- Member of Parliament
- Whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Board of Internal Economy
- Bloc Québécois
- Salaberry—Suroît
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,425.78
- Government Page
- Jun/7/24 12:15:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Shefford, who does essential work as the Bloc Québécois critic on issues having to do with seniors.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 4:34:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Shefford.
I rise today to speak about a topic I am passionate about. I am a social worker. I spent my career supporting seniors who wished to live at home, as well as seniors living in long-term care centres. I could say that I will be giving a speech, but it is more like a first-hand account, because this morning, quite frankly, I could not believe my ears. I could not believe the outrageous remarks I was hearing on the issue of medical assistance in dying.
I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has a humanist vision of medical assistance in dying. Our focus is on the importance of the individual's right to dignity, to free and informed consent and, most of all, to self-determination. That means that I am the best person to decide what will happen to me, because I am making a free and informed choice.
I want to tell the House a story, but I should mention that it is not a very pleasant one. As I said, I am a social worker, and I have kept up my membership in my professional association, because I think that is very important. Today, I am addressing my colleagues as both a member of Parliament and a social worker.
I worked with an elderly lady in a long-term care home. She had multiple sclerosis. She had been living there for years. Slowly, little by little, she lost her autonomy, until all she could do was move her head, swallow, and move two fingers. It was just enough to operate her wheelchair. She asked for medical assistance in dying.
As a social worker, it was my job to professionally assess whether her request was free and informed and whether she was asking for care in a free and informed way. I did my duty. I went to university, so I have clinical knowledge that enabled me to examine her condition, professionally evaluate her and use my clinical judgment to assess the request from this woman who had been suffering for years, confined to her bed.
Imagine what it is like for someone who has to stay in bed all day long, having people turn them over so they do not get bedsores. Imagine what it feels like for someone who can no longer go to the bathroom, who is incontinent, who can no longer scratch their own forehead and has to ring for an attendant to come scratch it for them because it is itchy.
The woman I am talking about made a request for medical assistance in dying. Her request was denied because the members of the multidisciplinary team concluded that this person was not in a condition to make a truly free decision, that she was depressed and that it was not the right time for her to take that step.
When I hear our Conservative friends say all someone has to do is ask and they will get an injection the next day and die, I can tell my colleagues that, as a health professional and a social worker, it is tough to listen to that. As a member of Parliament, I am ashamed, because it is bad to spread misinformation. Just because someone asks for medical assistance in dying does not mean they will get it. There are tons of people around these patients who assess their state of mind and their disease. Together, they decide whether that person can request medical assistance in dying and receive it. We live in a democratic country. People can submit requests. That does not mean anything goes and requests will automatically be granted. This morning, I decided I had better listen to the speeches from my office, because I would have had trouble facing the members who were saying outrageous things.
The same goes for people with disabilities. It seems like some members believe that people with disabilities are not smart, that they cannot make decisions and that they need to be guided. I am sorry, maybe I am getting emotional, but I have profound respect for human beings, and human beings are capable of making decisions about themselves.
I want to reiterate that just because someone requests MAID does not mean they will receive it. The professionals surrounding these people are not naive. They are educated people: doctors, nurses, social workers and occupational therapists. Care providers are professionals.
MAID is a lengthy process in Quebec. Sometimes, people make the request too late. They lose their ability to consent again to the process, and they miss their chance. They suffer because they lost the cognitive capacity to consent one more time to medical assistance in dying.
We agree that today we are discussing a very sensitive and complex issue. There are some members in the House who are really lowering the level of the discussion and debate. Frankly, I feel sick about this, and I repeat that I am ashamed of what I heard this morning.
The Bloc Québécois’s proposal is balanced. We know that Quebec passed a law and wants to allow people to make advance requests. What does that mean? If the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie received a diagnosis of early dementia or Alzheimer’s around the age of 45, he could decide that he did not want to die in a long-term care home, hunched over and completely dependent on others. He would then decide to draft his advance requests and trust those around him so that he could receive medical assistance in dying when all the criteria he described were met. In Quebec we are ready to do that.
Furthermore, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which analyzed the issue for a year, reached the same conclusion, namely that it makes sense. A person who is mentally sound, who has been assessed and wants to make their advance request should be able to do so and, above all, to obtain it.
The bill we have here is very timid. It lacks ambition and political courage. We are abandoning people who, at this very moment, would like to use advance requests because they are suffering from a form of dementia, a kind of incurable neurocognitive disease. They see the end coming, and it is terrible, because it comes with atrocious suffering and complete loss of autonomy.
If I received a diagnosis of early onset dementia and no longer recognized my children and my grandchildren, if I was aggressive, if I defecated in my underwear and did not stop walking all day long because I kept wandering and had no life left, I would want my children to say that I met all the requirements and to ask that they let me go because I would be ready and those were my wishes. In Quebec, this has been recognized. Unfortunately, because this government will not listen to Quebec, it will not allow practitioners, doctors, nurses and social workers to do their work. They could face legal action launched by the family or by a third party. What is going to happen? People in Quebec are really going to suffer because here, in the House, people lack courage and do not want to support the one province that is ready to move to another level. When it comes to advance requests, we are ready.
We in the Bloc Québécois nonetheless agreed that we had not necessarily fully explored the issue of mental disorders and that we needed an extra year to reflect and lay the groundwork. However, three years is too long. Society is moving ahead faster than legislators. Members of the House need to understand they are abandoning people who will suffer.
My grandmother was religious. At age 91, she was suffering terribly and was about to die. She refused morphine because, in her religion, those who suffer go to heaven. She refused care, and she suffered. It was a choice. We respected her choice to suffer so she could go straight to heaven, even though we knew full well she would. She believed she had to suffer. We respected that. She refused all morphine injections. Today, we have made progress. People have the right to choose how they want to leave this earth. I repeat, just because people ask for medical assistance in dying does not mean they will receive it.
Today, I am making a plea from my heart. For everyone who will need it, let us listen to the consensus of Quebec society. Let us listen to Quebeckers, who are saying that Canada can take the time to reflect, but that Quebec is ready and wants permission to do it properly and legally.
1493 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that seniors talk to me about housing, but they mostly talk to me about having the opportunity to work without being taxed, without changing four quarters for a dollar.
The budget could have included measures to make seniors' work more valuable, to prevent them from losing their guaranteed income supplement or prevent them from paying too much in tax. Indeed, seniors perhaps would have wanted to work a bit to stay socially active and improve their living conditions, but there are no tax measures in Bill C‑47 to encourage seniors to go back to work.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will give a very honest answer. Strangely enough, no one talks to me about dental care in my riding.
As many people know, children in Quebec have some coverage. I know the Quebec government has extended coverage to include some people who need surgery but cannot have it because they need dental care before they have their surgery, so it has extended its coverage. The Quebec government made that decision without waiting for Ottawa to decide what it was going to do.
Quite honestly, people are not talking to me about that. Seniors want to talk about the loss of their purchasing power, about having to make difficult choices between groceries, care, rent and leisure activities. They tell me they are feeling so squeezed financially that they have no room to manoeuvre after working their entire lives.
Many seniors who are now 65 or 70 years old do not have a pension plan, even though they worked hard. I am thinking of people who worked as restaurant waitresses, or people who worked hard physically, in factories, for example, and did not have access to a collective agreement that guaranteed a pension plan.
Today these people are worried and do not understand why the government did not think of them when drafting Bill C‑47.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at my advanced age, it is more difficult to concentrate when there is background noise that seems to be coming from the great beyond.
What I was saying is that, basically, what is missing from this budget is real support for seniors. As my Bloc Québécois colleagues have said many times, there are two classes of seniors.
In Quebec and Canada, there are seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 and those aged 75 and up. Seniors aged 75 and up received an increase in their old age security, whereas those between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether my colleagues are aware that a person whose sole income is the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement does not even get enough money a month to pay for decent housing, cover all the rent-related costs and still manage to have a decent and reasonable life. It is rather shameful that a G7 country is unable to take better care of those who built Quebec and contributed to its development. We must give them what they need to live and die in a dignified way.
Roughly 22% of the people in Salaberry—Suroît are seniors 65 and over. Earlier, before the technical problems, I was saying that I attend all the events in my riding, and seniors talk to me and tell me about their problems. They cannot grasp the government's lack of understanding and the fact it does not give them more support in meeting their monthly obligations. If a senior needs home care or to buy services, go to a private seniors residence and pay for services to support their loss of autonomy, quite honestly, that person has to ask for help from the Quebec government, from their province, because what they receive in old age security benefits is not enough to meet their needs.
In this budget there is a serious lack of consideration and esteem for our seniors, those who built the society we have today.
There is another important thing missing. I am sure that people are affected by this. There is nothing about employment insurance reform. The member for Thérèse-De Blainville has often said that it is high time that old legislation were modernized. The minister has made some promises over the years.
Recently, we believed we could start working on the reform because the minister went to the trouble of holding consultations. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois and our partners who support workers were utterly disappointed. There is no EI reform and no major change to the Employment Insurance Act to face the new realities of the labour market and secure better coverage.
In closing, I know that my time is up. Madam Speaker, I hope you gave me the time I lost because of the audio issues during my speech. I imagine you did.
I will conclude by saying that what is important to the Bloc Québécois is to vote for a budget that is really useful and serves Quebec's interests. At present, that is not what we have before us. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget and, consequently, against Bill C‑47.
564 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
What is a budget implementation act? What are we doing right now? The government tabled a budget. In a budget, a government lays out the measures that it intends to take. To implement the measures set out in the budget, legislation must be tabled to execute what is stated in the budget.
I feel I ought to remind all those watching that the budget, which is very lengthy, held many disappointments for the Bloc Québécois. I would like to point them out because I care deeply about seniors, and there is nothing in the budget about them. Every time I organize events in my riding, seniors remind me that they feel like they have been forgotten by this government.
As well, there have been symposia, conferences and studies on the housing crisis. It is well documented that we are in the middle of a housing crisis, yet there are no specific measures in the budget to address that crisis.
Clearly, we are also a long way from the EI reform that the Liberal government has been promising since 2015. There is nothing in the budget on that.
There is also a major disappointment in terms of the environment. This budget still talks about carbon capture and storage, when we have known for many years that this technology is no good, that it is not ready and that it does not get the job done. In a way, the government is using this to ease its conscience with regard to the environment, but in reality, these are just backdoor subsidies for oil companies. Pretty much everyone knows it. By saying that it will fund research into carbon capture and storage, the government is trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes and ease its own conscience.
The funny thing is that, in 2008, when I was the Bloc Québécois critic for natural resources, I participated in a study on carbon capture and storage that reached the same conclusions as are being reached today. The same committee is still conducting studies, still documenting the issue of carbon capture and storage, and still reaching the same conclusions, namely that it is not really the best technology for reducing greenhouse gases. However, it allows the government to assuage its conscience, and in particular, it allows oil companies to feel like they are doing something for the environment.
However, I would like to talk about certain promises and principles that were in the budget but not in the budget implementation act.
I want to talk about the promise that the government made in the budget about anti-scab legislation. I believe that promise to pass anti-scab legislation is even part of the agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP. I am talking about this because I know that my father René is watching right now. He is sort of the reason I am talking about anti-scab legislation, which is so important but which is absent from the budget implementation act. My father was a tradesman for much of his life. He was a union activist who unionized his workplace and always said that it was important to stand up for labourers' working conditions.
Today, there is nothing in the budget implementation act about anti-scab legislation, even though it would have been easy to include it. The budget implementation act is 430 pages long and amends 57 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Act. This lengthy bill also grants royal titles to Charles III. It is a really dense bill, but there is no mention anywhere of the possibility of us passing anti-scab legislation together. It would be very easy to do that, because the Bloc Québécois and the NDP agree. I would imagine the Liberals also agree, since it was mentioned in their budget. I do not understand why the government did not take advantage of its omnibus bill to include a bill that would certainly be supported by three parties in the House.
Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. I think this is long overdue. We are behind the times in not having that legislation, because it is so important for governing the work of our union members.
I raised this issue because my father is watching. He must be proud to hear me defending an issue that he himself defended when he was a union member in his company. He was a sheet metal worker, so he was right on the shop floor. He realized that there were problems with working conditions, so he rallied the workers. He created a union and negotiated for all the workers. It is for his sake that I raised this issue today, and it is also for his sake that I am raising the issue of EI.
The minister's mandate letter mentions EI reform. For years, and even recently, the minister has been telling us that she was holding consultations. However, the consultations have ended. She said she was consulting, but the consultations are over. She will not stop consulting, but everything is documented. There is a consensus that the Employment Insurance Act must be reformed. This is an old act that is not modern, that is not suited to the labour market for either employers or employees.
It is hard to understand why the minister does not see it as a priority. In a way, I both understand and do not understand why. I think she may have good intentions, but it is cabinet, the executive, that does not want to move ahead for the simple reason that the government is using the surplus in the EI fund to pay for the surplus EI claims that it received during the pandemic. Basically, the fund is spending $24 billion to pay for what happened during the pandemic. I will note that people had to leave their jobs not because they wanted to, but because their workplace shut down. They were forced to apply for EI. It is only natural that claims would go up.
The EI fund took out $24 billion to cover all those costs. Now things are a bit better, and it has seven years to balance out. That is the minister's magic excuse, namely that until the account is balanced again, sometime in the next seven years, she cannot move ahead on reform or propose anything else that would improve the Employment Insurance Act. That is bad.
All the spending incurred during the pandemic was covered by the government, but now employer and employee contributions are being used to pay for all the jobs lost during the pandemic. It was not by choice. I think the government could have covered part of the cost and left the money for workers and employers alone, so that everything that is needed to reform the Employment Insurance Act could be done.
It is frankly laughable how every new minister's mandate letter or list of priorities states that this is a priority. It is not really a genuine priority. Every excuse or event gives the minister a reason to put off the reform.
I am very serious about this. The government must stop beating around the bush and reform EI once and for all so that Quebec and Canada can have modern legislation to govern the new reality of the labour market.
The Bloc Québécois will always be there to defend unemployed workers, employers and businesses that are struggling with replacement workers as we speak, such as the Port of Quebec and Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy.
It is very clear which side the Bloc Québécois is on. It is on the right side, the side of the people.
1338 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 2:06:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate the expertise of nearly 16,000 professionals, my fellow social workers.
Social workers can be found in schools, in hospitals, in local community service centres, in shelters, at police stations, in prisons, at community organizations and right here in Parliament. Wherever they go, these agents of change are making things better. They care about every individual's aspirations.
Whether they are working with children, seniors, people with disabilities, or those with different life trajectories, social workers do what they do best, without passing judgment: They take the time to focus on the human in front of them, help them out of their difficulties and empower them. Social workers everywhere are doing good in our world, improving our communities every day and fighting for greater social justice.
I want to thank all these esteemed “SWs” and wish them a happy social workers' week.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is very concerned about the needs of seniors who are feeling pressure because of inflation. Can she tell me what is missing from this economic statement? Can she tell me if she agrees that people between the ages of 65 and 74 should not be entitled to an increase in their old age security? Does she agree with the government's position?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 2:02:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to mark the 30th anniversary of the Table de concertation des aînés de Beauharnois‑Salaberry, a round table on seniors' issues in Beauharnois‑Salaberry.
I applaud the work done by all of the partners to highlight the reality of seniors in the Beauharnois‑Salaberry RCM. Together, community organizations and the health care system fought hard to address shocking cases of elder abuse and neglect.
The partners' involvement has led to all sorts of initiatives to protect seniors from financial abuse. More recently, the round table raised the awareness of elected officials and the community regarding population aging and how long-term improvements can be made to our communities when the public is involved in developing projects.
The longevity of the Table de concertation des aînés de Beauharnois‑Salaberry shows just how important the community and the public believe that consultation, teamwork and community participation are in addressing social issues. We wish all of the partners a happy 30th anniversary.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 4:34:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her beautiful speech. I know she cares about the most vulnerable people in our society..
I wanted to remind her that there is a large organization in Quebec called the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, which brings together all people aged 55 and over, and that means 500,000 people. The FADOQ has asked the government to increase old age security payments for people aged 65 and over. The current government plans to increase it for people aged 75 and over.
Can my colleague explain whether she agrees with the need to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 and over? Why does she think there is absolutely no mention of this in the budget?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 11:12:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am just as concerned as my colleague by what has been happening to seniors in long-term care facilities, but we do not have the same approach to finding solutions.
In Quebec, we realized what was going on, and our ombudsperson produced a report in 2021 with a number of recommendations to prevent this kind of thing from happening again if ever another pandemic strikes. Quebec realized what was going on, figured out what to do about it and is completely overhauling its health care system.
I have a question for my colleague.
If Quebec were to reject Canadian standards for long-term care in Quebec, does my colleague agree with his government that Quebec might not get any of that funding?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:33:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have liked my colleague, who delivered a very fine speech, to remind the House that the Bloc has also made proposals to support seniors, such as increasing the earnings ceiling for the GIS from $5,000 to $6,000 in order avoid penalizing seniors who want or have to work. Can she explain why this is so important?
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:17:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that the member and I agree that the government must increase seniors' monthly income and give them tax concessions that will let them work to make ends meet, pay their bills and socialize without being penalized by the taxman.
The Bloc Québécois has made plenty of suggestions to help seniors contribute without being penalized. I believe that the solution is to increase old age security for seniors 65 and over. I think that is the most important measure right now.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, fantastic and magnificent member from Thérèse-De Blainville.
I am happy to be able to discuss and debate the motion concerning Bill C-12 with my colleagues, because I have devoted my life to seniors since I was 23. I spent my career serving seniors, both providing home care in local community service centres and working in long-term care homes as a social worker and health care network manager. It is therefore an honour for me to contribute to the debate we are having today.
First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑12. There is no doubt about that. We know that this bill is very important and that it is urgent.
However, we disagree with today's motion, which is disrupting the legislative process. It is important to point out that the bill has only one clause. It amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent a deplorable situation, where 183,000 vulnerable seniors had their guaranteed income supplement cut, from happening again after July 1, 2022. That is the purpose of Bill C-12.
All of the opposition parties proposed legislative work to the government for this week, because we could have managed without the closure motion, which should only be used in exceptional and urgent situations. We could have finished our work properly, in accordance with the legislative process, because this bill has not garnered much opposition. On the contrary, we are pretty unanimous about it in the House.
The bill is important, but let us be clear: It does nothing to change the situation of seniors whose GIS has been slashed every month for the past eight months. It changes nothing at all. When we saw the bill, we wondered why the date was set at July 1, 2022. Why not March? That way, those whose GIS is currently being cut would not have their benefits reduced.
Based on the minister's announcement, we know that there will be a one-time payment. Initially, this payment was to have been made in May, but after the questions we asked the minister and with the pressure she was under, she succeeded in convincing her officials to move the one-time payment up to April 19.
In my opinion, that is still unacceptable. It is two weeks earlier, and some will say that is better than nothing, but it is unacceptable that computer issues can prevent us from returning the money that was taken from vulnerable seniors before April 19. It seems to me that that could have been done by March, or even early April.
This week, the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where she answered a question from my colleagues in the third opposition party. She said that it would be done by April 19 and she was proud of that. Honestly, I would not be so proud in her shoes, because that is shameful. On April 19 it will be almost 10 months that people have had their GIS benefits cut month after month.
Today, in an article in the Journal de Montréal, two seniors who had their benefits cut described their situation to Canadians. Bob Petit, an 82-year-old senior, had his GIS benefits reduced by $350 a month, while Jacques Rhéault, a pensioner in Louiseville who worked hard all his life in a factory in Contrecoeur, lost his GIS benefit.
These two people are the luckiest people in the world, because they have the support and assistance of a very active MP who has been championing their cause from the start. Let us keep in mind that these people’s benefits have been cut since July 2021. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé represents and supports them through all of the system’s bureaucratic procedures.
However, regardless of how good an MP he is, we have learned that, although the Minister of Seniors appears to have a good heart and to listen to seniors, she cannot do more because of the technical and technological limitations of the tools she will be using to issue a nice cheque to each senior who was unfairly affected by the cuts. That is quite a long time.
I cannot help but make connections with other people’s problems. Consider sick workers. They are entitled to just 15 weeks of employment insurance in case of illness. The Bloc would like to see that increase to 50 weeks. The minister said that that was too much, that the government was looking at 26 weeks, but that computer problems were preventing it from doing anything right now.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is telling us that they want to accelerate the processing of work visa and permanent residence applications, but that there are computer issues. I am starting to wonder whether the government’s key departments, which are there to serve Canadians, are paralyzed by their computer systems.
That makes me think there has been considerable negligence in maintaining our infrastructure. As a result, vulnerable Canadians are finding it difficult to pay their rent and buy their medications and are grappling with anxiety and stress every month. We are talking about seniors who are vulnerable and who will be affected by Bill C-12.
I do not know if it is possible to paint an accurate portrait of these people. These are seniors who, very often, have worked all their lives. These people, who may not have been unionized and who did not necessarily earn a big salary, are now retired, and tired, at age 65. Tired and without much income, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. For the past eight months, since July 2021, these people have received less money because the CERB was calculated as income. That is what Bill C-12 is intended to correct, to prevent other seniors from being penalized next year.
Honestly, I am offended and angry to see how the government’s limitations are getting in the way of the assistance these seniors require. When questioned, the minister says that the government invested so many million dollars in this and so many million dollars in that. What seniors need is a decent monthly income so they can pay their bills, meet their responsibilities and live with dignity.
Right now, seniors are calling my office saying that they feel like beggars, if I can put it that way. It is a blow to their dignity, because these are people who worked, who earned an honest living and who have felt completely forgotten and abandoned since July 2021.
Members will understand why I am emotional talking about this. I live in a riding where a quarter of the population is aged 65 or over. Today, I think it is clear that the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is an unconditional ally of the seniors in her riding, that the Bloc Québécois is an ally of seniors, and that it will do everything it can to convince the minister to issue the one-time payment before April 19.
1236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
