44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has read the legislation, which has within it the creation of a council. That council, I believe, would be around 15 members. Within that council there would be appointments of different forms of stakeholders, everything from leading industrial personnel to labour representatives and other types of stakeholders who could really contribute to the development of that strategy. This would ultimately lead to a report on a five-year basis, the first one appearing in 2025.
Does that not fit many of the things the member was talking about in terms of having a strategy and looking to get the expertise coming forward? That, in essence, is what the legislation would do. It would ensure that Canada continues to generate good-quality middle-class jobs well into the future, dealing with green energy jobs.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is what I call “Winnipeg-Northsplaining”.
When the Liberals introduced legislation for child care transfers, they asked us if we had read the bill. They told us there was money to fund child care so women could enter the labour market. They asked us if we had read it. They told us they had targets and funding. We told them it had already been done in Quebec. In fact, they were the ones who had not read Quebec's legislation.
Basically, the parliamentary secretary is telling us that he knows it is worthwhile because it already exists in Quebec and it works. The federal government still has this obsession with duplicating everything. Apparently, this government is allergic to efficiency.
When these councils were created in Quebec, I was not yet old enough to vote. Now, I am starting to think about retirement, and the parliamentary secretary has yet to read the Quebec legislation. I invite him to read it.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one thing we heard at committee recently was that workers in the traditional energy sector have jobs that pay really well. Compare that to the jobs that will be and currently are created by green tech companies, whether in wind, solar or otherwise. On average, they pay about 36% less than what a traditional oil and gas worker earns. If this is a just transition would transfer people from job to job, does the member see anything in the bill that would ensure that the worker who is making money in oil and gas is going to be making the same amount when they are transitioned to a different job?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague has hit on something. He is asking whether we saw anything in the bill that will create jobs. There is nothing there. There is talk about reports by officials, people appointed from the “Liberalist” who will submit reports, and about things that have already been done. There is nothing there.
I know that this is difficult for people from Alberta and western Canada. They have a resource-based economy. They have good-paying jobs. I understand them. I sympathize with that. The Bloc Québécois is always asking the Conservatives to show some openness, to think about the long term, to discuss this issue. We are debating. We get along. We are able to disagree.
However, when the Liberals come here and say that they want to train people, set up boards and produce reports, they should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of an Albertan who is waiting for the just transition and who is waiting to be convinced. It does not help the environment to have a bill like this one in which the government is unable to define objectives and methods, in which the government is asking people to simply trust it. It is always a big risk to believe a Liberal who tells us to trust them.
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we heard from representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents many energy workers across the country. The Conservatives did not ask them questions; they used their time to do a political stunt. When we talk to these workers, they are very concerned about their seat at the table because they know change is coming.
It is really important that we actually have legislation that is strong enough, because this is about the tax credits that would be going out. If the tax credits are done by these functionaries, who knows where this is going to be and how it is going to happen? Will the Bloc be willing to come forward with amendments?
We are looking for the New Democrats to have regional voices and working-class people represented, as well as having public NGOs and youth at the table. We do not want just industry, so that it would not just be a carve-out of pals but would actually ensure that the jobs being created are good, sustainable, long-term jobs, and that they represent our regions.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree. The point of my speech was to defend the very idea that the member for Timmins—James Bay raised. The trouble is that the NDP often talks about the importance of regional voices, but only until Quebec's jurisdictions come into play. In this case, regional voices and respecting regional voices means respecting Quebec, the agreements and the labour market partners commission, and integrating asymmetry.
If the other provinces decide that the framework presented in the bill suits them, and that reports might help them advance because these institutions bring together community stakeholders, the unions my colleague was talking about, if that does not exist in those provinces, then let them take the first step. However, this must never be done at the expense of recognizing what Quebec has already done. Why should we make an effort, advance, innovate and set an example if, every time the federal government is 20 years behind us, it decides not to recognize Quebec for its efforts?
I think that the NDP also needs to keep that in mind when we study this bill and make amendments to it.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about what this legislation talks about, which is basically report after report. Ultimately, the first report would not be until 2025, which is over a year and a half away. That is when the report would come in to decide what the government may do down the road.
I am sure the member recognizes in Quebec how he wants to efficiently get Quebeckers to work doing the jobs, but that ultimately, just like with any project, they are being delayed just in coming up with the idea. After that, it is another six years to create the jobs that need to be created. That pushes things down the road continually.
I wonder whether the member would comment on how he sees that affecting Quebec workers and making sure that Quebec keeps its people employed.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised we are having a Conservative opposition day where the Conservatives are asking the government to come up with a plan to balance the budget in eight days. They are saying that five years is too long. One has to be reasonable. It depends on the project. I can tell my colleague that most of what is in the bill already exists in Quebec. We do not need additional resources or bureaucracy, but we will need the money to implement whatever is decided.
Sometimes reports and consultation are needed. The right people need to be appointed in the right places. Unions, employers and educational institutions all need to be included. We have to do it right. We must also not rush to produce as many reports as possible as quickly as possible, only for them to be shelved. There has to be a balance between the amount of bureaucracy and the usefulness of it all. The usefulness of what is in the bill is greatly reduced in Quebec, if not non-existent, because we have already thought of all this. We are simply waiting for the resources to be able to do more.
Obviously, those resources are in Ottawa.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I hope the tomatoes are the only red things in my colleague's riding.
Who does he think stands to gain from this? Why are we here? Why choose such an ambiguous title? Why put such gobbledygook in something that should be very sensible and straightforward?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.
I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about this alleged just transition legislation brought forward by the Liberal government. Before we talk about this legislation, we should talk about the success of the Liberals with just transitions in the past, because they promised a just transition for coal workers. They said they were laser-focused on it and that anyone in the coal industry who was going to be displaced by their policies was going to get a just transition. They kept saying this, repeating it over and over again, making these false promises to coal workers.
Can we guess what? Those fake and false promises were actually discovered in the commissioner of the environment's independent auditor's report called “Just Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy”. The Auditor General looked at the just transition Liberals gave to coal workers, and let me summarize that it was garbage. They did absolutely nothing for coal workers.
Let us look at a couple of the excerpts in this report. One reads, “Overall, we found that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy for workers and communities.”
This is what Liberals do. They try to beat up on energy-producing provinces with punishing policies, but then they say not to worry, that they are going to be there for them and that they are going to make sure it is a just transition. Those are false promises, much like Liberal promises on housing. They say that they are going to solve housing and that they have a housing accelerator, which is going to accelerate something. However, it accelerates nothing. Liberals come up with other programs where they just line Liberal insiders' pockets with gold, all at the expense of taxpayers, because they actually do not give a darn about the workers' jobs they are going to displace.
The Auditor General was really clear about this. Liberals had years to deliver a just transition for coal workers and did absolutely nothing. The Auditor General's report also states that the analysis is there was “No federal implementation plan”. Liberals said they had a plan. No, they misled Canadians. The Auditor General said there was no federal implementation plan.
The report also said that there was “No formal governance structure”. When one does not have a plan, there is actually not going to be any formal governance structure. They should have just said they have no plan, much the same as they have no plan on housing, the economy or combatting the opioid crisis. This should actually be called the “no plan transition”, because there is zero plan. The terrible thing is that there is also almost zero accountability from the government.
The final thing the Auditor General report stated was that there was “No measuring and monitoring system” put in place. Again, when one does not actually have a plan, when one just says to coal workers that it is too bad, that they are out of a job and that we do not give a damn, of course one does not put in a formal governance structure. One has no system to measure and monitor.
Then the Liberals have the audacity to come back to this place and say to Canadians that they have new legislation, because they care about workers and are going to give them a just transition. The only transition they gave to coal workers was to be out in the cold without a job. That is their plan as they once again beat up on Alberta and Saskatchewan and say that they are going to transition their workers out of jobs, but they are going to have some grand transition plan to take care of them. They did not take care of a single darn thing with coal workers.
Let us look briefly at something the Liberals say about this grand transition plan to take care of workers. They say that they are going to set up a council, to be known as the sustainable jobs partnership council. Its mandate is going to be providing the minister and specified ministers with independent advice through a process of social dialogue. That and $1.50 will buy a double-double at Tim Hortons, which is effectively what workers are going to get with this piece of legislation. The Liberals are going to set up a council. Wow, that is really ambitious.
I do not have a lot of faith in the government, because with anything it touches, it has the opposite of the Midas touch. Do members remember the Midas touch? It turns everything to gold. Everything those guys touch turns into garbage. They say they are going to set this up. I say, “Yeah, right.” They say they are going to do it in a couple of years. I say, “Yeah, right.” I can go back to how they treated coal workers. They treated them as I would not treat my worst enemy. They were indifferent. They set up no program, all the while saying that they were setting up a program and that they were going to take care of the workers.
That is called “gaslighting”, and the Liberals gaslight Canadians constantly. They actually do it on housing, too. We talk about housing, and the minister pops up, puffs up his chest and says that no one has done more for housing, that they have a housing accelerator and that they have this program and that program. However, housing prices have doubled. Rents have doubled, so when the Liberals say they are going to do something, we should actually believe that what they are going to do is cause harm. The policies they have brought in across this country are harmful, including the revolving door of the justice system. It does not really matter what crime someone commits, they are going to be out, because the Liberals reformed the bail system.
People who shot up the street one day are out a couple days later, because the Liberals changed bail. They said they were going to reform it to make things better. Now they want us to believe they are going to have a just transition that is going to make things better for oil and gas workers. No one should believe them, and that is not just because of their absolute failure on other things such as housing, criminal justice, the opioid crisis or the mental health crisis.
I remember when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo had a bill to implement a three-digit suicide prevention number. The Liberals said they were going to help. It took two years to come up with a three-digit number. I know it is hard; it is three digits. They could not do it in two years, but now somehow they are going to plan a just transition with this unbelievable plan, the sustainable jobs partnership council. It is going to have some meetings, and it will be filled with Liberal list donors, just as they stack all the courts in this country with Liberal list donors. We can bet there is not going to be one person on this council who gives two craps about the oil and gas industry.
It is going to be packed full with their radical left-wing environmentalists. They will probably get the radical environment minister to put a bunch of his cronies on it, who will say they can heat their homes with hot air, like the hot air that comes from the government. They will not need oil and gas. We certainly will not have the electricity, because they do not have a plan to expand electricity generation or electricity distribution as they wipe out the oil and gas industry.
There will be no just transition for a single worker in this country under the current government. When the common-sense Conservative Party has a government, oil and gas workers will not have to be worried about being left out in the cold by a tyrannical, uncaring government. I can assure everyone of that.
Let us go back and look at some of the results from the Auditor General on the “Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities”, because it is a page-turner of absolute incompetence. The government is incompetent in almost everything, but its members really took it to a new level. They worked hard to be extra incompetent for coal workers, and I should give them credit, because that level of incompetence is hard to get to.
Let us look at a couple of things. The Auditor General went through the federal commitments and programs the Liberals said they were going to do. There are 10 of them. Does anyone want to guess how many they actually came through on? It was four out of 10, and they are not even the ones that would actually do anything for workers; they are the easy ones such as having an interdepartmental meeting to talk about something.
As I just said, the Liberals then have the audacity to tell Canadians they are going to plan this transition for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they basically have no seats. They do not care about the people there. They say they are going to plan the transition for them out of oil and gas, even though they left coal workers out in the cold, but they say not to worry because they are going to take care of it this time.
The finding under recommendation one was, “Natural Resources Canada had not led on the reporting on just-transition activities for coal workers and communities.” The Liberals did not report on the just transition activities for a single community. That is the first thing they did not do. Oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan should get ready.
Ronald Reagan said the scariest words that anyone can hear are, “I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” If Ronald Reagan were alive today, living in Canada, and heard the words of the Liberal government, he would be bloody terrified. When Liberals say they are coming to help, people should run in the other direction. Oil and gas workers know not only that the Liberals do not have their backs, but also that they are going to push them over the cliff.
The finding under task force recommendation two said, “Natural Resources Canada had not yet developed the just-transition legislation.” Liberals were supposed to do it in 2019. Now they have done this great thing in 2023, four years later, the sustainable jobs partnership council, which they get two years to set up. They are four years behind, and they are going to set up a council that is going to take two years because that is really hard. Setting up a council is hard work. We know how hard these guys work. It is going to take two years to get that set up. It is unbelievable.
We also know that no one on that council is going to care about oil and gas workers. No one on that council is going to care about the effects on the economy for Alberta or the effects on the economy for Saskatchewan. The council is going to be packed with Liberal donors.
With judicial appointments, there is really one qualification to be a judge in Canada right now with the Liberal government, and that is whether the person donated to the Liberal Party. The Liberals check the list and, if a person donated, that is great, he or she is in. On something like this, hard-core Liberals, anti-oil, anti-Alberta and anti-Saskatchewan people are what this sustainable jobs partnership council would be stacked with. The Liberals were supposed to get it done four years ago, but it is going to take another two years, so we would be at six years.
Recommendation three was, “Establish a targeted, long-term research fund for studying the impact of the coal phase-out and the transition to a low-carbon economy.” The Liberals did not do it. I know everyone was holding their breath thinking maybe they did something, but they did not do it. Will they actually do anything in this legislation? This is the question we have to ask ourselves.
Human nature is that we look at the past record to determine what the future performance will be. As the Liberals did absolutely nothing for coal workers, we can anticipate that they will do absolutely nothing for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why would they? Why do they care? They have absolutely no representation there. Well, they have one MP who seems pretty anti-Alberta from some of the statements he makes, so he might want to try to get a seat in Toronto Centre—Rosedale or something like that in the next election.
Recommendation five of what they were supposed to do was to “Create a pension bridging program for workers who will retire earlier than planned due to the coal phase out.” Did the Liberals do it? No, they did not. Coal workers get phased out, their pension is now going to be less, much like many of the Liberals' pensions are going to be less when they lose in the next election, but has anyone in the Liberal Party on that side apologized to coal workers, saying they promised they would bridge coal workers' pensions when they phased them out and they did not? Did they ever apologize? No, they did not. Why? They do not care because they are energy workers.
Now when Liberals tell energy workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan that they are going to phase them out, but not to worry because they will be there for them, I say that is a load of hooey. There is no way Liberals are going to be there for anyone.
Imagine the devastation for a worker in the energy sector who is phased out and then their pension is not bridged. That is bad enough, but guess what, when we look at a detailed, publicly available inventory with labour market information pertaining to coal workers such as skill profiles, demographics, locations and current and potential employers, since the Liberals ripped them off on pensions, they say that they are going to put together this database so that they can transition workers into new employment. That is okay, because maybe they'll get to punch in somewhere else. However, did they actually do that? No they did not. They stand here in this chamber, Liberal member after Liberal member, parroting that this is great. They bring in time allocation on debate on this after they literally screwed coal workers, and I tell members that they are going to do it again.
2524 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 5:44:23 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind the member for Dufferin—Caledon as well as all members to be judicious in their use of language and remember that we should use language that is fitting to this chamber. I am certain the member could find other ways to describe what is going on.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. However, I think about what the Liberals did to those coal workers, that they did not get them jobs, that they did not bridge their pensions. These are people with families, they have children, they have mortgages and they have to buy food. The Liberals did all of that to them. I could say that they did it intentionally, because they did not run the programs, they never apologized and have not set up a single program since. So, I think that word actually applies. I will not say it again, but they should be ashamed of themselves. I can tell members that we will do everything—
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 5:45:22 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 5:46:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 5:47:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House I suspect you would find unanimous consent to call it six o'clock so that we can begin Private Members' Business.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 5:47:20 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to see the clock at 6 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I did to deserve such applause and support from my Conservative colleagues, but I appreciate it. Sometimes it is possible to be transpartisan when one has good ideas. I tip my hat to my dear friends.
It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑280, which is extremely important for our farmers, particularly our fruit and vegetable growers. Bill C‑280 seeks to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to put vendors of perishable products, such as fruits and vegetables, at the top of the list by holding the production value in trust. Perishable goods are a special case when a company goes bankrupt because the supplier cannot simply take back its goods and resell them. This measure is necessary and our farmers deserve it. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C‑280.
As a representative of Quebec's agri-food capital, I am obviously very concerned about the agricultural industry and its artisans. I often say that they hold the only occupation that we need three times a day. That is why I want to thank the hon. member for York—Simcoe, who is sponsoring this bill in the House, and my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is co-sponsoring it.
I know how important it is for our two colleagues and all my Bloc Québécois colleagues to pass this bill quickly. The protective measure it will bring in is desperately needed across Quebec. We look forward to seeing it implemented. I share their eagerness to finally see our fruit and vegetable suppliers protected, so they can avoid seeing their crops go to the compost pile without being able to do anything about it. Not everyone in the House is quite as keen, despite the unanimous support this bill has received. We asked for unanimous consent to send Bill C-280 directly to the Senate, but unfortunately, some members would not give their consent.
This is a long-standing demand. The Liberals promised back in September 2014 to address this issue with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association if they were elected in 2015. They reiterated their commitment in 2016. The NDP and the Conservatives also made similar promises in their election platforms. It was also in their platforms in 2021, so I have to wonder why this has taken so long and why Bill C-280 could not be fast-tracked to the Senate.
We are now in 2023. The first promise was made in 2014 and we are in 2023. Better sooner than later, but better late than never. I am pleased to see that we are near our goal, especially given that the implementation of our protection will also help remove an irritant in our relationship with our American neighbours.
The sector's request of such a bill has been so strong since 2014 because on October 1 of that year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture revoked preferential access from its legislation for perishable agricultural products from producers here at home. Up until that point, Canadian and Quebec farmers were protected by this legislation in cases where American purchasers declared bankruptcy. Since Canada, for its part, did not have a trust mechanism for cases of buyer bankruptcy that could have protected American farmers, the U.S. decided to remove that security from Canadian suppliers. In short, they did that in response to a gap in our legislation.
Although an alternative process has been developed between the two countries, it is extraordinarily cumbersome, especially for smaller companies, which have to undertake the tedious process of filing a lawsuit. If they decide to take on this bureaucratic ordeal, they must post a bond worth double the amount claimed in the lawsuit, according to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. Then they are in a pickle, if I may say so. I am not just using that expression because we are talking about produce. In short, they are in a pickle and the major buyers know it. As a result, companies are forced to negotiate downward with the buyer, because they would still rather receive a fraction of the value of the fruits of their labour than nothing at all.
The U.S. is demanding that Canada provide protection similar to that offered by the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act before it will again give Canadian producers access to its program. Passing the bill we have before us today will provide protection not only for our producers doing business domestically, but also, with a little good faith on the part of the U.S. administration, for those doing business with American buyers.
I just want to point out here that the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act was adopted in the 1930s, so it is high time we adopted a similar mechanism.
I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, especially since you are my MP during House sitting weeks. I live in your riding while we are working here in Parliament. I hope you will hear my plea.
Over the course of many Parliaments, many committees have recommended implementing just such a measure. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which studied the bill, sent it back to the House without amendment. The committee approved it, with support from all the parties. Action on this is long overdue.
Before concluding, I want to make an aside and draw the House's attention to another issue related to food products and the difficulties that certain players in the supply chain may experience when a buyer goes bankrupt.
In my riding, there is a storage company that found itself in a difficult situation a few months ago. This company provides refrigeration and freezer services and serves as an intermediary in the transportation of perishable goods. After one of its clients went bankrupt, a bakery, the company ended up stuck with about 800 pallets of pies that did not belong to it. Since the bakery in question was under the authority of a trustee in bankruptcy at the time, the storage company could not dispose of the pies in any way. The situation went on for several weeks, causing major financial losses for the storage company since it could not get any income from the merchandise in question and it could not take on other contracts because the cargo was taking up half of its warehouse. The bakery finally hired a company to transport the stored merchandise, but that company was never paid for services rendered. The transportation company then turned to the intermediary, the storage company, for compensation for its losses, which put the storage company's financial viability at great risk.
At that point, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary. That was before the cabinet shuffle. The letter was cosigned by the Bloc Québécois transport critic, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. We felt that the intermediary was also a victim of the situation, and we asked the minister to consider including a provision in the Bills of Lading Act that would protect intermediaries responsible for goods in specific cases involving bankruptcy of the original business. Such situations become even trickier when perishable goods are involved, and I would like to take this opportunity to get everyone thinking about this issue.
In closing, to get back to the subject of my speech, let us pass this bill without delay, as its co-sponsor entreated us.
1290 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 5:56:04 p.m.
- Watch
Before we resume debate, I want to let the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot know that I am proud to be his MP.
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
