How did Patrick Brazeau rate a seat in the Senate?

Removed from this week’s news, it’s a question worth asking


When Canadians hear the Prime Minister calling Senator Patrick Brazeau’s situation “extremely appalling”—from Stephen Harper, uncharacteristically vivid language—they might well wonder how this character rated a Senate seat in the first place.

The short, glib answer is that he didn’t. In a way, no senator does. Our continued tolerance of an upper chamber in our Parliament that exists to be packed with partisan patronage appointees remains a national embarrassment—or would be if we thought about it much.

But Brazeau’s personal downfall is, of course, entirely distinct from the institutional problem of a standing affront to democracy right there on Parliament Hill. Nobody should suggest that the charges of assault and sexual assault laid against him today somehow reflect on the Senate in general.

And yet the natural question about how Brazeau got there to begin with is worth asking. If you imagine it’s inexplicable, try reading, for instance, the transcript of the June 16, 2008 Senate committee hearings into the Harper government’s bill to finally amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so that First Nations would no longer be exempt from its protections.

Back then, Brazeau headed the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which aims to represent off-reserve natives. He had championed bringing all aboriginals under the act. “Many band councils do not believe they have human rights obligations to their own people,” Brazeau declared at one point that day, adding later: “Let us face it—some chiefs themselves are the perpetrators of the discrimination that is experienced by First Nations citizens.”

The record of his incendiary performance reminds us why Brazeau drove the traditional First Nations’ leadership in Canada to distraction—and why Conservative politicians were drawn to him. Harper was looking to break away from having to negotiate mainly with the Assembly of First Nations. On winning power in 2006, he had alienated the AFN by ditching the previous Liberal government’s Kelowna Accord, and the promise of billions that came with it.

In the context of that broader game plan, Harper’s appointment of the controversial Brazeau to the Senate made sense. Now, everybody knows how it worked out: string of escalating controversies, culminating with Brazeau’s arrest this week after police in Gatineau, Que., across the Ottawa River from the capital, responded to a domestic 911 call.

Not only did elevating Brazeau turn out horribly, the political strategy behind it proved ephemeral. The Tories have largely abandoned their earlier approach of trying to work around the AFN. Harper has, in the past couple of years, tacked toward working with the assembly’s congenially cautious national chief, Shawn Atleo. In the era of Idle No More, the AFN looks less like an obstruction and more like an essential partner.

And so, even if we ignore the sordid developments of the past few days, Brazeau’s case reminds us that Senate appointments are frequently made based on short-lived political tactics and fleeting partisan calculations—just about the worst reasons to give anyone a lushly compensated, long-term position.

Will it ever be fixed? Don’t bet on it. Way back in 2006, Harper proposed his two-pronged approach to reform: provincial elections to choose the senators a prime minister would appoint, and nine-year term limits so those senators wouldn’t be hanging around until 75.  But only last week did his government get around to deciding to ask the Supreme Court of Canada, in what’s called a constitutional reference, whether it can proceed with the reforms on its own. The court could take two years to deliver its opinion.

Even the judges, though, can’t answer the real question: Do Canadians really want a respectable, democratic Senate? You might think the answer is an obvious, Yes, especially after this week. No more lousy patronage appointees. But think about it. A truly reformed Senate would have the legitimacy to challenge the House of Commons on a regular basis, and even compete with provincial governments to represent provincial interests. Have we agreed to that fundamental change in how we’re governed?

These issues have not been seriously addressed by the Harper government. But earlier this week, the National Post reported that Senator Bert Brown, who was appointed to the Senate by Harper in 2007 after being selected in an Alberta vote, said the Prime Minister is open to trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would put strict limits on the Senate’s ability to reject a bill sent to it by the House. Intriguing.

Of course, gaining provincial consent for such a constitutional amendment would be an extraordinarily tall order, perhaps impossible. And Harper has steadfastly avoided any hint of being willing to even try. I asked his office for a reaction to the report about Brown’s comments.

“I can’t speak for Senator Brown, but I can say that those views do not accurately reflect the views of the government,” said Andrew MacDougall, Harper’s communications director, in an email. “The path forward is the reference to the Supreme Court, and a term-limited Senate selected through democratic elections.”

Pressing ahead on that path without first nailing down how a reformed Senate’s power would be limited is, in my view, a reckless undertaking. After this week, though, the disreputable status quo on the Senate looks harder to support than ever. At least appearing to be pursuing a plan for reform, however flawed, may be politically indispensible.


How did Patrick Brazeau rate a seat in the Senate?

  1. The easiest kind of senate reform is also the most effective: abolishing it. One national referendum. Seven of ten provinces vote “yes” with majorities. The best part: senators will be forced to vote for their own demise and end their unwarranted $132k/yr salaries (because they are appointed they have no say in the process.)

    Since this is a single-issue constitutional amendment, there will be no cries from every interest group out there to be included, like what happened with Mulroney. And let’s face the facts: Mulroney’s constitutional blundering was over 20 years ago. I’m tired of dim-witted pundits telling me any constitutional change is impossible because of him. Blah, blah, blah…

    To tackle the democratic deficit: legislate Preferential Voting to make our existing Westminster-style government democratic. Then all-party Commons committees can go over legislation with a fine-tooth comb raising concerns from the public, guaranteeing the process of “second sober thought.” (Something that does not happen now.) This puts elected MPs to work and cuts out all the deadwood (like Brazeau and The Duff.)

  2. The easiest kind of senate reform would be making them earn their $ – make pay contingent on appearing in their seat and making contributions to senate committees. There can be a role for the senate, even as it stands, if stellar people are appointed to it and they go about their work with gusto. As can often be shown about the workings of our govenment (and no one is immune from this criticism, even if the last seven or so years have made it particularly glaring) it’s not the system, it’s the people.

    • The senate at present is nothing more than an ornamental rubber stamp. Utterly useless. Since Confederation one government has stacked it with partisan appointments after another to the same effect. Time to put an end to this disgraceful and pointless parade of corruption.

      Like Churchill said, democracy is the best of all worse alternatives. Appointed politicians is clearly a worse alternative.

      • What you say has an element of truth but I think your overstating it a bit. Even in the 90s I recall the senate doing good, by sending a Chretien bill back because it was unconstitutional and curtailed freedom of the press. And more importantly, it doesn’t HAVE to be the way it is now and it can be changed without altering the rules. If voters were willing to hold politicians accountable for senate choices they’d have to make better choices, and sliding pay scales would make sure we don’t shell out $ for the more egregious choices.

        • Checking bills over is the work of the MPs on committees….we’re paying THEM a bundle and ELECTING them….and they apparently aren’t doing their job. Putting a ‘senator’ in front of their name won’t make any difference.

          • You do realize that an election is a guarantee of no quality except electability?

            Trusting MPs to do a rational job of our legislation is akin to trusting an actor to do your surgery, simply because they’ve played a doctor on TV.

            Senators are, in theory, picked by the Prime Minister for their ability and wisdom, regardless of their electability. They are then given the time and resources to gain nearly unparalleled experience of our nation and our legislation, without having to be constantly pandering to the short-term desires of the populace in order to get elected.

            MPs answer to us in the short term. They create the legislation guided by the concerns of having to be elected again. Senators can apply sober second thought — without fear of re-election, they can look at our legislation with a longer term view. I’d expect that you, of all people, with your constant insistence we get ready for a knowledge age, might appreciate that.

            If the reality doesn’t match the theory, then that’s the fault of us, as Canadians, for not holding PM’s accountable for the choices they make.

          • ‘Senators are, in theory, picked by the Prime Minister for their ability and wisdom, regardless of their electability.’

            You’ve been drinking again, haven’t you….

          • Five paragraphs too much for you?

            Try reading just the last one then.. it’s short, and there’s only a couple of words with more than two syllables, so it shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

          • How long have you been on this site Thwim?

            I’ve long said elections are a crap shoot, and mostly popularity contests with nothing whatever to do with qualifications or ability.

            I’ve been elected myself, so I know a little something about the process, and the people involved.

            You’ve probably been a Canadian all your life….and if you really believe the PM picks people for their ‘ability and wisdom’…..barf….you’re dumber than you look.

            And if you think ‘we as Canadians’ are actually going to hold PMs accountable….I have this ocean-front property in Alberta……

          • So your complaint is that Canadians aren’t smart enough to make politicians accountable for their decisions.. and yet you want to give the *entire* legislative responsibility to people we’ve elected.

            Incidentally, I probably wouldn’t crow about being elected in the exact same message where you say that being elected has nothing to do with ability or qualifications — but perhaps that just proves your point.

          • Well since they’re one and the same, it doesn’t matter Thwim

            You’re just doing your snotty routine again.

          • I love your turn of phrase EmilyOne..always a pleasure to read your comments!

          • Thank you.

          • “Trusting MPs to do a rational job of our legislation is akin to trusting an actor to do your surgery, simply because they’ve played a doctor on TV. Senators are, in theory, picked by the Prime Minister for their ability and wisdom, regardless of their electability.”

            Wow, can’t believe this foolishness got 19 votes. Democracy is founded on voters electing representatives to legislate bills and govern based on their promises. It’s ridiculous to suggest the senate is an institution of professional politicians who do the work of creating legislation.

            The senate is supposed to review legislation and raise concerns from the public. Of course, it rarely does its job because the appointment process is inherently corrupt. In fact, the whole premise of the senate is corrupt founded on aristocracy modeled after the UK House of Lords.

            We don’t need professional politicians to review legislation. The concept is an oxymoron. We need elected representatives to be sure they are held accountable. Since an elected senate would cause random gridlock, it’s better to have MPs do the job (and modernize our voting system to prevent minority parties from getting absolute corrupt power and corrupting the process.)

          • Sure. If absolutely all you want are laws pandering to the short-term view.. that’s a great plan. Look at what it’s done for us so far..

            And I put it to you that even if they only do this job rarely (and personally, I think you’re full of crap on that) it’s better than that job not being done at all, and then those bills passing into law and oppressing people illegally until someone happens to have the resources to mount a charter case and appeal it up to the supreme court to get it fixed.

          • No need to fix it. Anything the senate can do all-party Commons committees can do better with elected politicians that are accountable to the people. Time to cut out the duplication and the deadwood. The provinces don’t need an “upper house” stacked with “hacks and bagmen.” Why on earth does the federal government?

          • I put it to you again, that no, they can’t. Why not? Because all that qualifies them for the job is *elect*ability. Not ability.

            Holding politicians accountable will make it so that one factor of their electability is the choices they make of other people. So while they personally may be not too insightful or bright about the Canadian legislature or legislative traditions — just good representatives, senators, who can be picked for straight ability, whether electable or not, have a larger chance of being able to actually make good decisions regarding legislation because again, they have the time to gain experience in the role, and do not have to pander to short term desires of the people.

          • Agree 100%. It’s best to put elected MPs to work doing the job of “second sober thought.” They represent actual voters. With a democratic voting system, no “tyranny of the minority” could corrupt their efforts. As an institution of “second sober thought” the senate is a broken watch that tells the right time twice a day. It has been notoriously unreliable since Confederation.

          • Well they were never MEANT to do dreary committee work….that’s a recent excuse for existing…..like our little adventure in Afghanistan kept coming up with new reasons for continuing.

            Upper class Canadians….since we had no ‘Lords’ ….were supposed to keep tabs on the riff-raff, and not let them get carried away like the Americans.[At one point Americans were even electing their military officers….it was absurd]

            But all that is soooo 1867ish….and is totally out of place today.

          • Agreed. The senate was originally a way for the upper class to hedge democracy. Of course, it doesn’t even serve that function today.

            In modern times, First-Past-the-Post hedges democracy by doling out unfettered power to minority parties. This allows the business community to have greater influence over government and elections. (On the off chance that a party which doesn’t represent their interests gets fake-majority power, they will ensure it never happens again via their influence over the media.)

            Of course, one only finds this kind of corruption (in the developed world) among Anglo Saxon countries.

          • ‘Of course, one only finds this kind of corruption (in the developed world) among Anglo Saxon countries.’

            Oh lordy…now yse dun it! LOL

          • What’s your point?

          • Heh….you can’t go around announcing things like ‘corruption in Anglo Saxon countries’

            All white folks are honest upright citizens….it’s those OTHER people that are corrupt…..Basic western belief here and all that.

          • I think its cultural rather than racist. If I’m not mistaken, the British ruled over the biggest empire in history. Them limeys knew how to run a tight ship. (Apparently, still do…)

            But in any case the proof would appear to be in the bread and butter pudding. Electoral reform has been the slowest going in Anglo Saxon countries; while European countries reformed decades ago (predominantly PR which is heresy among the corporate media in Canada, even the “leftist” Toronto Star…)

            Also Anglo Saxon nations score among the lowest in social spending (out of 31 High Income OECD countries):

            New Zealand: #22, Canada #23, Ireland #24, US #25, Australia #26. The UK is the exception at #15, but Cameron is trying to make things right…

          • Well the civil service was the making of both China and Britain but of course both services were highly educated and respected. Other empires were bigger, but more militant than educated and couldn’t hold it together.

        • “Even in the 90s I recall the senate doing good by sending a Chretien bill back ”

          LOL. Yes, let’s keep a broken watch that is right twice a day instead of getting one that actually works.

          It’s surprising so many political-junkie Canadians have a sentimental attachment to the senate. I can tell you straight up it is not based on anything rational.

          The senate is modeled after the UK House of Lords: a throwback to pre-democratic aristocracy. It has no place in modern democracy established in the post-war era.

        • “If voters were willing to hold politicians accountable for senate choices”

          Seriously? According to our constitution, the English monarch appoints senators on advisement of the prime minister (whether or not he or she represents a majority of the electorate, which is exceedingly rare — another broken watch in Canadians “democracy”…)

          PMs have been making the wrong choices since Confederation. If you took a poll, the vast majority of Canadians would not even know how the appointment process works. So…

        • You know the song” What have you done for me lately?’..well that is the current crop of thumb plum pickers!

    • I think a better solution would be simply to slash the pay to $1 a year, plus travel expenses between home province and Ottawa only. That would not require any constitutional fiddling and would ensure that the partisan hacks, bagmen and lifelong parasites would shun the place like cockroaches shun the light. Fill the place with mature, accomplished people who would treat it as honourable public service. Make it a respected and respectable part-time job.

      So many people are eager to throw up their hands and say “nothing can be done differently” which is just short hand for “we don’t want to do anything differently.” One of the greatest fictions ever foisted on the Canadian people is the fiction that Stephen Harper is a principled man. He is nothing of the kind.

      • Except of course that it is not Stephen Harper who is saying “nothing can be done differently” or “we don’t want to do anything differently”.

        If you are honest to yourself, or if you would be a principled individual yourself, you would admit that it was indeed Mr.Harper who first introduced senate reform in the House and that it was the ‘others’ who were against Harper’s new proposals.

        • If I were honest with myself? That is rich. The man who promised to never appoint an unelected Senator, who then turned around and appointed the man who cheated the public treasury out of millions in an election fraud, to the benefit of Harper’s own party. That’s the guy you want me to “admit” has been talking about senate reform? Sure, I admit it,

          He’s been talking about it for years and years… What has he actually done about it? Other than stuff the Senate with an unprecedented collection of gormless political leeches and unelectable tools? Well, after seven years in power he’s decided to “refer the matter” to the Supreme Court, a diversionary delay tactic worthy of his true political mentor Jean Chretien.

          So now I see that Harper’s oleaginous yuckmouth, Peter Van Loan, is blaming the appointment of Brazeau on “provinces who refused to elect Senators.” How dare we hold Harper responsible for the decisions he made in a fit of pique? God I despise the loser who can not stop offering the lame excuses, the finger-pointing, and the bad-tempered complaints of the sore sport, even when he has won.

          • Actually, I think the reason he’s referred the matter to the Supreme Court is that he’s realized these senators he’s appointed ain’t going to go away on their own.. even if they agreed to do so when he put them in place.

            When it was a minority government, he thought that if anybody happened to defeat him, they’d at least be stuck with these lapdog incompetent senators, thus lending more weight to the argument that the senate needs to be turfed.

            Except now he’s got a majority government.. and the fact that he appointed these toads can start to come back to bite him directly if they don’t nicely leave the position as they said they would.

          • Toads..what is this? a game of Snakes and ladders? yuk yuk

        • Yes..but there still is patronage..and Harper is right in there doing it. Token effort to make himself look good.

      • If the pay was lowered to $1/year, you would likely get some principled individuals (assuming a PM would appoint them), but I think you would more likely get people who would draw their pay from some other organization, like political parties, unions, businesses, or worse. I wouldn’t begrudge them their pay, if only they would really act independently, which they should be able to do, since they can’t – apparently – be dismissed on a PM’s whim. All Senators should be dismissed from their party’s caucuses. Most MPs too, for that matter.

      • Mature, accomplished people? You mean old, rich, guys.

        • White guys. Don’t forget to round out your prejudices.

      • You have a brilliant idea..unfortunately..look who hopes to BE a senator one day..the very person who appoints them, Sooo.don’t think it would happen. Conflict of interest I’d call it! Abolish the whole lot.

    • Unfortunately..the ‘trough syndrome’ soon affects them all.

  3. John, are judges also a standing affront to democracy? Because they too are appointed, and actually have a hell of a lot more direct effect on how our laws affect us than senators do. What about government lawyers? Or hell, even party lawyers? Are those also affronts to democracy and to be done away with?

    I just hate this idiotic idea that anything not directly elected is automatically anti-democratic — you can do better.

    • Judges interpret existing laws. They work in court and produce rulings. Senators have no expectations for doing any work at all, and can vote on bills and legislation without having to read anything or display any expertise or knowledge on the issue.

      • A judge could flush cases through without paying attention just like Senators can flush through legislation.

        They typically don’t, though.

        • Actually Thwim, your point about judges being appointed also is a very good and relevant point to bring up.

  4. so the senate asked delioette to come in and do an audit for the senate.well i guess that audit wont see the light of day.harper again trying to show things are getting done,but nothing gets done.harper hired these baffoon(braz & duffy).its about harpers judgement.

  5. “The record of his incendiary performance…” ah quelle horreur!! Ze honeste manne!! in an environment of rants and drum beating, that sounded good.

    I also love the way this writer has tried and convicted the good Senator. First, he was tried for “domestic violence.” Then, hours later, the media tried him for “sexual assault.” I await the ultimate media trial for “verbal harrassment” and “arguing with an officer.”
    Although Senator B. isn’t a boy scout, he has yet to be convicted. As for the senate, you don’t reform a patient dying of a terminal disease, so shut it down.

  6. Keep the Senate, it is a valuable part of our democracy but change the vetting system. Make it so that 80% (or 100% if you want) of the House has to agree on the appointment of a senator. Thus you get rid of the partisans and those who can’t do the job. To prevent a stalemate, legislate so the House will have to sit until they have reached an agreement, not unlike making a child stay at the dinner table until they eat all their veggies.

    I think this way we get a useful Senate filled with Canadians who deserve and are capable of being there.

    • You want 80% of the House to agree on a senate appointment? Perhaps even a 100% to agree………………………………..my oh, my, that will do away with senate appointments in a hurry…………..

  7. Great article!
    You’re certainly correct in questioning all that an elected Senate would do to alter the current balance of power, between the PM, PMO, inner cadre, the House, and even the provinces. However, I would argue that, without a constitutional amendment and the consent of the provinces, maybe even with it, Harper’s purposed reforms are a red herring; an effort to appease his disillusioned western Canadian conservative constituents and nothing more.

    Hopeful PMs may profess great distaste for the non-elected second chamber and frustration with the patronage appointment process; the affront to democracy it blights us with. Then the hopeful candidate ascends to the highest role in our government and the duties and responsibilities of the newly minted PM become quite apparent. Partisan appointments matter to our form of government; the difficulty of governance without patronage would not be lost on the new guy at 24 Sussex. Surely the new PM would recognize the improbability of reforming the Senate, as more important aspects of the job come to the fore, and it would persuade the fellow that a non-elected legislative body has its advantages.

    Those new duties include maintaining the government’s ability to draft successful legislation, get it passed into law, and keep those who would author a non-government/party narrative to the far sidelines. Why spend time and the political capital needed on a venture, like Senate reform, when appointing like-minded individuals makes your already tricky job easy? There’s no need for our current PM to do anything but offer up a ‘reform bill’ that makes it look like he’s fought the good fight; making it appear that Stephen has remained true to his western conservative roots, as alienated as they are. Although altruism is a wonderful trait, you’d be fooling yourself if you thought that even a new PM would survive the ideological trench warfare of the Hill if those empathic sympathies weren’t reined in.

    Senate reform is the biggest waste of political dialogue that there is. Motivated political actors want to maintain control of the legislative agenda when they finally capture it, not surrender it out of piety. For good reason; too many chefs are said to spoil the soup and I’d argue that the same could be said about drafting partisan legislation. Remember, as PM, you’ve got a lot of people to thank/reward for your successful climb to the top of the mountain; the risk of an elected Senate is one more trouble the boss doesn’t need. Only a naive child or ideological zealot would honestly work towards change when said change would make their job harder.

    In short, the reform bill dies, whether or not the Supreme Court rules in its favour. After all, its not like Harper has shown any tendency toward broad nation building or has offered a sympathetic ear to the provinces, in the form of Brian Mulroney-like tete a tete.

    Trust me, in three weeks time the Senate issue won’t even be in the news cycle and prose about its reform will be reserved, once more, for academics, grand idealist, and western Canada’s malcontent.”

  8. It is possible to have a body selected by consensus. The Supreme Court is appointed in exactly the same way as the Senate but because a convention of consultation has developed over the years it has remained respected. The Justices are appointed by the Prime Minister from various lists supplied to him. So far all PM’s have resisted appointing political bagmen..

    • Consultation for judicial appointments has been with those well steeped in the law, however, not the opposition. And if Stevie Cameron is to be believed, Mulroney wanted to make patronage appointments to the SCC but he was shouted down.

  9. “How did Patrick brazeau rate a seat in the Senate?” How, indeed? Mr. Harper feels “let down”. Well, Mr. Harper, not as “let down” as the Canadian taxpayer feels. Your judegement of character seems to be weak and we are paying for it. Time to step up to the plate and properly “vet” these people, or just step back and let someone who is capable in judging both ethics and morals take over the reins. We Canadians are ‘let down’ by your lack of good judgement, Mr. Harper.

  10. Sadly Macleans linking Harper to Brazeaus deplorable personal conduct then how it affects his dealing with the AFN is got to be the lowest point of cowardly journalism.
    Every prime minister since confederation has been a failure when dealing with Indian issues.

  11. Safety Wiener: Agriculture Canada handed $826,000 to Brampton, Ont.’s Cardinal Meat Specialists Ltd. to help the meat-processing company research a sausage that doesn’t burst open when cooked. In a news release, Pierre Lemieux, the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, said a grant to develop a less-explosive sausage was critical to the government’s focus on “jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.”

  12. Democracy deserves and needs to be affronted. Everyday. No one has said democracy is perfect, except the ones benefitting inordinately. And they are usually liars. The Senate is useful and suffers likely more from democracy, as it is done these days (ie. partisan tomfoolery) than democracy suffers from it. It could be reformed and revised in any number of ways even without creating an elected body (which, without revising the Commons as well would also be a disaster – which is likely why that has not happened). Democracy is the reason it has not been. Or, rather, tomfoolery.

  13. “The continued existence of an upper chamber in our Parliament that exists to be packed with partisan patronage appointees remains a national embarrassment,”

    The Senate is not the embaarrassment.. it is those who use the power to appoint senators for selfish reasons that are the embarrassment.

  14. The most egregious and outrageous display Patrick Brazeau performed in the Senate was on July 9, 2011, a year after the various leaders in the Commons had apologized to the Aboriginal leaders of Canada for the residential schools. On the anniversary of that event the Senate moved into Committee of the Whole to receive the leaders and to hear their views on the progress made in the intervening period. Brazeau set about attacking the then National Chief Phil Fontaine, on charges that were no more than gossip, while Fontaine was a guest of the Senate. (Had he wished to interrogate him about the practices of his administration he should have done so in the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, with notice so that the National Chief could come prepared with documents and assistants. Should Harper have known Brazeau’s record before his appointment? Most people involved with Aboriginal politics knew his reputation,including his reputation for sexual harrassment. Did Harper want him so badly he was prepared to take the risk? Or did he simply not look both ways before he crossed the street?

    • My apologies. I should have double checked the date before hitting “Post”. The date of the egregious conduct described above was June 11, 2009, not June 9, 2011. Guess I’m still getting past my childhood dyslexia.

  15. Short answer..he did NOT rate to be a senator..was patronage all the way. Do away with the senate altogether.that should be the first thing on the agenda.

  16. Senate positions? All plums for all the little Jack Horners’. Period

Sign in to comment.