- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Scarborough—Guildwood
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $111,926.23
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, last month Bill S-211, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, passed in the House and received royal assent. The bill is now law. It is designed to rid our supply chains of slave products.
Simultaneously, in the town of Markham, Shein, a company notorious for selling products made by slaves and child labour at cheap prices, opened up a 170,000-square-foot distribution facility. Ordinary citizens have been protesting on the streets of Markham against having such a company in their community.
It is intended that Bill S-211 will be fully operational by this time next year, and the executives of Shein will have to file a compliance transparency statement to the Government of Canada.
The additional question is this: How did a company of such a notorious reputation get a building permit for a 170,000-square-foot facility in Markham? Does no one care, or is “cheapest product, any place, any time” the law of this land?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this has been quite a journey. We are close to the end of that four-year journey and hopefully we will move to a vote fairly quickly.
If I spent all my time thanking everyone who has helped us over the previous four years, I would use up all of my time, so let me confine my thanks to a select few who have helped us from Bill C-423 to Bill C-243, and from Bill S-216 to now Bill S-211.
We would not be here without Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne and her tireless efforts on Bill S-211 and Bill S-216, along with Jérôme Asselin-Lussier from her office and Shawn Boyle from my office, as well as the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his willingness to give up his preferred place in the Private Members' Business slot to me, for which I thank him.
I also want to recognize the very helpful contributions of two law firms, Dentons and Gowling, which have shepherded through the many iterations of this bill over the four years.
Finally I want to take note of World Vision, as it is aptly named. Over the past 10 years, World Vision has used its considerable resources to call attention to this international scourge, where Canadians play an unwitting role in enabling the distribution and consumption of slave products.
Before I turn to the bill itself, I want to offer a few comments on slavery in Canada.
As we know, prior to Confederation, Canada was really a collection of British colonies and as such was governed by the laws of Westminster.
In 1787, William Wilberforce, who, in my opinion, is the greatest member of parliament that the British Westminster system has ever produced, embarked on a mission to have the slave trade abolished, reasoning that if the slave trade was abolished, the abolition of slavery itself would surely follow. He was right.
To give us some context, 30% of the British Empire's GDP was dependent upon slave products. If ever an MP engaged in a formidable task, this was certainly it.
Twenty years later, the British Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and then 26 years after that slavery was formerly abolished in the British Empire on July 26. Wilberforce died three days later.
A committed evangelical Christian, Wilberforce was motivated by a deep conviction that the enslavement of another human being was a sin and an offence against God and mankind. As we know, deep moral convictions do not mean much in a parliament unless we can mobilize resources to push a bill to royal assent.
William Wilberforce showed his parliamentary and political genius in two ways. First, he was able to organize, rally and participate in probably the first citizens' movement that brought massive pressure on the Parliament of Westminster. Second, he was able to manipulate the legislative system to, over time, produce the desired outcome.
In fact, William Wilberforce gave a master class in British parliamentary procedures, strategies and tactics, which should be required reading for all parliamentarians.
The citizens' movement was pure genius. He took a ragtag group of quarrelsome evangelicals and attached to them some of the most committed abolitionists of the time. This was possibly the first time a group of deeply committed citizens confronted a deeply entrenched establishment and won.
For his efforts, William Wilberforce was branded as a traitor to his class. When he won, of course, we all won.
The laws of Great Britain applied to Canadian colonies. While some would argue that it is more complicated than that, and I might in another context agree, I would argue that it is a big improvement over the way the Americans handled the same issue.
Why a history lesson when we have an exceedingly modest Bill S-211 in front of us?
First, Bill S-211 is the product of a citizen's movement. World Vision and many others have pressured the parties to be proactive and commit to the legislation. Ultimately, this has resulted in both the Liberal and Conservative parties putting this kind of commitment into their platforms.
Second, getting worthwhile initiatives across the line is exceedingly difficult, especially from the weak position of a private member's bill in a minority Parliament.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the members for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Peace River—Westlock and Shefford, as well as Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne and the table officers of both houses for getting us here today.
With my remaining time, I want to talk about what Bill S-211 is, what it is not and what it could be.
Bill S-211 is a supply chain transparency bill. Companies of a certain size would be expected to examine their supply chains annually and certify that they are free of slave products, or if they are not, what are they going to do about it. Powers would be given to the Minister of Public Safety to examine the filing, and if not satisfied, cause an investigation to be made.
We expect that the mere existence of the bill will create a high level of compliance as companies worry about their reputational damage, government investigations, consumer disapproval and increased financial costs for non-compliance and additional financial risk.
Keeping it simple is the essence of this bill: examine our supply chains; certify there is no slavery; and if there is, tell us what they are going to do about it.
Why Bill S-211? The moral argument is blindingly obvious. No Canadian should be buying slave products, period.
The economic argument is equally blindingly obvious. Canadian workers cannot compete with slaves. Not only are people beggaring their neighbours by depriving them of a job opportunity, but Canada creates its own supply chain vulnerabilities by becoming dependent upon slave nations to produce critical products.
This is dumb on dumb. In our feverish and immoral desire to get the cheapest product any time, any place, anywhere, we deprive ourselves of business labour and economic opportunities. Stupid is an inadequate description.
Bill S-211 is not a due diligence bill. Failure to comply will not expose a negligent company to a human rights lawsuit.
There are two examples of due diligence legislation, Germany and France. The German threshold is 3,000 employees. The French threshold is 5,000 employees. We estimate that instead of the thousands of companies that would be captured by Bill S-211 under our transparency bill, fewer than 100 companies would be captured by a due diligence bill.
Our reading of due diligence legislation is that it has a limited upside with a massive non-compliance on the downside, in effect trying to run before crawling or walking. It may be that the government will in time move in that direction, but Bill S-211, a transparency bill, is what is in front of us for a vote.
I do not want to be presumptuous, but I believe that Bill S-211 enjoys support in the House, as it did in the Senate. Looking ahead, and I know that is dangerous, I do not want this to be a Potemkin bill, a bill that looks good on paper, but is ineffective because the bureaucracy finds all kinds of reasons to not be ready for the implementation date.
We have enjoyed the support of the four ministers to date, and I want to applaud them for following through on the platform commitments made by both the Liberal and Conservative parties in the last election. It will now be up to them to ensure the compliance is as easy as it is effective. Lessons can be learned from the U.K. and Australia, both of which have similar legislation.
This bill would transform Canada from laggard to leader in this space. It would compel all governments to adhere to the same standards that we expect from Canadian businesses. We can hardly impose these standards on businesses, and yet give governments in Canada a free pass.
I know that businesses are gearing up. I can tell from both my emails and my telephone calls. I would hope that Canadian governments will be as diligent in their preparations for the implementation of this bill. As I have said, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Models for the practicalities of this bill exist in other jurisdictions, and the minister can shape the demands of this bill to produce first-class data and first-class compliance.
In addition, I would encourage the Government of Canada to seek out other governments, in particular the governments of Australia and the United Kingdom, in order to maximize the collective opportunities. A three-nation web of mutually complementary reporting is far more effective than three nations operating individually.
As we can see, this bill is more carrot than stick. I hope that the stick of fines, investigations, naming and shaming will not have to be used too frequently. I am hoping that the carrot will create a high level of compliance deep into the business community to the benefit of us all.
While due diligence legislation may be ultimately the way to go, it is not what is on offer today. Properly executed at this time, I am prepared to trade a high level of compliance from a massively greater number of companies in exchange for a low level of compliance from very few companies.
Finally, this is what others have said about this legislation.
Matt Friedman, CEO of the Mekong Club, who has been in this business for around 30 years, stated, “The importance of this legislation is that it will educate Canadian companies/government agencies about this issue; help companies to look deeper into their supply chains to better understand their potential vulnerability; and ensure that those involved do what is needed to keep workers safe all over the world. It will also allow consumers to see which companies are stepping up to address this topic.”
Michael Messenger, president of World Vision, stated, “Canadians don’t want to be inadvertently contributing to the child labour crisis every time they shop. As child labour and risky imports continue to rise,—”
They have over the four years that we have been on this file.
“—supply chain laws are imperative to Canada’s efforts to protect and promote the rights of boys and girls around the world. With supply chain laws in place, consumers, companies, and the federal government will be able to work together to ensure every purchase in Canada is an ethical one.”
Stephen Pike, a partner with Gowling WLG, stated, “Bill S-211 has made outstanding progress to date through the legislative process. The House of Commons should take this unique opportunity right now to advance the interests of Canada and all Canadians in the fight against forced labour and child labour in supply chains.”
Lastly, Chris Crewther, the MP for Mornington in the Parliament of Victoria in Australia, stated, “When I was a Federal Member of Parliament...I instigated, led and undertook the Inquiry into Australia establishing a Modern Slavery Act, produced the recommendations in 'Hidden in Plain Sight', and brought about Australia's Modern Slavery Act....”
“It has transformed the way Australian businesses, organizations and society looks at the crimes of modern slavery, resulting not only in entities paying attention to and reporting annually on modern slavery in their organizations...but working more deeply to actually look into, eliminate and remediate modern [supply chain] slavery....”
“...I've always adopted the saying: 'don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.' Thus, I encourage Canadian parliamentarians to see [this Bill] through....”
Madam Speaker, this bill is timely, it is broadly supported, it has ministerial buy-in and it puts our nation in a position of leadership. I recommend it to you and to our colleagues.
2032 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 4:11:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find the motion actually pretty easy to vote against. Whoever wrote the motion has been quite brilliant at describing the issue, but not nearly so brilliant at describing the solution.
You might be interested in knowing, Madam Speaker, that I do all the family shopping. I also do the gas purchases and I buy materials for the house. I remember buying two-by-fours during COVID and I had to go to three stores to try to just get one two-by-four and the cost was 100% more than I paid in years previous. I agree with the description of high inflation for everyone, that gas is more expensive and that the cost of food is up. I have experienced that personally.
What the hon. members from the Conservative Party do not seem to realize is that the supply chains were pretty badly messed up during COVID. Some were out because the countries were locked down. Some were not able to produce the products they had previously. Take for instance, microchips. We could not get any microchips for anything, including a car. Again, within my experience we live in a neighbourhood where we bought a couple of cars and for a considerable period of time there were no cars on the car lot. In fact, we could buy a used car for what we paid a year or two previously for a new car. Just a simple thing like microchips has in and of itself driven up the cost of living quite dramatically.
Add to that the great resignation. People simply do not want to do the jobs that they were doing pre-COVID and that in turn has driven up the cost of labour. I took note in the Report on Business Magazine last weekend that the Royal Bank of Canada has just given a 3% increase across the board to all of its staff because it knows it has difficulty recruiting and retaining staff. We have had representations from Irving, which is building our warships. Its biggest challenge is, again, recruiting and retaining staff, even with substantive increases in salary.
Add to that the Putin war, which took supply chains that were really badly messed up by COVID and only made them more difficult. Sanctions do mean something. They mean that certain products that we are used to purchasing simply cannot be purchased any longer from the Russian-based sources. Add to that the fact that Canada is about 2% of the world's economy. We are in effect inflation takers as opposed to inflation makers. Even for products that we have in substantive quantities such as oil and gas, wheat and various other mineral products, we do not actually get to set the prices. The prices get set by places other than Canada. As I say, we are price-takers, not price makers. We are inflation takers. We are not inflation makers.
On a point of information, as much as the Conservative Party would wish to pin the inflation upon the Prime Minister, I would suggest respectfully that it is a bridge too far even for them.
What is the Conservative solution? The Conservative solution is a reduced consumption tax, and if we do that on the GST and the tax on carbon, everything will be resolved. That is possibly the worst idea ever. Any economist in Canada will say, with the notable exception of Stephen Harper, that if we want to generate government revenues we should be taxing consumption and we should be reducing the tax on labour.
Income tax is a tax on labour. Consumption tax is a tax on consumption. In effect, it is taxing the person who works hard and reducing the taxes on the person who plays hard. If we reduce the consumption tax, it is practically a guarantee that large oil and gas companies and other companies as well will backfill with price increases, and I would expect that our Conservative friends would have recognized that before drafting this motion. The consumer gets no relief. The government revenues are drained. Rich companies get richer, and the working person gets increased income tax. Hardly what one would describe as a brilliant solution.
Finally, there is carbon pricing. The most effective way to reduce carbon consumption, short of turning down the thermostat or reducing unnecessary travel, is to apply a tax to it. If, in fact, the tax is collected and applied as it should be, then, in the end, the lower-income families will actually receive rebates in the mail. In Ontario, that means $745, and in Alberta, it means something in the order of just over a thousand bucks.
There are those who say they cannot adjust. For some that is actually true. For others it is simply a lifestyle choice. However, if we are going to be serious about carbon reduction, then we have to apply this sort of tax, which has repeatedly demonstrated to be the most effective way to reduce carbon consumption.
Given that inflation is real, given that we are just 2% of the world's economy, given that we are a trading nation and highly dependent upon external trade, given that the Putin war will not end any time soon and given that inflation is well beyond the Bank of Canada target, what is a relatively small but prosperous economy to do?
We will start with some of our strengths. We have a relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio, possibly the best in the G7. It is the same thing with jobs, as we have had 115% job recovery in the post-COVID era. We have a number of products that the rest of the world wants. There are, frankly, more jobs available here than there are people to fill them. Something about over a million positions are begging for people. Again, we have heard that from various employers who are looking for people to fill positions and simply cannot find them, so we are in a relatively strong position.
Then there are some direct relief measures. The Canada child benefit in my riding is worth over $100 million per year. That is a significant relief to those constituents of mine who have children. The $10-a-day child care plan, which is just being rolled out in Ontario, will help a lot of people and it will make a significant difference in terms of the choices that those who wish to take advantage of the program have. In some instances, particularly during the earlier part of this government, we were able to reduce the tax margin for those with lower incomes and apply relief to those who actually needed it the most.
However, we should recognize that the Bank of Canada is the main player here. It has control over monetary policy. The Bank of Canada's monetary policy is independent from government, as it should be. It is possibly the worst idea in the world to have the government control monetary policy because government interests and central bank interests are not always lined up. As an example of that, I might point to Turkey, where the government of the day has taken over monetary policy. That has led to something in the order of 70% inflation. The central bank has renewed its 2% target. We need to recognize that interest rates are going to rise and possibly even dramatically rise.
Our strong monetary policy is our most effective weapon. We have a relatively decent fiscal position. We do not need to yield to the siren song of reduced consumption taxes.
1270 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank an abundance of colleagues who have been very instrumental in getting this bill to where it is now. First and foremost I thank Senator Miville-Dechêne, who shepherded this through the Senate of Canada, and my friend and colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who has been very helpful as well.
I also want to acknowledge other friends, who are in the chamber as we speak. I expect they are supportive of this initiative and I want to thank them. I am rather hoping that just before the end of the hour, the debate will cease and we will move to have a recorded division at the first available opportunity.
First and foremost, I want members to feel the garments they are wearing. Do we know for certain that the garments we are wearing are free of supply chain slavery? When we go home tonight and open a can of tomato paste or a seafood dish, will we be absolutely certain that there is no element of slavery in the supply chain that brought that product to us?
A lot of us take pride in trying to reduce our GHG emissions, so I, like many others, have a couple of solar panel arrays. Am I sure that the components of those solar panels, or the solar panels themselves, are free of supply chain slavery?
I ask these questions because cotton, solar panels, tomato paste and seafood products have all been traced to slave-like conditions overseas. Report after report and American customs officials indicate that these products and many others are produced by forced labour and/or child labour, and we innocent, or maybe ignorant, Canadian consumers are complicit in this noxious practice.
In 2016, it was estimated that 34 billion dollars' worth of goods sold by over 1,200 Canadian companies were infected by supply chain slavery. A World Vision survey estimates that four billion dollars' worth of food products, primarily from Mexico, including coffee, fish, tomatoes, cane sugar and cocoa, are among the most common products of slave labour.
Cotton from Xinjiang is produced by Uighur slaves. Cobalt from the Congo is mined by children, and it goes into all the electric vehicles we are hoping to produce. In Canada, agricultural workers are particularly at risk, as are hotel maintenance workers.
I could use up my entire time here listing the human rights abuses of our fellow global citizens. The assumption of this bill is that different consumption choices would be made if there was a readily available source of knowledge. Neither I nor anybody else wishes to be the unwitting supporters of slavery. As William Wilberforce, possibly the greatest parliamentarian of the British Westminster system, once said, we may choose to look the other way, but we can never say we did not know.
What is to be done? Bill S-211 is a modest proposal to bring transparency to our supply chains, and if properly implemented, it could actually make a big impact. The preamble defines the issue and cites numerous international labour conventions to which Canada is a signatory. The purpose clause imposes reporting requirements on governments and business entities in Canada.
Part 1 binds government institutions in the bill. As legislators, we could hardly expect the companies of Canada to be bound by this kind of legislation if we are not prepared to bind ourselves. Part 2 binds entities producing or selling in Canada with similar reporting obligations as governments. The business entities must either be listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange or meet two out of three criteria: $20 million in assets, $40 million in sales or 250 employees.
The next part of the legislation sets out the annual report, what it needs to say and who can sign it. We see this as a rough equivalent to a letter to the auditor. We then outline the authority of the Minister of Public Safety, including his or her right to examine and seize records and the ability to compel compliance.
The final section deals with offences and punishment. Some may query why the $250,000 fine is so low. The reason is that we feel that transparency and accountability is far more of a sanction. In other words, the real teeth in the bill are the abilities to name and shame. The bill would also allow for the imposition of a fine levied against the directors and not just the company.
Part 3 proposes an electronic registry that is publicly accessible, along with a report to Parliament and a five-year review thereafter. It is almost a certainty that future parliamentarians will want to improve and strengthen this bill, as we all gain some experience with it.
Finally, I want to review the journey of this bill. I, as well as other members, have been around here long enough to remember our friend Bob Nault. The journey of this bill began in his office when he introduced us to British parliamentarians who had just implemented a bill such as this in 2015, which was subsequently improved upon in 2019. The Australian Parliament passed a similar bill in 2018. France has an extremely tough bill, but it applies only to very large corporations. In 2019, the Netherlands passed a child labour due diligence act, and six months ago, Germany did much the same.
In the last election, both the Conservative and Liberal parties made platform commitments to introduce legislation to “eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains”. Four ministers have similar commitments in their mandate letters. In the 42nd Parliament, the foreign affairs committee submitted a report and a recommendation for such a bill.
Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians say that they want something done, and 75% of respondents from the Schulich School of Business said that a transparency law would drive change and benefit their businesses. This is an idea whose time has come, and it may be that the Canadian public is actually way ahead of us.
I will end with what my good friend Senator Miville-Dechêne had to say as she concluded her remarks in the other place. She said, “I would say that S-211 seeks to make a modest contribution to a broader and longer-term objective”. This is, according to the senator, namely aligning our businesses “and economic activities with the imperatives of social and environmental sustainability.” She says, “Canada has made many commitments internationally, but we have yet to [translate] them in our [national] legislation.”
It is worth repeating that we are a little late. Senator Miville-Dechêne continued, “Canada is a rich, free and modern society” committed “in principle” to the defence of human rights. She says that if we are unable to act forcefully “to limit modern slavery practices in our supply chains, we...risk...losing the moral [stature] that we cherish”, and we would look like “hypocrites”. She states that does not want that.
So said my friend, Senator Miville-Dechêne, and I second her sentiments.
I am looking forward to questions, and I am also looking forward to an early referral of this bill to the foreign affairs committee. As I said, I look forward to what colleagues might say. I am thankful for their time and attention.
1279 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/22 5:10:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, the hon. member described the problem with excellence, but his allocation of fault may be a little faulty. I was wondering how the hon. member thinks that the Government of Canada has much to do with the supply of microchips to make cars go. I have made the same observation that he has. Car lots are empty.
Members should know that the hon. member is quite an outstanding mechanic, and had won several awards for his work prior to being an MP. However, I am not sure that his speech is actually such an outstanding description of the issues.
Could the member tell me what the Government of Canada has to do, for instance, with the issue of supplies, or input costs, or grain or other necessities? These are just issues that are worldwide, and we are the unhappy recipients of that reality.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 3:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that so many colleagues remained behind in order to hear my great thoughts on the Speech from the Throne. It is very kind of them. I appreciate that. I do take note that a few are heading for the exits.
The point that I was making prior to question period had to do with interest rates and that the Bank of Canada's governor had indicated that there would be movement on the interest rates. Therefore, the ultralow rates that we have had and enjoyed, indeed, for the last number of months and years are likely to end, with significant consequences.
I also take note that the Government of Canada has locked in a lot of its debt in ultralow extensive securities, so that in and of itself will reduce the cost of interest.
The third point I want to make is that a significant number of the major support programs instituted by the House and by the government over the last year and months were terminated on October 23, and that is a significant reduction in the fiscal stimulus that was in the economy. There is no question. The debt to GDP has gone from 29% to 49% over the course of the pandemic, as the Government of Canada used its fiscal firepower to alleviate the genuine suffering of the people of Canada.
I would just like to point out in passing that eight out of every 10 pandemic dollars were spent by the federal government, in part because the fiscal situation of the federal government is arguably the strongest of any G7 nation. We used that fiscal firepower in order to alleviate the suffering of Canadians, largely supported in the House may I say, but it did contribute to the rise in debt. Provincial governments, on the other hand, had no significant rise in their debt to GDP, so the financial burden of the pandemic thus far has largely rested on the shoulders of the federal government.
The fifth point is the interesting contradiction with the low unemployment rate in Canada. I know this was subject to some discussion during question period. Members will recollect that, as the pandemic began, the rate shot up to, I think, 13%. It is now below 6% and in some jurisdictions even lower than that.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you and I and everyone else in the House are fairly fresh off asking people questions at the door and getting responses, but businesses are desperately looking for workers. Every time we talk to anybody who is an employer, we hear that their biggest problem is just getting qualified workers. In fact, all kinds of incentives and all kinds of training are needed just to get workers. Hence, that has led to a significantly low unemployment rate.
The seventh point has been this discussion about supply chains. There is no question that the supply chains have been disrupted. This is actually a pretty significant problem because the policy of all governments, all western nations, has been that they will go to the cheapest possible supply source. That, in turn, has led to vulnerabilities in our supply chain, and those vulnerabilities in turn have been shown to be very serious during a pandemic crisis. We will hear a lot of conversation about reshoring, shortening the supply chains, etc. I would encourage that.
While we are encouraging that, I would put in a plug for my private member's bill on modern-day slavery, and we will have the opportunity to eliminate slavery from our supply chain.
I see from your body language, Madam Speaker, that you seem to think that I should be finishing this speech. Because you are the Speaker and because I respect the traditions of the House, I will yield and I look forward to the members' questions.
643 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/21 12:46:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, the narrative of the Conservative Party in particular has been to blame the Government of Canada for all inflation ills.
However, putting that aside for the time being, I would be interested in the member's comments on the mismatch between supply and demand. There is a buildup of demand over the course of the pandemic because people had no place to go, no place to spend, and then there is now a huge demand for goods and services. That has been interrupted by supply chain problems. I would be interested in the member's thoughts as that affects inflation.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
