- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the government in December about the carbon tax and Bill C-234. Notably, the question I asked got over 13 and a half million views on Instagram; clearly, many Canadians are very interested in the issue. It also might have had something to do with the hearty laughter from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was sitting behind me at the time.
The issue is with Bill C-234, which we continue to champion today in this House. Conservatives are fighting for farmers to be exempt from the carbon tax.
We believe in axing the tax completely. However, in this Parliament, in order to make some incremental progress, we have put forward a bill that has gained the support of a majority of the House of Commons, seeking to exempt farmers from the carbon tax.
This bill was on the verge of passing in the Senate when the government started to lean into their supposedly independent senators, making personal phone calls to try to pressure them to change their vote. The bill is now back in the House of Commons, and Conservatives are pushing to pass it in its original form, to exempt our hard-working farmers from the carbon tax.
Applying the carbon tax to farmers does not make any sense even if one believes in the carbon tax in general. The carbon tax is designed to be a Pigovian tax, that is, a tax on something that is believed to generate a negative externality in order to try to discourage that behaviour. That is the theory behind the carbon tax.
It seeks to make gasoline and airplane travel more expensive in the hopes that people will drive less, fly less, etc. That is the theory of the government's carbon tax. However, on what basis is it applied to our farmers?
Does the government hope that people will farm less if it makes farming more expensive? Does it think that farmers should do the essential work of farming less in response to the Pigovian tax that they are applying? It does not make any sense.
Farming is not an activity we want to discourage. Farming is an activity we should be encouraging. We should be making it easier for people to go into farming, to work in farming, to continue with this critical livelihood, feeding people across the country wherever they live.
Why is the government applying a punitive tax on farmers? What possible rational policy objective could taxing farmers in this way have? It just does not make any sense.
To be clear, Conservatives oppose the carbon tax in general. We will axe the tax after the carbon tax election. At a minimum, the Liberals should understand that, even in theory, the carbon tax makes no sense. Even on its own justification, the tax makes no sense when applied to farmers. That is why Conservatives have championed and will continue to champion the passage of Bill C-234, to push the government to pass the bill in its original form.
We have also called on the government to meet with the premiers; along with the Canadian public, they overwhelmingly oppose the carbon tax. Liberals are afraid to gather and meet with the premiers to have a carbon tax conference. I am sure that, if they did, they would clearly hear a call from the premiers to axe the carbon tax on farmers and on all Canadians.
585 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 7:23:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, on this side of the House we want to axe the tax. It seems across the way their priorities are to distract and to axe the facts, so let us insert some facts back into this discussion.
As we seek to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, let us be clear that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is a failed experiment. The government has spent eight years talking about it and about how raising taxes is going to save the planet. It has not worked. The government has not met any of its environmental targets. The environment minister might be planning on climbing on a roof somewhere again because the government has not achieved the results it promised. It was an experiment, one of trying to force people to pay more to see whether that would fix the environmental problems we have. Clearly, it has failed.
Let us axe the tax instead of taking the government's approach of axing the facts.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:43:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Conservative priorities are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. When it comes to our plan to axe the tax, let us be clear that increasing the cost of transportation is not a bug associated with the carbon tax, but a designed feature of it. The purpose of a carbon tax policy is to increase the cost of transporting people and goods, supposedly to deter that transportation. The problem is that people still need to eat and to get around, and in the process, they end up paying more without the supposed impacts on emissions.
That is why Conservatives are proposing to axe the tax, and we are opposed to the intentional policy of the NDP-Liberal coalition to increase prices on the transportation of food, people and other goods. Can the member speak to the importance of, and the benefits associated with, our proposal to axe the tax?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 5:28:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is asking how a Conservative government would possibly carry out international relations if it does not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. It is very simple: We will not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. We will negotiate to ensure that agreements we sign do not include a carbon tax.
In this particular case, I think it would be very simple. I have no proof of this, but I suspect that this provision on carbon pricing and carbon leakage is only in this agreement because the Government of Canada wanted it to be in there for political reasons. If we had a Conservative government and a Conservative trade minister saying that we actually did not want a carbon tax in the agreement, I suspect the government of Ukraine would say it was no problem and let us focus on getting weapons into the hands of soldiers who need them to defend their country.
I think that standing up for our principles at home and abroad will be entirely uncomplicated for international relations.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:19:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is driving inflation. The carbon tax hits the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who transports the food, the grocer who sells the food and the family who buys the food.
The member across the way gets it, because he has heard it so many times. He is chuckling and throwing it across the floor, but if the member for Kingston and the Islands knows so well that the carbon tax is hitting the farmer, the trucker, the grocer and the family, then why will he not change his position and vote with us to relieve struggling Canadian families and axe the tax?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 6:23:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you may find support for the following motion: That the House call upon the government to take the carbon tax off farmers—
Some hon. members: No.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 3:17:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am concerned about this conspiracy theory among Green and New Democrat politicians that carbon capture and storage does not exist. Therefore, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the addresses of a number of hotels in my riding to help these members come and see for themselves how carbon capture and storage works.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I had a lot to say about the previous speech on royal titles, but I will focus on the subject matter of the speech that was just given.
In terms of this issue of carbon taxes being a market mechanism or whether it is a market thing or not, I think the important point is that of course they involve the possibility of incentives and training and they recognize those realities, but fundamentally they are taxes that require Canadians to pay more. They are intentionally driving up the price of gas and the commodities that have gas as an input, making those things more expensive in an effort to incentivize changes in behaviour. The fact that the carbon tax increases prices for Canadians is not a bug; that is actually the intention of the policy.
I wonder if the member would just acknowledge that in his and the NDP's support of this policy, they are seeking to promote the increase in gas prices, that they want higher gas prices and that this is why they support a carbon tax.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 4:06:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course there is a wide variety of factors that impacts energy prices. There is a wide variety of factors that impacts prices for anything, but when we add a tax on top of energy prices, then we are saying that, whatever the market price would have been, we will make it higher by taxing it. It is inevitably true that, regardless of what the market price will be and the other factors influencing it, the carbon tax has, as its purpose, to increase the price of fuel.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 3:53:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize for that and I apologize to the interpreters.
Canadians are struggling because of increasing costs, and these costs are the result of a failed fiscal policy from the current government. We listen to the way the government talks about spending, and whenever things go wrong, it is not the Liberals' fault. Whenever the Liberals are spending money, they have no sense of the source of where that money comes from. We hear members of the government, ministers and other members, say that costs are high and things are challenging. It is as though when bad things are happening, they wonder, “How did this happen? We have been in power for eight years and costs are going up; surely it has no relationship to the policies we have pursued.”
It is actually very clear to Canadians that there is a direct, causal link between the decisions the government has made and the pain Canadians are experiencing. It is the Liberals' policy to increase taxes, especially in the area of the carbon tax. We actually just had a vote on what is, in effect, a second carbon tax that the Liberals want to impose. Not only do they want to triple the existing carbon tax, but they also have a second carbon tax in mind. They are constantly lying awake at night trying to think of creative new ways of taxing Canadians. The result is that Canadians are paying more. They are paying more to the government, but also, as government spending continues to grow and in even greater proportions outstrip the amount we are seeing in terms of tax increases, we are seeing rising prices driven by inflation and by more money chasing fewer goods.
All of this was in the Conservatives' dissenting report for the public accounts committee. Conservatives have called for tax relief for Canadians. We have called for more freedom for removing the gatekeepers, for eliminating the carbon tax, for not imposing a second carbon tax, for not having a tax on a tax and other such attacks on Canadians' efforts to live an affordable, prosperous life.
There are some other things I will share from the discussions we had around the study of the public accounts at the public accounts committee. It was interesting to me to note that there are instances where the government has provided loan forgiveness to various corporations. They could be very large and profitable corporations that have benefited from loans from the government, to which the government says it is going to forgive those loans, so, effectively, those loans turn into a subsidy. Therefore, as part of the public accounts discussion, we asked whether the government would be willing to provide the names of those companies and to release information about who is benefiting from a corporate subsidy. It seems to me to be a common sense proposition that, at the very least, if a large profitable corporation is benefiting from a federal government subsidy in the form of debt forgiveness, that is, the stakeholders took a loan they were supposed to pay back and did not pay back, and the government says they do not have to pay it back, then at that point, they should have to tell not only the government; Canadians should also be able to know that the company benefited from a public subsidy.
Many people would want to ask questions, and the company operators should be expected to provide some kind of explanation. Corporate welfare should not be something that is provided in secret. Maybe it should not be something that is provided at all, but certainly it is not something that should be provided in secret. Therefore, we asked, as part of the public accounts committee process, whether more information could be given with respect to which companies are benefiting from such loan forgiveness. That information was not forthcoming.
We have asked for similar information through Order Paper questions as well, by the way. Some points were raised earlier today about the government's not answering Order Paper questions and that it provides what are very clearly non-answers to Order Paper questions. Answers are supposed to provide information. Again we see, in the public accounts committee, in responses to Order Paper questions and in other areas, this decline in terms of the willingness of the government to provide information in general in response to queries from members of Parliament, committees, the public and journalists, etc.
However, as I say, the main thrust of our dissenting report is about the fact that life has become more expensive. It has been eight years under this Prime Minister. Everything feels broken. Costs are up. Rent, housing and food are up and the government members want to behave as if it is not their fault and it is all some accident, as if to say, “How terrible that bad things keep happening to the country while we are in charge” and “What terrible fate we have.”
That is obviously not the case. The Liberal government is pursuing policies that are making life less affordable. It is piling taxes on taxes. It has the second carbon tax, in addition to the tripling of the first. Inflation is up because of government spending. We have seen the accumulation of more debt under the Prime Minister than in the entire history of the country up until this point.
It is clear that the Liberals are not working. Their policies are not working. They are not making life better for Canadians. They are not making life better for the middle class and those working hard to join it.
That is why we need an alternative policy prescription that recognizes the creativity, potential and creative genuis in every individual, and that seeks to harness that creativity to create more space and opportunity for individuals to go out and pursue their own ideas without the kinds of impediments that we are constantly seeing from the Liberal government. We need to unleash the creative potential of Canada by removing the gatekeepers and the barriers, and that includes reducing the regulatory burden on Canadians and lowering taxes. That is why we have put forward concrete policy proposals that move us toward—
1046 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:31:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in certain respects it has been a weird fall. Right now, as colleagues know, we are in Adjournment Proceedings, which is when we can follow up on questions asked earlier in question period.
A few weeks back, I asked about the government's plan to triple the carbon tax, therefore increasing the cost of gas, groceries, home heating and other goods that increasingly feel out of reach for many Canadians. In these times, the finance minister's way of saying that she feels their pain is to acknowledge that she has also had to make sacrifices by cancelling her Disney+ subscription. If that cancellation gets her out of the fantasy world she has been living in, then I think it is a good thing. Ironically, though, video streaming services are one of the only things that will not be affected by carbon tax increases.
Earlier this fall, I asked a question of the government about its carbon tax plans and I inserted into my question some of the lyrics from Bohemian Rhapsody. This is because shortly before the Prime Minister had gone to London, ostensibly to attend the Queen's funeral. He had stayed in a hotel room that cost $6,000 a night and stayed up late singing Bohemian Rhapsody in a bar somewhere. One could get a lot of Disney+ for $6,000 a night, but of course this was taxpayers' money. If I had spent $6,000 a night of someone else's money on a hotel room, I would have at least had the decency to stay in and enjoy it.
I put some Bohemian Rhapsody lyrics into my original question and it got a lot of attention on social media, I think, for three distinct reasons. First, it may have been the question itself. Second, there was an unexpected camera angle. Third was the fact that a member of the parliamentary press gallery thought the question was so lame that I should be shot like a horse. This suggests to me that he knows as much about the care of animals as he does politics.
This series of events was so unusual that it left me wondering:
Is this the real life? Or is this just fantasy?Disney+ pushed aside; that's the finance minister's new reality.New vacation highs, flying through the skies for free. Liberal caucus plots, I have some sympathy.Foreign ministers have been easy come, easy goLittle high, little low.Foreign interference doesn't really matter to them.Mama, a journalist just threatened to kill a man.(Wait, he's not a journalist.) Mama, a Liberal staffer with a press gallery pass just threatened to kill a man.(Of course, I don't mean literally a Liberal staffer but figuratively. He's not literally a Liberal staffer.)Mama, my career had just began, but Dale Smith wants to blow it all away.If I'm not back again this time tomorrow.Carry on, carry on.
I see it is late and my time is almost gone, so I will conclude my remarks there and await the government's fandango of a response.
524 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that his government's plan is to triple the carbon tax over time. It tells us it is going to be tripled, and that we will get to that tripling, but only through little increases that we will barely notice.
The member is right, it is increasing on April 1, and those increases add up insofar as they impact virtually all of the goods that individuals consume. Moreover, I think people want us to take a step back and say that this tripling of the tax, which is being done a little at a time, will add up and significantly affect their bottom line.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here in the House to address the government's bill, Bill S-5, and more broadly to address the environmental policy approach taken by this government.
Sadly, we are seven years into the tenure of this government, and it still does not have an environmental plan. It does not have a plan to address the challenges we face in terms of climate change or various other issues. What it has in reality is a tax plan that it would like to tell us is an environmental plan. Its plan is to continue to increase its carbon tax, to triple its carbon tax, yet it wants to back away from the actual nature of that policy and the mechanism by which it is supposed to work.
Those who favour a carbon tax as a response to the challenges we face associated with climate change believe essentially that raising the price of goods that entail carbon emissions will discourage people from consuming those goods, engender less consumption of those goods and therefore entail fewer emissions overall. That is the logic of a carbon tax. It is not one I agree with, but I can at least understand that is how it is proposed by those who defend it, at least by those who defend it honestly.
However, entailed in that process is the idea that by increasing the price of goods, such as driving, airline flights and heating one's home, people will do it less. When we read in the news that people are suffering because of higher prices, that they are worried about whether they can heat their homes, that they are being forced to cancel vacations or trips in their car to visit or support family members, it is important for people to understand that it is not some accidental by-product of the carbon tax policy. It is actually the purpose of the carbon tax policy. It is to lead people to do fewer of those activities. It is to lead people to heat their homes less, to drive less, to travel less, etc.
The government has put in place a policy that is designed to limit the ability of Canadians to do those various things, yet we have members of this coalition, NDP and Liberal politicians, who act surprised that this is the outcome. They ask why gas prices are higher. I do not know, but maybe it is because they have imposed a tax on gas specifically designed for the purpose of raising the price. That would be one explanation of why gas prices are higher.
Now, let us acknowledge that there are many things that go into the price of gas. There are many things that go into the price of these various goods that are taxed by the carbon tax, but one of those contributing factors to the price is the tax that is put on top of it. Therefore, I wish members of the costly coalition in this place would be willing to own up to the fact that this is the consequence of the policy they have put in place.
We should also note just how grievously unfair that policy is, because the people who are going to be forced to cancel those trips and the people who are going to be forced to sit in the cold are people who are relatively less well off. Many members of the House, people who are in a better position financially, are going to be able to continue to afford to travel. They are going to be able to continue to afford to heat their homes, but many Canadians will not. Those many Canadians bear the brunt of the cost associated with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very regressive in the way that it hits the population. It is regressive in that it imposes those costs most on those who can least afford to pay them.
This is not an environmental plan. Why do I say that? It is because the independent analyses have shown very clearly that the government's carbon tax will not achieve the environmental objectives that it wants it to. Why is that the case? Why does this logic that imposing costs on people will lead to less consumption not work? It is because many of the goods we are talking about are essentials.
We live in Canada. People need to heat their homes. Of course, there are adaptations people can make. They can make renovations to their homes, but for those who are most affected by the carbon tax, they likely struggle to afford those kinds of adaptations. Therefore, the approach we have emphasized is how we support people with new technology but also with various kinds of deductions that allow them to make those kinds of adaptations.
Our approach has always emphasized technology as opposed to taxes. That is why a previous Conservative government brought in the home renovation tax credit. Some of these changes are aimed at making it easier for people to afford the adaptations they need. It is an environment-oriented tax cut instead of imposing a punitive tax on people. A tax-cut approach helps people have the resources they need to make these kinds of adaptation.
The problem is, when people are barely getting by and we increase costs on them, that is not going to lead them to make adaptations to their lives. That is not going to allow them to afford a new home with better insulation. They are struggling to get by. That is the point and that is the reality. This carbon tax is part of a politically manufactured affordability crisis that we have in this country. The government's out-of-control spending is driving up the cost of everything by driving inflation. The government is responding to that by additional punitive taxes. Of course, we know about its planned payroll taxes, but also its plan with the carbon tax.
It is particularly notable now, in the global context we are in, what a failure the government's approach to energy policy is. More and more countries are recognizing how important energy security is. We are seized with the horrific, genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we are thinking about what more we can do to support Ukraine. There are many areas the government needs to do more, but one of those areas is to work toward, as quickly as possible, increasing Canadian energy production and support our European allies by supplying them with the vital energy they need to not be dependent on Russian gas.
Canada is one of the only democracies in the world that has an abundance of natural resources. As it happens, many of the world's democracies are geographically small, populous nations that rely on the import of natural resources.
Within the community of democratic nations, because we are rich in natural resources and because we are more sparsely populated, I believe Canada has a special vocation in terms of supplying our like-minded allies with the energy resources they need to not be reliant on dictator oil and not feel forced to contort their foreign policy to access the energy that they need. Canada can play that role in displacing Russian energy in Europe.
It is not just about replacing foreign energy imports into Canada, although that is part of the picture. We should be replacing foreign energy imports into Canada and displacing dictator oil from our European partners. This is an urgent issue in terms of global security and Canada needs to step up. However, the Prime Minister and other ministers continue to throw cold water on proposals for more support to Europe in the form of natural gas production, exports and other things along those lines. It is a huge missed opportunity.
An hon. member: I was choking, too.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP is making jokes about my cough. I will not take it personally, and I wish him well.
The legislation we have in front of us does not respond to—
1359 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 1:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do, but I am finished with the petition respecting the carbon tax. I would not want to go into it for a third time.
The next petition is one that is very dear to my own constituents. It is expressing support for Alberta's industrial heartland as one of the most attractive locations for chemical, petrochemical, oil and gas investment. Petitioners note the role of Alberta's industrial heartland. They note that energy-related manufacturing plays a crucial role in Canadian energy development and security and in providing jobs and opportunities for Canadians. The undersigned call on the Government of Canada to advance policies that support growth in Alberta's industrial heartland and growth in energy-related manufacturing in general, as well as to support a permanent accelerated capital cost allowance for energy-related manufacturing.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 1:14:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will certainly triple my efforts to stay true to the rules of this place.
Petitioners are concerned that the Liberal government has repeatedly claimed that the carbon tax would be revenue-neutral, whereas in many cases that is not the case. These petitioners say that low- and middle-income Canadians are already overtaxed. Specifically, they are asking the government to keep its promise to not increase the carbon tax beyond $50 per tonne.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 1:13:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was going to say that I think it is a reasonable summary, insofar as the text of the petition specifically notes that in the 2019 federal election the then Liberal environment minister said the carbon tax would be frozen at—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 1:12:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this next petition highlights the concern of petitioners about the government's plan to triple, triple, triple the carbon tax. The petitioners note that in the 2019 federal election, the federal government said that the carbon tax would be frozen at $50 a tonne annually and—
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting, going back to the previous Liberal speaker, that Liberals do not want us to be talking about the carbon tax today. It is not surprising that they do not want to hear us talking about their plan to triple the carbon tax.
The reason we are raising this, of course, is that it speaks to the Liberal government's approach to affordability. The Liberals are presenting these measures as their so-called affordability package, but the reality is that they are continuing to increase taxes on Canadians. They have scheduled automatic tax increases for next year. The Liberals plan to raise payroll taxes and triple the carbon tax.
This is central to the debate today because, when the government says it is concerned about inflation and affordability, it was, frankly, not talking about inflation at all until the member for Carleton became Conservative leader. The Liberals were completely ignoring the issue. Now they say they care about it, but they are persisting with tax increases. Why are they persisting with their tax hikes?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member with respect to the government's plan to triple the carbon tax. He is laughing because he thinks it is funny. Canadians who are struggling to afford gas, groceries and home heating do not think it is funny.
The government is intent on tripling the carbon tax, and Canadians are already struggling under the impact of the carbon tax. Will the member acknowledge that the purpose of the carbon tax is to raise the price of gas? The argument for a carbon tax by those who support it is that they want a higher price of gas to discourage people from driving. Of course, the gas price is influenced by a variety of different factors, but one of those factors is the carbon tax, which has been put in place, by design, to increase the price of gas.
Will the member acknowledge that his government's carbon tax plan is designed to raise the price of gas?
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:28:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has entirely missed the point. Higher taxes are not an environmental plan. They have not worked, and the government members think that even further increasing taxes is going to somehow achieve a different result. It will not.
Let me put to the member something that is very obvious. Even proponents of carbon taxes generally admit it, and that is that the very purpose of a carbon tax is to increase the price of gas. That is why the people who support it, support it. They say it would be better if we had a higher price of gas because it would deter people from driving. That is the argument for it.
The member says that it is totally incidental to the carbon tax policy that there happens to be higher gas prices, but that is the point of the policy. Of course there are other inputs to the price of gas, but the price of gas would be lower if the government were not intentionally increasing it through a carbon tax that has as its very purpose the increase of the price of gas. This is obvious, and when everybody admits—
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
