Robyn Benson

Life in the Public Service

| Link.

Iceland eruption.jpg

This is an amazing story, almost a classic. It’s about an unreasonable abuse of power, a victim of it, and the triumph of good. And yet it leaves me unsatisfied.

It seems that a federal public worker named Lorraine Martin was on holiday in Iceland when the Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted, filling the air all over Europe with huge clouds of ash that grounded planes for several days. She was unable to return to work on the day she was due to come back, and so emailed in, explaining the circumstances. There are provisions in such circumstances for special leave with pay to be granted—but the straw boss was having none of it. “Two days,” said her supervisor, Lisa Jessome. “The rest is on you.” And she proceeded to deduct vacation days.

Martin had rebooked on the first flight out of Iceland, a week after her intended return date. She tried several airlines, and was on a stand-by list, but this, given the circumstances, was all that there was available to her. Too bad, so sad.

Martin grieved this open-and-shut case. What the story-link doesn’t tell you was that there are three steps in the grievance process, the first to the supervisor, then to the next rung of management, and finally to the Deputy Minister. Incredibly, the grievance failed at all three levels. The PSAC took the case to third-party adjudication, and won handily—but the entire process took four years to resolve.

You could almost hear the adjudicator scratching his head over some of the “arguments” presented by the department. It was suggested that Martin should have “hung around the airport” for days, on the off-chance that a plane might get out sooner. The supervisor suggested that Martin might have returned more quickly had she stayed in the cancelled passengers queue. In fact, she had done just that.

So here an ordinary worker wins a case against a clear abuse of power—and yet there’s nothing much to cheer about. Think of the taxpayer dollars squandered by a government department that would not accept the glaringly obvious. Think of the management heavies who refused her grievance despite black-and-white contract language, just to do this woman out of five days of her earned annual leave. Think of the time involved to put this matter right.

From this expensive and time-wasting nonsense we learn a few lessons. Bosses don’t rule the workplace by themselves, but through institutions—or, more properly, those blind, robot-like institutions rule through them. And despite the appealing story of a lone individual triumphing over arbitrary power, they usually don’t. If Martin hadn’t had another institution, her union, which could lend its own personal and material resources to help her, she would very likely have had to grin and bear it.

I wish I could say that this case was an exception, but it’s far from it. The PSAC, like other unions, knows that winning a collective agreement is only the beginning of the work that we have to do. Without determined members like Lorraine Martin, and an equally determined union, a contract is just a document. Together, we give it life—even if, by any measure of reason and common sense, we shouldn’t have to.

Robyn Benson

Public services and inequality

| Link.


Inequality is a world-wide problem, and it’s getting worse. But good public services help to offset it.

This is the conclusion of a very recent publication by Oxfam, which takes a hard look at growing inequality.

How unequal? The 85 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth as the poorer half of the entire global population. This is mirrored in many countries: and, while the extremes are more obvious in some of them, Canada is seeing a widening gap between rich and poor, and that gap has been growing faster than in the US. When it comes to inequality, in fact, Canada ranks a miserable 12th in a list of 17 countries like our own. Here, the top 20% bring home 39.1 per cent of the national income, and that group has increased its take over the past two decades or so: from 36.5% in 1990 to 39.1% in 2010. Canada’s cities have mirrored this trend, with increasing inequality since 1970.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as the old saying goes. So what can be done about it?

The Oxfam study doesn’t claim that public services alone can solve this huge, complex problem, of course. But it does show that flourishing public services, primarily in the areas of health and education, add a premium to post-tax income, which, in the case of poorer people, can be as much as 76%. Those at the top of the income scale, on the other hand, receive only around 14%. So it’s clear that freely available public services redistribute wealth in society.

That’s no minor matter, either. It’s been estimated that this “virtual income” reduces inequality in the OECD countries, of which we are one, by 20%.

But too many countries, including our own, are on an “austerity” kick that only lowers this virtual income, and they increase inequality by so doing. In Canada, for example, our prized medicare program is now seriously threatened by changes set out in Harper’s 2014 budget. And the Oxfam report also points out that user fees and privatization, so beloved by Conservatives, effectively take from the poor and give to the rich.

Members of public service unions at all levels of government—federal, provincial/territorial, municipal—deliver health and education services. Cutbacks and “austerity” programs affect us directly, of course, but when we fight back we aren’t only fighting for ourselves. We’re standing up for all Canadians—and more so for our poorer citizens. We’re doing our bit to make this a better, fairer society. And that makes our work in the labour movement even more worthwhile.


A strike by Nova Scotian nurses against health services provider Capital Health recently took a predictable path. Overtired from working under increasingly tough conditions where understaffing has become the norm, the nurses went on strike to get lower nurse-patient ratios. If ever there was a common interest between strikers and those they serve professionally, this was it: the more patients per nurse, the less adequate is the assistance that an individual patient receives.

Common sense, right? But Capital Health and the Nova Scotia government didn’t see things that way. The Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union (NSGEU) representing the nurses spent weeks in negotiations to come to a fair collective agreement that would establish reasonable nurse-patient ratios. Nothing doing. Stephen McNeil, the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia, involved himself in the dispute by mocking the nurses’ threat to resign en masse; his government had already legislated home-care workers back to work on March 1. For its part, Capital Health contented itself with petty acts of intimidation.

When the strike deadline approached, McNeil introduced drastic essential services legislation that effectively guts the nurses’ right to strike. This isn’t because nurses actually performing those services would be in danger of striking—they didn’t walk out earlier either. Protocols were agreed to on the spot by labour and management in previous disputes before anyone hit the bricks. But this legislation will permit employers in the health care sector to drag the process on for months, before a strike is legal. And it extends this legislation to tens of thousands of other health workers across the province.

Many nurses, risking heavy fines, walked out last Tuesday to protest the tabling on this legislation before the legal strike period had begun—a so-called “wildcat strike.” The nurses managed a little over a day of legal strike before they were sent back to work by the McNeil government on Thursday. Patient care remains in jeopardy: nurses will continue to be overworked to the point of exhaustion.

Up against a hostile government and an employer that continually ignored their professional concerns, these nurses are some of today’s heroes of labour. Their sheer determination and spirit are undeniable. The action of the Nova Scotia government is part of an escalating pattern of overreach by governments in various Canadian jurisdictions: making even the suggestion of a public service strike illegal in Alberta, for example, or sending postal workers who weren’t even on strike (they had been locked out by Canada Post) back to work with less than the employer’s last offer. The bludgeon of legislation that used to be the exception is now the norm. The right to organize and the right to strike are under heavy attack, both provincially and federally—as we in the PSAC know all too well.

The nurses, however, have sent a strong and clear message: governments may use their legislative powers to bully labour, but this is a war they can’t win. Even making strikes illegal doesn’t prevent workers from walking out. In Alberta, far more illegal strikes in the acute care sector have occurred than in Nova Scotia where such strikes have been legal, and this is also the case elsewhere in Canada.

Nurses have taken on employers and governments before, and they aren’t going back to work quietly in Nova Scotia. The 1999 nurses strike in Saskatchewan, and the Quebec strike that same year, demonstrated rare courage that should inspire us all: their fight is truly our fight, and by “our” I mean all other working Canadians.

In the meantime, message received, Premier McNeil. Lessons are learned. People remember. Whether at the ballot box or in the streets, the fightback across the country has barely begun. And, as always, nurses will be on the front lines.

[Photo credit: CBC]

Robyn Benson

Canadian democracy: update

| Link.

democracy cartoon.jpg

Mr. Speaker…I intend to oppose this bill that imposes changes to the federal elections act without the consent of the opposition parties. These changes are not necessary and they are also dangerous to the operation of Canadian democracy.

No, not a speech opposing that so-called Fair Elections Act presently before the House of Commons. Click on the link!

The present Bill, being pushed through the House of Commons amid a deafening chorus of opposition across Canada, is so obviously “dangerous to the operation of Canadian democracy” that the country should be figuratively up in arms. But the Minister piloting the bill, Pierre Poilievre, has been arguing that black is white throughout the process, suggesting that rampant electoral fraud has made the changes necessary. This from a member of the party that made robocalls a household word.

I’ve already blogged about the problems with the legislation, and don’t need to repeat them all here. But the question of voter fraud needs some more attention. In a word, it’s a non-problem—at least according to the very expert that Poilievre cited as proof to the contrary. Harry Neufeld is a former BC elections official and the author of a report used by the Minister to allege widespread voter fraud. But Neufeld testified before a Parliamentary committee a few days ago that his report had been misinterpreted by Poilievre—that very few cases of voter fraud occur, and that the current Bill, chasing this phantom, could disenfranchise more than half a million Canadians.

Conservative backbenchers came forward to try to shore up Poilievre’s claims. MP Brad Butt claimed in the House of Commons that he himself had witnessed voter information cards used to commit fraud in the 2011 election. Later he completely retracted that statement, but the Conservatives squelched Opposition demands for an investigation. Then MP Laurie Hawn made a similar claim about the 2006 election, but voter cards, as it happens, were not accepted as ID at that time.

Meanwhile, former Elections Canada chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who had originally given the Bill an “A-“, apparently took a closer look at it, and now says that it puts voting rights at risk. The current chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand (a Harper appointee, incidentally), has expressed similar concerns. As for Neufeld, he stated that Bill C-23 should either be amended or killed outright. In his view, it was intended to “tilt the playing field in one direction…their direction.”

But instead of listening, Poilievre has put his fingers in his ears. Remember, this is no ordinary Bill—it goes to the very root of our democratic system of government, where one might imagine the widest consultations might be held, and a consensus sought. Instead, it will likely be made law essentially unchanged.

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, another vast everything-but-the-kitchen-sink Omnibus Bill, 359 pages long, has just been deposited, ensuring that the many pieces of legislation it contains will not get anything approaching proper scrutiny before being passed into law.

“In the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?” asked the very same person whose words appear at the top of this post. Too bad we can’t travel backwards in time.

Robyn Benson

Oliver's twist

| Link.


Joe Oliver, formerly the Minister of Natural Resources, is now our Minister of Finance, replacing Jim Flaherty a few days ago. This is quite a step up for a member of Parliament who was first elected in 2011.

It didn’t take Oliver long to get the hang of the Harper government’s style—shaping reality according to Conservative ideology, with a careless disregard for the facts. Every government, of course, filters events and issues through its own political position, choosing what to highlight and what to ignore in its public messages, putting itself in as favourable a light as possible. This is called “spin,” but in Oliver’s case the more appropriate word is “twist.”

As Natural Resources minister, Oliver is perhaps best known for his infamous open letter attacking environmentalists in language that was, to put it mildly, over the top. Expressing sincere concerns about the effect of runaway tar sands development was, in his view, something akin to treason. In his own words, environmentalists and their allies “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”

But this was not an isolated case. Oliver was a strong defender of the asbestos industry, claiming, against all scientific evidence, that this substance, linked to cancer and lung disease, was perfectly safe. (Canada’s last asbestos mine was subsequently closed after a national and international outcry. Russia and Zimbabwe have now taken up the slack.)

Oliver was also a climate-change denier, claiming that “scientists” now believe that concern over global warming is “exaggerated.” His source for that statement turned out to be a newspaper columnist.

Under his watch, regulations requiring environmental assessments of oil and gas projects were slashed. This included amendments to the Navigable Waters Act that removed most of our waterways from environmental protection. Almost needless to say, this program of deregulation was buried in omnibus bills that were supposedly about the Conservative government budget.

Oliver has impeccable Bay Street credentials that will serve him well in his new post. A Harvard-educated investment banker, he served as the president of the Investment Dealers Association, and as the executive director of the Ontario Securities Commission.

A scant few days into his new role, his style is already apparent. He claimed that 85% of new jobs created under his government were full-time. He failed to mention that, according to the Chamber of Commerce, the trend is now overwhelmingly towards part-time employment—95% of the new jobs last year were part-time. He said in the same statement that a million new jobs have been created, but since 2009, the figure is only 653,400, 53.4% of them in the low-paid sales and services sector, and 40.6% were temporary. Then he went on to state that our job record is the best among the G-7 countries—a highly misleading claim by any serious measure.

And all of this within 30 seconds, in a single speech he gave in the House of Commons on March 25th. Oliver’s twist, folks. Better get used to it.

[Photo credit: Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press]

Robyn Benson

International Women's Day 2014

| Link.


Having had the privilege of addressing a great group of Sisters in Newfoundland on March 7 on the subject of “Inspiring Change,” I still feel pumped: all that positive energy the day before International Women’s Day recharged my batteries.

It’s just as well that we have so much energy to tap, though. We’ll need it for the work ahead of us.

Remember that silly slogan from a few years back (from a cigarette ad encouraging women to smoke), “You’ve come a long way, baby”? Not nearly long enough. In fact it sometimes seems we’re headed backwards—or in a direction where things are growing even worse than they were in the bad old days.

At the University of Ottawa, the men’s hockey team is under suspension after a suspected sexual assault, and a vile exchange on Facebook about the student council president, Anne-Marie Roy, has become the talk of the town. This isn’t the locker-room talk of decades ago, but a violent and hateful conversation that has rightly been called an example of “rape culture.”

Then there are our Aboriginal sisters, hundreds of whom have been murdered or have gone missing in the past few years. The Harper government’s response has been to obstruct justice for these women almost every step of the way—shutting down Sisters In Spirit, which had assembled a comprehensive data-base, and resisting all calls for a national inquiry into these deaths and disappearances, to this very day. A new report from a Parliamentary committee is just more of the same do-nothingism. Yes, says the Conservative majority on the Special Committee on Violence against Indigenous Women, there is a problem (Aboriginal women and girls suffer far more violence than Canadian women as a whole). But no new initiatives to address the problem will be supported.

Not good enough. Not by a long shot.

But the attitude of our government towards women in general has been…remarkable. Harper scrapped early learning and childcare federal-provincial agreements within moments of coming to office in 2006. His government effectively abolished pay equity in the Public Service in 2009, even making it illegal for a union to help any individual member wanting to make a pay equity complaint. A year later, it loosened equity requirements for federal contractors, affecting hundreds of thousands of workers.

Women are also impacted by every anti-union move the government makes. Unions have been a source of strength and advancement for women in all sectors, successfully negotiating employment equity, pay equity, workplace child care, improved maternity and parental benefits, and non-discriminatory, harassment-free workplaces. Passing legislation to weaken unions, which the government has already done and is continuing to do, means putting all of these gains up for grabs.

So women still have an uphill battle, in our workplaces and in society. But we’ve won seemingly impossible struggles before—the right to vote, reproductive freedom, equality under the law. “We’re the women of the Union and we’ve just begun to fight,” we started singing a few years back. Well, we’re still fighting, harder than ever—and more and more Brothers are right there with us. When it comes to inequality and discrimination, we are ALL affected. And together we’ll win this uphill battle too.

Robyn Benson

Second thoughts on "right-to-work"?

| Link.

Right to work for less.jpg

Ah, the pleasant sound of furious backpedalling. Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, after a considerable amount of flipping and flopping during which time he even had a PC candidate booted for opposing his extremist anti-labour line, has finally abandoned his grand plan to give Ontario workers the right to work for less. Or so he says: “If we’re elected, we’re not going to do it. We won’t touch the Rand formula.”

Hudak had been running into a lot of discontent with his proposal to abolish Rand, including from his own party faithful. At the Ontario Progressive Conservative convention last Fall, a “right to work (for less)” policy was only narrowly approved. Meanwhile, it seems that the voters haven’t been particularly keen on his agenda.

“My own party,” said Hudak, “raised these measures as an option for Ontario, and when I talk to employers, to workers, some of them tell me that they do want right-to-work laws in Ontario, but not very many.” Losing the recent Niagara Falls by-election might well have been the last straw. Hence an embarrassing climb-down for a fellow who has made his anti-labour obsessions the focus of two years of campaigning.

But keep in mind that Hudak reportedly said the policy is not right at this time—a bit of a warning flag there, I think. And pay close attention to this as well: “Only 15 per cent of the private sector is unionized in Ontario [so] this right-to- work issue just doesn’t have the scope of power to fix the issues for the 100 per cent of manufacturing jobs threatened in Ontario.” No mention here of the public sector at all, where the unionization rate is around 70%—and this omission is no accident.

Hudak has a plan for the Ontario public service: wholesale privatization. He wants to force union workers to compete with non-union companies, with their inferior wages and benefits, to keep their jobs. This isn’t “right-to-work” legislation, but it would have exactly the same result: a race to the bottom of the wages and benefits barrel, with unions being an early casualty.

Hudak’s public change of heart is only an illusion, in other words—there is no change of direction. And we know that he is far from the only politician in the country with those self-same intentions. This is no time for any of us to let down our guard, if we want a better vision of Canada to prevail.

I guess we’ve all learned our lesson by now—some pretty unpleasant things lurk in the dark corners of Harper government budget statements and omnibus bills. But few such nasty discoveries could rival one found on page 270 of Jim Flaherty’s budget this year—a plan to dismantle Canadian universal health care.

One of the key aspects of universal health care in this country is national standards, which in plain language means you get access to the same quality of basic medical services no matter where you happen to live in Canada. Although health services are under provincial/territorial jurisdiction, national standards are enforced by the federal government by means of the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). These are funds that are provided to the provinces and territories on condition that these standards are met.

Our health care system is part of what makes us Canadian. According to Health Canada, “the principles governing our health care system are symbols of the underlying Canadian values of equity and solidarity.”

But all that is going to change.

To pay for the rising costs of health case, the federal government has been adding 6% a year to its CHT payments, based upon a formula that provides more to the poorer provinces and territories. But, as long ago as 2011, Finance Minister Flaherty told a group of premiers that the current funding method would be replaced by one that tied funding to the rate of economic growth plus inflation—a likely 2% drop in CHT support, estimated to be a $36 billion cut over the next decade. He was warned then about the effects of this move, but chose not to listen. And now, as revealed in the 2014 budget, funding will also be placed on a simple per capita basis.

Again in plain language, this means that the provinces and territories will be hit by a double whammy in 2017: when the economy is slow, which tends to be tied to rising health problems, health funds will be cut; and the poorer provinces and territories where, with their scattered and remote populations, delivery of health services are more expensive, will effectively face further cuts. Provinces with a higher proportion of seniors, whose health needs are greater, will likewise be affected.

Meanwhile, under the new per capita rule, Ontario will receive a 3.4% increase rather than a 6% one in 2014-15. Alberta, on the other hand, will be getting a whopping 38% increase—more than half of the new CHT amount.

Bye-bye national standards. The new funding formula will make them impossible to maintain. How long before the Health Canada website drops that pesky reference to Canadian values?

Robyn Benson

Politicization of the CRA?

| Link.


Should the Canada Revenue Agency be used for partisan political purposes?

Revenue Canada became part of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in 1999, and it took its current form as the Canada Revenue Agency in December 2003. Its unique culture and type of work suited it for separate employer status, or so the government of the day said: but more recently, it lost a considerable amount of its independence when it came under the direct control of Treasury Board for the purposes of collective bargaining.

Almost needless to say, the PSAC and its Component, the Union of Taxation Employees, were not consulted about this major change. It was simply imposed in 2012 through one of those omnibus bills the government is so fond of.

But this loss of independence now seems to be showing itself in other ways. I have already blogged about the growing politicization of the public service by the Harper administration. That reach seems to be extending into the day-to-day work of the CRA, as several organizations promoting environmental responsibility are at this moment being audited for allegedly spending more than the allowed 10% of their budgets on activities deemed to be “political.” And they aren’t alone: the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a well-respected progressive think-tank, is being audited as well. As people familiar with the auditing process know, it’s a long, cumbersome one that takes up much time and energy.

It really doesn’t pay, it appears, to defend the environment against Alberta oil sands development, or to take other stands that the government doesn’t like. Information control is a priority for the Harper administration. If you are a scientist in today’s public service, for example, you are effectively silenced: red tape has become duct tape. Meanwhile, the government avoids its environmental responsibilities to the point of breaking the law.

There is evidence that some of the current audits are being carried out after complaints received from a pro-tar sands organization called Ethical Oil, whose own funding sources are a closely-guarded secret. Note that the founder of Ethical Oil, Alykhan Velshi, is now employed in the Prime Minister’s office as director of issues management.

This kind of political targeting is everybody’s problem. I, for one, object to public agencies like the CRA being used to bully government critics. The public service is supposed to be fair and impartial, not a political weapon used to intimidate and subdue Canadians who have policy differences with the Harper administration. And how downright irresponsible of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, in the midst of these auditing revelations, to suggest that the charities involved might be involved in “terrorism”. This is pure McCarthyism. Charities should be forgiven at this point for feeling terrorized themselves.

Speaking of “political,” though, what exactly is “political activity” by charities and non-profit organizations (which are targeted in the new budget)? We do have CRA language on the subject, but political interference is threatening its ability to be objective on that score. As noted, environmental charities and at least one progressive non-profit organization are now under the gun, but we’ve heard nothing to suggest that (for example) the highly political Fraser Institute is undergoing the same kind of scrutiny.

Obviously what’s going on isn’t a case of random spot-checking, but what certainly appears to be politically determined. Private charities are forbidden from engaging in partisan politics: surely it’s even more important that the government stop using the public service for partisan ends.

[Photo Credit: Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press]

Free and fair elections.jpg

Following on from yesterday’s post, here are some further major problems with the so-called Fair Elections Act:

4. Spending limits have been increased.

This will benefit the Conservatives: they received 10,780 donations worth $200 or more in the first nine months of 2013. The Liberals got 7,133, and the NDP, 3,492.

But other kinds of spending have been restricted. The NDP, for some reason, has received considerable financial support in the past from bequests, more than any other party. Unsurprisingly, the new legislation will put an end to that.

New language on third-party election advertising has also been proposed. The current spending cap of $150,000 no longer applies just to an actual election period, but to anything “in relation to a general election.” That provision is dangerously loose. Legitimate day-to-day communications by unions and environmental groups, for example, could be deemed to be “related” to an election, restricting their ability to participate in the democratic process when an election is called.

5. The Chief Electoral Officer will be forbidden from encouraging people to vote.

In the past, outreach by Elections Canada was conducted to encourage low-turnout sectors to vote—youth and Aboriginals. Turnout in Canadian federal elections has dropped significantly over the years, and this was seen as one way of addressing that. But low turnout also tends to favour incumbents, in this case the Conservatives. So the familiar Harper muzzle has now been applied. Further restrictions: no public comments will be allowed about fraud complaints. Reports from Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections will no longer be published.

In a nutshell, this is a deeply flawed Bill that strikes at the heart of our most basic democratic rights. It was pretty clearly designed to tip the scale for the Conservatives as we head into the 2015 election. The government has moved with lightning speed to cut off debate in the House: the Bill could become law quickly, without a comma being altered. A proposal by the NDP to have public hearings on the Bill across Canada was opposed by the Conservatives.

With the cards being rapidly stacked against us, how can we make the next election fair? In the short term, by doing our best to force changes to this Bill as it proceeds through the House of Commons and the Senate—lobbying MPs and Senators, for example, and participating in organized public campaigns (such as the current one by the Council of Canadians) to fight for elections that are honest and above board.

If the Conservatives insist on ramming this legislation through unchanged, however, as they show every intention of doing, their anti-democratic intentions will become ever more obvious to ordinary Canadians. Ultimately it will be up to all of us to take back our democracy—by voting in such numbers next year that we restore the balance. That’s our challenge, and, as we can see, it’s no small one. Here’s hoping we’re up to it.

[Photo credit: Sokwanele]

Recent Comments / Commentaires Récents

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed / S'abonner au flux de ce blog

This blogsite is intended to be a safe space for everyone to comment on the issues raised here. Spirited debate is encouraged, in the language of your choice, but profanity, discriminatory words and other forms of abuse are not. Feel free to speak your mind, but please keep it civil and respectful.

Ce blogue a pour objet d’offrir un espace sécuritaire où chacun peut réagir aux questions soulevées. On encourage les débats animés, dans la langue de votre choix, mais non les insultes et les propos discriminatoires. N’hésitez pas à donner votre opinion, mais faites-le de manière civilisée et respectueuse.


Powered by Movable Type 5.2.9