- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Bloc Québécois
- Thérèse-De Blainville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $122,743.44
- Government Page
- Oct/31/23 12:29:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to summarize our motion as follows: We want the federal government to review its immigration targets starting in 2024. I realize the government may have a new plan tomorrow. The main thing we are asking for in this motion is consultations with Quebec, the provinces and the territories. Our motion's goal, its objective, is successful immigration, immigration that takes into account our integration capacity and promotes a welcoming and humanistic approach to immigration.
Quebec is a welcoming nation. We recognize that immigration makes an essential contribution to Quebec's economic vitality and its social and cultural fabric. While we acknowledge the value of immigration, we also have a duty and a responsibility to do everything we can to make it successful. That is the purpose of our motion. Quebec society demands a debate on the immigration targets Canada wants to impose on us and the sometimes ideological reasons why.
Quebec is demanding to be consulted and urging the Canadian government to reassess its immigration targets based on its integration capacity. Quebec's minister of immigration, francization and integration, Ms. Fréchette, has been very clear about this.
This debate needs to occur; it is a good thing. Failing to consider accommodation and integration services available to those who welcome new immigrants—meaning the territories, provinces, Quebec, cities and regions—and failing to consider the services they are able to provide shows a total lack of respect. It also demonstrates a lack of compassion and recognition for the immigrants we receive.
Immigration is a deeply human issue that must be handled with sensitivity. This discussion with Quebec is essential for us, because Quebec has its own specific reality. Quebec has a duty to preserve its language, French, and its culture. Within the English geographic space of North America, we have developed resiliency and expertise in preserving the French fact. The federal government must recognize and respect this ability.
However, we know the federal government has not done any studies on the effects of immigration thresholds on the demolinguistic reality and vitality of the French language. Even though Quebec controls portions of its immigration, the rapid decline in the weight of French in Canada means federal immigration thresholds will have a significant impact in Quebec.
Quebec just held public consultations within its borders on strategic immigration planning from 2024 to 2027. Many civil society stakeholders participated. This consultation was not the first. There was also one in 2019, and others were held before that. I participated myself as a civil society member.
That deserves to be commended, because consultations like this fuel public debate on our vision for our collective future as it relates to immigration and the conditions needed for its success. It is a democratic exercise with nothing but positive benefits for living together in harmony. Quebec is proud of the language, culture and deep-rooted values that have characterized and defined Quebeckers as a people throughout our history. We have a duty to preserve and promote them. French language training, newcomer and integration services are vital to a compassionate immigration system.
That is also the case for the capacity to provide infrastructure such as housing and strong public services in education and health. This also applies to social services, child care, justice services, services related to human rights and a multitude of other areas. That is both the challenge and cornerstone of integration capacity, and not taking that into account would be irresponsible.
These legitimate concerns seem totally abstract to the federal government. The immigration targets it is proposing are seen and weighed from one single economic perspective, that of the labour shortage. The government goes so far as to claim that there will be no problem, since the immigrants will fill the shortage in the construction sector with their tools and their two-by-fours to build their own housing. It really is nonsense, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois would rightly say.
On a more serious note, various statistics demonstrate the positive effect of immigration in certain sectors of the economy, but this needs to be qualified. The labour shortage is being blamed for everything. To think that immigration is the only way to fix it is to take a narrow view of things. If we look at education or health care, for example, the labour shortage does not always mean a lack of personnel. Sometimes, it is more a question of working conditions and work organization. This is true in many sectors.
That is why Quebec needs to rely on more than just immigration. It must also rely on robust training and accreditation programs. Immigration does play a role, as the numbers show. However, it is not a cure-all. Economists like Pierre Fortin in Quebec believe that increasing immigration has virtually no long-term impact on labour shortages. Indeed, when the labour force is increased, the demand for goods and services also goes up. One increase leads to another. It is therefore a mistake to base an immigration policy entirely on economic considerations.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that immigrants are often the primary victims of the federal government's excessive thresholds. There is a lack of infrastructure to integrate these people, and the scant housing available is unaffordable. Ultimately, many newcomers are overcome with anguish and a feeling of betrayal.
It is high time that Ottawa woke up and realized that this kind of immigration harms everyone. Before setting its thresholds, the federal government has an absolute responsibility and duty to consult with Quebec and the provinces, which receive these immigrants, and to ensure that there is sufficient integration capacity to be compassionate and to provide everyone with decent services.
961 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:47:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I still cannot believe what I just heard during my colleague's speech.
The NDP's Quebec lieutenant has a duty to defend the interests of Quebeckers. However, the interests of Quebeckers are also shaped by the fact that they are a minority. Quebec is making use of the only constitutional provision available to protect its right to live in French, to protect its right to social harmony and to its identity as a people, and to preserve the nation. These are laws passed by the National Assembly.
I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have a tepid stance on these issues and not fundamentally recognize the right of Quebec and the provinces to use the notwithstanding clause in order to protect what is dearest to them: preserving their laws and the right of elected officials to decide by and for themselves instead of leave this issue up to the courts.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today as the Bloc Québécois critic for disability inclusion.
The government has introduced a bill that aims to improve the financial situation of Canadians with disabilities and of working age. The bill is intended to address certain gaps in the social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.
I think that this is an important goal, and I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle. We believe that it is important that Canadians have access to a strong social safety net and that it is the government’s role to ensure that they do. Today’s Quebec is built on these same principles, and we can only support any initiatives in this vein that could be of benefit to Quebecers.
However, as it stands, Bill C-22 is woefully incomplete. Beyond the principle of solidarity and financial assistance for people with disabilities, the government gives no details on the form the benefit will take. We all know that the devil is in the details. We believe that this is a major shortcoming and that the bill should be enhanced and, especially, fleshed out.
Right now, 22% of Canadians live with a disability. That is almost one out of every four. Unfortunately, we know that almost a third of all Canadians with disabilities live under the poverty line and that the unemployment rate for most of this group is higher. In Quebec alone, 37% of people with disabilities live on an income of less than $15,000 a year.
In the government’s online survey, which we heard about before actually getting a hold of it through the library, 70% of respondents indicated that financial security should be the government’s main priority.
The same respondents indicated that they found it hard to cover the costs associated with living with a disability. These include housing costs, medical costs and the cost of goods and services to assist people with disabilities.
It is also important to remember that the pandemic made their financial hardship even worse. The COVID-19 crisis had an impact on the general health of Canadians with disabilities, and many had a hard time obtaining the assistance and services they had access to before.
The government finally decided to send out a one-time payment of $600, an amount that is wholly insufficient to provide relief and help people meet their present and future needs. Frankly, it is high time that the government took this seriously. People with disabilities have waited long enough.
A majority of groups and unions are in favour of this benefit, but only because the existing federal programs fall short. For example, the people with disabilities who are most in need cannot access the disability tax credit.
Just 2.2% of the population in Quebec applies for the tax credit, even though 16% of Quebeckers live with a disability and are eligible. It is complicated to apply for the credit and not everyone with a disability is eligible. Furthermore, as one of my colleagues pointed out, there is an issue with the French word “handicap” and its meaning. There is a difference between the meanings of the French words “incapacité” and “handicap”, and some people do not consider they have a “handicap”.
The minister's action plan for people with disabilities includes employment, but its definition of disability and associated issues needs updating. Eligibility, for one thing, needs to be clear.
I would also like to talk about the registered disability savings plan, the RDSP, a federally subsidized program that enables people with disabilities to save a lifetime maximum of $90,000. Only 26.6% of Quebeckers eligible for the disability tax credit participate in this program.
The point is, there are programs, but people, especially Quebeckers, do not really know about them, and they tend to be flawed. We know that 59% of people believe that supports available to people with disabilities fail to ensure a decent quality of life. The government needs to realize that, and it is time to get serious about dealing with this issue.
Now, 89% of Canadians support a benefit for persons with disabilities. In Quebec, it is 91%. Plus, 66% of Canadians believe that the ability to work and to receive financial support are the most important factors to consider in determining measures to improve financial security.
Bill C-22 seems to be moving in the right direction there. However, at this point, I cannot say for certain whether Bill C‑22 addresses the public's concerns. It is essentially a blank page. It sets out the broad principles, but all of the details, criteria and dollar amounts will be decided through regulations to be made by the minister.
I am going to take the liberty of pointing out a few aspects that should be clarified, in order to help the government flesh this out. When will this happen? Our biggest concern is that the government has not given itself a timeline.
The federal government is planning a three-year consultation process to work out the details of this benefit. Many people are concerned that the process is going to drag on and the benefit is not going to be created any time soon.
While it is important to recognize the value of consultation, it must not become a barrier to implementing measures that are needed now. We cannot let the government drag this out with endless consultations, as it did with employment insurance reform, even though the solutions are clear.
I should add that it is very disappointing that we are debating this Bill C‑22 now when a similar bill had been introduced in June 2021. Unfortunately, Bill C‑35 died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister got election fever. Sadly, people with disabilities are the ones who are now paying for that delay, because they are still waiting.
Who will receive this new benefit? Those are the people the minister must focus on. Bill C‑22 is rather mum on that question. Other than mentioning working-age persons with disabilities, it does not define anything.
The Bloc Québécois believes the benefit should cover as many persons with disabilities as possible, which is why it is important to have a broad, modern definition. Most importantly, the benefit needs to be easy to use and understand. I think we need to learn from our mistakes.
What will be the actual financial repercussions of this benefit? No one has any idea how much money will be granted. According to several groups, this benefit needs to lift people out of poverty, and we agree. It is not enough to reduce poverty.
Again, we have no clear idea of the terms of the benefit, other than the fact that it targets working-age people and will be considered an income supplement.
Bill C‑22 merely states an intention to reduce poverty. What we need, in the long term, is to eliminate poverty, not just reduce it.
How can we do that?
Finally, the government's bill gives absolutely no indication as to how this benefit will be created. The bill does not say if Ottawa itself will deliver the benefit or if the federal government plans to transfer the money to Quebec and the other provinces for them to deliver the benefit. It is not clear whether this benefit will be paid on top of what already exists in the provinces. It is mentioned, but not specified.
Virtually all the terms and conditions of the benefit will be determined through regulations made by the minister; they have not been included in the bill. Members will therefore understand why I feel so uncomfortable voting blindly for such a bill.
I hope the minister will listen to this one point that I really want to emphasize. Overlap between programs must be considered. Programs already exist in Quebec and in the provinces to support things like health care costs, transportation allowances, grants for special equipment, employment supports, and the list goes on.
The provinces must be allowed to adapt the program to their own realities. It is imperative that the federal government respect provincial jurisdictions and existing programs, and the new benefit must complement what already exists, as called for by all the stakeholders. We are waiting for the government to clarify these issues.
I would like to add that we believe that helping people with disabilities must not stop there. In fact, the throne speech promised an action plan for this issue, but we are still waiting for it.
According to the government's latest consultation, 45% of respondents said that they would prefer being reimbursed for disability-related costs as a way to improve their financial security, and 28% want tailored measures to ensure they have income security at different stages or transitions in their lives. We need to be able to increase assistance when someone with a disability experiences a change in their financial situation or a decline in their health. In addition, 17% want better access to existing government supports and services.
It is good to create new programs that meet a need, but we must also ensure that we optimize the programs that already exist. We must also improve employment assistance. I would remind members that 59% of Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80% of Canadians without disabilities. That shows that we have a problem. These people want to work but do not have the same opportunities as those who are not disabled. Furthermore, Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 earn less than Canadians without disabilities. In fact, those with mild disabilities earn 12% less, and those with more severe disabilities earn 51% less. That is a substantial difference.
Therefore, there is an equity issue that we must address. Of those consulted, 67% noted they need to be equipped to succeed through workplace accommodations; 57% want help developing skills and obtaining appropriate training to get a job; 51% said they want support looking for quality jobs; and 70% said that employers must provide a work environment that is supportive of persons with disabilities. The government must tackle all these issues.
In closing, I would like to reiterate a few key points. The Bloc Québécois supports the general principle of the bill because it is high time that people with disabilities, particularly those living in poverty, got the help they need to live a decent life.
However, the government needs to do its job. People with disabilities deserve better than a blank page and statements like “we will see” and “trust us”. We hope that the minister will soon give us more details so that we can comment on the substance of the bill, not just the form.
1852 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of the bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, which seeks to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks.
I welcome the bill, but I am sorry to see that we are still at this point. We nearly made it to the finish line in the last session. Bill C-265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefit from 15 to 50, made it through the committee stage. Sick workers were finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.
Unfortunately, as we know, the bill required a royal recommendation, which was never given. Then we were left with nothing, because an election was called. Only the government knows why it was called. It is a total mystery, like the Caramilk secret.
I would never put it the same as the member for Lévis—Lotbinière did, and I am surprised he did not say it, but after 10 years of struggle and multiple bills, it is a disgrace that we are still at this point.
Nevertheless, I will try to avoid giving a history lesson and instead look to the future, because this bill is fundamentally about hope. It represents the possibility for sick workers to look forward to the future with optimism and with the tools they need to recover in dignity.
Supporting this bill is a matter of consistency and willingness to listen. The weeks of sickness benefits have one purpose: to give insured workers the time to heal while maintaining their employment relationship and to offer them income to support their needs.
To be consistent, these benefits need to be tailored to every type of illness. Some call for more time than others.
During the implementation of the original program of 15 weeks of sickness benefits 50 years ago, 82% of workers had to take more than 16 weeks to recover before returning to work. The program was already flawed because it was demonstrated that recovery took longer than 15 weeks. It seems to me that it would be logical to adjust this measure to make it meet its primary mission, namely to provide the necessary number of weeks of benefits for people to recover from any type of illness.
The government has been talking a lot about science. Science obviously needs to have a role, but what do science and research currently tell us? They tell us that on average, in cases of serious illness, a person needs at least 40 weeks to recover. The current program offers 15 weeks, but this inconsistency is not new. We have to rectify this.
A number of people spoke out against the situation and called for change. People have been saying for years that 15 weeks is not enough. The government needs to listen.
It needs to listen to Émilie Sansfaçon, who dedicated her final years to this cause and who was calling for 50 weeks. The government must listen and it must acknowledge the hard work done by Marie‑Hélène Dubé and the 619,000 signatures she collected in support of increasing the number of weeks of sickness benefits. Ms. Dubé has been advocating for this for 10 years.
Seven bills have already been introduced in the House on the same issue. One such bill was introduced by Denis Coderre and received the support of the current Liberal Prime Minister, who was an opposition member at the time.
Listening also involves being logical. We must acknowledge the many bills that have already been introduced in the House and address this issue.
We have had debates about this, we have had studies, recommendations and committee reports. It is time to stop dithering and get this done. At this point, all we need is the political will.
In its most recent budget, the government decided to increase the number of benefit weeks to 26. That will not happen until July. Recently, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said that it might even take another three months because the computer systems are not ready. Apparently they are too old to handle these changes.
My question is, why stop at 26 weeks? Why stop halfway when we know that it takes people at least 40 weeks to get better?
The government was supposed to fix things once and for all for workers who contribute to EI, get sick and need protection.
There is private insurance and there is public insurance. These are not the workers we are talking about, because 60% of workers do not have private insurance. They cannot afford private insurance.
I would remind members that a majority of the House of Commons voted in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion to that effect. At least 50 weeks are needed. On June 17, 2021, when the Émilie Sansfaçon bill was being studied in committee, it passed unanimously, without amendment. It was just a matter of will.
The bill also raises a fundamental question. As we figure out how to live in harmony with one another, what values should we base that on? For me, it is fairly obvious. It is about compassion. Workers need to be able to recover from an illness without falling into poverty.
We hear some real horror stories. Some people are forced to use up all of their savings, while others have to remortgage their homes to survive financially. Some manage to get by, because they have enough savings and a good family and support network. Others are forced to fend for themselves. It makes no sense to leave people in such poverty.
From the beginning of this parliamentary session, the government has been trying to convince us that it must intervene in health, trampling on provincial jurisdictions in the process. It now has an opportunity to take meaningful action that will have a real impact on people's health, while remaining within its own areas of jurisdiction. Will the government seize this golden opportunity?
I am appealing to our compassion. We have to allow workers to recover with dignity. It is a matter of justice. Need I remind members that this money belongs to workers and employers? That is how the employment insurance system works. A worker who contributed to the system their entire life and gets sick should be entitled to enough weeks of benefits to recover. It is as simple as that. It is their money after all. It is only fair that they have access to it.
The government justifies its half‑measure by invoking the argument of cost. It says that it is too costly. It would not cost $2 billion, but $1 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this would cost roughly $1.1 billion more a year.
The government's upcoming budget presents an opportunity. Given that the government is going to spend billions of dollars on issues that are not its own priorities, it must be able to invest $1 billion to correct such a serious injustice toward sick workers.
The member who spoke before me talked about employment insurance reform. There have been calls for such reform for years. The Liberal government promised to reform the system in 2015. It needs to happen now.
There are two opportunities to take action: the budget and employment insurance reform. This needs to happen today, not tomorrow.
1282 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:21:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his passionate, fascinating and informative speech.
Yesterday I mentioned the Maple Spring, a big social crisis that occurred in Quebec. I was wondering whether the Emergencies Act, which we will be voting on today, would have applied to Quebec. Indeed, the act states that it will be enforced throughout Canada, regardless of what the provinces and Quebec think of it.
There is a big elephant in the room. The Prime Minister made a thinly veiled threat about this being a confidence vote. Shortly after that, in the media, the NDP leader gave his unequivocal support to this motion.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:02:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I find even more irritating is that they are downplaying the situation. We, the parliamentarians, are being asked to adopt a motion to confirm the proclamation of the Emergencies Act, but they are downplaying its scope.
They are acting like we are voting on an ordinary bill, but it is anything but. It is an extraordinary bill. I really do not understand why the other side of the House is resorting to this law, which has never been applied in over 30 years. They decided that it is the solution and that it is okay to use it. Someone is complaining on the other side of the street? The Emergencies Act will fix that. It is inconceivable. It is disgraceful. In a democracy, it is truly—
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:50:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to the people in my riding of Thérèse‑De Blainville, and thanking the many constituents who have sent messages of support for the position taken by my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I on the blockade in downtown Ottawa and in this debate on the Emergencies Act.
People have very legitimate questions, worries and concerns. We have listened carefully, and they have been heard. We also heard their heartfelt pleas that they never again wanted to experience or be afraid of experiencing the worst, that is events such as those of 1970, when the War Measures Act was invoked. The collective trauma and the fear experienced are still vivid and painful memories for an entire nation, namely, the people of Quebec.
I forgot to mention that, in the spirit of solidarity, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Repentigny. We stand twice as united.
Of course, the Emergencies Act is not the same as the War Measures Act. We know the difference. The former is nevertheless the spawn of the latter, as our leader so aptly put it. Although these two acts must not be conflated, they do have one thing in common: They are both special laws. This means that the exception should not be the rule or become the norm in dealing with situations or events that can be resolved using other means, whether political or legal, or through laws already in place. Any government that is even considering using the Emergencies Act must demonstrate unequivocally that all avenues have been pursued and all options have been exhausted.
Isaac Newton said that we should only be certain about what can be proven. I am certain that the Emergencies Act is not necessary because the government and the Prime Minister have failed to prove that it is.
On the first day of debate in the House, the Prime Minister described the Emergencies Act as targeted, proportionate and reasonable. That same day, I described it as the opposite. This act is disproportionate and unreasonable. How can he claim that it is targeted when, in fact, its scope is from one end of Canada to the other, whether we need it or not?
One thing the act requires is consultation with the provinces. Even though seven of them said no, even though the Premier of Quebec said no, even though the National Assembly unanimously said no, the federal government does not care. It does not give a fig. That is bad.
To hear the Prime Minister tell it, this is a law of last resort to be used once options 1, 2 and 3 have all failed. Those options did not fail; they were not even tried.
Plans for a protest at the Parliament of Canada in the national capital were announced over three weeks ago now. We knew a convoy of truckers was coming from as far away as Vancouver, bearing a message for the federal government. What steps did the federal government take to prepare? Nobody knows. Did the federal government analyze the potential impact of the protest based on the messages it was expecting to hear from the protestors? Apparently not. It seems to have opted for a wait-and-see approach, which led the protesters to believe they were welcome in Ottawa and could make themselves right at home.
Once the protesters were settled in in front of Parliament Hill and on main downtown arteries, the only thing the Prime Minister deigned to say was that they were a fringe minority. After that, there was no sign of him. A few days later, things got worse. We acknowledge that. We condemn what happened. We do not tolerate these incidents. At that point, the Prime Minister said that it was not up to the government, that it was up to the City of Ottawa and its police service.
Funnily enough, around the same time, I heard a City of Ottawa police officer saying that the police were speaking to protesters, but that the protesters were not interested in talking to the police because they wanted to speak to the Prime Minister. That short message spoke volumes.
In the House, we urged the government to take action and we proposed such solutions as creating a crisis task force, requesting a meeting with the opposition party leaders and the Prime Minister, and emphasizing that coordinated action was necessary. That would have been possible and, in fact, it proved to be possible when law enforcement coordinated their efforts and took down the protest in front of Parliament Hill in two days. No one had been able to take down that protest for three weeks.
The City of Ottawa requested an additional 1,800 police officers, and the federal government sent them 275 RCMP officers. The Prime Minister and his government had options and chose to let the situation drag on. What is worse, the government now wants our blessing for its inaction and is calling on us to vote in favour of using the Emergencies Act, a piece of legislation designed to be used in exceptional circumstances. We will not support the use of this act, because the evidence is clear that the government dropped the ball. Once again, one too many times, the Prime Minister and his government proved themselves to be incapable of managing conflicts.
There is no crisis in the country right now that warrants invoking the Emergencies Act. Yes, for the past 24 days there has been a protest-turned-blockade that is interfering with the peace of mind and safety of downtown Ottawa residents. We condemned this protest and continue to do so. However, the situation can and could have been dealt with long before, with the powers that the police already have and with the legislative tools already available.
The Emergencies Act was passed in 1988, over 30 years ago, and to this day it has never been enacted. The fact that the government is invoking it now is proof of its failure in managing the crisis. We cannot endorse it, because this government has failed to demonstrate that it is needed. Nor can it be considered a “just in case” option.
I heard the Minister of Justice say that this legislation is being invoked in case the protesters come back or in case the situation in Windsor becomes destabilized. The Emergencies Act is there to deal with an ongoing situation, not to prevent one in the future or to act retroactively on a past situation. The minister should know that, because it is an essential principle of natural justice.
There is one option that we would support, and that is for the government to withdraw this motion and to admit that it was wrong. That would take courage and humility. If that is not possible, we would be satisfied with an apology from the Prime Minister. We know that he is capable of giving them.
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:42:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his excellent speech. I completely agree that it does not make sense to criminalize penalties for certain offences when we could be focusing on rehabilitation.
We have some experience with this in Quebec. What would my colleague say the federal government needs to do in order to support what the provinces are already doing?
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
