious, unconstitutional omnishambles from the get go. (From bean to cup…)

For his part, Justin Trudeau is keeping his powder dry and standing well back. While he said nothing is “off the table,” but added that he’s not looking to pick a fight, he knows full well that a fight is what Smith wants, because that’s what she hopes to use to leverage support in the next election, because there is a demographic in Alberta who likes the attitude of pugilism with the federal government, even though most of the grievances are imaginary or overblown. And no, he is not going to invoke disallowance on this because it’s a constitutional dead letter and would be provoking an even bigger constitutional crisis. But I also get the sense that “disallowance” is the new “Emergencies Act” that the press gallery in Ottawa is going to ask Trudeau about at every single opportunity, like they did through the height of the pandemic. But seriously, Gretchen—stop trying to make disallowance happen. It’s not going to happen. As for what Trudeau will do, I suspect it’ll be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada after the bill receives royal assent, whenever that happens.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1597961310779891713

For commentary on the bill, law professor Eric Adams lists the bill’s many unconstitutional aspects which will result in court cases, one way or the other. Emmett Macfarlane pulls no punches in calling it the most unconstitutional bill in modern history, goes through the many problems, and asserts that the bill was “drawn up by deranged constitutional saboteurs,” and he’s right. David Moscrop points out that the bill gives Smith a temporary win by harnessing populist forces to her benefit, where she can play victim when the courts eventually strike this down. Colby Cosh doesn’t take Smith at her word that she hopes never to use this legislation, and hopes that people can cool down before this escalates.

https://twitter.com/tim4hire/status/1598044824380506117

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 281:

Fighting continues both in the east, as Russians continue to try and advance to Bakhmut, and near Kherson in the south. Meanwhile, nine people were killed by fire over a 24-hour period as they tried to find ways of providing heat, and it didn’t go very well for an of them.

Continue reading →

QP: Careful hewing to prepared lines about national security

Posted on by

The prime minister was in the Chamber for his usual Wednesday spot of proto-Prime Minister’s Questions, as were all of the other leaders, which hasn’t happened for a few weeks. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he once again returned to the Global News report that China had funnelled money to federal candidates in 2019, and wanted to know if the prime minister had gone back to CSIS to ask if there was any evidence to support such an allegation. Justin Trudeau said that he has to be very careful in answering questions about national security, and with a script in front of him, recited that Canada and its allies are regularly targeted by foreign states like China, including during election campaigns, and that his government had more steps than any other including creating an independent panel tasked with assessing the risk coming from foreign countries, and those panels confirmed that the electoral integrity was not compromised, and concluded with yes, he receives regular briefings. Poilievre switched to English, said it was interesting that he said he did get briefings, and repeated to know if he got one post Global News report on the allegations. Trudeau repeated his same response in English, word-for-word, but added at the end that all parties are briefed about elections. Poilievre said that wasn’t the question, and wanted a yes-or-no answer on a post-Global News briefing. Trudeau very slowly enunciated that in all of the briefings he received, there has never been any mention of candidates receiving money from China in either 2019 or 2021, and praised the panels once again. Poilievre wanted a yes-or-no answer on whether Trudeau asked for briefings after the Global News story, but Trudeau went on about how Poilievre, a former minister, knows the importance of respecting national security guidelines and that because Poilievre was the former minister for elevations integrity, he knows this, but also added that when Poilievre was minister, he did nothing about adding security against interference while the current government did. Poilievre was incredulous by the notion that Trudeau didn’t demand a briefing on the story, but moved on to ask if there was any electoral interference at all. Trudeau reminded him that Canada is regularly subject to some level of foreign interference, including from China, including during elections, which Poilievre would know when he was minister of elections, and noted that the two previous leaders did get briefings before, during and after the elections on foreign interference.

Yves-François Blanchet wondered at what point the interference goes from a little to a lot, and wondered about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding was interference or influence. Trudeau stated that rather than allowing partisan accusations to muddy the waters, they created a panel to precisely look at those issues in an objective and non-partisan manner. Blanchet was more specific about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding at a time a bank was trying to get approval, and Trudeau said that while the Bloc was trying to cast doubt on the integrity of our institutions, he could assure them they were not affected.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, worried about an overloaded hospital in Quebec, and accused the prime minister of sitting on his hands, and demanded the government do more like they did in the pandemic. Trudeau reminded him that they have been working with the provinces. Singh switched to English to worry about Danielle Smith’s “Sovereignty Act” and that she would use it to undermine the Canada Health Act, which proves he doesn’t know what he was talking about because the whole gods damned point of the Act is to put conditions on federal dollars. Trudeau noted that he could understand why people were concerned, but he was going to focus on getting good results for Albertans.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Sovereignty Act is an attack on democracy itself

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith tabled her “Alberta Sovereignty in a United Canada Act” yesterday, and it was worse than anyone had previously imagined.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1597736239960297473

For starters, the “in a united Canada” part is an attempt to be clever in trying to insist that this isn’t about separatism, but that’s mere window dressing. (I also suspect that it’s not much of a coincidence that just days ago, conservative luminary Ken Boessenkool declared Stephen Harper’s “The Québécois are a nation within a united Canada” motion to be a genius unifying move, never mind the fact that just who “the Québécois” were was never defined and created rifts with Anglo-Quebeckers). The substance of this bill is a wholesale power grab using the most extreme form of a Henry VIII clause known as enabling legislation. In this case, it allows Cabinet to amend any legislation they see fit to after being given a mandate by way of a resolution passed by the legislature (where they have a comfortable majority). Smith and her justice minister, Tyler Shandro, kept insisting that this resolution process was democratic and transparent, but this kind of enabling legislation is anything but, particularly because it allows Cabinet to define the terms of what they deem “injurious to Alberta’s interests,” or whatever the excuse they’re giving themselves to take these powers. It violates the separation of powers by declaring federal legislation to be null and void in the province, and directs police not to enforce federal laws, which is an attack on the rule of law.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1597732003411267584

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1597761564257701888

Smith justified the need for such powers as saying that Alberta has been “ignored” by the federal government for the past ten years, which is a) complete bullshit, and b) that’s not a justifiable reason to give yourself the power to ignore the legislative process. She insisted this was just defending rights like Quebec does, but Quebec doesn’t do this. Her list of grievances was largely all strawmen—the incoming emission cap on the oil and gas sector, the plan to reduce fertilizer emissions, environmental assessment legislation, and the worst affront of all—that the federal government would dare to try to attach strings to federal dollars. How very dare they! But this kind of mendacious grievance-mongering is how politics has been practice in the province for years now, so it’s not unexpected that this is what she would fall back to.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1597733033754386434

Smith’s apologists immediately came out to defend the bill saying that it’s “symbolic” and Smith herself was insisting she doesn’t want it to be used. That’s all horseshit. You don’t give yourself very real enabling legislation powers for “symbolic” reasons if you don’t intend to use it. The federal government has largely been signalling that they won’t be engaging, though I wouldn’t be surprised if, now that we’ve seen the text and the huge overreach, that they would refer this to the Supreme Court of Canada so fast that it will give you whiplash. While this could be Smith imagining that it’s a fight she wants, I have severe doubts that it would give her the legitimacy in a fight that she so desperately wants.

As this was all going down, Jason Kenney announced that he had resigned his seat, with a letter attached that bemoaned how polarized politics had become—after he spent 25 years actively engaging in that very polarizing behaviour and driving it to partisan effect. The kicker here is that Kenney was vehemently opposed to the proposed Sovereignty Act, and planned to oppose it in the legislature, but as soon as the bill is tabled, whoops, there he goes. I can’t quite decide if this is weaselly behaviour, or Kenney being a chicken shit. Either way, it was a choice.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1597741099971641344

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 280:

NATO foreign ministers met in Bucharest, Romania, and have pledged additional non-lethal support with things like more blankets and generators to help Ukrainians to get through the winter, but also to send them Patriot missiles. The Americans announced $53 million to buy parts to help repair the electrical grid. Inside Ukraine, “Points of Invincibility” have bene set up which are stations to get food, drinks, and warmth as the shelling of critical infrastructure continues.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1597661671560024067

Continue reading →

QP: We created two independent panels!

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were in the House together for the first QP in weeks, which is always nice to see. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, he asked if any public servants, security officials, or police inform the prime minister of Beijing’s alleged interference in elections. Justin Trudeau said that while security and police take foreign interference very seriously, he could assure Canadians that in the 2019 and 2021 elections, there was no foreign interference that could have changed any of the results in any significant way. Poilievre found the answer to be tricksy, and in English, wanted to know if there was any interference period. Trudeau pointed out that there is always some level of interference, be it cyber or disinformation, but they had assurances this was not an issue and that the elections were free and fair. Poilievre still was not satisfied, and asked again. Trudeau reiterated that they had the panel of top civil servants and national security who monitored both 2019 and 2021 and found no interference. Poilievre tried again, more slowly, if there were any briefings about alleged interference, period. Trudeau stated that he had no briefings, period, around foreign-funded candidates. Poilievre insisted this was a denial of an absurdity, and repeated yet again if he had any intelligence of any interference of any kind from Beijing during either election. Trudeau reiterated that the report from the non-partisan panel that there was no interference that impacted those elections.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the NDP, and raised that the RCMP was now investigating, and if democracy was at stake, the prime minister needed to know which alleged eleven candidates were in question. Trudeau repeated that all of the reports stated anything about any interference or funding directly or indirectly from China. Blanchet was not mollified and worried that Trudeau was somehow isolating China for the sake of grandstanding. Trudeau once again cited that China does try to interfere, which is why we work with allies to protect ourselves. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and worried about conservative premiers trying to privatise healthcare, and demanded the prime minister do something about that. Trudeau noted that on some days the NDP demand he send more money to premiers and today he was telling them not to, but any future transfers would be subject to the Canada Health Act. Singh switched to French and sounded concern about Quebec hospitals in particular, and Trudeau reiterated that they were working with provinces to deliver “real results.”

Continue reading →

QP: Being happy-clappy about dental care

Posted on by

While the PM was off at James Smith Cree Nation today, his deputy was present for the first time in a week. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he misquoted Tiff Macklem’s testimony at committee about the relationship between government deficits and inflation, and tried to wedge this into his facile narrative about blaming the government for it, and demanded the government reverse their deficits. Chrystia Freeland responded with the good news that this week, Canadians can start applying for the new dental claim benefit for children under twelve. Poilivre repeated his mendacious Macklem misquote and added in a quote from an insurance company that says they won’t accept heat pumps as primary sources of heat because they can’t be counted on to not freeze pipes, and demanded the government cancel their plan to “triple” the carbon price (which is not tripling). Freeland responded with her happy-clappy good news talking point about dental care, which was not the question, and then added in the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre then worried about Canadians not being able to heat their homes in the winter and again demanded the government cancel the carbon price (which won’t do anything for affordability because the increases largely have to do with the world price of oil). Jonathan Wilkinson got up this time to note their affordability measures like doubling the GST credit, and pointed out that in spite of what the Conservatives say, the carbon price rebates benefit eight out of ten families and the Conservatives campaigned on a carbon price themselves. Poilievre then misquoted the PBO’s report on carbon prices, dropped his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm, and demanded the government cancel their planned carbon price increases. This time, Sean Fraser got up to declare that Poilievre’s questions were irrational, with his newfound opposition to heat pumps, when they are important to people who live in his part of the country, and pointed out that the cost of inaction is too great to ignore. Poilievre then pivoted to the recently announced Indo-Pacific Strategy, and a statement about challenging China for their abusive behaviours, and raised the wave of protests around that country, and he demanded that the government tell Beijing to let the protests go ahead. Maninder Sidhu got up to read a script about following the events closely, and that protesters should be able to do so peacefully.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she worried about the allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 election, and in the absences of something more concrete from the government, wondered if the Global a news story was “fake news.” Marco Mendincino stood up to reminder her that they had an independent panel in both elections that declared that there was no interference. DeBellefeuille used this as an opportunity to make the case for a return to the per-vote subsidy as “protection” against this kind of interference, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to reiterate the same points.

Rachel Blaney for the NDP, and blamed Loblaws for rising food prices and demanded they pay their “fair share.” Freeland recited her well-worn talking points about corporations paying more in taxes, their Recovery Dividend, and their luxury taxes. Daniel Blaikie took over in French to repeat the same question, and Freeland recited the French version of her same talking points.

Continue reading →

QP: Directly quoting selectively from the PBO

Posted on by

The prime minister was present once again, while his deputy was busy testifying at the public inquiry. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about deficits causing inflation (which they’re not), and demanded a course correction. Justin Trudeau reminded him that they were there for Canadians during the pandemic in order to ensure it was less severe than other places on the world, and that our economy bounced back faster, and insisted that the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre switched to English to denounce alleged comments from Seamus O’Regan, and demanded they cut the carbon price. Trudeau dismissed the concern as twisting the words of minister, and pointed to the PBO report on the carbon price and how it helps eight out of ten families. Poilievre picked up that report and cited several numbers out of context to “prove” his talking points. Trudeau, looking rather pleased, insisted that Poilievre did not look at the section about the rebates, and called him out about not caring about climate change. Poilievre insisted that the rebates were “tiny” and didn’t cover costs—and was called out by the Speaker for using the report as a prop—and Poilievre went on a tear about how the price is ineffective and hurts people. Trudeau disputed that the rebates were tiny, and noted the other benefits they have delivered, noting that Poilievre is only playing rhetorical games. Poilievre tried to bring up the cost of the hotel for the Queen’s funeral and insisted that the report proved that people are being hit hard. Trudeau countered that the report shows that the rebates compensate most families more than they pay, because fighting climate change is important while Poilievre only wants to nickel-and-dime them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he returned to the alleged contradictions in the reports about the Xi Jinping confrontation and demanded a return to the per-vote subsidy to prevent foreign funding. Trudeau clapped back that the Bloc only want the subsidy because they can’t raise money on their own. Therrien was incensed, and insisted that China was exploiting this vulnerability, and Trudeau countered that political financing is robust and transparent, and pointed out that the media are invited to his fundraising events, and encouraged other parties to do the same.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried the crisis in emergency rooms and demanded the federal government show up. Trudeau took exception to the insinuation he doesn’t care about children, and pointed out that they have transferred billions to provinces and are sitting down with provinces. Singh switched to French to repeat the question and got the same response.

Continue reading →