44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Calgary Centre's interesting speech on national historic sites. He spent a great deal of time talking about the Trans Mountain pipeline, and it did pique my interest. It made me think that perhaps there is a category of historic sites that has been egregiously overlooked by the federal government, and that is boondoggles.
I wonder if perhaps my friend would support the pre-emptive designation of the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that is costing Canadian taxpayers some $30 billion, as a national historic site. Perhaps he could offer his thoughts.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Conservatives are in accord with our friends in the NDP in this regard. This has been a gross overspend. We would like to see exactly where the money has been spent, but in the annals of Canadian history, to be $22 billion over-budget on a $7.5-billion project, before the government got involved, shows exactly what is wrong with the government. It thinks it can spend its way without any accountability whatsoever.
This bill we are talking about today—
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 4:41:08 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address a packed House this afternoon. The government often calls its legislation “historic” and often it is not historic. However, in a very formal sense this is a historic piece of legislation insofar as it establishes rules around national historic sites.
Just as a preface, though, to the points I would like to make about this legislation, I imagine that much has been said by Conservatives about the issue of gatekeepers, about how the government's great fondness for red tape, for regulations, for gatekeepers, is making it harder for people to go about their business.
What is a gatekeeper? A gatekeeper is a regulator, an authority of some kind that prevents people from being able to go about their business or to do things that they should reasonably be able to do. Maybe the gatekeeper allows them to get through the gate eventually but imposes additional conditions or challenges that prevent that individual from going forward in a sufficiently timely way.
I think many Canadians look at various aspects of their lives and at the way government is operating, and they see way too much gatekeeping. They see way too much red tape. Modern life, because of the bureaucratization of various things, has just become excessively complicated and frustrating for people who are trying to proceed with normal life and do things that, in times past, were not over-regulated.
Conservatives are putting forward an agenda aimed at reducing red tape, at making life easier for Canadians and at allowing development to proceed without undue barriers. We made a number of genuinely historic announcements in the past week about initiatives that a Conservative government would implement, aimed at removing gatekeepers. One of those announcements was around housing. We have said that there was too much gatekeeping, too much Nimbyism, happening at the municipal level that prevents housing from getting built. When there are all sorts of little barriers that accumulate into large barriers, we see a shortage of new housing, which in turn makes housing less affordable for Canadians.
Our leader has announced strong measures that are going to require municipalities to get that gatekeeping, that red tape, out of the way. We have also announced a new measure around credentials. For over 50 years, people with trade certifications have been able to work in other parts of the country. However, people with certain professional distinctions are not able, if working virtually for instance, to easily provide that professional support across the country.
These are some instances of gatekeeping we have committed to addressing, and that, I think, need to be addressed urgently. They are a part of this whole constellation of red tape the government is piling on Canadians. This is the reality about how the government approaches things and how we approach things.
That brings us to the discussion of Bill C-23. I welcome the applause from across the way from the member for Winnipeg North. I mentioned this before, but he recently referred to me as a “mischievous little guy”. I am very proud of that, actually. I know that if the member for Winnipeg North has considered me to be mischievous, then I have had a good day. I will do my best to keep it up.
When it comes to Bill C-23, the government is saying a number of things about the designation of historic places and sites. On the face of it they seem reasonable, saying that the government should be able to designate certain places, persons and events as having historical significance for the country. It wants to have the designation of those places with plaques erected to celebrate those places, perhaps. It wants to be consulting widely, including consulting indigenous Canadians on those designations, and thus regulate the use of those places in a way that accords with their historic status.
On the face of it, at least for the second reading vote where we vote on the principle, there is some logic in saying that, yes, there can be a framework for the designation of certain sites, recognizing their historic significance. However, the concern is that we have a government that has such a tendency to use every possible pretext for imposing additional red tape, for making it harder to proceed with development project. It is a government that talks a good talk sometimes about the housing affordability challenges but in practice has done nothing to actually get housing built, a government that is fundamentally comfortable with red tape, gatekeepers and barriers preventing people from going about their normal lives. When that is the reality of what this government is all about, then people are understandably looking at Bill C-23 and asking what tools it would provide to the government for additional gatekeeping and additional restrictions on development.
When the power is vested in the hands of the minister and the minister would be able to make these designations, which would automatically impact the use of a place, and areas around it, by the way, that could create significant problems if that power is used in a way that is unreasonable. If the government is making these kinds of designations, and if the effect of making those designations is that development projects in and around the area are not able to move forward and the existing use of a particular land or particular place is no longer allowed, and if these designations are made in a way that does not reflect proper engagement or consultation with local people in the area, that would be a significant problem.
We can look at the tool that this legislation would provide to the minister to make designations and to use those designations in a variety of ways and, frankly, I would say that it is consistent with a pattern we are seeing from this government in terms of legislation. We are seeing legislation with less and less practical detail. Rather, we are seeing a lot of legislation that enables the government to do something later on.
Right beside Bill C-23, we had Bill C-22, a bill that would provide a benefit for Canadians living with disabilities. In effect, the bill would empower the government to create aspects of that benefit but not prescribe the nature of that benefit in legislation. We had Bill C-41, a bill that would empower the government to make certain exceptions in the Anti-terrorism Act, but it did not provide specificity around places where it would apply and many other aspects of how those exceptions would function. Thus, we have this pattern with the government of taking on new powers for itself through legislation, without seeing the specifics in the bill.
The kind of rhetorical approach the government brings to these debates is this: “Just trust us. We mean well. We are going to make sure that, when we are designating these places, it is going to be in accordance with what makes sense. We are reasonable people, for goodness' sake.”
However, the problem is that Canadians do not see the government as reasonable. They do not see the government as trustworthy. What we have actually seen, particularly from the Minister of Environment, and I think from the government in general, is a lack of recognition of the important role that jobs, opportunity and development play in our country, and the need to remove gatekeepers and red tape. We have not seen from the government a proper appreciation of that, and the effect, I think, has been very negative for this country.
I want to now speak on the issues of indigenous consultation that are in the bill. The legislation—
1294 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 4:51:11 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to interrupt the hon. member for two seconds. I have to say this before 5 p.m.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Finance.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, thank you for announcing to the House that I will be delivering the late show later this evening. If, after this speech, the member for Winnipeg North and others feel they have not heard enough, they can certainly stick around.
Just to preview a little, I will be speaking at that time about the Liberal McKinsey scandal, about the fact that the government—
Some hon. members: Which one?
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, I have to say there are so many scandals that it is hard to keep track. We are going to need to publish a scandal almanac so we will know exactly which one at all times.
This is the scandal in which the Liberal government gave over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey, a company with a very shady record of activity around the world that includes, most concerning to many Canadians, giving advice to Purdue Pharma on how to supercharge the opioid crisis. Stick around for that, Madam Speaker. I will be speaking to that later tonight. You may not have a choice. There will be someone in the chair, regardless.
On the issue of Bill C-23, I was speaking about the government's engagement in terms of consultation with indigenous Canadians. I think, sadly but very clearly, what we have seen with the government when it comes to engaging with indigenous communities is that it has always been a one-way street. If there are indigenous organizations or communities expressing opposition to development projects, the government says it has to listen and it has to really elevate the voices on that side of the debate.
On the other hand, if we have indigenous communities, organizations or nations that are supportive of development, that want to see development projects proceed, then the government very clearly does not listen. It tries to elevate one perspective that exists within indigenous communities while ignoring another.
Let us acknowledge that, within any community of people, there is going to be a diversity of perspectives about the best way to proceed on certain issues. Development projects can be one of those contentious areas where there will be differences of opinion.
The government takes a very one-sided approach to its supposed commitment to consultation. What sticks out to me most in this regard is some time that I spent in northern territories and meeting with indigenous leaders there who talked about development restrictions the government had imposed with absolutely no consultation. It was sort of a phone call to a premier right before an announcement was made. That is how the government stopped development projects, yet it talks increasingly as if proponents of projects, those proceeding with development projects, have to get to something near unanimity.
If we realize that, in the process of talking about consulting indigenous Canadians, the government is actually interested in listening to only one side of the equation, then we realize that it is not about meaningful consultation but about the government trying to find people within indigenous communities who share its perspective and ignoring people who have a different perspective.
I fully acknowledge the diversity of views that exist in any community on development projects, but I know, certainly with people I talk to, indigenous peoples living in my riding and others across the country, there is a sizable constituency out there saying that natural resource development projects in particular contribute to jobs and opportunity growth, and that is very positive for these communities.
In the process of that consultation, it is important to ensure that the government is hearing from the full spectrum of opinions. However, what we then often see is that, when the government is creating consultation mechanisms, it preserves for itself control of who actually participates in that consultation mechanism. There was a bill that the government put forward recently creating an indigenous advisory council. In that context, the minister would be able to do the initial appointments. On the one hand, it was saying the government wants to consult with people from indigenous communities, but on the other hand, it would choose the people it is consulting.
That obviously takes away, to some extent, from the meaningfulness that could have been realized if representatives were not selected by the government that was then going to consult with them about a specific issue. I flag this because this legislation, Bill C-23, speaks about setting aside seats for first nations, Inuit and Métis representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, but the process of appointment retains substantial control over those appointments in the hands of the government. It is saying it would appoint from these communities, but it is going to be the one doing those appointments. That is something important to flag in whether this would be effective.
As I said, Conservatives are supportive of the principle of having certain sites with genuine historic significance being thus designated, and of having particular frameworks around the protection of those sites once they are thus designated. We are supportive of that in principle. We will be supporting this legislation at the second reading stage, which is where we are at, and this is where we consider the general concept of a bill in principle.
The rubber is going to hit the road when we get to the committee study on this legislation and when we work through how to ensure the government is not able to use this legislation to such a general extent as to be able to put a halt to development projects anywhere and to use the designation of a place as having historic significance to block development. It is worth saying, sort of as a bit of a coda, that almost any place is probably of some significance to someone, so the broad enabling power this legislation could give government is something we need to be very careful of.
How limited is its use going to be? Is it going to be so broad as to be open to the Minister of Environment? He, let us be clear, has a particular animus for the energy sector and development in that sector and he, at one time, illegally climbed onto the roof of the premier of Alberta's home to protest that premier's policies. We see, rightly, condemnation of instances where politicians in protests are targeted in their homes, but the Minister of Environment has never addressed his record on this. We know he has a particular approach when it comes to development in this sector, so giving such significant enabling powers to the government, to the Minister of Environment in particular, raises some red flags. That is why the rubber will hit the road at the committee stage of this bill.
Finally, the approach of Conservatives is to recognize that, reasonably, there is a role for government, but we want to do everything we can to get red tape and gatekeeping out of people's lives; make people's interactions with government simpler, clearer and more predictable; reduce their taxes; and give them more control over their own lives.
Our goal as a party is to realize a fuller vision of human freedom, where people can live in strong communities and strong families, independent of government overreach and government bureaucratic control, and independent of the bureaucratization of every aspect of their lives. That is the vision our leader has articulated about removing gatekeepers, defending freedom and recognizing that strong individuals, families and communities are the fundamentals of life far more important than government.
While we recognize some value in the principle of this legislation, I can assure members that we will continue to be vigilant to ensure the government, to the extent we are able, is blocked from overreaches into people's lives, that we fully realize that vision of human freedom. I suspect it will take a new government, a new Conservative government, to bring us to that point, but for the time being, we will use the opportunities we have in opposition to do precisely that.
1350 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, or at least the part about Bill C-23.
After a long preamble about our government's sound management of housing and the labour shortage, he eventually got around to speaking to Bill C‑23. He focused on the designation of places.
I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees that Bill C‑23 will facilitate access to information and improve its quality and that the register will help us make the right decisions.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with some aspects of the member's characterization of my speech. Part of the obligation of members of Parliament is to provide a broader and deeper analysis of the principles involved, and I think I have done that. Maybe the member can take some time this evening to watch the speech again on CPAC. He might enjoy that. Perhaps it will be edifying to him and those he watches it with. I know the member for Winnipeg North does this on a regular basis.
An hon. member: All the time. I have your speeches on repeat.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, if that did not make it on the record, the member for Winnipeg North shared that he has my speeches on repeat when he goes home. Unfortunately, it has not had the desired effect. You would think that if he were really watching and listening, he would—
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 5:03:30 p.m.
- Watch
We will go to another question.
The hon. member for Shefford.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was very wide ranging.
I will try to be as quick as possible while addressing all the different topics he mentioned.
First, to reduce red tape, the Bloc Québécois would like a single tax return. I hope that the Conservatives will also think about that.
Concerning today's issue, that is the bill for indigenous people, I have just come back from the United Nations, where the issue of water was discussed. During this trip with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I noted that Canada is lagging behind and that, because of the actions of previous governments over the past few decades, today, in 2023, there are indigenous people who do not have water. That is absolutely unacceptable.
I just got back from an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting where we discussed the fact that the way Canada has treated indigenous peoples for quite some time is a stain on its international reputation.
Furthermore, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying the issue of human trafficking. Ninety-six percent of the victims of human trafficking are women. That is an astonishing percentage. Of that 96%, a significant percentage are indigenous women being exploited in human trafficking and modern slavery.
Beyond the symbolism of historic sites, how can we take concrete action to support indigenous peoples?
231 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned human trafficking. I believe she is one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and I want to thank her and all members who are involved in that group, including my Conservative colleague from Peace River—Westlock. This is a very important issue, and it requires additional action.
I agree with the point the member is making about Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. It has been easy for the current government to reach for acts of recognition. Acts of recognition are very important, and I do not want to dismiss those at all, but they are not as important as the substantive changes that happen on the ground. Making designations and apologies, and putting a plaque on a historic site, are things that are very meaningful, but they do not have the same level of impact as clean drinking water, and jobs and opportunities in all parts of the country, which are areas where the government has fallen behind. It found it easy to make steps of recognition and harder to actually deliver the results.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill would add three members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board from first nations, Métis and Inuit groups. This is not about adding red tape. Indigenous people's sitting on this board is not red tape. In fact, this bill is in response to the truth and reconciliation call to action number 79. These are not recommendations. These are obligations of Canada.
When the member refers to gatekeepers and indigenous people, the only way I can bring that connection to gatekeepers is that indigenous people are caretakers. They are caretakers of our lands and caretakers of the people who live on their lands. I do not think they should be referred to as gatekeepers in this context.
I will bring it back to the dissenting report the Conservatives put forward in the 2017 report on heritage sites from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They agreed in principle with the report and supported indigenous perspectives on heritage sites. However, they emphasized that this would be “representing additional stresses to the federal government’s fiscal framework”. Does my colleague acknowledge that seeking and protecting the truth requires funding and resources, or does he think it should be forgotten and support the colonizers' approach to remembering Canada's history?
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a few respects in which, respectfully, my colleague attributed views to me, either directly or indirectly, that I do not hold. I, for instance, do not oppose, and in fact I would support, the inclusion of indigenous representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. I did make the point that the appointment process for those individuals remains one that the government is able to control. I suggested that maybe, when we talk about indigenous representation on certain boards, we should think of ways for that appointment process to ensure those individuals are in some way selected by the community, but I certainly agree with the principle of representation.
The issue I have with this bill is not about the powers it would give to indigenous communities. It is actually about powers it would give to the minister because the minister would have extraordinary powers under this legislation concerning the designation of sites and setting regulations for their use.
When I was speaking about gatekeepers, I was speaking about powers that are vested in the hands of government to arbitrarily block or control development in ways that are contrary to what may well be what local indigenous people want as well. I hope that clarifies that the issue is with the powers of the ministers. That is the concern we have. We are supporting the bill in principle, but these are issues we are going to raise at committee.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very long speech. I am going to talk about the very long detour that he made at the beginning, as we were all wondering how he was going to land on topic. He eventually got there after a few minutes. He talked about housing, actually, and he touted his party, which released a housing plan two weeks ago.
I have never heard the Conservatives come up with coherent solutions to the housing crisis that we are experiencing in Canada right now. Obviously, the current Liberal government is useless. It is one of the worst governments we have ever seen when it comes to the housing crisis. CMHC economists say that, in Quebec alone, 1,100,000 units need to be built over the next 10 years to address the crisis.
We often hear the Conservatives, who have close ties to the private sector, say that the private sector will take care of it. It is true, the private sector will build 500,000 units, but governments will have to somehow step in and build 600,000 units in the next 10 years. That means the government is going to have to spend and invest to fix this problem.
Does my colleague have a plan for tackling this crisis?
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will say that the announcement our leader made last week was quite historic. It was so historic that the place where he made the announcement might one day be designated a historic site. The important point about that announcement was that, in the current situation, we are seeing so much gatekeeping at the municipal level. We need a federal government that is prepared to stand up and say, across levels of government, on the funding the federal government provides, that we need to ensure barriers are removed and housing is getting built.
There are a variety of different factors that influence the price of housing, but a key one surely has to be the supply of housing. If there is not enough housing supply, then prices are going to be pushed up. I will say that it was a historic announcement by our leader, and it will be proven to have a very significant impact. Conservatives have been proposing a number of different measures around improving access to housing for a long time, including opening up federal lands and other such measures. Our leader is taking this as an important step further with these historic proposals.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning that I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
I, for one, will focus on the topic at hand. I do not need to say that previous speeches have covered just about everything except Bill C‑23, which I am going to talk about. I want to talk about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action 79, which calls for an inclusive and transparent designation framework to protect federal historic sites for current and future generations. I am thinking of our children and grandchildren. What we are doing today is for their future. This is about designating our built heritage, designating historic sites that have been neglected over time and demonstrating the importance of involving indigenous communities in decision-making.
Bill C‑23 is a critical step in ensuring that places, persons and events of national significance are designated in a very inclusive manner. This sustainable and transparent bill reflects the depth of historical diversity. This designation will promote reconciliation and social cohesion.
The bill is guided by the principles of inclusivity, transparency and sustainability. It modernizes the identification, presentation and conservation of places, persons and events of national historic significance in order to ensure that the designation process is fair and equitable. We all have historic sites in our ridings that are facing challenges in terms of the environment, maintenance, budget or recognition. These files often get lost amid all of the other files that we have to deal with in our ridings. This bill pays special attention to our country's rich cultural heritage and the presence of the first peoples. It is very important to recognize their heritage in Canada.
In addition, the bill will ensure that federal historic sites are protected for current and future generations. This will allow these sites to be repurposed and adapted for a changing climate, thus contributing to a sustainable future for Canadians. In my constituency, some heritage buildings were heavily damaged during the 2019 floods. We did everything we could. We filled sandbags and gathered teams of volunteers to protect the buildings, but we need to do more because climate change is here to stay. We are here to confront it. Thanks to Bill C‑23, we can be there for historic buildings and sites, but we will also have an action plan and be able to add them to a proper register so we know where they are located and how they should be conserved.
The bill also touches on authority over historic canals. I want to talk about historic canals. All historic canals are federal historic sites administered by the Parks Canada Agency. That means the provisions relating to the protection and conservation of federal historic sites would apply to historic canals, as would the provisions relating to regulations, enforcement, offences and penalties.
The Carillon Canal, which is in my riding, is one of nine historic canals. The famous Rideau Canal is another. Incidentally, since taking office, we have made major investments to protect the Rideau Canal and to keep this beautiful heritage site open for tourism. There are others in Canada, including one in my riding that will be protected by Bill C‑23. The Carillon Canal is located in the magnificent municipality of Saint‑André D'Argenteuil in my riding. The canal is on the Ottawa River in Carillon, Quebec, and it was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1929. It will soon celebrate the 100th anniversary of the day it was recognized for its importance to Canada's history and economy. Today, the canal serves as a crossing for the Carillon hydropower generating station and provides a gathering place for people in my community. To me, it is an honour.
The bill would also provide for the power to make regulations respecting the administration of federal historic sites administered by the Parks Canada Agency. This power will make it possible to protect the heritage value of a historic site, including its cultural, historic and archeological resources, as well as its natural characteristics, its flora and its fauna. This power could also be used to ban certain harmful activities. I am proud to support this bill.
720 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about canals. I think this is a very good example of something we need a little more detail on in this bill. If the bill gives the sole responsibility for decision-making about heritage sites like canals to ministers, and something comes up that is a concern to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism, what is the mechanism to sort out the differences?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill will enable us to not only identify and classify the infrastructure, but also assess its condition. How can we protect this infrastructure from climate change?
The simple act of entering the historic canals in the register will make it possible to work on improving the state of each of Canada's nine historic canals.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is interesting that he talked about historic canals. I was once hired to promote our historic canals for a few months. I had already visited those canals by sailboat with my father, since I learned to sail when I was young.
My colleague talked about the Rideau Canal. He also spoke about climate change. We all have good memories of skating on the Rideau Canal, but it is clear that climate change has consequences. I was not able to skate on the Rideau Canal this year. Climate change is also having an impact on indigenous peoples.
How can the government say that it wants to take action on climate change and that it cares about indigenous issues while continuing to invest so much money in things like Alberta's oil sands, which are still doing so much damage and have significantly contributed to the increase in greenhouse gases?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question about climate change. Our government has done more than any other government in Canadian history to deal with climate change, and we will continue to do so.
Indeed, the Rideau Canal unfortunately was not accessible. For the first time in Canada's history, the Rideau Canal did not open for skaters. That is proof that climate change is significant. We have to tackle it, and this bill will let us assess the Rideau Canal situation. Maybe we will be able to tackle this situation along with the environment so we can keep it open longer in the winter for skating.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
