44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2023 11:00AM
- Mar/20/23 12:57:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will ask the minister a very simple, non-partisan question, and I would refer him to the NSICOP annual 2019 report which, in chapter 2, has over 50 pages on foreign interference. Specifically, it has six key findings and three key recommendations, all unredacted and available to the public. This is a report that went straight to the Prime Minister.
I have a two-part question.
First, why has this government not taken any action on those three recommendations put forth by the non-partisan NSICOP committee?
Second, the last recommendation in particular refers to the very first report NSICOP produced around the Prime Minister's trip to India and the allegations tied to that, which reads, “In the interest of national security, members of the House of Commons and the Senate should be briefed upon being sworn-in and regularly thereafter on the risks of foreign interference and extremism in Canada.” I think it would be unfair to ask the minister how many times since the start of the government, but since he has become the Minister of Public Safety, has he personally ensured that opposition members have been briefed, upon being sworn in at the appropriate level, on foreign interference in Canada?
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 12:59:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my commitment to work with my hon. colleague and all members in the chamber to ensure they are briefed in the appropriate forums, including when it comes to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Again, it is a committee that the government created not only to raise the bar of transparency but also to promote and foster greater collaboration across partisan lines.
My colleague cites recommendations, but he then posits that no action has been taken. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, we are acting on a number of recommendations that have been put forward by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, including, most recently, and I would highlight for his benefit, the creation of a national coordinator who will be situated within my ministry to combat foreign interference.
Is there more work to be done on those recommendations? Without question there is, but again, it is my commitment to him and to all members of the chamber to work without any prejudice towards partisanship to do this work together when it comes to fighting foreign interference.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:00:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech and found it very strange. Just think about the Chinese interference issue. Back when the first reports came out and questions started to be asked, the government simply said that there was no issue. It claimed that asking questions meant we were anti-Chinese, that we were, in essence, racist. That was the government's response.
Now, with everything that has come out in the media, the government has been backed into a corner, so it has decided to appoint a special rapporteur. It thinks that that will be enough, that everyone will be happy and move on. The whole thing is a farce.
We keep asking questions, and the minister claims that we are making partisan attacks. However, the people are also demanding a public inquiry into Chinese interference.
Is the entire population partisan too? I am trying to understand the logic behind the minister's speech.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:35:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although it pains me to say so, I have to admit that I agree in part with my colleague.
We must determine what is the best forum, but I will go a little further. This matter must not be addressed in a partisan way because it is an issue of public interest. In the interest of the public, we must get to the bottom of this so we can take action. I believe that the forum is not as important as the fact that we must take action by rising above partisan sparring and seeking out this care for the public interest, which is sorely lacking on both sides of the House.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:59:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Saturday, on The House on CBC, the leader of the NDP said, “up to this point...I have seen the committee and the way [it operates] is more...a forum for scoring [political] points on each other. The Conservatives are trying to score points on the Liberals”. He goes on to say, “and so, that to me is the wrong use of...resources, the fact that a committee that is being used [for] a partisan way to score points on something as important as democracy”.
This member actually said, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on February 21, “I caution on the issue of inviting staff.” He further goes on to say, “Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did and what they knew—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:36:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, election interference is an attack against each and every one of us. The reality right now is that the presidents of China and Russia are meeting in Moscow, which should be concerning to all of us considering what type of efforts are being made to undermine Canadian democracy.
What has been offered is for the people who received the briefings, the national campaign directors in 2019 and 2021, to appear. The Conservatives, I would suggest, should do the same. I would also suggest that it should be including Russia and other foreign actors that are attempting to interfere in our democracy instead of having such a partisan focus.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:37:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council and the Leader of the Opposition would have been provided, and were provided the opportunity for, a full briefing. He has declined it. In fact, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which would give an opportunity for the members opposite to be able to see every single document, is something that they are not willing to focus on or engage in.
We have offered this opportunity, and we have offered David Johnston, an independent, eminent Canadian, to look at this issue, so it begs this question: What is their interest? It would appear to me that their interest is partisan in nature and that they are using this opportunity to grind a partisan axe rather—
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:39:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will tell everyone what obstruction looks like. When I was the critic, and I was trying to deal with the then Conservative government, Justice Iacobucci and Justice O'Connor critically called for the establishment of an independent oversight mechanism filled with parliamentarians that could look into every aspect of government.
What did the opposition leader do when he was minister of democratic reforms? He did nothing.
He did not take action on that. We did. This means that members of Parliament from every single party have the opportunity to look into every aspect of this matter. We have offered witnesses. We have had many ministers testify.
What is their interest? Partisan—
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:40:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member across from me to be an honourable member. I am absolutely certain of his commitment to Canadian democracy. I hope that he would share the belief that every member in the House is equally committed to our Canadian democracy and equally offended at the idea of foreign interference interrupting it.
What concerns me is that we have provided mechanisms for every party to be able to look at every aspect of this. We provided an eminent Canadian who is going to look at this independently and provide recommendations. We have offered multiple ministers, multiple witnesses.
Their interest continues to be a partisan interest, not a factual interest. That is inappropriate.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:44:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we agree that foreign interference should never be a partisan issue. That is why we appointed someone who is independent, has an impeccable background and will be able to review everything available when it comes to foreign interference in our elections and make recommendations.
We value that independence. We know that David Johnston will be an outstanding individual to carry out this work and make recommendations to the government, which may include a public inquiry. Whatever the recommendations are, we will accept them.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:50:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, individuals who received briefings and would have had knowledge of the 2019 and 2021 campaigns as national campaign directors have offered to testify at committee. The ministers who were responsible have testified before committees. Other witnesses and experts are testifying before committee.
Why is the Conservative Party so solely and singularly focused on Katie Telford? I will tell the House why. It is a partisan interest, and it is deeply disturbing. The interest of Conservative members here is to wedge, divide and create a partisan advantage.
I would suggest that, when we are dealing with something as serious as foreign interference, our focus should be on protecting our democracy, not partisan advantage.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:52:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I heard some yelling across the way. I am flawed. I have made many errors in my life, as I am sure many members of this House have. In all my time in opposition or government, I have never called another person in this place “corrupt”. I have never stood in my place and levelled an allegation without information; the members opposite do not have that information.
They take rumour and conjecture and try to trump it up for partisan advantage, and they overreach with terms like “corrupt” about an individual and a Prime Minister who has dedicated his life to public service and making this country better. This place deserves better than that kind of debate.
We are dealing with the serious issue of foreign interference. It deserves serious responses.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:34:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby made his speech a little while ago, but I want to thank him. I would like him to come back to the importance of having an independent, totally non-partisan, public inquiry that would be voted on in the House of Commons.
I want to mention the statement made by my colleague from Trois‑Rivières, who aptly described at the outset the importance of public trust. The current government's complacency is undermining the public's trust in government. We are going to go from mistrust to defiance, as the member for Trois‑Rivières said so well.
I would like my colleague to expand on that point and perhaps explain why he thinks the government wants to buy time.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:37:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I tried to ask the member this question before, but he did not answer it, so I want to give him another opportunity.
The leader of the NDP said, “up to this point...I have seen [that] the committee, and the way it is operating, is more so a forum for scoring [political] points on each other. The Conservatives are trying to score points on the Liberals”. He went on to say, “And so, that, to me, is the wrong use of our resources. The fact that a committee is being used in a partisan way to score points on something [is inappropriate].”
As a matter of fact, this member, on February 21 in the PROC committee, said, “I caution on the issue of inviting staff [to committee].” He went on to say, “Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did [and why].”
Given that this motion is all about inviting staff to committee, can the member give some insight into why the NDP is even considering whether to support it, given his comments in committee and the comments by the leader of the NDP? He did not answer the question the last time I asked. I am really hoping that he can actually answer my question this time.
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:33:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will add my thoughts on this important matter of election interference and its potential impact on Canada's democracy, a democracy thousands of Canadians have literally died for, and which many around the world look upon with envy and admiration.
What I would like to do in the next few minutes is reflect the voices of my constituents on this matter, combined with my own thoughts on what our government has achieved so far to tackle this complex threat and what steps lie ahead of us.
In so doing, I would like to take the temperature down a few notches as I am certainly feeling the heat in the House. This is an issue we should debate vigorously and, through parliamentary process, find a way to restore and maintain Canadians' trust in our democracy and in our democratic institutions. This is no time for scoring partisan points, and Canadians have little appetite for such political sport.
Indeed, I cannot help but reflect on the recent words of our departing member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, who urged us to come to the House every day with a firm intention of showing respect for our colleagues and for this extraordinary place.
We know that foreign actors in particular, but not exclusively the People's Republic of China, have attempted to interfere in the last two federal elections and may well be targeting other levels of government as well. Many Canadians and many in this chamber, myself included, were deeply disturbed by recent and various allegations of attempted interference.
Even more disturbing are the allegations that these efforts at interference may have had an impact, despite the reassuring evidence that the outcome of our elections has not been affected. These allegations have left parliamentarians and Canadians with questions and concerns, questions arising not just among us but also from constituents, as I am sure most of my colleagues are receiving.
In following the reportage and discussions over the last few weeks, one of the most important subjects has been the need to distinguish between intelligence and evidence. Thus, what we are hearing about election interference is based largely on intelligence-derived information.
Evidence to form the basis for response to and against interference requires more than the threads of information that intelligence provides. It is therefore imperative to underline both that these threads are for alleged incidents and that the pieces of intelligence chosen to back them may not be providing a full picture. Nevertheless, the allegations are serious and disturbing, and they oblige us as a government to ensure we are taking the necessary steps to keep our institutions and our democracy, safe, trusted and secure.
When it comes to national security, we should remember and respect that answers to some questions must be kept confidential in order to protect the work of our security services and their sources. We must also continue to protect our relationships with Canada's allies, with whom we do, of course, share sensitive information.
Unquestionably, some questions can be answered. As we have already seen from the last two reports of the critical election incident public protocol and other recent work done by parliamentarians, civil servants and experts, it is clear changes must be considered to further strengthen our system and improve our response to these threats while providing as much transparency as possible to parliamentarians and the Canadian public. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue.
I would venture that, when potentially explosive allegations are raised, we all may have a tendency to back into our partisan corners and raise our fists in defence. This is not helpful from any side of the House.
It is particularly disappointing to see shameful accusations of collaboration with Chinese officials directed at our leader, and such fear-based politicking must be called out. At the same time, we all have a responsibility to approach this issue with honesty and a commitment to do better where gaps in our protections still remain.
Surely, our ultimate goal is to unpack these allegations and understand where these are coming from and how we can continue to improve measures to protect the integrity of our democracy. After all, amidst purposeful innuendo and confusion, amidst Canadian politicians raising doubts about the integrity of our democracy or the loyalty of Canadians, the only entities that win are our various totalitarian adversaries outside our borders, which we know are looking for ways to promote uncertainty and undermine our institutions.
Although it was before my time in office, the government, much to its credit, has taken important steps to address these very national security issues in a secure and responsible manner while providing as much transparency as possible. NSICOP is one key institution, a group of up to 11 parliamentarians from both houses granted the necessary clearances to examine matters related to national security, and they have begun looking into this.
The critical election incident public protocol, a group of civil servants tasked with reporting to the public about elections and potential threats, recently published their report on the 2021 election and found that while attempts at interference were made they did not change the outcome of the election. The protocol made several recommendations to improve their effectiveness in addressing potential threats. I look forward to those changes being considered and implemented as quickly as reasonable.
In addition to the ongoing work surrounding these bodies, I was pleased to see the Right Hon. David Johnston, Canada's 28th Governor General, an eminent legal scholar and upstanding Canadian, appointed to examine the issue of foreign interference in our elections and to make recommendations on how to uphold or restore Canadians' confidence in those institutions.
The appointment of a non-partisan figure to examine this matter and to recommend appropriate next steps is critical, because we need to take partisanship out of the issue. I think it is incumbent on all of us to wait for Mr. Johnston to present his recommendations before assuming what he will or will not conclude.
As I have discussed with my constituents, though I have reservations, I am not opposed to some form of public inquiry or public engagement on some of the issues we are discussing, but I am mindful of the limitations of a public inquiry into issues related to security.
Once again, I would point to bodies and mechanisms like NSICOP, parliamentary committees and others, which exist to examine not only specific allegations but also the issue, risks and responses to foreign interference, more broadly.
In addition to Mr. Johnston's upcoming work, and that of NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is reviewing intelligence related to foreign interference, as assessed by Canada's security agencies, up to, during and following the last two elections.
The CEIPP report offers several recommendations that deserve consideration for implementation to make the process more transparent and make our democracy safer.
The debate we are having today reflects the work of several parliamentary committees. Committees should be the ideal bodies to select and to hear from witnesses and experts to inform recommendations for concrete steps to make Canadians safer.
I believe committees are best suited to determine who they call as witnesses. Therefore, I am disappointed that we must hold a vote in the House on who to call. I will not be supporting this motion, as I feel this is the responsibility of the committees. Efforts to circumvent this process should be stopped so that the work of the committees in question and the work of the House could continue unimpeded.
While announcing the role Mr. Johnston would occupy, the Prime Minister also announced that the Minister of Public Safety would be launching long-awaited consultations on a foreign influence registry. These consultations will be completed in early May, and I hope they will be able to be legislated expeditiously.
I understand the frustration of victims of foreign interference and of those who are concerned about it. Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants every citizen the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and none of the present allegations come close to that. Canada has an unfortunate history where we have maligned, marginalized and persecuted people in the past, and questioned their loyalty based on where they come from.
In these recent storms of allegations, some have tended to get carried away and abandon due process based on fears stoked by irresponsible individuals. Too often in Canada's history, we learned that rash conclusions can bring devastating and long-lasting effects.
Let us take partisanship out of this issue. Let us commit to working co-operatively to respond to the situations. Canadians are expecting nothing less.
1462 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:42:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I get to my specific question, I do want to quote Sean McFate, The New Rules of War. He wrote, “Secrets and democracy are not compatible.... Democracy thrives in the light of information and transparency”.
My colleague spoke about the importance of transparency around that and about the needed action in taking the partisan rhetoric out of it. NSICOP's 2019 annual report to the Prime Minister was tabled here in the House in a redacted form, although the findings and recommendations under its 50 pages tied to foreign interference are all unredacted. It made three recommendations to the government and to the Prime Minister to take moving forward. The third one was something the same committee made to the government in its very first report to the Prime Minister on his trip to India, which was around the need to brief opposition MPs on foreign interference: read them in, get them the appropriate clearances and brief them.
I want to ask the member why this has not yet happened. It has been five years since it was first recommended to the Prime Minister.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said at one point in his speech that a non-partisan individual had been selected. He was of course referring to Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston is a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. He has a cottage next to the Prime Minister's. He is a family friend. He is a close personal friend of the Prime Minister, a friend since childhood.
Can anyone seriously try to tell us that Mr. Johnston is truly a non-partisan person?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:44:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
I would point out that Mr. Johnston's appointment is supported by a wide range of people.
The reputation of Mr. Johnston is above reproach, and we can be confident that he is perhaps the best choice that we could think of among all Canadians to give us an objective, non-partisan report.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:33:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two process questions for the member.
The actions of committees are independent. Should the House be involved in making decisions on who is invited, and where the committees do their work? There is also this place, a place of partisan debate, where we make points politically versus looking at the overall outcomes.
There is, in one case, an independent committee with its studies. In the other case, there is an independent inquiry into how democracy is being protected in Canada. How important it is to keep distinguished the different roles of the different groups within the House.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:35:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important issue and debate the opposition motion. I would like to clarify a few things.
It is clear that the outcome of the last federal election is not in question, and that there is no evidence that any individual races were decided solely on the basis of these allegations.
However, because of these allegations of interference in our democratic processes, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that all proper protocols are in place. I cannot imagine that there is a single member of Parliament who does not take the issue of foreign interference in our democratic process seriously.
This is an important issue, but let me say this. The debates I heard today were not at all about the issue of interference and the best way forward for us as Canadian parliamentarians, but rather about partisan bickering.
Whether it is China, Russia, any other foreign actor state or otherwise that is seeking to influence outcomes in our democratic process, we should be alert and live to that reality. It is important to note that this issue is not new. In fact, it has been said quite credibly throughout the debates that this is something that had been raised over a decade ago by then CSIS head Richard Fadden, who was reporting at the time to then prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government.
In fact, it has been noted that the now Leader of the Opposition was minister of democratic institutions at the time when some of these first allegations were brought forward. I want that not to be a partisan point but for Canadians to understand that this question is not just something that has arisen overnight. This is something that has been contemplated for, as I mentioned, over a decade now. It is also not a question that is just solely pertaining to Canada.
We heard the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills today talking about the United Kingdom and where MI5 alerted representatives in the House of Commons about a Chinese agent who was infiltrating in that manner. We know that in Australia and the United States, there are democracies around the world, where the People's Republic of China and its Communist regime is seeking to try to influence and obscure democratic processes.
The point is that this has been in the bailiwick for quite some time, and it is not just Canada alone that is dealing with these important questions.
I also want to point out that many of the comments made today, especially by the official opposition, treat unsubstantiated allegations as the gospel truth. I completely agree that now is the time to take as long as we need to strengthen our protocols and put in place measures to protect our institutions.
However, it is not the time to shoot from the hip, and I have heard that, without the proper information. Some of the insinuations that are being made today, frankly, in my view, are without basis. They actually add to the reality of driving discontent and sowing division in our society.
It is our job, all of us, indeed, to be asking these important questions, certainly the official opposition, other parties and other parliamentarians, including those on this side of the House, about what mechanisms we could have in place to protect our institutions. However, to make the insinuation that somehow this is a cover-up, that members of Parliament might be implicated, involved or somehow not loyal to their country that they swore an oath to, is problematic.
We need to bring down that level of rhetoric and stay focused on the facts and stay focused on the best process. We may disagree with that process, indeed I have heard it here today, but let us stay focused on that question before just driving partisan wedges in this debate.
To that point, there have been suggestions today in the House that somehow the government has not been transparent and that there have been no mechanisms to deal with this issue, which, as I just mentioned, has been fermenting in Canada for over a decade, starting with the former Conservative government. I would argue, respectfully, that this government has put more mechanisms in place to tackle what we knew to be true when Richard Fadden was raising these questions over a decade ago.
The fact that we are having a conversation today and that there are proper mechanisms allowing members of Parliament to be briefed is a good thing. It shows there is a strength in our democratic institutions, one of which is NSICOP. Secret security clearance has been given to members of Parliament to get the highest-level briefings there, meaning information sharing among all of the parties. There is the critical election incident public protocol, where senior civil servants, non-partisan civil servants, help preside and make sure that information is shared. That is another mechanism. We also have the security and intelligence threats to elections task force. This is where the RCMP, CSIS and other security agencies bring in information to provide intelligence about whether or not there are threats to our democratic process.
There is a recent focus on this topic and the fact that it is a pertinent question not just for China, I would argue, but for other countries. What is missing in part from the text of the Conservative motion today is that this is not just about China. There is a larger playing field here that I think we are missing, and that raises questions about what else can be done.
I thought the member for Yukon did a very good job in his remarks of talking about the concept of intelligence versus the evidence to prosecute. There can be intelligence sharing and information gathering that suggest a certain outcome, but there is a certain threshold that one must meet in order to prosecute that evidence.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills gave the example of the United Kingdom. MI5 would have worked with parliamentarians in that government, and they felt it was absolutely necessary to notify the Speaker of the House. That same member, today in the House, insinuated that indeed CSIS was at that nexus with this government. What I did not have a chance to ask him about in a supplementary question was how he is alleging that to be the case. What information does he have to suggest that this is what is happening? We have a protocol in place where this information can be shared, similar to what is happening in the United Kingdom.
I certainly appreciate that we have heard allegations and heard reports that I think are important for driving the conversation about what more we can do as parliamentarians. I have read the Globe and Mail op-ed myself, with the individual in question who has “whistle-blown” or shared information and the rationale for doing so. However, as mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North, the head of the security task force to the Prime Minister appeared before committee. We have had ministers. We have had other civil servants. It is not clear to me that the view reflected in The Globe and Mail necessarily reflects the entire view of the agencies we are talking about here today. It is a leap to suggest that one individual somehow represents the entire view of the security apparatus in this country. We need to be very careful about making that jump on the basis of information. Is the information about the allegation serious? Absolutely. Should we be continuing to do work? Yes. That is exactly why we have appointed a special rapporteur.
We had two weeks back in our ridings, and I was very disappointed to see the way the Conservatives attacked the integrity of a really genuine Canadian who has served in public service. They could have said they would prefer a public inquiry and that they trust the judgment of Mr. Johnston but are concerned that some of his relationships could create a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, no, it was a character assassination. There is no polish to the way the Conservative Party goes about this.
This was a Governor General appointed under Stephen Harper. This is an individual who has served in multiple different roles for different parties that have been in government. I trust this individual. Whether it is a public inquiry or another mechanism, this individual has such a high level of integrity that we as parliamentarians can trust it. Instead, the opposition wants to burn it down.
I look forward to taking questions on this. This is a serious matter, and I will stand ready for those questions.
1470 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
