44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I think one of the big gaps right now is the lack of a labour workforce strategy to ensure not only that there are staff to take care of the children, but also that they are compensated appropriately for the important work they do.
That is why one of the comments I focused on, in terms of my remarks, was that, given the labour shortage, the government should not cut out the private sector. I ask the government to please look again at section 7(1)(a) of Bill C-35 and ensure that it is inclusive of the private sector and the many female entrepreneurs operating in the child care sector.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here tonight discussing Bill C-35. I would like to recognize the member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team for all their work on this bill, as well as for reaching out to parents and child care providers across the country.
I would like to thank the Conservative members of the HUMA committee for their work on this legislation, as well as all those who have spoken tonight at this very late hour. I would also like to thank all those who provide child care to our children for the very honourable work they do.
To be very clear, the government went ahead and signed agreements with the provinces before developing legislation. This is quite unusual, as legislation would most often be developed by government and go through all the parliamentary processes to ensure that it is as good as it can be. There would be committee testimony from those affected, industry experts and perhaps academia. Everyday Canadians could write in submissions to be considered. There may be amendments that receive full debate at committee; the legislation then goes back to the House of Commons for debate again, and the whole process is repeated at the Senate.
However, for this child care funding legislation we are discussing here today, the government has done it backward. There has been no parliamentary involvement, no oversight and no debate. We have not heard from those affected, from experts or from the general public. The government developed policies away from Parliament and signed provincial agreements, which have been implemented.
This is happening at a time when the government is pouring fuel on the inflationary fire, making it much tougher for families. Inflation is high, interest rates are high, housing has doubled, and taxes have increased and will continue to increase. There is carbon tax 2 coming soon to a family near us, all because of policies of the government that are squeezing families. One in five people is skipping meals, and food bank usage is up over 30% in my community. I know this is very consistent across the country. Affordable, quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist.
Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. It is not a child care strategy. In British Columbia, a 2019 survey found that, in the greater Vancouver area, there were only enough child care spaces for 18.6% of children in the metro Vancouver region. In many rural regions in Canada, large child care centres do not exist at all or may be very far apart. This bill offers rural parents, for those who need it, no flexibility; it really does not offer them anything. It chooses to ignore the simple fact that low-cost child care is not possible if child care resources are not accessible to begin with.
I spoke to many child care operators in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, who said that there have been unintended consequences. As a reminder, this legislation is coming after agreements have been signed by the provinces. We are not talking about hypotheticals here, but results that have already been implemented.
Yes, some families are being helped and have some form of child care now. However, I have been told by providers in my community that there are many scenarios playing out. One, in particular, is where high-income families are paying for spaces while pregnant, because it is so inexpensive to hold the space for their family. The lower-income and middle-class families who need the spaces are not getting them, and the whole format of waiting lists has changed. There is serious concern about the lack of focus on ensuring that child care spaces go to those most in need instead of creating advantages for the already well off.
Conservatives recognize that Canadian families should have access to affordable, quality child care, and they should be able to choose the child care providers best suiting their family's needs. The government's focus in the child care bill on not-for-profit and government spaces, which is how it is worded in the legislation. Let me lay this out in a very practical way, on a very small scale.
For example, how would a large child care facility add 200 child care spots very quickly? Many times, these are large not-for-profits that do really good work taking care of our children. No one is disputing that. However, they are not the only kind of child care provider. They would need physical space and to have parking. They may perhaps need to move or expand. If they move, they have to ensure the local bylaws are met before building a new building. It is not that easy. Smaller, independent organizations are much more nimble. If anything, this is where the focus should be, or it should be on par with governments and not-for-profit providers, at the minimum.
Once again, the Liberal government has not considered small businesses as a priority. This legislation lists what the government's priorities are.
Small, independent businesses are once again an afterthought of the government. They are not included in the national advisory council being created by the government.
It is really a shame that, as part of this child care legislation, small business owners have really been demonized. This is how many of them feel. We saw this at committee with the way the Liberals and NDP representatives spoke about small business child care providers. One local independent small business child care provider in my riding told me how awful they thought it was that the government was making it sound like they were printing money. Those are their words. She said that they would not have opened if they were not-for-profit. She considered this years ago, however, looking into it, banks would not provide a loan to get her started. She had to open a company.
Most of these small business child care providers are women. Most of them are looking after their own children while helping other families.
What quality child care is for a child should be defined by the parents, not by the government. As a working mom myself, I knew the importance of quality child care. As well, I know kids who have not done well in large child care settings. Their parents had to pull them out due to their child's personality, anxiety or special learning needs. It is not that larger facilities could not provide good care. The kids, just like adults, are all different. Many feel more comfortable in a smaller, intimate environment. There is no right or wrong.
Instead of giving parents freedom to determine what child care works best for their children and their work schedules and their lives, the government has opened the door for a two-tiered framework of child care. We heard testimony on this at committee.
This legislation does not treat all kinds of child care equally. Conservatives brought forth a motion at committee, which was not supported. It was voted down. It was to be truly inclusive and accessible and would have allowed parents to make the best decision for their family.
The amendment read, “facilitate access to all types of early learning and child care programs and services regardless of the provider—such as those that are provided through traditional day care centres, centres with extended, part-time or overnight care, nurseries, flexible and drop-in care, before- and after-school care, preschools and co-op child care, faith-based care, unique programming to support children with disabilities, home-based child care, nannies and shared nannies, au pairs, stay-at-home parents or guardians who raise their own children, or family members, friends or neighbours who provide care—that meet or exceed standards set by provincial governments or Indigenous governing bodies and respond to the varying needs of children and families while respecting the jurisdiction and unique needs of the provinces and Indigenous peoples".
As I said, it was not supported. It would have addressed the argument between licensed and unlicensed, because it refers to meeting standards of provincial governments or governing bodies, which is quality care.
Bill C-35 is good for families who already have child care space but it does not help the tens of thousands of families on child care wait-lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.
Bill C-35 increases demand for child care but does not solve the problem of frontline burnout, staff shortages, staff training or access to more spaces. The Canadian Union of Public Employees currently reports, “in many communities there is only one child care space available for every three children who need it, and waitlists are long.”
In British Columbia, 27% of child care centres turn away children due to lack of staff. We have had centres in my community reduce spaces due to staffing. This child care legislation does not address staffing or training in this legislation to meet the 40,000 workers needed now.
It is unfortunate that the government signed provincial agreements without Parliament's involvement and without hearing from the public, as we did at committee, and was so close-minded when looking at amendments that would have provided better access to child care for families across Canada.
1578 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things my colleague mentioned in her speech tonight was about the lack of discussion and the lack of dialogue that the government had with the public or with others, even the provinces, which were only given one choice when they were forced to basically sign on to this type of program.
I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to expand on her thoughts on that whole idea of the lack of choice and the lack of discussion that the federal government had on this important issue.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what we saw at committee. At committee, we had a lot of testimony but also a lot of written submissions, an extensive number of written submissions. They were not all by the large groups that are quite often represented. We heard from individual child care providers from across the country. We also heard from parents. We heard about very specific, real situations that are playing out in families' lives. That is the type of input we need when we are developing legislation so we can develop the best legislation possible, try to capture the different situations and maybe try to mitigate unintended consequences.
This is a gap that happened before the government signed all of these agreements. It went ahead and signed the agreements without all of this input from parliamentarians and the public.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, there are a couple things that I really appreciate about Bill C-35: the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as requiring informed consent, as accorded in UNDRIP. Those two provisions, in and of themselves, are very important to supporting Bill C-35, and I wonder if the member agrees with my statement.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, and we supported that at committee. In addition to that, as I mentioned during my intervention, we put forth a motion that would have captured all different types of child care providers, but unfortunately that was not accepted. Part of that did include different cultural and indigenous-type providers, but unfortunately our motion was not accepted by the other members of the committee.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was great working with my colleague on the HUMA committee and listening to so much testimony.
I think the take-home message tonight is that Canadians are seeing, realizing and speaking up, and it is being covered in the media. This bill is promising something the Liberals cannot deliver. We have seen it time and time again. It is not just us saying that. Everybody is now coming forward.
I would like to know my hon. colleague's position on this in terms of her own riding. Does she have a story she can share about how people cannot access child care?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will give one example. During one of our last constituency weeks about a month ago, someone from my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country met with me. She was taking about a family she is familiar with that wanted to immigrate to the area. Both parents are doctors. They have actually gone through the process and it is all working really well. However, they are having a tough time deciding whether they are going to come to Canada and come to my region, because they realize that they cannot access child care. Here we have two potential doctors who might come into my area in Canada, and they may chose not to come because they have realized there is no child care available for them.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:01:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the Trudeau Foundation. It is timely that this question has come up because Canada has been rocked by this foreign interference scandal. The Trudeau Foundation has been at the centre of it, and the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, has been trying to get to the bottom of what happened, but has been repeatedly stonewalled by the Liberals and their friends at the foundation.
To set the stage a little bit, as Canada has been rocked by this foreign interference scandal, a foreign government interfering repeatedly in Canadian democratic elections, Liberals have repeatedly tried to cover this up by turning to so-called independent people to investigate this, such as people from the Trudeau Foundation, not just once but twice. The government asked people from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate the problem of foreign interference, even though the Trudeau Foundation itself had been subject to foreign interference.
The Trudeau Foundation received a massive donation from a CCP-affiliated individual, who we know about, and it said that it had returned the money, even when they had not returned the money. Conservatives on the public accounts committee said that we needed to get to the bottom of what happened to the Trudeau Foundation, the foreign interference that it had been subject to, even while the government asked people from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate.
The call for an investigation from the public accounts committee responded to particular problems created by the structure of the Trudeau Foundation, which is a Frankenstein hybrid between public and private. It is a public institution in many respects. It is tied in with the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister remains a member of the foundation. At the same time, it is organized in a sense as a private organization. It is both public and private, and this creates big problems for holding it accountable. The Auditor General has said that she cannot study private donations that go to the Trudeau Foundation, as it is not part of her mandate. The CRA was asked to investigate, but it cannot talk about any of this.
Liberals opposed our motion initially in the public accounts committee to investigate it. Eventually, they agreed to allow two meetings on this, but the public accounts committee continues to be stonewalled. We have had virtually no witnesses agree to testify. Conservatives have tried to summon witnesses who will not appear, and that includes David Johnston, but Liberals have tried to block that. We have tried to request additional documents from the CRA that would allow us to do our work, but Liberals have been, for an extended period of time, filibustering our request for documents.
At the core of this is the fact that David Johnston will not testify. David Johnston, the Prime Minister's good friend and ski buddy, has been named the so-called special rapporteur for foreign interference and is affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation. He has written a report on foreign interference that, surprise, surprise, makes no mention of the Trudeau Foundation. Supposedly, he is looking into foreign interference, but there is no mention of the Trudeau Foundation, of which David Johnston was a part. He should testify, and he should explain that.
We have a situation today where David Johnston, the Prime Minister's special rapporteur, who refused a request by a majority of the House of Commons to resign, is refusing to appear before the public accounts committee. The reality is that David Johnston has shown a dangerous disdain for our institution. When Parliament asks a person to resign from a public position, the least they could do is show up to testify about what their activities have been. The Trudeau Foundation has been involved in foreign interference, and it has been subject to foreign interference, but it is not mentioned in his report.
649 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:05:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would start by noting the original question asked in the House that has produced this follow-up at this point had nothing to do with David Johnston despite the fact the member has suddenly introduced David Johnston into the topic. He had a great display there. I am sure it will turn into a good fundraising opportunity later on.
However, let us just reflect on what is really going on in this scenario. We have the Prime Minister's last name attached to a foundation, a foundation that was created in the name of his father. It is a foundation that accepts donations, and those donations are utilized for the following.
This is straight from the Trudeau Foundation's website, which states:
Through its Scholarship, Mentorship and Fellowship programs, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation focuses on the leadership development of our Scholars.
The Foundation’s leadership program aims to empower Scholars to have meaningful impact in their institutions and communities. It does so by equipping Scholars with key leadership skills, instilling in them values crucial for Engaged Leaders, such as engagement with a plurality of perspectives, service to the community, audacity and innovation.
This is an organization that the Prime Minister has not been involved with in over a decade. Conservatives know that, but Conservatives also know there is an opportunity to jump on here in that the Prime Minister's last name is also referenced in the Trudeau Foundation.
The Conservatives would like to paint a picture that the Trudeau Foundation is some fundraising arm for individual donations, political or not, that somehow make it into the Prime Minister's own personal bank account. That could not be further from the truth. What they are trying to do here is cloud the issue and try to suggest there is some form of personal benefit to the Prime Minister, which quite frankly is not true. Everybody knows that, everybody who can look at the facts in a manner that is unbiased and does not come from this cloud of conspiracy theory we see from the other side of the House.
354 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:08:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was the kind of unmitigated nonsense the House has come to expect in this situation, unfortunately.
I would submit to the member he should read the annual report of the Trudeau Foundation, which notes the membership of the foundation and which notes that the Prime Minister remains a member of the foundation. It is in the last annual report. There are fewer than 30 members. A substantial number of those members are appointed by either the Trudeau family or the Minister of Industry, and this foundation received $125 million from the government.
I do not dispute the foundation aspires to provide scholarships to students, but the member should not dispute the fact there was a massive injection of foreign donations to the foundation when the government took office, and that there was a close ongoing relationship between the government, the Trudeau family and this foundation.
The core point I raised in my original question and will raise again is the following. If all this is great work, then why the secrecy? Why will the people from the Trudeau Foundation not show up? Why are Liberals filibustering our motion to try to get documents? If it is all above board, why the secrecy?
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:09:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, his question goes to exactly my point. He is trying to suggest that somehow this side of the House or the government could possibly answer that question. Unless we had actual involvement in the Trudeau Foundation, it would be impossible to answer that question. Nobody on this side of the House has anything to do with the Trudeau Foundation. Sorry, one person might be—
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:09:31 a.m.
- Watch
You are filibustering on public accounts.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:09:55 a.m.
- Watch
Order, please.
I just want to remind the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan he had an opportunity to ask the question and an opportunity to listen to the answer. I know he is a lawyer by trade, and he knows the court of law would not allow this to happen either, so I would just ask the hon. member, who may not like the answer, to listen.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:10:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, somebody might be a member of an organization but certainly not in a role to make any decisions, and that is the point that has been made repeatedly. Conservatives would like to paint the picture that the Prime Minister is involved.
He asked the question of why they will not come to committee. How on earth could I possibly answer that question when I am not involved in the Trudeau Foundation nor is anybody on this side of the House?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:10:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here tonight, after midnight, for this adjournment debate as a result of another non-answer from the government side. When I originally rose in question period, the government member's response to the question at that time was some non-answer about much money people in the member's province were going to get back of the money that his government had previously taxed from them, and then some incoherent words about conspiracy theories and cryptocurrency.
Since I posed that initial question, we have learned that the minister plans to add carbon tax 2.0 to the backs of Canadian taxpayers. This new carbon tax will add an additional 17¢ per litre to the current tax, and with the sales tax on the carbon taxes, it will mean up to 61¢ per litre as a result of carbon taxes, another burden that Canadians are being forced to bear to pay for the government’s overspending habit. The second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household $573 per year, without any rebate, costing some families in some provinces as much as $1,157. These numbers are from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
I want to put this into perspective. It has been 15 years since a carbon tax was implemented in B.C., a tax that initially started at 2.41¢ per litre. It originally started out as a revenue-neutral tax; the revenues would go directly toward reducing personal income taxes. That was until an NDP government decided the B.C. carbon tax would no longer be revenue-neutral, but would instead go into general revenue to help pay for the NDP government’s overspending habit. I think the members listening will see the similarities here in establishing a small tax initially, gradually turning up the heat, hoping people would be distracted by other crises, and then using those tax dollars to pay for bad spending habits. Once more, we have evidence of the indistinguishable ideologies of the Liberals and the NDP, as such, the NDP-Liberal coalition we are currently dealing with, which is making Canadians pay for the government’s bad spending habit.
I am sure the Liberal member will come back with some comment about how the carbon tax and carbon tax 2.0 are somehow going to prevent wildfires or flooding, but they have yet to show how that is going to be accomplished. The government has failed to meet any emissions targets, and instead of facilitating the export of cleaner Canadian natural gas to high-emissions countries, they have left those countries to seek out coal and other dirty energy sources from countries with poor environmental and human rights standards, a poor, if not failed, record at best.
Will the government take control of its bad spending habit, stop pushing higher taxes on Canadians, who are already struggling under its inflationary policies, and cancel the planned tax increases?
493 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:14:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brought up the Liberal-NDP coalition. Normally, I would say that there is a Conservative coalition with the Bloc Québécois, but not even on this issue does the Bloc agree with the Conservatives. As a matter of fact, every other party that is represented in this House agrees that putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do.
The member said that the question was not answered during the debate or during question period when he asked, but it actually was. It goes to the heart of what the member neglected to mention in his speech and, indeed, what Conservatives continually neglect to mention. The answer was this:
...as much as the Conservatives would like to deny it, climate change is real. What else is real? Those cheques that are arriving in people's mailboxes beginning April 14. In my home province of Manitoba, people will receive $250 a quarter, over $1,000 a month.
The interesting thing is that I would have thought that when the member was getting towards the end of his question, he would have said that I would have come back with some line on the rebate. However, he did not even do that. He should have been able to predict that I was going to do that. Instead, he said something about how I was going to try to justify that this stops wildfires or whatnot.
No, what I have been saying all along, and what we have been saying all along, and what the Conservatives have missed all along is the fact that people are getting money back. This rebate has always been there. The whole point of the price on pollution was not to put money into the general revenues, as the member said. The point of the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as Conservatives like to call it, is to put a price mechanism on carbon, to put a price on pollution. In that way, people have to actually make a choice. In making that choice, they might be incentivized not to pollute and, instead, to try to find an option that does not pollute as much.
Again, I would remind the member that I will answer the question the same way that the parliamentary secretary did during question period. This is to say that Conservatives continually neglect the fact that there is a rebate that comes back, because it does not suit their narrative. However, it actually is a reality.
422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:17:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member pointed out that there is going to be money going back to Canadians, because that is what it is.
It is money going back to Canadians who have already paid it out. They have paid it to the government. That is the only way the government has money to give to Canadians, by taxing it out of Canadians' back pockets. Therefore, the parliamentary secretary has pointed out the major flaw with what they are doing here. The Liberals are simply taking taxpayer dollars to run their bad spending habits, then giving a little of it back. It just does not make any sense.
Why has the country not taken real, concrete steps to export our clean natural gas to countries that are burning coal and other dirty fuels?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:18:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, he is right. We are giving it back. He asks why, and I actually just told him when I was answering the initial question he posed. The answer is that this has never been about trying to collect revenue for the government. This has always been about incentivizing choice in the marketplace. When a price is put on something, it changes people's behaviour in terms of how they make their decisions on purchases.
In terms of his point that people are just getting a little money back, that is not true. The majority of Canadians get back more than they end up paying. If someone is extremely wealthy, has many vehicles and a very large home that takes a lot of natural gas to heat in the winter, perhaps in that case, they will end up paying a little more than they get back. However, the vast majority of Canadians, in particular the middle class, will get more back than they are putting into it.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:19:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here this evening past midnight to debate a vitally important matter. We are here this evening again because we see the blissful ignorance of the government in permitting Chinese state-owned enterprises to acquire control over Canada's mining industry. It is more unconscionable when it is impossible for Canadian companies to acquire mining land claims or control over any Chinese company, especially involving critical minerals.
According to Guy Saint-Jacques, Canada's former ambassador to China, “There's no level playing field for foreign companies in China, and many sectors remain closed to them, or access is similarly limited.” When appearing before a parliamentary committee, he added, “China does not play by international trade rules.” No kidding. It is quick to complain about perceived injustices of other countries toward it, but not so quick to provide fair treatment to foreign companies trying to operate in China.
Like with foreign interference, Canada has again been reduced to being a doormat for China. Canada has given China free rein to do whatever it wants under pathetic oversight from Ottawa.
The Globe and Mail reported in August 2022 that three years ago, Sinomine Resource Group Co. bought the Tanco mine in Manitoba. Tanco was one of the world's few sources of the critical mineral cesium. The mine previously produced lithium, a battery metal used in electric cars. The government had the authority to block the acquisition on national security grounds, but instead of blocking it, Ottawa did nothing. Later, the Tanco mine was acquired by China and started producing lithium to ship back home.
Sinomine also secured an offtake agreement guaranteeing it all of the lithium, cesium and tantalum produced by Power Metals Corporation's Case Lake critical minerals property. Offtake agreements are just as good as ownership and do not create irritating media stories. The government also approved the sale of Canada's lithium development company Neo Lithium Corp. to a Chinese state-owned company, and in its infinite wisdom, the government decided not to order an advanced security screening of the deal.
Mr. Jeffrey Kucharski, a former assistant deputy minister of Alberta's Department of Energy, stated before a parliamentary committee, “How can Canada build a lithium supply chain, or any other critical mineral for that matter, when it allows the assets of Canadian companies to be acquired by a country that seeks to cement its dominance in this sector?” Beijing supports its state-owned enterprises by providing subsidies, access to cheap capital and tax breaks that are much greater than anything that a western government can offer. While Canada has welcomed legitimate Chinese investment, there is Iittle or no reciprocity, as I alluded to earlier with the comments of former ambassador Saint-Jacques.
China uses its dominant position in critical minerals to exert leverage over other countries. What has been Canada's response? It claims to want to scrutinize foreign takeovers. That is great. However, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security reviews.
Canada should look to Australia for a road map. It has a tougher stand on proposed Chinese investments, and its government has rejected several transactions on national security grounds. Australia even strengthened its oversight by introducing a new “last resort” power, whereby it has the authority to review a previously approved transaction when national security risks emerge after the fact.
Canada may need China to bail out financially struggling mining companies, but that does not mean we have to give up complete control over our vital resources. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening.
607 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
