Bill to Amend Certain Acts and Regulations in Relation to Firearms
Third Reading--Debate Adjourned
May 8, 2019
Moved third reading of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.
He said: Honourable senators, six years ago, on April 5, 2013, Lindsay Margaret Wilson was stopped and murdered by shotgun by her ex-boyfriend in Bracebridge, Ontario. Her killer then took his own life. Lindsay was 26 years old.
This is how her mother, Alison Irons, described Lindsay’s fatal injuries to the Senate’s National Security Committee:
. . . there was extensive internal injury to my slim daughter’s heart and lungs. . . . Her right shoulder was fractured and five ribs were shattered to pieces. Her left forearm was completely fractured and left hanging by a thread. . . . She had minor gunshot wounds to the back of her head, likely from the first shot spinning her body around, and stippling wounds to the lower part of her beautiful face.
The murderer was a licensed gun owner.
On January 29, 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette shot six people dead and injured 19 others at a Quebec City mosque. One of the survivors, Boufeldja Benabdallah, described how the carnage began:
He took out his handgun and killed the two Guineans who stood at the door. Even though they were now lying in the snow dying, he calmly went over them and shot each of them in the head.
Bissonnette was a licensed gun owner.
Colleagues, the overwhelming majority of firearm owners are good, law-abiding citizens who have absolutely nothing in common with criminals, nor do they suffer from mental illnesses linked to violent behaviour. But there are tragic exceptions. Bill C-71 seeks to address these exceptions.
Since the debate began on this bill, opponents have repeated the assertion that the bill does not attack the so-called real problem, gang crime. This is misleading for two reasons. First, if gang homicides are a significant part of Canada’s gun violence, they are only part of the problem. From 2012 to 2017, the number of non-gang-related firearm homicides increased by 55 per cent. Furthermore, firearm suicides, which, of course, have nothing to do with gangs, kill two to three times more Canadians each year than firearm homicides.
Second, the government is fighting gang crime. It has announced an investment of $327 million in initiatives directed at guns and gangs. Of this sum, $52 million is provided to the CBSA to help prevent firearms from coming into the country illegally, and $35 million is being used to enhance the RCMP’s new Integrated Criminal Firearms Initiative. The rest of the money is, as we speak, being transferred to provinces and cities across the country to help them fight gang crime.
The government has never claimed that Bill C-71 is a silver bullet. Neither have I. It is part of a series of initiatives, some of which target gangs and organized crime, and others that tackle other facets of firearm violence, as is the case for Bill C-71.
Colleagues, I know that like me, you have received hundreds of e-mails, phone calls and petitions opposing this bill. However, this campaign provides a skewed perspective on public opinion. According to a Leger poll released last month by the Canadian Press, 77 per cent of Canadians are in favour of stricter gun control. This is the case of a clear majority in all of the country’s regions. Seven out of 10 Conservative voters agree with stricter gun control.
Let me remind you of the five main measures contained in the bill. The first is background checks. Currently, when licencing authorities determine whether a person is eligible for a firearms licence, they are only required to consider the violent or threatening behaviour of a prospective gun owner over the preceding five years of the applicant’s life. If this bill is adopted, the background check will span the life history of the applicant instead of only five years. Some have expressed a concern that because of the removal of this five-year time limitation, an applicant could be prevented from acquiring a gun because, for example, he or she suffered from depression 25 or 30 years ago. This concern is not warranted. The Firearms Act and Bill C-71 make it very clear that the offences and mental health issues considered for background checks are those that involve violence.
Thoroughly vetting the background of a gun licence applicant is simply common sense. According to the Leger poll I just mentioned, 82 per cent of Canadians agree with this measure, including 80 per cent of Conservative voters.
The second is a verification of licence. Since changes to the Firearms Act were brought forward by the previous government, the vendor of a non-restricted firearm is not required to verify the validity of the buyer’s gun licence. The vendor may make that verification but is not obligated to do so. Bill C-71 proposes to re-establish this requirement in order to ensure that all buyers of non-restricted firearms are legitimate licence holders.
The third is retailers’ records. Bill C-71 will require that firearms businesses keep records of their sales of non-restricted firearms, something that most responsible vendors already do. Making it mandatory will mean that it will be the industry standard to do so, which in turn — and police officers have testified to this — can help law enforcement more efficiently track firearms used by criminals.
Opponents say the new system is a backdoor long-gun registry. This is simply not the case. The government will not have access to the content of the retailers’ records, except police officers carrying a warrant related to a specific investigation. To make sure that Bill C-71 did not reintroduce a hunting guns registry, the Conservative opposition in the other place moved an amendment to the bill that reads:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.
According to the Conservative MP who moved the amendment, it “solved the problem,” and “closed the loophole regarding a long-gun registry.” The amendment passed in the other place and is now part of Bill C-71. Colleagues, if this amendment is good enough to reassure the official opposition in the other place, it’s good enough for me.
Sober second thought.
Bill C-71 gives the final say on classifying firearms into the categories set out in the Criminal Code, namely, prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted weapons, back to the RCMP.
The previous government chose to give cabinet the final say, even authorizing it to ignore the definitions set out in the Criminal Code. Bill C-71 depoliticizes the classification of firearms.
The owner of a restricted or prohibited firearm is not allowed to transport it wherever they want. They must have an authorization to transport. Four years ago, the previous government made authorizations to transport automatic, meaning they were automatically issued together with the licence for the most common destinations. After that decision was made, it became virtually impossible for police to check whether a gun owner was really transporting their gun for legitimate purposes. To fix that flaw in the legislation, Bill C-71 tightens up the authorization to transport rules.
Honourable senators, the bill’s opponents accuse the government of harassing licensed gun owners. That is a gross exaggeration. For the vast majority of licensed gun owners, nothing will change if this bill is passed. In a handful of cases, the new measures will require the owner to make a phone call or visit a government website. That is a far cry from harassment.
The bill’s adversaries have also asserted that gun control initiatives have not produced results in Canada or in other countries. This assertion is contradicted by a wide body of research in Canada and around the world. For instance — and this is just one example among many — research done by the Quebec Public Health Institute has shown that the adoption of Bill C-68 produced a decrease of 50 homicides per year in Canada and 72 suicides per year. That is more than 120 lives saved in Canada each year.
As one of Canada’s foremost experts on suicide, Professor Brian Mishara stated that Bill C-71:
. . . will not solve the suicide problem in Canada, but based upon experiences elsewhere lives will be saved. When that life is your son, daughter, husband or wife, you would do anything to have that person continue to be alive.
Yesterday, when this chamber defeated the committee’s amendment to the bill, some said we did it for partisan reasons. This accusation is unfair and untrue. We did it because we are convinced that in its original form, Bill C-71 can save lives. The lives of women threatened by their partner, the lives of innocent victims of mass shootings, the lives of the vulnerable who, out of desperation, attempt suicide. I cannot think of a nobler motive than saving lives.
Honourable senators, Bill C-71 is a pragmatic and reasonable bill. The measures it contains will improve public safety. They will not bring back the long-gun registry and they do not harass law-abiding gun owners. Notwithstanding these facts, a good number of gun owners are concerned. Many of them fear that the bill will increase the bureaucratic burden that they feel they already carry. The government should do what it can to allay these legitimate concerns. For example, it should make sure the RCMP and the chief firearms officers provide better service standards. Owners should not have to wait hours or even days before an authorization to transport is issued. Also, the firearm classification process should be more expeditious and especially more transparent. The government has committed to this. It is its duty to follow through.
Colleagues, Indigenous leaders were not consulted during the drafting of Bill C-71. They were understandably angered and frustrated by this situation. The Assembly of First Nations, for one, expressed serious reservations regarding the impact of Bill C-71 on Indigenous people’s hunting rights which, as you know, are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. That set us working with the AFN, other groups and Indigenous senators in this place in order to alleviate these concerns. In the end, I was advised by Senators Sinclair and Christmas that the non‑derogation clause is already included in the Firearms Act, which states:
. . . nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 . . .
This non-derogation clause satisfactorily protects Indigenous people’s hunting rights. Therefore it is not necessary to amend Bill C-71 to address this issue.
Although I believe this outcome is satisfactory, the way we got there is not. It would have been far preferable for Indigenous representatives to be involved in the legislative process from the get-go. Consultation, alongside legislative drafting, may not be a constitutional duty pursuant to the Mikisew ruling, but it is a political and moral duty. Moreover, consulting Indigenous peoples in regards to this bill would have been consistent with the goal of reconciliation. It would also have made for better law.
I thank all Indigenous senators for their understanding, wisdom and guidance on this important file.
Honourable senators, Michèle Audette is one of the commissioners leading the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. When she appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, she courageously talked about how she tried to commit suicide six years ago. She said, and I quote:
In 2013, I was also prepared to leave. I took a mountain of pills with alcohol. Something then happened that had not happened during my previous suicide attempts. I went to look for a rifle where I was living and I tried to use it. What saved my life that morning was the cocktail of substances I had taken, which put me in a coma and prevented me from turning the gun on myself.
Most people who, like Ms. Audette, try to take their own lives by taking drugs or medication survive, but 80 per cent of those who use a firearm don’t get that second chance at life.
Dear colleagues, I agreed to sponsor this bill because, like Alison Irons, Boufeldja Benabdallah, Michèle Audette and 80 per cent of Canadians, I believe that a better gun control regime will save lives. Think about it. We don’t often see a bill that has the potential to prevent dozens of human tragedies.
Think about what this vote at third reading really means. This isn’t a vote against lawful gun owners. It’s a vote for life.
Thank you.
I’m wondering if the honourable senator would take a few questions?
Of course.
Thank you, Senator Pratte. There are three questions that I will ask. I’ll ask them and give you an opportunity to answer them individually.
Yesterday, of course, this chamber decided to undo 30 hours of work that the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence did and ignore 81 witnesses by defeating a very good report. Today, we heard a senator stand and ask for leave to have a committee study a different contentious bill because the committee had decided that’s what they wanted to do, so this chamber should acknowledge that and accept that as a good enough reason to grant them the opportunity to sit when the Senate is sitting, so on and so forth.
Senator Pratte, I’m perplexed by this. On the one hand, we’re supposed to adopt and accept what a committee votes on, and, on the other hand, we’re supposed to ignore all the hard work they did.
Could you, in a few words, explain to me what your definition is and your idea of what a committee is supposed to do and how much credence we are supposed to give to the good and hard work of all senators in this chamber for the work that they do at committee?
Thank you for this question. First of all, I disagree with your premise that by voting on the report yesterday this chamber undid hours of work and did not listen to 81 witnesses who appeared in front of the committee.
It is clear from the debates in committee and from the debates that we’ve had here that there is a lot of respect for what the committee did and heard, but not all 81 witnesses agreed on the bill. Second, it’s clear from jurisprudence in this house and from speaker’s rulings that when a report defeats the purpose of a bill that is being studied, the Senate is perfectly within its right — and that is certainly what the Conservative majority thought when they were a majority in this house — while respectful of the committee’s work, to defeat the committee’s report.
I take it from that answer that we are supposed to ignore only the witnesses who are opposed to bill and those in favour of this bill have, of course, brought great testimony. That’s what I took from that answer. Maybe somebody else will have taken something else from that answer, but that’s what I gathered.
Senator Pratte, you said in your speech that a Conservative member in the other place presented an amendment that said for greater certainty this would not be a gun registry and that amendment was accepted. I know this won’t be, specifically, your quote, but I heard you say what’s good enough for the Conservative opposition over there is good enough for you.
I think the Conservative opposition over there voted against this bill. Why is that not good enough for you if you are so concerned about the Conservative opposition and so agreeable to it?
I’m always listening very closely to what the opposition in this house and the other house says. I try every time in my speeches — and I did today — to reflect what the opposition and the witnesses who were hostile to the bill said. I said that some of their concerns were legitimate and that the government should act on them.
This being said, I was speaking specifically on this issue of the gun registry. When that amendment was introduced, the Conservative MP who introduced the amendments said specifically that this will solve the problem. This will solve the problem. I said — and I repeat what I said in my speech — if the Conservative opposition in the other place says that the problem of the long-gun registry is solved by this amendment, well, this amendment is now part of the bill in its original form. If we had voted in favour of the report yesterday, this amendment would not be in the bill. It is in the bill now. It reassures the official opposition in the other place. I think it should reassure all legitimate firearm owners that this will not reintroduce in any way, shape or form the long-gun registry.
One last question. Last week — and I alluded to this in my speech yesterday — one of the senators opposite said in her speech that there is one purpose and one purpose only for guns, and that is killing. Is that your assertion as well, that the only purpose for a gun is to kill?
No. I think there are many sport shooters who shoot for other purposes, but all guns have the potential to kill. That’s why we have to be extra careful in the way we manage guns in society. That is why there are rules. Very precise and detailed rules as appropriate, as is the case for cars, for instance.
I believe that this bill will reinforce the gun control regime as is warranted by the current situation, as is approved by a vast majority of Canadians, including Conservative voters, and without imposing on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners an excessive bureaucratic burden.
I move the adjournment of the debate in my name.
On debate. I would like to go on debate if I can.
It’s already been adjourned.
Honourable senators, there is an adjournment motion on the floor. We had this problem last Thursday, as honourable senators will remember. It’s entirely up to Senator Housakos who has the floor and put the adjournment motion.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-71, which amends the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act and its regulations by tightening the administrative requirements related to the acquisition, transfer and transportation of firearms as well as licensing.
These new requirements will apply to all firearms owners, both the ones who obey Canadian laws and the ones who contravene them, as well as those who might be considered to be at risk of committing a violent crime.
In addition, Bill C-71 will provide law enforcement with the essential tools needed to enhance public safety and help solve crimes committed with a firearm.
To this effect, the bill mainly requires that the sellers retain transaction records relevant to police investigations, a practice that is already widely followed. From a technical standpoint, this does not constitute a firearm registry such as that which was abolished in 2012. The bill expressly addresses this concern within a provision.
Lobbies and interest groups who oppose any form of firearm regulation fail to provide evidence-based information, which perpetuates misinformation inspired by the political and legal rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, or NRA. This issue will be the focus of my intervention today.
Canadian lobbies and interest groups are trying to adapt old rhetoric to the context of Bill C-71 by suggesting that stricter firearms regulations attack the rights and freedoms of gun owners and that restricting access to firearms is a national security threat.
However, scientific research and the rule of law unequivocally contradict these claims. This leads us to question the ability of the legislator to objectively conduct a more in-depth analysis of Bill C-71 in a political climate disproportionately dominated by the rhetoric of the gun lobby.
There is no denying that the firearms lobby disproportionately influences public and parliamentary debate. The strong presence of lobbying is not new to our democratic institution, but its significant presence increases the need to raise awareness of the influence and further emphasizes the importance of exercising our legislative functions as objectively as possible in a manner that is representative of all Canadians.
Parliamentarians have been actively sought out by the gun lobby as they were working on Bill C-71. They have received countless communications from that lobby.
An article in The Hill Times highlights this problematic trend as follows:
The right of all Canadians to be safe from gun violence was continually overshadowed by the apparently supremely critical importance of not letting one single gun owner get “caught up in a background check” and lose their licence.
This is what the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe and expect. Yet the entire political process — from speeches in House of Commons to debates in the media to the parliamentary hearings — was predominantly focused on how the law would affect “law-abiding gun owners.” Each measure (and each amendment) was subject to a barrage of questions and criticisms from the perspective of hunters, target shooters, collectors, and businesses. Even the notion of making a phone call to validate a buyer’s licence was considered a major cause for concern.
Although the gun lobby doesn’t influence legislative reforms in Canada as much as it does in the United States, it indirectly sways the course of debate on firearms regulation. That influence is clear even among parliamentarians who support Bill C-71. They focus more on refuting the gun lobby’s rhetorical arguments and less on concerns raised by gun control advocacy groups that have access to fewer resources and means.
This ends up being more about placating the gun lobby than thoroughly considering issues related to firearms regulation. We’re biased from the start, believing that Bill C-71 does nothing to address gang-related gun violence or crime, that all it does is impose regulations on law-abiding citizens, and that it violates Canadians’ basic rights and freedoms and the right to self-defence.
Is the argument that this violates Canadians’ basic rights and freedoms valid?
The premise inherited from the NRA’s rhetoric implies that the government is acting outside the rules of law whenever it attempts to regulate firearms. This statement is simply false and not supported by the legal community of the courts. Historically, this argument was used to sow fear among gun owners by suggesting that the issuance of licences for firearms is the first step towards the confiscation of firearms and the disarmament of civil society.
Researcher Frederick (Ted) Morton argues that regulating firearms is an infringement on constitutional rights under section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Although the gun lobby endorses him, neither the Supreme Court of Canada nor the legal community, generally, have found merit in his argument. The Canadian Shooting Sports Association defends a similar position, arguing that the right to possess a firearm may not lie in the Charter or constitution but, rather, elsewhere in Canadian law and, stemming from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, just as the United States.
The overuse of legal jargon gives the firearm lobby a false credibility. The misuse of legalese aggravates misinformation to the public inclined to persuasion.
What about the right to self-defence? Economist John. R. Lott came up with the idea that more guns equals less crime, in a book published in 1998 entitled More Guns, Less Crime.
The data collection and statistical analysis methodology used to find support for this theory has been harshly criticized in academic circles. Nevertheless, this premise helped shape the laxer gun regulations in many American states. The NRA and Canadian pro-gun lobbies use this book to exploit fears and push the idea that gun regulations are a threat to security and safety.
However, there are a number of studies that contradict this theory. For example, John J. Donohue, a researcher at Stanford University, has refuted this theory with compelling evidence and accepted statistical analysis methodology in an article entitled:
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis.
Essentially, the researcher finds a correlation between carrying firearms and violent crime and observes an increase of 13 to 15 per cent in violent crime in U.S. states where handgun regulations have been rolled back. The author suggests that the easier it is for people to access guns, the more guns there will be and the easier it will be for criminals to get their hands on them.
The author believes that loosening regulations could contribute to increasing gun violence in five ways: interventions meant to protect victims; increased crime by those who acquire the guns of licensed individuals via loss or theft; a change in culture induced by the hyper-vigilance about one’s rights and the need to avenge wrongs that the gun culture can nurture; elevated harm as criminals respond to the possibility of armed resistance by increasing their gun carrying and escalating their level of violence. At the end of the day, and this is the fifth factor, the four aforementioned factors take up police time or increase the risks faced by police, impairing their ability to fight crime, which ultimately leads to more crime.
In Canada, the NRA has also funded research of Canadian gun owner, activist and former Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser. The researcher sought to defend the view that as a firearm may be used to defend oneself the regulation of firearms compromises public safety. The firearm lobby engages in fear mongering to reinforce the alleged correlation between possession of a firearm and security.
To do so, the lobby spreads an erroneous perception of the increased risk of violent crimes along with the false perception that a firearm is required for self-protection.
As the lawyer and researcher Scott Medlock put it in an article entitled, NRA Equals No Rational Argument? How the National Rifle Association Exploits Public Irrationality, the NRA has refined its presentation of crime to minimize the cost of gun violence and amplify the dread effect.
Images of violent crime are ubiquitous in popular culture and the public systematically exaggerates the number of homicides that annually occur.
The NRA and the firearm lobby in Canada exploit this fear in a variety of ways. This phenomenon — namely, risk perception and their impacts — was the focus of psychology Professor Paul Slovic from the University of Oregon. The author Scott Medlock paraphrases Professor Slovic to explain dread effects as follows:
Dreaded risks are exaggerated far beyond the actual risk they propose. The prototypical example is the shark attack. Very few people are attacked, much less killed, by sharks every year. Despite the extremely low risk, the fear of sharks is widespread. Dreaded risks are often exotic and uncommon but present in the popular culture and therefore are easy to understand.
This NRA-inspired rhetoric is commonplace on the blogs and publications run by Canada’s gun lobbies. They present false legal arguments that mislead the public by insinuating that gun control is a violation of constitutional rights or by reinforcing the idea that no one is safe unless they own a gun. Those are arguments we have heard in this chamber.
First of all, the government is not claiming that Bill C-71 will solve all of our gun violence problems. That is a simplistic and reductionist view of the government’s overall strategy, which aims to prevent and reduce gun violence and support law enforcement investigations.
Bill C-71 is part of a comprehensive approach to gun violence within the National Crime Prevention Strategy, which provides for $327 million over five years to counter the increase of armed violence and gang activity; $291 million over five years to address safety concerns of First Nations and Inuit; and to conduct an extensive review of the possibility to prohibit handguns and assault weapons in Canada in compliance with the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
This strategy underscores a far more complete solution to the misuse of firearms.
I just want to read you an excerpt from an article by Bob Hepburn that appeared in the Toronto Star under the headline, “Why is Canada’s gun lobby so powerful?”
Gun violence has grown so bad that Canada now ranks fifth among the 23 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in rates of firearm deaths.
Why has Canada failed to act despite widespread public support for stiffer gun laws? The reason is primarily twofold:
First, the pro-gun lobby is large, vocal and well-financed.
Second, gun-control advocates are relatively weak. To be blunt, after each mass shooting, Canadians send prayers and flowers — and then do nothing.
While clearly not as well organized as the National Rifle Association in the U.S., the main pro-gun organizations in Canada have been extremely successful in fighting any moves to impose more controls on guns.
In words similar to NRA-speak, the National Firearms Association says it focuses on “the protection of real democracy” in Canada and fighting for “property rights.” The Canadian Shooting Sports Federation claims more than 30,000 members. The Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR) brags on its website of dozens of “accomplishments.” Earlier this year the CCFR openly urged its members to file misconduct complaints against —
I’m sorry, senator, your time has lapsed. Would you like another five minutes?
Yes.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
To continue:
Earlier this year the CCFR openly urged its members to file misconduct complaints against Canadian doctors who support stronger gun control laws.
These groups tell their members and individual gun owners to join letter-writing campaigns, drowning MPs and senators in letters and emails.
Their biggest successes have been the repeal of the federal long-gun registry in 2012 and the chill they have put on all political parties when it comes to more controls.
This brings me to the end of my remarks today. As a resident of northern Ontario and advocate for the interests of my region, which is home to a substantial number of hunters, I wanted to make sure that this bill would not infringe on their rights or prevent them from taking part in their favourite fall activity.
Bill C-71 will restrict access to firearms for individuals considered at risk of committing violent crimes without compromising the privilege of owning a firearm for legitimate owners. It seeks to enhance background checks; enhance the effectiveness of the existing licensing system; standardize existing best practices among commercial retailers; ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms; and bolster community safety by requiring specific transportation authorizations for restricted and prohibited firearms.
In order to engage in an informed parliamentary debate, it is essential to understand the influence of lobbies and their ubiquitous presence in discussing firearms regulations, particularly in the context of Bill C-71. Notwithstanding the pressure exerted by these groups, parliamentarians need to allow for diligent, thorough discussions beyond the discourse of the dominant group. Vigilance is paramount to tackle the spread of misinformation, and to ensure a strong and independent legislature that represents all Canadians.
Thank you for your attention.
I wanted to ask a question.
I just wanted to say, senator — and I’m happy for your remarks — that, as somebody who grew up in the part of the world I did, I do not feel that I have been swayed or influenced in any way by gun lobbies. I grew up in an area where guns are tools; they are not weapons.
My view of this is that we have — and I’m a proponent of gun control on legal guns and gun owners. I for one would like to see a lot more focus on illegal guns and illegal gun users. I’m wondering whether you would agree that if the government had moved on that front and done something about assault weapons that there would be much more inclination to support more rules and regulations on legal gun owners.
All I can say, Senator Wallin, is that there has been a lot of work done by all governments against gun violence, but I don’t think it’s something that is easily fixed. There is caution by any government to fast-forward any legislation that is touching on guns and gun owners, because of the lobby and the pressure that we are under as legislators.
There is money being put into crime and illegal guns, and trying to find ways to work around — I will have to answer in French. It’s going to be easier.
