So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 203 - Jun/1/23

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

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

May/31/23 5:19:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the threshold of 25% seems to be quite high, especially when tracking of that foreign ownership may not be all that clear in other countries. That 25% threshold, I believe, should be lowered, and we may see that amendment at the committee stage.

46 words

May/31/23 5:17:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the kind mention of my work at FOPO. We have heard from witnesses. Some have asked to appear in camera, with their names not divulged, because they were afraid of repercussions. We have heard of other harvesters who are concerned, but, out of fear of repercussions, simply will not testify. It is very concerning to us as members, and to me as a parliamentarian, to hear that there are those kinds of threats and concerns being brought. Sometimes, the only way people and their families feel safe is through back doors. I think it is a bigger issue that we as parliamentarians owe a duty to Canadians to fully investigate, to fully make sure we retain beneficial ownership of Canada's resources for Canadians.

131 words

All Topics

May/31/23 5:15:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, as this bill works its way through the process, we may see amendments at committee stage. I look forward to possibly being able to participate. The issue I raised is that it has taken over four years, and the government is eight years into its mandate. The issues I raised within the fisheries sector have been very clear, but there was little to no action until stakeholders really started pressing the government. We are finally starting to see some very slow, initial steps being taken, steps that should have been taken years ago.

95 words

Context: House Hansard - 196 - May/12/23

May/31/23 5:07:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, one of the most beautiful areas in the world at any time of year, and especially as we turn from spring to summer. I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. I would like to thank the member for Langley—Aldergrove for splitting his time with me and for his thoughtful intervention. The government has stated that the objective of Bill C-42 is to protect Canadians against money laundering and terrorist financing, deter tax evasion and tax avoidance, and make sure Canada is an attractive place to conduct business. One has to ask why the Liberal-NDP coalition has taken so long to act, when it has been evident for years that change is needed. While I believe there is support for the concept of a national public registry of beneficial owners of companies, I also believe we may need to look at extending the transparency of beneficial ownership of other assets. For example, at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, or FOPO as it is known around Parliament Hill, we have been hearing testimony from witnesses who are extremely concerned about the purchase and control of fishing licences and quotas by foreign entities, and even unknown entities. That is right: unknown entities. Let me take us back in time to explain what I am referring to. In 2019, the FOPO committee tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. This report was the result of a study initiated partly out of concern at that time, over four years ago, over the situation of local fish harvesters unable to compete with unknown entities bidding higher prices for access to Canada’s fisheries resources, a common property resource for the benefit of Canadians. Now, over four years later, can members guess what is being studied at FOPO, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans? It is foreign ownership and corporate concentration of fishing licences and quotas. I will go back to my earlier question about why the Liberal-NDP coalition taken so long to act. Here we are; it is four years after that report, and even longer into the government’s mandate, since the concerns were first raised by stakeholders. Here we are, restudying almost the same issue, hearing that the same issues and concerns still exist, and the government has failed to take steps to ascertain that Canadians are the primary beneficiaries to access to Canada’s common property resource, Canada’s fisheries. It was somewhat shocking to hear testimony over four years ago, and now to hear similar testimony over recent weeks, that there is no real method of tracking beneficial ownership of fishing licenses, quotas and possibly vessels on Canada’s west coast. Although some have tried to track beneficial ownership, in some cases the web becomes so tangled that no one can clearly identify who owns what. The 2019 report I referred to contained a number of recommendations to the government. In fact, there were 20. However, there were a few key recommendations related to foreign ownership that the government should have acted on, but it has been slowly dragging its feet, with almost no response. I will refer to some of the recommendations quickly, and talk about what should have been done and what has not been done. Recommendation 2 from the report stated, “That based on the principle that fish in Canadian waters are a resource for Canadians (i.e. common property), no future sales of fishing quota and/or licences be to non-Canadian beneficial owners based on the consideration of issues of legal authority, and international agreement/trade impacts.” What has been done on this? Little to nothing has been done. There is nothing that the committee has been made aware of. Recommendation 4 is somewhat similar. It states, “That, to increase the transparency of quota licence ownership and transactions, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determine and publish, in an easily accessible and readable format, a public online database that includes the following”. Has that been achieved? Certainly not. Recommendation 5 states, “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada prioritize the collection of socio-economic data for past and future regulatory changes and make this information publicly available.” Again, there has been no action that the committee is aware of. Recommendation 14 states, “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada develop a new policy framework through a process of authentic and transparent engagement with all key stakeholders". For example, some of the key stakeholders are: Active fish harvesters (or where they exist, organizations that represent them) in all fisheries and fleets including owner-operators, non-owner-operators, and crew; First Nations commercial fish harvesters (or where they exist, organizations that represent them); Organizations representing licence and quota holders that are not active fish harvesters, including fish processing companies. The last recommendation was a key one, and there has been very little action by the government that the committee restudying the same issue has been made aware of. I am going to cut my time a little shorter today to make sure there are opportunities for other members to speak, but I will repeat what I said earlier. We have heard from some who are most impacted by the potential of foreign investment and foreign ownership of our common property resources here in Canada, yet there has been little or no action with respect to who the beneficial buyers and owners are. I will close by saying that there is merit in a registry of individuals with significant control of corporations in Canada. If this is done, it must be done in ways that protect personal privacy and also protect the common resources for the benefit of Canadians. I look forward to following the debate on Bill C-42 as it goes through the process, to see if it accomplishes the stated objectives without unintended consequences.

1025 words

All Topics

May/12/23 11:05:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this week we lost another police officer, and two more were injured in the line of duty. Sergeant Eric Mueller lost his life while working to keep his community safe. Our condolences go to his family and the entire law enforcement community. We wish for a speedy recovery for the other officers injured. Across the country, this week in Vernon, B.C., the RCMP and School District No. 22 are partnering to hold the Jean Minguy Memorial Youth Academy, in honour of RCMP Constable Jean Minguy, who lost his life in an accident while on duty in 2005. The academy provides an opportunity for candidates to explore law enforcement in a hands-on, simulated police academy format. It is my hope that the candidates' experiences will lead to a bright future in law enforcement. I also hope that we, as legislators, can work with law enforcement agencies to draft and amend effective laws that will keep our officers and our communities safe in the future.

167 words

May/9/23 11:49:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly we can learn from other countries, but hopefully we are not learning from dictatorships. Hopefully we can learn from democracies around the world, from other countries that are putting a spotlight and close eye on the wrongdoings of dictatorships like that of the Communist Party of China. Let us keep Canada free and keep Canadians feeling safe and secure in their own country.

66 words

May/9/23 11:47:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question about why it took so long for the government to respond. We can only speculate about that. If I was to speculate, I would say the government was hoping that it could be hidden and covered up and that nobody would expose it. It took two years for it to come out in the media, and it was finally exposed. That is why we are only just hearing about it and debating it now. That is speculation, but I believe that the hope on the other side that it would never come to light is why it has taken this long for any action to be taken.

116 words

May/9/23 11:45:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question is whether the government should take this issue seriously. Very much so, it should take this seriously. It concerns me, as a member of Parliament, that as this debate continues, we see members on the government side smirking and chuckling about the debate that is happening here. It is shameful that Canadians and parliamentarians have to find out the truth through media stories and not be informed by the government. Information was provided to the government about members who have had their families threatened, and yet the government withheld that information for almost two years, until it came out publicly and, finally, the government was caught once again trying to hide its corruption.

117 words

May/9/23 11:36:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight in the House once again to represent the people of the North Okanagan—Shuswap. I will also state that it is even more of an honour to rise on this occasion to speak on the important ruling of the matter of privilege raised by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. In this ruling, the Speaker found a prima facie case of breach of privilege. It is an honour to stand here tonight and speak to defending our democracy in Canada, for Canada and for freedom and democracy everywhere. I do not know if anyone in the House ever takes for granted the significance of our roles here to carry out the business of one of the freest countries in the world. I know that I never take it for granted; what an honour it is to defend our freedoms. They are the very reason we are here as elected representatives of the common people, freely elected through a democratic process and not appointed by a dictatorship. We are here as elected representatives because the voters in our communities have entrusted us to carry out the democratic process without undue influence of money, undue influence of power and, especially, inappropriate influence or threats to our families. However, that is why we are here tonight, late at night, debating a point of privilege raised by one of us. A fellow parliamentarian was fairly elected through our democratic process, and this member has learned of alleged attempted influence on him through his family. There was a report in The Globe and Mail on May 1. It claimed that there were CSIS documents from 2021 stating that the Communist government of China sees Canada as a prime target for interference. That report also stated that the family of the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills was targeted by a Chinese diplomat, Zhao Wei, because of how the hon. member had voted on a motion in the House. The Prime Minister claimed that the note did not leave the CSIS office; top security officials have confirmed that this claim is false. The note was widely dispersed among government departments and the Prime Minister's national security adviser. In addition, The Canadian Press published a story earlier this week saying that, despite what the Minister of Public Safety claims, Chinese police stations are still operating in Quebec. What is most troubling about this situation is that we, as elected members, continued to come to the House to work in our democratic process for almost two years after CSIS raised the alert about this foreign attack on our democracy. We believed that, in a democratic country, we were safe from intimidation as elected members. From this report and subsequent releases, we learned that the threats and intimidation occurred almost two years ago, and yet the member directly affected was not informed until he learned of it in the news, nor were the remainder of parliamentarians alerted to the threat. These alleged threats to the family of a member do more than just influencing one member of the House. Any attack on one member is an attack on all members of the House, as well as an attack on the rule of law and on Canada's democracy overall. I cannot imagine the stress that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills must be going through knowing what has happened. Family is our sanctity. It should always be the reason for doing what is right. It should never be the reason for feeling threatened or pressured into doing something we know is wrong. It has been two years since the government became aware that the MP and his family were being targeted by the regime in Beijing, and a full week after the information became public. We have learned now that the government has finally made the decision that should have been made on the day it found out about this attack on a member of the House of Commons. It is unacceptable that the government has known that an MP and his family had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for two years and it did not inform the member or the members in this House about the threats posed to that member's family. It is even further unacceptable that the government continued to provide diplomatic immunity for an agent of Beijing for two years after learning he was using his position to harass Canadians and their families. Chinese Canadians and all Canadians across the country deserve to know that the government takes their safety and security seriously. While the government has finally taken action against the diplomat who threatened the member of Parliament, it has failed to shut down Beijing's police stations operating in Canada and failed to protect members of the community from harassment and intimidation. We know the government is slow to respond to threats to our security, and this must change. It took it years to respond to concern over Huawei's influence on the 5G network, something our allies had acted upon much earlier. The government lagged behind and, no doubt, caused concerns for our allies' joint security because of Canada's failure to act. The fact that this interference ever occurred and it took this long to take action is proof of the government's incompetence in fulfilling its basic responsibility to protect Canadians. The government must take the other steps that the House voted on this week, including a public inquiry that will lay out what the government knew about Beijing's interference in our democratic process. This is the bare minimum it must do in order to restore any amount of trust from Canadians of any and all races, ethnic backgrounds, religions and spiritual beliefs so they will be free from undue foreign government interference. I fear for what could happen to us as Canadians and freedom across the world should the government fail to act. It is very late and there may not be many people in this country watching at home right now, but my hope is that Canadians across the country will be watching and listening and will hold the government accountable, especially its leadership, for its actions and especially its inaction on issues like this that threaten Canada's security and the freedoms that people from around the world migrate to and aspire to. My hope is that Canadians and people around the world will be watching and will hold the government accountable.

1097 words

May/9/23 10:21:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a very concerning issue that we are dealing with here. Basically, it was an attack on one member of this Parliament. This being an attack on one member of Parliament, is it viewed as an attack on all members of Parliament?

45 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/4/23

May/9/23 9:29:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate in the House over the last few days over misleading comments, as to whether someone was telling the truth or not telling the truth, a lot of heated heckling back and forth as to what was being said, whether it was parliamentary or not, and what we should and should not believe. I will quote the words of the Prime Minister from 2013 when he stated, “There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship...” Is that something that we should discount in this House or is it something we should continue to believe from what we have seen over the past months, especially over the past couple of weeks with the revelations that have been coming out in the news stories? I would like the member to comment on that.

147 words

Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/4/23

May/4/23 12:14:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member tried to say that the question had been answered, but it had not. The question really was this: Can the government only find family and insiders willing to work with it or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of its ongoing ethics breaches? Which is it? That question still has not been answered, not by the parliamentary secretary when he answered, nor tonight by this member. After six ethics breaches that these government members have been found guilty of, they still do not realize how important ethics are to Canadians. They should have faith that members who have been elected to represent this country do have an ethics compass, which the government and these members seem to have lost somewhere along the way. Again, will they actually answer the question? Is it family and friends only or he does not—

146 words

Context: House Hansard - 187 - Apr/28/23

May/4/23 12:10:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on March 28 of this year, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner announced in a Twitter post the appointment of an interim Ethics Commissioner. What Canadians might not have known from that post was that the person appointed was the sister-in-law of a Liberal cabinet minister, but not just any cabinet minister. When red flags went up about that appointment, I raised my concern and that of many Canadians when I posed a question on March 31. At that time, I stated in this House: ...we should all remember clam scam, when the then fisheries minister was found guilty of an ethics breach for awarding a $24-million licence to a company to be ran by his wife's cousin. Now the Liberals have appointed the same cabinet minister's sister-in-law as the Ethics Commissioner. Really? Can they only find family and insiders willing to work for them, or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics issues? Which is it? The parliamentary secretary responded but did not answer the question. Instead, he danced around it like there was nothing wrong. After six ethics violations, the Liberals attempted to appoint a family member to the Ethics Commissioner’s office to cover for them. Now, as days go by, we are seeing more evidence of why they may have attempted to ensure their friends and family were controlling the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, as more questions of the government’s ethics, or lack thereof, continue to emerge. On Monday, the world learned that the government failed to inform a sitting member of Parliament that it knew of yet more evidence that the Communist regime in Beijing is actively attempting to meddle in our democracy. The government knew about it and chose to do nothing. This is something that should make all Canadians question the Liberal-NDP government’s version of ethics. It is unacceptable that the government has known that an MP and his family had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for two years and did not inform the member about the threats posed to his family. Chinese Canadians across the country deserve to know that the government takes their safety and security seriously, yet Canada still has not shut down Beijing’s police stations operating within Canada and has failed to protect members of the community from harassment and intimidation. Is this because the government has no ethical compass? I will ask this again: Can the Liberals and their NDP partners only find family and insiders willing to work with them, or was this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics breaches? Which is it?

458 words

Context: House Hansard - 187 - Apr/28/23

Apr/28/23 2:14:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-284

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-284, put forward by the member for Humber River—Black Creek. The bill addresses a national strategy for eye care. It is an honour to speak to this today because my wife worked at an optometrist's office for 23 years. I had not expected to speak to this bill, but I am honoured to be able to do so today and to relay some of the experience that she had and that I had in working with the great doctors there. Dr. Beckner, Dr. Allaway, Dr. Ewanyshyn, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Geire have all provided such professional health care in our community of Salmon Arm, as all optometrists do across this country. What I learned from speaking with them and with my wife about the importance of eye care is something that I think all of us in this chamber should see. We should see that eye care and the health care issues that can be discovered through regular eye care are very important. There is a long list of diseases and health care problems that can be discovered through a regular eye exam. I suffer from dry eye. That, in itself, is just more of a discomfort, but dry eye causes a person's eyes to water. Tears are not actually the fluid that someone's eyes need. They need the oils that come out with those tears. If they do not have enough of the oils, the eyes feel dry and the person continuously tears more. When I am exposed to sunlight or to wind, I suffer that much more, but this is something that optometrists can help with. We have heard others speak about cataracts today. The advancements that we have seen over the last number of years in making an operation to address and remove cataracts have continuously improved the lives of seniors. I have not gone through that process yet, but because I go to see an optometrist regularly, I have been told that I am in the very early stages. I am a long way from needing that operation yet, but I am confident that by regularly attending an eye exam with an optometrist, I will hopefully know when the time is coming that my vision has been impaired. Another instance that I was not aware of is something that is done by optometrists called a visual field test. That is where the optometrist or their assistant can check for the range of vision out of one's eyes. People might think that everyone would have very similar range of vision, but they do not. I had a case where my eyelids were actually longer and more relaxed, so that they were coming down and blocking my vision. It was a fairly simple operation. I just went into an eye surgeon's office and had it done one afternoon. There was no problem with my vision. I had a short recovery. However, in other people, without having that addressed, they can lose their field of vision. It could be something as significant as not seeing a stoplight. Because it is up at the top level of where they are looking, they may not see a stoplight turn red in front of them. Something as simple as that can be picked up by an optometrist with a visual field test. We have heard of so many other eye health and actual body health issues that can be picked up through a regular eye exam. These include diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. We have heard today that 728,000 Canadians are suffering from glaucoma. There is also retinal detachment. A lot of people do not know what this is, but if the retina becomes fully detached from the back of the eye, it causes permanent loss of vision. Optometrists and their assistants, through eye exams, can determine if this is happening; early intervention is a key piece to making sure that this sight loss is not permanent. Diabetes is another issue. I had that explained to me when I went in for an eye exam. They look through very powerful cameras and lights at the blood vessels in the back of the eye. Often those blood vessels cross each other and, if there is extra pressure where they cross, they can identify a bulge in the blood vessels. That can be used to identify whether there is a possible issue with diabetes, high blood pressure and other things that are part of this. I am neither an optometrist nor a doctor, by any means, but these are pieces that I have picked up by listening and going in for regular eye exams. I hope this bill will lead to not really what is said in the bill, but something that I hope can be addressed at committee stage when looking at this bill. A lot of the terminology in the bill itself refers to “eye disease”. I would be interested in following this as it proceeds through the committee stage to see whether the bill continues to speak to eye disease, or whether it would possibly change to “eye health” and “overall health”, because so many things can be picked up through the eye exams, which I have just spoken about. The bill does not really address the issue of the availability of training for optometrists in the country. One thing I have noted, after looking quickly, is that there are two schools of optometry, one in Waterloo and one in Montreal. There are none in western Canada. There reflects an inequity in training for those who want to become optometrists. It is a seven- to eight-year program, and it is very much like becoming a family physician. It is very expensive training, and there is extra cost for students coming from western Canada to those training centres, which are only available in eastern Canada. I am hoping that during the committee stage, that may also be looked at, or at least something is included in the strategy to include the availability of training in other parts of the country. It is obviously an added expense for those from the west, but anyone from the north would be much more burdened by the extra cost. The purpose of this bill is admirable. The member spoke about her family members who lost their sight. That has not happened in my family, as we have been fortunate. We have been fortunate enough to be able to discover if there were eye problems ahead of time. We were able to get glasses, corrective lenses, contacts lens, whatever was needed, to continue our daily lives. If we can put together a strategy so that many more Canadians can retain their sight, no matter where they live, what their background is, what their wealth or lack of wealth is, that is an admirable goal. As I said, I will be happy to follow this bill as it goes through the committee stage to see if we can improve upon it and make sure that it deals, not just with eye disease, but with eye health and overall body health. I have heard other members recognize that today is the National Day of Mourning for those who have lost their lives in the workplace from workplace disease or illness. One of my staff members attended a ceremony in my riding today. Workplace diseases can also affect eye health and overall human health. I am grateful for the opportunity to stand to speak today, and I look forward to following this bill through the process.

1284 words

Context: House Hansard - 177 - Mar/31/23

Apr/28/23 12:01:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians should look out. The Prime Minister wants to tax their gas off. His plan, which will triple the carbon tax, will make it unaffordable for Canadians to drive to work or heat their homes. It is nothing more than a tax plan. His plan has failed to meet any emissions reduction targets, so now he is going to make them pay more. Meanwhile, he is taking vacations, burning taxpayers' gas. Will the PM stop saving his own gas and cancel his plan to triple the carbon tax?

90 words

Context: House Hansard - 176 - Mar/30/23

Mar/31/23 11:52:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we should all remember clam scam, when the then fisheries minister was found guilt of an ethics breach for awarding a $24-million licence to a company to be ran by his wife's cousin. Now the Liberals have appointed the same cabinet minister's sister-in-law as the Ethics Commissioner. Really? Can they only find family and insiders willing to work for them, or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics issues? Which is it?

83 words