Proposition 52K1232

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 janvier 2007 sur la formation judiciaire et portant création de l'Institut de formation judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

May 22, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

vocational training magistrate judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LDD FN VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Bart Laeremans (VB) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my group and already formulated at 11 a.m., I will refer to my written report.

First of all, I would like to thank the speaker. This legislation, like others, made a lot of ink flow before we voted for it, and probably after the vote as well. However, it is very new. We could have thought that this text would come into force without changing the law.

Any change is not necessarily bad. If it makes so much ink flow and arouses so much passion, it is because it touches interests, which are those of Justice in its most general sense – the magistrates and other judicial professions – but also because it challenges certain balances. As soon as you change balances, you cause reactions. This is quite normal, it is a completely human phenomenon.

Mr. Speaker of the Committee on Justice, you have had a few meetings that made it possible to consider that not only an important element – because it concerns the continuous training of magistrates and of all the professions of justice – but also an extremely sensitive point was touched. If we recognize in this kingdom, in this country, the magistrates – in the most general sense of the term, that is, all those who work in the judicial order – the quality that is theirs, it is also because their training is of quality.

I am not only talking about what they have received "ab initio", but also about what they benefit from during continuous training.

I would like, Mr. Minister, to address several points in relation to the discussions we have had. I would like to point out – in any case, this is how the MR group and I have lived it –, these substantive discussions were quality discussions, during which the assessments of one and the other could, at some point, not be put between parentheses, but rise to the point of finding a certain number of agreements.

Mr. Minister, I will tell you the satisfaction of Mr. MR to see a federal legislation remain federal. This may seem hirsut to some, but there were other possibilities. The Cassanders are generally not very far away to advocate other options, which are, in my opinion, not outputs but other disasters. The law of 31 January 2007 remains in force but is simply amended.

Mr. Crucke, I hear you say that there may have been other options and that fortunately it has remained a federal legislation. The other options would have been a disaster, you say. Could you explain this? Does this mean that, in your opinion, it would have been a catastrophe if each Community had its own judicial school or judicial training institute?

If the written report we all know had been read here, you could have realized that the disaster would have been what you advocated. But since the report has not been read, I think the way the minister has taken is the right one: it is the way of wisdom.

If you are attentive to what I am going to tell you, you will find that for those who still believe that a solution can be found in this country, the federal authority as well as the federal authorities have their place there. But wait for me to develop this point. I ask you to be patient as it was in our case, in committee, when you spoke very long about what I call a catastrophe. But it’s true that we don’t have to agree on everything and that’s happy! Otherwise, we would not be here today!

I would like to return to some of your remarks. The law that is ours is not a school of the judiciary. The school of magistracy is the one that should exist in order to become a magistrate. In our country there is a federal jurisdiction in which continuous training is carried out and the quality of those who evolve in this world of justice can be ⁇ ined. In this matter, we have an obligation not only in terms of means but also in terms of results, and I feel that this text goes in this direction.

In addition, the text under review will enable the Judicial Training Institute to act. However, its entry into force, Mr. Minister, – this is ⁇ our only point of disagreement – did not require a change in the law. On February 2, 2008, the text of January 31, 2007 came into force. Legislation could be applied.

However, – and this is the role of politics – in order to be operational, there must also be a political will, there must also be a political consensus. This is what we have been working on in the committee.

Other colleagues and myself have asked you twice, in March and in May. We have drawn your attention to the urgency of the situation. If this training is not quickly applicable, we are at risk of putting at stake the responsibility of the state, that of the magistrates. I think this is an element that you have taken into account.

This text comes from the Senate. The President of the Commission will remember this. We are becoming increasingly aware that we need to pay attention to what comes from the Senate. A change is not always unnecessary. We know, however, that this text also comes, Mr. Minister, from the government, from a political agreement – one must call a cat a cat.

The first advantage is that the Institute is operational. It is more than time for him to work, take responsibilities. Today’s vote will allow to say that from tomorrow – Mr. Minister, it is you who will do it – this Institute will function in the general interest, of the North as well as of the South, but above all of the justiciable, who awaits to have in front of him trained magistrates.

Second, it responds to a government agreement that specifies that there is collaboration between the Communities. We, French-speaking liberals, support this collaboration.

Furthermore, it is interesting to say that training takes place in the academic world, in the para-university world, in the upper world and, for levels 3 and 4, at the level of the Regions, in certain institutions.

These institutions are good advisors, have experience and provide quality training.

Your computer needs to warm up. I was still looking at mine a few minutes ago—Mrs. Nyssens usually receives the same messages as me—and I was still receiving responses from magistrates. I would like to thank them because magistrates who appeal to parliamentarians and a minister are magistrates who are interested in their profession. They give us a number of signs, points of view, and it doesn’t go out like that. We don’t close our eyes to such texts that are usually very well written. This gives rise to discussion, it gives rise to debate. In addition to sending my thanks to them, I will ask those magistrates who are struggling to write to us to read the text to the end.

Two things arouse the debate, and there must be a small difference between Green! Ecolo on this. First, there is the proportion fixed in legislation between what is called the recourse to the Communities and Regions and the recourse to the usual practice, which are known to the Training Institute or the Higher Council of Justice. These are the famous 75%, which are also modulable. Second, there is parity within the board of directors, there is this balance between the organs that guarantees the independence of the judiciary.

Just read what Europe says to us in this regard. Everyone will recognize that the judiciary, which is a full-fledged power, must be respected for the independence of its formation. In this regard, a reaction was possible and the MR also mobilized. Together with Ms. Marghem, we have drafted an amendment, an additional text.

Two ways were possible: directly have a certain number of hearings, 'hic en nunc'; amend the text or amend it by article 11. It must be acknowledged that the first solution presented a number of advantages and, in the beginning, we were in favor of it. The second solution not only has the same advantage but gives it more guarantee.

These hearings, dear colleagues, dear Commissioners, we could of course have demanded them. We would have heard the judgment. We would have heard again what is said and repeated to us, but we know how to read and we are neither deaf nor blind!

I would like to address the judges in particular. These hearings presented a double disadvantage. First, they would have delayed the implementation and effectiveness of the Institute. Instead of being able to start today, we would still have to wait a number of months.

No one knows except by granting a certain number of months, when the deadline will stop.

Second, it is to make a theoretical debate with all the qualities of a debate, with respect to be observed towards all opinions, and not necessarily a relationship on a political solution. In this case, Mr. Minister, you will find the same disadvantages: the need for consensus.

The second way, chosen by the Commission, is to amend the text. This is the amendment that we have submitted and which, as I will say just now, was widely approved, in an extremely wise manner.

The amendment of the text will lead to saying to the whole world of justice and not only to the magistrates: we start this Institute; it takes its responsibilities and we take them too. Not only does he take them, but after nine months, it is possible to review this text. Not only is it possible to re-examine it, but it will be re-examined on a double basis: the first is a report of the board of directors and a report of the management; the second will be to arrive at hearings if necessary. This is a statement made by the Minister.

I see more than an advantage. First, we encounter the fears of the magistrates. Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this meeting is not only theoretical, but above all concrete, because a line has been set. Then I note the commitment of the minister, but also that of parliamentarians and parliamentarians. The university, as you said, Mr. Minister, is not only theoretical teaching, but also all practical reflections. Finally, it is a consensus in which the majority and the opposition have found themselves; I also want to thank the colleagues of sp.a and Groen! who were present.

I would like to thank them for approving this amendment. Not only did they endorse it, but they understood its meaning, which is less obvious to the opposition, but what delights the majority! Why did they understand it? Simply because we save a text. We are allowing it to enter into force. We allow a solution to be implemented. I am sure that in nine months, the emails, the emails we receive will not only be less numerous, but ⁇ more concrete, because they will tell us the problem, if there is a problem!

I would like to explain why I personally like the amendment very much. In fact, I am deeply convinced that Parliament needs to control the judiciary much more. This amendment, which has entered with other intentions, in fact at the request of the magistracy, gives parliamentarians like me the opportunity to further control what the magistracy is doing. That was one of the main reasons for supporting them.

We indeed supported the amendment. We also had a lot of discussion about the evaluation.

Of course, no one is against an evaluation of the new scheme, which I have called. However, I have added that an evaluation for us is not an adequate response to the objections that have reached us. After all, before a new scheme becomes effective, it is necessary to properly assess whether the scheme is likely to succeed. Not assessing the matter in advance, just leaving and then, after nine months, evaluating, is not the correct answer.

I approved the amendment, however, because we would be sure that the evaluation will take place. Our approval vote and support for the amendment is a support for the evaluation but not for the system or the alternative proposed here.

I would like to emphasize this for all clarity.

We are not very distant, only the vocabulary differs slightly. Some will say that they have bet on the possibility of controlling the judiciary, others will say that there will be an assessment, but Parliament will have the last word. Within a maximum of nine months, you as well as us, opposition as a majority, we will have the possibility to modify the Institute on the basis of a report of operation. We can tell if it can continue, if something else needs to be done. In the meantime, we will act in a practical way. Only for that, I will thank you.

This is both a bet and a challenge. All those who will vote this text are in the same train; one can question its speed and its quality and one will know that both can be modified. It is necessary to ensure that the ink does not dry and that Parliament exercises its control with vigilance. This is also a challenge, dear colleagues of the PS, because I sincerely think that a text like this shows that one can change a legislation when everyone has their word to say and that one can use the skills of one and the other so that they give what they have the best. If this is not the case, a number of conclusions will have to be drawn from it: some speak of division but ⁇ those who speak of ambition will have the last word.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, colleagues, on behalf of Open Vld, I would like to intervene on this bill. All the servants of Mrs. Justitia, which are about 3,000 magistrates and about 8,300 persons of office and parquet staff, receive in our country a vocational training, a kind of continued training. During the previous legislature, it was decided to establish a separate institute for this vocational training, which until then was granted by the High Council, the Institute for Judicial Training, the IGO. The law establishing that institute was to enter into force on 2 February 2008, but that provision has not yet been implemented and remains dead letter.

The question then arises what is happening today with this professional management? The institute is not operational. On the other hand, representatives of the High Council in the committee were informed that they are doing some sort of depannage work and ensure the continuity of vocational training. At a committee meeting, if I am not mistaken in February, they told us that they would do so until March 23, 2008. In the meantime, this is extended until the end of August 2008.

For the autumn, September 2008 to December 2008, there is a problem with continuity. The preparation of the training programs for the autumn is nowhere. In the same period in 2007 there were thirty-six training sessions. Only nine are planned for the same period this year. There is a problem with vocational training. We need to get out of this impasse.

Mr. Minister, you have been repeatedly questioned on this subject in the committee. The answers were always the same. On the one hand, you said that training should be done in cooperation with the Communities, in accordance with the government agreement, but on the other hand, you always said that it was high time to know how the law will be changed and applied. You found it obvious that we, parliamentarians, questioned you about this.

The change is here now. The bill is presented today in the House. The change did not come without a blow or a blow. I refer to what my colleague Crucke ⁇ . We have expressed our comments to you in the Justice Committee, Mr. Minister. Those comments and the debate have led to the amendment that my colleague has already discussed in detail. That amendment constitutes a legally anchored evaluation of the Institute’s functioning, nine months after the establishment of the Board of Directors.

If that assessment is negative, if it turns out that the distribution keys now inserted into the law would not work or insufficiently or would make the training already too theoretical, then those distribution keys will need to be changed. One cannot do without the other.

There has been a lot of discussion on the distribution key in the committee. The Minister replied that an estimate was made and that it was attempted to estimate what would be a good balance between training organized by the Institute itself and training organized by the recognised educational institutions. That is one side of the medal.

The other side of the coin is the fact that the Court of Cassation has written to us, among other things, that the distribution key is problematic because it would not correspond to the current reality. The Court of Cassation states literally, inter alia, that this proposed arrangement makes it impossible, as is now the case, to organize maximum practical training, provided by the people on the ground. Hence our concern, the debate and the majority initiative to draw up an amendment to the review and to have it approved.

Finally, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, we, as parliamentarians, have received questions and objections from the collected judicial world regarding this bill. We have asked in the committee to involve, in the preparation of this draft and of the amendment that we have approved, and in the establishment of the arrangement that is now drawn up, all the people for whom vocational training is very important, namely the magistrate, the prosecutor’s office and the officer’s staff. In our opinion, this is essential for the success of the change, which we will approve today and to which we, Open Vld, will cooperate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, who had thought that CD&V - N-VA with this government would make the difference in Justice, comes slowly, but more and more clearly, deceived.

We see this in numerous files. We have repeatedly held the debate on the execution of punishment, where the lax release policy and the policy of impunity are continued untouchably. We see that there is still no serious trend breaking in the youth law, the law-Lejeune and the fast-Belgwet. And today the road to greater autonomy for the Communities in the training of magistrates is closed.

Not so long ago, former CD&V chairman Marc Van Peel stated that the split of the judiciary is an even greater priority than the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. Also the CD&V election program clearly went in the direction of much more Flemish autonomy in the field of justice.

Regarding the judicial training, which we are talking about today, CD&V was very explicit: CD&V advocates for a magistrates’ school that “should be established by the Communities in accordance with the constitutional division of powers.” This was stated in the electoral program of your party.

CD&V thus placed itself clearly on the Octopus line of 1999, which was approved here at that time by a ⁇ wide majority. Then it was announced that each Community would have its own magistrates’ school. That was the reason why then-VU faction leader Geert Bourgeois defended the agreement. Finally, according to the former VU-Kamerlid, the first step was taken towards its own, Flemish legal development and its own Flemish justice.

Today we see that same CD&V together with N-VA do exactly the opposite. Instead of dismantling the famous Institute for Judicial Training – that unitary bastion, that poisonous gift with which Onkelinx had planted us – the Institute in its unitary glory is today reaffirmed, to great joy and great joy – we could just see – of MR’s colleague, Mr. Crucke. At least we could have expected that two wings would be established within that Institute, so that each language group could start to lay its own accents, could develop its own policy on Justice. However, we also find nothing back. The Institute remains a completely unitary, Belgian body, in which a paritary governing body takes all decisions on programming and cooperation.

Compared with, for example, the High Council for Justice, which was established in 1999 and has a separate Flemish and French-speaking wing and policy bodies, we are therefore making a big step backwards with this unitary institute rather than forward. The only novelty to what is approved here today is the addition of three delegates from the departments Education of the Communities.

Three, very strange, three delegates of whom a flaming is known. One in three is Flaming, 33%. So far it has come today that the Flemish people who represent 60% of the population in this country are once again placed in a minority position in this Belgian institute. Our amendment to bring the number of Dutch speakers to 2 versus 1 French-speaking and 1 German-speaking, was rejected by all other parties, including CD&V and N-VA.

In any case, this is a mile away from what CD&V had promised to its voters last year, in particular the establishment of a school of magistrates by the Communities. In fact, the Communities are not even recognized as interlocutors in this story. I have explicitly and repeatedly asked the Minister of Justice – he will not contradict me, although he is currently conferencing with his colleague – when he had spoken about this yet important matter with his Flemish and French-speaking official of Education and when he had spoken with the universities about this issue and what was the outcome of all these discussions. However, it remained completely silent on the other side.

Today, the Minister of Justice is talking a lot about this, but in the committee he was completely silent when it came to it. The Minister had clearly negotiated with no one, and that is ⁇ unimaginable. An uncertain percentage of the degree programs will be provided by the universities, but a prior consultation with those institutions is strangely considered unnecessary.

In those circumstances, colleagues, one can actually speak of a sluggish federal recovery. This Federal Parliament, therefore we, simply assigns itself the right to make decisions which have a serious impact on the functioning and task of the universities, without even asking them what their point of view is, without asking the Communities whether this is the correct way of doing.

The Communities are thus flagrantly disregarded in their autonomy and even subordinated to the federal level.

If you were still in the opposition, ladies and gentlemen of CD&V and N-VA, you would never have accepted this method. You would have gotten hard against these kinds of questionable methods. You ⁇ ’t have accepted that this unitary fabric would simply be ⁇ ined.

I need only to refer you to the clear and almost solemn promise of your own good colleague Tony Van Parys, today still a senator, which he made here at this speech hall on 25 January 2007 at the end of his speech. I quote him: “I can tell you all in all that if this draft is approved” – the consecration of that Institute for Judicial Training – “it will all in all be so, insofar as and if CD&V would take part in the policy after the elections the first decision will be to abolish this old-fashioned parestate B.” These were the words of Tony Van Parys, here at this speech stand, in early 2007.

Today we see nothing of all this. CD&V participates in the policy. The party provides Jo Vandeurzen with the Minister of Justice himself. So there was space, there were possibilities for a reversal, a drastic change, or at least for a division of the Institute. If you wanted to maintain the Institute, you could have installed two wings in it. However, this does not happen.

The words of former colleague Van Parys are not spent on this Minister of Justice. There will be no abolition, but a reaffirmation and even a reinforcement of this parastatal B. Minister Vandeurzen has turned out to be a gray mouse that slickly shifts under the lattice.

If this is the way CD&V and N-VA will lead us to more Flanders, then we hold our hearts. You reject your election promise in the most flagrant way. You have only the great luck that the Flemish media cover this with the wide mantle of silence.

I wanted to turn to the colleagues of N-VA now, but they are all absent. Nor do you know where they are now. Per ⁇ they are all raising the glass on July 11. They may have other busy occupations. But in this important, yet also community design, they apparently give massive loss.

I wanted to tell them I was surprised. I had to conclude that the representative of N-VA, without any reservation or justification, rejected all our amendments in the committee that would lead to greater autonomy for the Communities, however limited those amendments were. These were good amendments, as they were taken over from Tony Van Parys. They were partly an outcome of his amendments last year, hoping that CD&V would approve its own texts, but even N-VA has rejected them in a clear and cold way. The transition from a faint opposition party to a submissive and submissive regime party has been ⁇ smooth and rapid in N-VA.

Colleagues, the silence of the media will in any case not prevent us from firmly accusing the shameful attitude in this dossier and the word-breaking of the so-called Flemish cartel in your own back.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister of Justice, without repeating all that has been said, it is obvious that in the Justice Committee, we had lively debates. When a political agreement is reached, when a text comes from the Senate, and when we receive dozens of letters, ⁇ from magistrates who critically criticize a project, the situation is obviously not easy. It was after interesting discussions that the thinking of parliamentarians evolved as we became aware of the importance of voting quickly on a text that organizes this Institute in a balanced way between the federal power and the Communities. It was worth taking the opportunity to keep a federal institute – we have just heard other opinions on this subject.

The aim of the project is essentially to ensure quality of the professional training of judicial actors. The project makes the bet that continuing vocational training can be organised in a bold partnership between universities, magistrates and vocational training organizations. Certainly, universities will have a crucial role to play since a significant quota of hours is reserved for them to organize these programs.

Despite the early reactions of the magistrates, their objections, their indignation, their consternation – as evidenced by the letters we receive – we can bet on a good organization of this vocational training by the universities in collaboration with the magistrates and other bodies. It may be useful for universities to get in touch with the world of judicial actors and to open their eyes to the professional practice of magistrates.

It is with a certain distance to the judicial actors that the CDH will vote this text, not to accuse them of not understanding the bill, but to convince themselves with them that this training can be well organized. The contents of the draft must be explained to them, and ⁇ we will have an opportunity to do so when we return – without waiting for the nine months provided by the amendment for a parliamentary evaluation. We often have the opportunity to meet with the judges in our Justice Committee. It seems to me healthy that, individually or collectively, we take the initiative at the entrance to explain why we voted for this project, so that their first reaction of indignation can no longer be justified. Thus, they will have a role to play in the programs designed by the Institute with universities. I am convinced that they will ask the magistrates to come and teach these programs in order not to let the universities give too theoretical teaching.

I will not be longer. The discussions we had were difficult, but rich. A quick but serious work has been done. And the evolution of the mentalities of the members of the committee allowed us to approve the text that was submitted to us.

Dear colleagues, I think the Minister will not intervene again. This is a bill, not a bill by the Minister.

We need to be a little careful. Mr. Minister, you know that I try to be your protector, but you must also come to Parliament with a bill. I admit that you have already done this; in this regard, I think of the bill containing various provisions and the postponement of a few laws. I fully recognize this.

In this regard, I would like to point out that you should not be entirely taken by Senator Vandenberghe, who is playing a little shadow minister. I think he does not do that well. If one reads the Senate report, one notices that what one does here is the legal translation of a compromise, according to Senator Vandenberghe. A compromise against the statement from the previous legislature, value ex-collega present here, where we had opted for a model on judicial training where we remained purely at the federal level in terms of powers.

CD&V - N-VA did not agree with this and apparently in the current majority concluded a compromise, translated by Senator Vandenberghe as a compromise over a lot of money. He even gives the figure in the Senate report. He says that this money should go to the universities. This can be an honest statement if you take it seriously. However, the compromise it presents today cannot survive the test of legal correctness.

Mr. Minister, you are now advocating to use that vehicle of Senator Vandenberghe to be able to work a little, one never knows, after 15 July. That vehicle is contested by all magistrates. If one is faced with a legislation that is challenged by all magistrates, then I would like to provide for solid legislation within the framework of the separation of powers. What appears today is not strong enough for me to pass the test of the Constitutional Court and even of the State Council.

I explain myself more closely. I have pointed out to you in the committee that through the compromise we have a matter that should at least have been discussed with the Communities.

I have addressed this in the context of the allocation of the budget, but even there is not the big problem. One can, as a federal legislator, decide to allocate 75 percent of the budget to the Communities, which we do. The Communities may refuse to do so, or—what they may be going to do—accept.

However, what can we not do as a federal legislator? We incorporate the leadership of the educational departments of the Communities into the board of directors of the institution to be established, so that they count in the parity that the board of directors needs to be able to make valid decisions.

Well, according to fixed, constant opinions of the Department of Legislation of the State Council, one cannot do that. The inclusion of institutions of Communities or Regions in board of directors can only be done on a voluntary basis – we have nothing to say about those institutions – and only without the right to vote, according to the fixed opinions of the legislative department of the State Council.

It is said that because at this time, with such arrangements, the autonomy of the Regions and the Communities is violated. Neither can the regions, the communities or the regions, in their decrees or ordinances, determine anything concerning representatives of federal authorities, ⁇ not to compel them to do something or to co-execute their work. If they do so, they change the powers of this country. This is not only the State Council, but also the Constitutional Court. If one wishes to validly change the powers, it must be done with special majorities.

We must make the choice today. Either this law is made into a law with special majorities, but I think it is too late to do so. This must be done from the beginning. This law was passed by an ordinary majority vote from the Senate. If one wishes to resolve it, one could take that passage from the ordinary law and submit it again to the chambers in a special law a little later. It is possible to avoid the mistakes that I would like to report today.

For those who think I am making a theoretical comment here, I would like to repeat that all magistrates are against the proposed legislation. This means that any decision of the Board of Directors of the aforementioned institution is invasive in terms of validity. In practice, there will be one person – possibly among the magistrates – who will initiate a procedure against a decision.

Know that the statute and the appointment of magistrates and the validity of judicial investigations may depend on the judicial training we organize through decisions of the institution, which – I repeat it – can never make valid decisions, because of a violation of the autonomy of the Community and because of the invalid way in which we have installed the aforementioned authority.

I am confident that if one person initiates such a procedure, the judiciary, which must decide on the procedure, in all independence may give the applicant the right.

So I would ask you to follow my constructive advice for once. So I ask you to either support my amendment so that your text is unblocked and you can work after 15 July 2008 and the Senate can decide next week what needs to be decided. This is about 75% for universities. I do not want to touch the above mentioned percentage.

However, the point on the board of directors of the institution should be postponed for a moment. Per ⁇ then, in the context of some state reform, you can discuss more seriously how to do it correctly, respecting the distribution of powers in our country, as it exists today.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me that I am the first speaker in the Federal Parliament on 11 July.

First and foremost, I would like to show my respect for colleague Crucke who, as the first speaker tonight, performed a fantastic balance exercise. He had his words well weighed and weighed. I appreciate how he actually says here that he will support a bill while he does not really like to support it. He says he actually wants to listen to the magistrates without wanting to hear them. I find it amazing how you explained it in a quarter or twenty minutes.

It is, of course, a draft that has been attempted to hunt the Parliament, first in the Senate, then in the House.

Fait personnel

Personal Fact