44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 29, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been underestimated is public awareness. I think a great deal of education could be espoused by making more people aware of the degree to which wood is making a comeback as a building product. We are now seeing skyscrapers being built with wood. Most people would be of the mindset that we require metal or steel to build anything above six or seven stories. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts with regard to the way that wood is making a comeback in that industry.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have had the opportunity to express some thoughts in regard to Bill S-222. In fact, it is an issue that has been debated for quite a while here in Ottawa. What surprises me, at least in part, is the fact that we have not ultimately seen its passage. As the member has referenced, this bill has been other bills in the past, and there does seem to be a fairly wide base of support for what the bill is actually talking about.
I think we constantly underestimate the true value of our wood products here in Canada, which can be broken down into different areas. The area that seems to get a great deal of attention is softwood, the trading that takes place between Canada and the United States, and how the wood barons from the States want to upset the apple cart, believing that, by doing so, their own specific industry will benefit. However, that has proven not to be the case, and it is a thorn in the side that has caused a great deal of hardship here in Canada and, I would suggest, also in the United States. I appreciated the question posed to the member in regard to it, because dealing with wood tariffs and the trade-related issues and the impact they have on the industry here is an ongoing issue in terms of production and harvesting of wood, as well as impacts on the consumer in the United States who wants to be able to have Canadian wood to use in building homes and so forth. I just want to start off by recognizing the fact that this is still there and continues to be a thorn. As the Minister of Finance and the Minister of International Trade will tell us, what is important in dealing with that issue is that we make sure we get the right deal, a fair deal for Canada, and that we do what we can as a government to minimize the cost. There is significant cost related to companies and job losses and so forth in Canada when these types of trade issues surface, and it is indeed unfortunate.
When we think of timber buildings or timber, most people would be quite surprised not only to find the degree to which wood is better for the economy in many different ways, and for our environment, but also that it is something we can use in the construction of large buildings. In the late 1980s, I remember going downstairs in a house I had purchased and finding out it had a wood foundation. That was quite a surprise for me. I had always thought the foundation would be made of concrete. Then, after investigating the matter, I found that, in the late 1980s, people were talking about the insulating factor and the structure of the wood being more than adequate in terms of longevity and the life of the home. Ever since, I have been very much open to the idea of how we could better utilize wood.
The member spoke of it from an industry point of view, and there is no doubt that Canada is very well positioned in this industry. I am not sure we rank number one, but we would definitely be in the top three, possibly second. I think it is between Canada and the United States. However, wood harvesting is a strong, healthy industry, and there are multiple players, both advocating and ensuring that we have an ongoing stock of trees into the future. That is something critically important.
When we look at timber buildings now, my understanding is that, more and more, we are starting to see them built higher than 10 floors. The record is probably somewhere between 14 and 20 floors; I do not know offhand. However, I know that, in speaking to the legislation in the past, I have made reference to a couple of the buildings. If one had the opportunity to take a look at the construction and see some of these towers of timber, they would be quite impressed by their strength and the tonnage that can be held by the construction of these buildings. They are becoming more and more popular. I think that, in the last decade or so, we have seen a growth in that industry that is fairly impressive. In fact, I was looking at one story that made a comment in regard to how, in the city of Toronto, a number of the skyscrapers, condominiums and so forth, are being made of timber. That is why I really believe this would expand opportunities.
Over the weekend, Winnipeg hosted the 2023 Skills Canada National Competition. Skills Canada does a fantastic job of bringing young people who have skills and are working in the trades to the city of Winnipeg, where there were literally thousands of students who attended in the convention centre. They got a sense of the degree to which those skills are there and are very real, producing jobs into the future. One would need to look only at the carpentry area and some of the construction being done with that component. I think there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 different skill sets. Many of them are related to wood products and construction. Organizations directly and indirectly benefit from the development of that particular industry.
This morning, my colleague made reference to forest fires in her area, and there are forest fires virtually throughout the country. We all need to be concerned about that. It raises the environmental issues. It is an issue of stewardship and making sure that, as much as possible, we are minimizing the negative impacts on our environment and expanding where we can in industries that make us that much healthier as a nation.
I would suggest that, through the passage of the bill, we would see the promotion of timber and wood in construction areas, with the federal government playing a role; it could contribute to ensuring that the industry continues to grow, and that is one of the reasons I had posed the question to the member opposite in regard to public awareness. I really and truly do not believe that the public as a whole is aware of the fact that skyscrapers nowadays can, in fact, be built using wood products, that there is a surge taking place, and that it is becoming more common to hear of buildings six storeys or more being built primarily with wood.
I think, when we take a look into the future of the growth of our country, whether industrial, commercial or residential, the demand for wood is going to continue to increase. It is going to be important that the federal government work with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders in ensuring that this is an industry that does well into the future because of the many positive environmental reasons, plus the creation of jobs and so forth. There are all sorts of opportunities there, and I am glad to see that the bill is once again before the House. I believe, as I am sure all members do, that it will pass through, and I look forward to it ultimately becoming law.
1219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 12:29:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I know my friend, for many years, has been a very strong advocate on the environmental file, in particular with regard to waterways. I know he was in charge of a press conference we just recently had in the city of Winnipeg, dealing with the Canada water agency, and I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on how important that is to our country and to our city.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:11:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that, at least in good part, we have support coming from the Bloc with regard to Bill S-5.
One of the issues that the hon. member raised was guaranteeing a healthy environment for Canadians. When I look at the legislation, it is a very strong and powerful step in the right direction. I think Canadians as a whole would see it as positive. I have no doubt that it would take a bit of time to work out how we best deal with ensuring that right.
Does the Bloc believe that the only way it could be dealt with is through a constitutional change? If so, does the member really believe that, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or any other jurisdiction, people want to see the Constitution reopened?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:26:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide some thoughts in regard to the issue of toxic chemicals. Given the way technology has advanced and given chemists' contributions to many aspects of life in general, we know there is a need to stay on top of the issue of toxic chemicals and chemicals that could be listed as toxic. Does she have any insights that she would like to share with the House with respect to that?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:45:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Going out of second reading, there was a sense that we would be receiving virtually unanimous support. Although the Green Party had reservations in regard to Bill S-5, it looked as though it was going in a forward direction, with the Conservatives actually supporting it. Having listened to Conservatives earlier today, the best I can tell is that they do not want to support the bill because of an amendment related to tailings ponds.
The member was there at the committee stage. Can he explain to the House what he believes is so substantial within the amendment that it is now causing the Conservative Party to vote against the legislation as a whole?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:50:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the leader of the Green Party and the suggestion about looking at the right to a healthy environment. At the end of the day, it is incorporated into the legislation. I suspect that what we will see will be more information being provided on the issue of those rights in the coming days, weeks and months ahead.
I think we need to recognize that this is a significant step forward, where we have a government policy, in essence, making it very clear. It is more than just a policy; it is done through legislation. Canadians have a right to a healthy environment.
I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is to talk about this. There has been a lot of discussion about the environment in general, but when we get a statement of that nature in law, it is a significant step forward. Obviously, it is not going to resolve all the issues. Mechanisms, protocols and so forth need to be established. At the very least, we have a government for the first time that is actually incorporating that sort of a principle in legislation.
Would he not agree that the incorporation of a right to a healthy environment is good for all Canadians?
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that will have a very positive impact on Canadians.
If we listen to what Canadians are talking about, we often hear the issue of the environment coming up. Within the Liberal caucus, I can assure people who are following the debate that, whether it is me or members of the Liberal caucus, we have a high degree of sensitivity in wanting to ensure that what we are doing here in Ottawa reflects Canadians' desires and interests in terms of what they are telling us.
Canadians tell us that the environment does matter and that it counts. We have a government in a minority situation. They would like to see members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, recognize the importance of the issue of the environment and start taking actions to support the words we use during an election.
We see the position that the official opposition is taking on the environment. I want to use two examples. Today, it is all about Bill S-5 and what is happening with it. It is about how the Conservative Party has once again made a change towards the environment. I would suggest that this is a negative change. This is consistent with what the Conservative Party did in the last federal election.
We constantly get criticized by the Conservatives regarding a price on pollution. Most Canadians see and recognize the value of this, as do other countries and jurisdictions around the world. They see that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on pollution. However, only the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons, from the get-go, said it opposed a price on pollution. After being tuned up by Canadians, it actually said it is now in favour of a price on pollution.
In the last federal election, every one of the members sitting here today actually said they agreed with a price on pollution in their election platform. They all campaigned on it. However, with a new, shiny, ultra-right leader, they now say they do not support a price on pollution.
How is that relevant to the debate we are having today? It is relevant because not that long ago, about two weeks ago, the Conservatives were telling Canadians that they voted in favour of Bill S-5 and they thought Bill S-5 was a good idea. They were right two weeks ago when they were telling that to Canadians. They were ultimately responding, in part, to what their constituents were telling them.
One of the biggest things in Bill S-5 deals with the right to a healthy environment. Imagine taking a statement of that nature and incorporating it into law. This is why I asked my NDP colleague to provide a comment on it. Given what Canadians are telling us about the importance of the environment, how could someone oppose that? How is it possible that the Conservatives would vote against it?
If we want to talk about popping the bubble of hope, that is what the Conservatives have done in recent days. The Conservatives have said that they now oppose Bill S-5. Why did they flip-flop?
An hon. member: Because of you. You flip-flop.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say it is because of me. I do not think I carry that much influence within the Conservative caucus.
I can say that the Conservatives are on the wrong side of yet another important environmental issue. They need to understand that the environment does matter. When they say they are now opposed to it, what are they voting against? They are voting against what their leader often talks about: common sense.
Why would one oppose the right to a healthy environment? Yes, a lot of regulations and protocols need to be established to ensure that right, but, again, for the very first time, we actually have that now in legislation, the very same legislation that the official opposition is going to vote against when it comes up for a vote.
Maybe we should wait another week or two. Maybe they might change their mind again on this issue.
It is an important vote. We are dealing with additional regulations to deal with toxic chemicals. What is it about toxic chemicals that the Conservative Party of Canada feels, within this legislation, is bad? We are not hearing that.
The Conservatives are not saying that they do not like this legislation because of this particular aspect. They are talking about tailings ponds and apparently that is what caused them to flip, even though, before the amendment, it came to the House from the Senate with it.
One has to start questioning where the Conservative Party is on the environment. I will give part two when we begin debate again after question period.
823 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 3:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect there is a willingness to have a recorded vote.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:03:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:03:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue speaking to Bill S-5, which we began debating again a few hours ago. When I started my comments, I made reference to the fact that I think there is a great deal of disappointment from many stakeholders due to the Conservative Party's change of heart. If we were to check Hansard from a couple of weeks back when we were talking about Bill S-5, I suspect one would see that I even implied that the Conservative Party was in favour of Bill S-5.
Something has happened in the last little while that has convinced the Conservative Party to vote against Bill S-5. I do believe that it is a bad decision by the Conservatives. They still have a little bit of time to think about what they are doing with Bill S-5. I hope they will considerate it once again and adopt their original position of voting in favour of Bill S-5 because it does a wide variety of things, all of which, I believe, support the wishes and desires of many Canadians, the constituents we represent.
It is interesting to look at the legislation. It covers a number of areas that I know Canadians are very concerned about. I wanted to highlight a few of those spots and then maybe go into depth on the issue of our environment and how important it is that, as parliamentarians, we do what we can to support legislation of this nature and broaden that support so it goes beyond just legislation. There are many budgetary measures.
Canadians are watching. They are very much concerned about how politicians are voting on important issues of the day, the environment being one of them. It has been really interesting to listen to the debates, not only now but also during second reading. I had the opportunity to not only address the issue in part but also to listen to a good number of people. Whether it was in the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, or the standing committees of Parliament, we have had a great deal of debate on this issue.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a substantial piece of legislation that provides a great deal of comfort to Canadians, is being enhanced and given strength after a couple of decades. There are some areas that I know people would be very, very pleased with. There are areas of concern, such as animal testing, for example. We are seeing non-animal testing methods being incorporated to a degree that it is going to be encouraged. I see that as a very strong positive. It is something that should be mentioned during the debate.
It deals with the issue of reconciliation. Thinking about the environment and the stewardship of our environment, how can one not factor in our first nations that have taken such good, quality care of our environment? If we get into the beliefs, heritage and culture of indigenous peoples, we get a very encouraging reflection on our environment and how important it is that we are there for mother earth. We can think of UNDRIP and the recommendations through reconciliation. As a government, we made the commitment to respect UNDRIP and its ruling. We will continue to support that. That is also incorporated into the legislation.
There are ideas about the toxic substances out there and how those substances could be labelled. It is important that the minister has the ability to ensure there is more transparency and accountability on this issue. Again, this is within the legislation. The expectation from the public as a whole is that information is knowledge. Finding out the content of many of these substances through labelling so the government can ensure there is higher transparency is a very strong positive. Those are three of the things I want to provide a brief comment on, as well as emphasize a couple of other points that are really quite encouraging.
I talked about the idea of a right to a healthy environment. This morning there were a number of members who made reference to that aspect of the legislation. It is encouraging to hear members, whether from the Bloc or the NDP in particular, supporting that right in a very tangible way. It was interesting when one member of the Bloc suggested it should be incorporated into Canada's Constitution. Even the principles of protecting the environment and what could be incorporated into the Constitution interest me, but I do not think Canadians as a whole want to see that debate on the Constitution opened up, not at this time, and I suspect, not for quite a while.
However, it emphasizes the point, which is the reason I make reference to it, that people are very much concerned about environmental rights. This bill not only talks about the importance of a right to a healthy environment, but also, for the first time, incorporates it into legislation. I see that as a very strong positive. We will get more details as time goes on as to how that is going to be assured, as well as the protocols and procedures that will be established to ensure Canadians feel comfortable knowing not only that they have that right to a healthy environment, but also that it is incorporated into the legislation for the very first time.
I know the Green Party has some concerns with the legislation. It is with some admiration that I look to the leader of the Green Party and her history on this particular file. She had pointed back, I believe, to 1988. That was the year I was first elected, and I can say that, back in 1988, there was not much debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the environment. There is no doubt that over the last three decades we have seen a substantial growth of public debate and discussion on the issue of the environment. I would acknowledge that she is one Canadian who has been at the forefront of some of these environmental pushes.
Where we disagree would be when I talk, for example, about the right to a healthy environment, I believe it is substantive, but I know members of the Green Party would have liked to have seen more to it than just the statements being referenced in the legislation. The idea of providing strength to the regulations regarding toxic chemicals, and the way in which government needs to play a very strong role, is absolutely critical, and this legislation deals with that.
When I posed questions earlier to, and listened to comments from, in particular the Conservative Party, it was a Conservative member who seemed to be upset with the fact that there are too many regulations and too much paperwork involved with environmental policy. That is what he was making reference to. I would suggest that these regulations are really important.
When we talk about toxic chemicals, legislation does not deal with every aspect of it. Rather, it establishes the framework. We rely on our civil servants to be able to provide the details, through regulations and other forums, so we know we are in fact doing what the principles of the legislation set forward in good part. Therefore, unlike what the Conservative member earlier today was trying to imply, I would suggest to members that good, solid environmental regulations are absolutely critical to supporting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The member should not be shy in terms of recognizing that, but that was the only member who actually made reference to that. When the critic brought up the issue, I had posed the question in regard to why the Conservative Party had changed its positioning on this legislation, because the only thing we had really heard, officially, coming from the Conservative Party was in regard to the tailings ponds. If the Conservatives were to look at the tailings ponds issue, they would find that there is no substantive difference in terms of what came into the House of Commons during second reading, went into committee and then came back. I would challenge the Conservatives to explain that difference in terms of the degree to which it has caused the Conservative Party to reverse its policy position on the legislation.
The bottom line is that, in regard to the issue of the environment, there is an obligation for legislative measures and budgetary measures. I asked the question in terms of how we mix those things in together, and I want to provide what is a fairly extensive listing of the types of things that we do to complement the legislation. Let us think of it in this way. This is what the Government of Canada is doing today: clean electricity investment tax credit; clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit; clean hydrogen investment tax credit; enhancing the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit; expanding the eligibility for clean technology investment tax credit; a clean electricity focus for the Canada Infrastructure Bank; supporting clean electricity projects such as the Atlantic Loop; securing major battery manufacturing here in Canada; delivering the Canada growth fund; enhancing the reduced tax rate for zero-emissions technology manufacturers; and supporting clean technology projects.
There are so many things that one could actually make reference to with respect to the environment, including banning harmful single-use plastics and making zero-emissions vehicles that much more affordable. I have already commented extensively in the past about the price on pollution. These are all things, both budgetary measures and legislative measures, which the Government of Canada over the last number of years has put into place as a direct response to listening to what Canadians' expectation of the government is. We are bringing that to Ottawa, listening to what our constituents are saying and developing legislative and budgetary measures that support the desires of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and for good reason.
All one needs to do is take a look at what is happening in our environment today and listen to what is happening around the world. Canada does have a leadership role to play, and this is a government that is living up to that leadership. We see every day, through the minister, with respect to the car he drives, the policies he announces and the budgets he presents to the House of Commons through the Minister of Finance, that this is a government that is committed to protecting our environment.
1756 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:19:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in terms of everything this legislation has actually gone through, whether in the Senate committee meetings or the House of Commons committee meetings. I was not present during those House of Commons standing committee meetings, but I can tell members, from everything I have heard, that the Conservative Party's decision to not support Bill S-5 was because of an amendment that was brought forward by the NDP and then supported. It is an amendment that raises an issue in a public fashion. In terms of substantive action, though, I am not too sure.
Can the member, who will likely get another question, tell us specifically what it is with that particular amendment that would have an outcome such that the Conservative Party has made the decision to ultimately change and flip-flop its position on Bill S-5, given the importance of this legislation? I would suggest that the member cannot clearly demonstrate that.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:21:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, we do know that there would be an ongoing review, because it is mandated from within, with regard to labelling. As I indicated to the member who just provided another question, I was not actually at the committee. What I do know is that there were committee amendments brought forward from different political entities, and I thought there was a high sense of political co-operation. We saw government amendments and also opposition amendments pass, and I suspect there would have been a more detailed answer to the specifics at the committee stage.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:22:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am a former health critic for the Province of Manitoba. The quality of air, whether from stubble burning or forest fires, is an issue that came up periodically when I was acting in that capacity. There is no doubt that emergency facilities, doctors and so forth, fill up. Air pollution is very real. It is tangible. I was not part of every aspect of the legislation. I do not necessarily know exactly what the legislation would do with regard to air quality, but I would concur that it is an issue we should all be concerned about, and I suspect that, at some point in the future, we will even be dealing with it in a more detailed way.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:24:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservatives? I can say that it would be awfully awkward when they take a look at their own party platform. We know that, as candidates, when we go knocking on doors, we are there supporting the party platform. All 338 Conservative candidates made it very clear in the last election that they do support a price on pollution.
Some members have heckled that they take it back, but hindsight is 20/20. The bottom line is that they did do a flip-flop on that. The relevance to that issue, to what we are debating today, is that, once again, we see the Conservative Party taking a flip-flop on an important piece of environmental legislation. I think that Canadians would be very disappointed, given that it includes things such as the right to a healthy environment. The Conservatives are actually going to be voting against it.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:26:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Manitoba, where the Liberal Party is maybe not as strong as it could be, where we did not have party status, I often found it most effective, when working with the government members and ministers, to work alongside them, to provide suggestions, ideas and amendments and so forth. There are different ways in which one can try to get things passed through. I know there are challenges to not having party status. I faced those challenges for many years in the Manitoba legislature.
There is no doubt the committee could have given more attention to a number of the issues that the leader of the Green Party had brought forth.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 4:27:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question I actually posed to him, to tell us what within the tailings ponds the member is so offended by. Instead, he says that we are taking a flip-flop. He should look in a mirror.
The Conservatives are actually saying no to Bill S-5. They are going to vote against Bill S-5 because the leadership within the Conservative Party has given them that instruction. I think there are a number of Conservatives who are scratching their heads and asking why they are doing so. At the end of the day, there is no real rationale other than that the Conservative leader told them to.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, if former prime minister Stephen Harper had provided dollars for the infrastructure necessary, municipalities like Montreal would not necessarily have had to dump raw sewage into the water. It takes time to build the infrastructure.
Quite frankly, it is disappointing to see that the Conservative Party has changed its position on this legislation. Does the member feel any sense of remorse in voting against a bill that the Conservatives were going to vote in favour of just two weeks ago, given the principles of toxic chemicals and the right to have a healthy environment, which is something that would be established in this legislation in a substantial way?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 6:45:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might find the will to call it 6:59 p.m. at this time, so that we can continue with discussion and debate.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:16:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, on a point of order, when the member opposite is speaking, it is very quiet, and I would expect the same courtesy when the Minister of Finance is speaking.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
