Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 201 - 300 of 147841
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Chair, before you do, I miscounted. I have eight amendments. I want to speak to PV-32, but PV-33 is also about the panel.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You want eight amendments taken out. I've noted that, Ms. May.
Why don't we just take a 10-minute break, and come back at 5:28.
By then, I might have more information.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I'll just keep my hand up.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. It's 5:28 p.m.
This is what I'm told, and it makes sense to me. Once an amendment is moved, in the case of independent members like the Green Party here....
There is a distinction between Ms. May's amendments and everyone else's. For an amendment to get to the floor of the committee, members of parties on the committee have to move the motion. If they decide not to move the motion, we would just continue past it. In Ms. May's case, as a Green Party representative who is not a permanent member of the committee, the minute she sends in her amendment to the clerk it is deemed moved. When an amendment is deemed moved, it is deemed to belong to the committee. That means the chair can't appropriate the power to just remove an amendment. It requires unanimous consent. That was denied, in this case.
As I see it, the way we proceed is this: Ms. May does not have to speak in support of her amendments, and others can speak about it or not speak about it, but we have to vote on these amendments. Obviously, Ms. May is doing this in the interest of time so that we can move through them quickly. That's how I see it.
Mr. Albas, are you speaking to PV-25 or is this a point of order or clarification?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
It's a little bit of both.
First, Mr. Chair, thank you for the break. I had the ability to go back and speak with some of my members. As you might remember, you had asked specifically about G-8, I believe.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I was hoping to see if we could maybe resolve that. I would just need a little help and guidance from you or the clerk, or perhaps the legislative clerk, on where exactly the error is on G-8.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Can we get to that after we deal with PV-25?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
All right. Then let me just spin over to PV-25.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I certainly concur with your assessment. Once something has been moved, it becomes the committee's and it no longer can simply be withdrawn unless there's unanimous consent. As I said earlier, it's not my intention to do anything other than to allow those witnesses and truly those Canadians who believe in much of what has been placed here to simply....
I will read this out, and perhaps the Liberals and the NDP, all parties, can stand and be counted on each one. Then we can proceed in that regard.
Again, PV-25 amends Bill C-12 in clause 20 by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 8 with the following:
20(1) There is established an expert advisory body whose mandate is to provide the Minister with expert advice with respect to achieving emissions reductions that are consistent with the conclusion drawn in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C of the need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, including expert
Mr. Chair, maybe I will make a quick ask here of either Mr. Moffet or Mr. Ngan.
I believe the main thrust of this amendment is not just the adoption of the 1.5°C but the term “expert”. Right now, the way the advisory board is set up, it's not necessarily derived just on expertise. Is that the case?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:32
The expert body that exists does not.... It is something that the minister has set up. What we're talking about now is what would need to be established under the act.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
What the minister has set up is different from what is here in PV-25, clearly.
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:32
The minister will have to establish an advisory body. What that body will constitute will be determined after the act is passed.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moffet.
Out of respect for the process, Mr. Chair, unless anyone else wants to go, you can maybe seek a roll call.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Please take your hand down now, Mr. Albas.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The vote is called on PV-25.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Now we move to BQ-18.
Madam Pauzé, I think, is going to be presenting it.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, that's right.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You have the floor, Ms. Pauzé.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
First, I want to thank Ms. May, who did everything in her power to try to convince everyone in order to speed things up in the committee. Unfortunately, it didn't work. However, I want to thank her. I feel compelled to do so because she prepared a number of arguments and amendments, but they won't be taken into account.
With respect to amendment BQ‑18, we're proposing to change “advisory body” to “an independent expert committee.” Perhaps this was the difference between our amendment and the Green Party's amendment. Also, the change that we were proposing to line 15 no longer applies. By voting for amendment G‑3, you decided that there wouldn't be any target.
We want to replace “advisory body” with “independent expert committee” in order to clearly establish the committee's role, which basically isn't to conduct consultations, but to advise the minister. This must be included in the legislation.
For us, it wasn't just about the net‑zero emissions issue. We're saying that the committee should advise the minister on how to reach the 2030 target, which still hasn't been quantified, and not just the 2050 target.
I want to remind you that the United Kingdom is an example to follow in terms of climate governance. Corinne Le Quéré was among the experts from the United Kingdom who appeared before the committee. She told us that the United Kingdom had been the most successful country in terms of reaching climate targets and that it had the best established climate governance. The United Kingdom has seen its emissions fall by 28% since 2010, while Canada's emissions have risen.
Another example is France. Ms. Le Quéré also told us about the High Council on Climate and other similar independent bodies that provide a mechanism to ensure that the voices of experts in the field are heard. They provide the rationale and the legitimacy to propose ambitious measures, since they're experts. As Ms. Le Quéré said, strong climate governance, in France and in other places, helps the government to achieve its goals.
The experts in the United Kingdom consider that five elements are key to the success of any climate legislation and that together they provide several benefits to democracy. The first is the full independence of a committee made up primarily of experts. This is what the witnesses came to tell us. If we were listening, we understood this. This prevents confusion between the role of expert and the job of consulting everyone. This condition is met in just about any successful climate legislation.
The word “experts” is covered in more detail in an amendment that I'll move later. However, it would be good to see the committee in the bill as having this key characteristic. When the independence of the committee is ensured, a balance is achieved. On the one hand, there's an ongoing policy generated through the co‑operation of the highest levels of science, economics, applied policy, and decision‑making. On the other hand, there's respect for the political reality on the ground.
In short, based on what the witnesses came to tell us, we know that they recommended an independent expert committee.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.
Before we proceed to the vote, I want to tell the committee members that, if amendment BQ‑18 is passed, amendment NDP‑4 will become null and void.
Mr. Albas, you have the floor.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, there was a bit of a lag there. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this and to ask a few questions.
First of all, I'd like thank Madam Pauzé for giving a full explanation of what the legislation is trying to do.
I'd like to ask Mr. Moffet.... I believe you'd be the best person to answer the question.
Again, if you look at subclause 20(1) on the establishment and mandate of an advisory body, it doesn't mention the word “independent”. What would the change be if BQ-18 was adopted to include in this subsection, “There is established an independent expert committee whose mandate is to provide the Minister with advice”?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:40
I'm not sure that there's significant change as a result. It would emphasize the independent nature of the committee, but the committee as described is something that is established under law. Its performance and advice cannot be dictated by the minister, the government or Parliament.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Does it change...?
The next subclause—again, if I'm going a little too far ahead, that's fine; we can address it later—says:
(2) The Minister may determine and amend the terms of reference of the advisory body.
That, to me, seems to say that the minister can, given his mandate, do whatever he wants. Does adding the word “independent” really change any of that? Usually when something's independent, the minister just can't switch the terms of reference around.
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:40
I'm not sure I agree with that. The independence of a committee relates to its ability to conduct studies and provide whatever information and advice it collectively deems appropriate. A committee always has terms of reference.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Let me ask this so that I'm abundantly clear: By adding the word “independent”, as Madam Pauzé has done, does that change the committee whatsoever?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:41
I think the objective of the amendment is to emphasize that there is an expectation that the committee's advice will be independent.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
However, does it actually do anything that's different from subclause 20(1) as it's read in Bill C-12 currently?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:42
Again, you're essentially asking a legal question. I don't think there's anything in subclause 20(1) that indicates that the committee's advice will not be independent, and there's certainly nothing in the bill that indicates that the minister can influence or dictate what advice the committee provides.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I think the terms of reference can change what kind of advice the minister wants to hear—by just changing the terms of reference—but that's debate on another area.
Mr. Chair, I will just hang back and listen to see what other members have to ask about Madam Pauzé's amendment. Thank you.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
Mr. Redekopp.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the things that I heard Madam Pauzé say—and hopefully this was correct—is that she wants to strengthen this area to compel the minister and not just.... I can't quite remember the words that she used. However, essentially, the idea is that this would strengthen it to make the committee more powerful towards the minister and maybe force some things to happen.
I guess maybe, Mr. Moffet, you could answer this question: Does the amendment, in your view, compel anything of the minister, or does it just, more or less, clarify some things in the existing legislation?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:43
I don't think the amendment changes the minister's obligations in any way.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
It's mostly just a tweaking of the words, then. It's not really changing the meaning of this section. Is that what you're saying?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:43
That's correct.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Albas asked about “independent”, but I guess I'm going to ask about “expert”. Does that change anything either?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:44
I'm seeing that Madam Pauzé wants to jump in here.
I think the answer to that likely depends on other amendments that would determine what is meant by “expert”. In other words, an expert in what?
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
That was my next question. It needs to be defined somewhere what exactly “expert” means.
What you're saying is that we need to define “expert” if we're going to have it in here and that may or may not change the intent of the legislation. Am I understanding that correctly?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:45
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
In other words, “expert” isn't defined at the moment. Is that correct?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:45
It's is not defined by this amendment, per se.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Madam Pauzé.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, Mr. Moffet just sort of answered Mr. Redekopp's question. The amendments form a whole. We are proposing amendments, but there will be follow‑up to those amendments. A little further on, we will see what the role of the independent expert committee is.
Where I disagree less with Mr. Moffet is on the difference. He doesn't think it makes a big difference, but it makes a big difference for us because the bill talks about an advisory body. This organization will consult with the general public, organizations and industry members. However, for us, it isn't just about consultations. The expert panel will consult, but then it will analyze them and advise the minister. The two roles are very different.
This is what the witnesses told us; you have to distinguish between the two roles, the advisory role to the minister and the consultation role. That's what the amendment is intended to do, and I think it adds a lot to clause 20 and really strengthens it.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Albas, you have the floor.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps I have failed to do this over the time we've spent together at clause-by-clause. Hopefully, I can ask for the indulgence of Madam Pauzé.
I clearly understand (a) and I've asked Mr. Moffet for his views on (a).
In regard to your changes to (b), by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following.... It really is just activities “related to achieving the targets set under subsection 7(2)”. Can I ask why you feel that is a better fit than what is currently envisioned in the bill, where it states, “activities related to achieving net-zero emissions”?
Could you tell us the difference, please?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is the question for Ms. Pauze?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
What we need to look at is the link to amendment BQ‑23.
Amendment BQ‑23 will make it possible to determine the areas of expertise of the experts who will serve on the committee.
The bill talks about an advisory body that provides advice on meeting targets, but also conducts consultations. We don't want that. We want the committee to consult, to make up its mind, and then say: here is my advice to the minister. Amendment BQ‑23 will determine who the experts will be. As for amendment BQ‑20, if I'm not mistaken, it will determine the role of the expert committee.
What's difficult is not seeing this as a whole.
A little further on, the role of the independent expert committee is defined, and a little more further on, there is a definition of who the experts are. Of course, as long as we don't have a definition, it's a bit complicated to do.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
The question I would then have, Mr. Moffet, is based on what Madam Pauzé said, because when I read subclause 7(2) in the bill, it states:
(2) The Minister must set the national greenhouse gas emissions target for 2030 within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force.
What is the difference between what Madam Pauzé wants to do, and what the government has already put in Bill C-12, or this one that's already been made in an amendment, and I'm operating off the old copy?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is this for Mr. Moffet?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Yes, I think Mr. Moffet seems to be well versed in it.
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:49
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
It basically talks about “activities related to achieving the target set under subsection 7(2)”, but it actually talks about net-zero emissions. The original subclause 20(1) says “achieving net-zero emissions”.
What effectively changes here by Madam Pauzé's amendment?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:50
This specific amendment establishes an independent expert committee. Madam Pauzé has also referred to other amendments that would provide more detail and specification about the nature of the advice that the committee must provide.
The basic architecture of the bill, of course, is that the committee must provide advice on an ongoing basis on how to achieve net zero, and the minister must set five-year targets. In doing so, the minister must account for the ongoing input of the committee, so everything that is done is done with a view to achieving net zero.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Moffet. I was talking more about part (b) of BQ-18 rather than part (a).
Mr. Chair, maybe it's just me that's having the issue of understanding exactly what this is meant to do, and what would change under BQ-18.
I will just leave it at that.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Redekopp, please go ahead.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Can I take a swing at this one? The point is relatively simple. In part (b), BQ-18 is changing it to “subsection 7(2)”. In the original.... I believe it was amended by G-3, as it only refers to 2030.
This is where I'm confused, because it doesn't refer to all the targets. It just refers to 2030. If I'm reading this right, this would not apply to 2035, 2040, 2045 or 2050.
I'm not sure who can comment on that, but that's the confusion we have here.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You have the floor, Ms. Pauzé.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
I wanted to respond to Mr. Albas.
I'm not presenting part (b) because when we adopted amendment G‑3, we decided that there would be no numerical target in the legislation, despite the commitments of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and despite the commitments of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, when he appeared before the committee to introduce Bill C‑12.
Despite all that, the alliance of the Liberal Party and the NDP ensured that there was no numerical target. As a result, part (b) of amendment BQ‑18, which deals with the target established under subsection 7(2), becomes obsolete, since there is no target.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay.
The floor is yours, Mr. Albas.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I have to clarify.
Did Madam Pauzé only move part (a) of BQ-18 and not part (b)?
I know she has chosen to do that before. I want to make sure I understand what I'm voting on. Is it just part (a) by itself that she's proposing as an amendment, or is it parts (a) and (b) of BQ-18?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Pauzé, do you want to clarify that?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Basically, I'm presenting only part (a), for the reasons I mentioned, namely, that part (b) cannot mention a target when the committee has chosen not to ask for a numerical target.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, we understand.
We are voting, in fact, on part (a) only.
Ms. Thivierge, can we proceed in this manner?
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-07 17:53
Yes, we can certainly do that.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
So that's what we're voting on.
Madam Clerk, it will be a recorded division.
Angela Crandall
View Angela Crandall Profile
Angela Crandall
2021-06-07 17:54
Yes, and it will be on amendment BQ‑18.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Actually, it will only deal with part (a) of amendment BQ‑18.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would ask the committee members to go back to amendment G‑8, part (b.1). I'll give you a few seconds to find the amendment.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I have it on page 42 in the English copy.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. It's on page 42. Thank you, Mr. Albas. That helps.
On page 42, in the right column, part (b.1) reads as follows:changements climatiques ont été prises en compte dans le plan;
There's a grammar mistake. In fact, the word “prises” should be in the masculine to agree with “engagements internationaux”, which is in the masculin plural. So the letters “e” and “s” at the end of the word need to be removed.
I am asking for unanimous consent to remove these two letters from the word “prises”, so that it reads as follows:changements climatiques ont été pris en compte dans le plan;
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Yes. I think that's reasonable, Mr. Chair.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. So I have unanimous consent? Perfect.
I'm a little bit upset with Ms. Pauzé for not catching this mistake. Normally, she finds all the glitches.
This makes it a little easier for us. We'll continue.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Let's not discourage her.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We'll now move on to amendment NDP‑4.
Before I give Mr. Bachrach time to present amendment NDP‑4, I should clarify, based on the note, that if amendment NDP‑4 is defeated, amendment G‑14 becomes moot. There would be an inconsistency.
Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to bring forward this amendment on behalf of Ms. Collins. I believe it's fairly self-explanatory. There are pieces that I will highlight. This amendment speaks to the role of the net-zero advisory body.
The first piece I would bring to the committee's attention is the word “independent” under subclause 20(1), “to provide the Minister with independent advice”. I believe this speaks to some of the conversation we've had in today's meeting around the independence of the committee.
Secondly, this amendment seeks to specify that the advisory body will provide advice respecting “greenhouse gas emissions targets” as well as “greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans”.
Lastly, it adds a line about engagement activities being part of the advisory body's mandate.
I believe the rest is fairly self-explanatory. I'll yield the floor.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly appreciate Mr. Bachrach's holding a lot of duty on this in terms of taking someone else's amendments forward. It's never easy to parachute into a process, but he has done very well thus far.
I'm just going to ask questions of Mr. Moffet again.
Mr. Moffet, you said earlier that the word “independent” didn't have a legal term, and that the committee itself was already quasi-independent just because it's a committee that operates on its own. When we had witnesses come to this committee—and I'm sure you listened to much of the testimony—many of them were citing jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, which has an independent body that operates. Is this the same thing as what they have in the U.K.?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 17:59
There are a couple of things.
First of all, I didn't suggest that the term “independent” has no legal meaning. I think I was trying to say that the committee established under section 20 is authorized to provide advice without influence from the minister. This amendment would emphasize that function.
The second part of your question was around the United Kingdom. I think it's worth noting that in fact the U.K. statute, the Climate Change Act 2008, does not actually use either of the terms “independent” or “expert” in establishing its committee. Its committee has been established that way and has functioned that way.
I think what we see in the bill, and in particular as potentially clarified through this amendment, is that the advisory body to be established under this bill would have a function largely similar to what has been in the United Kingdom for the past number of years.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
If their climate change accountability legislation does not refer to “independent”, why is there such a vast disparity, Mr. Moffet, between what witnesses have been calling for and what the government has presented in Bill C‑12? Does adding Madam Collins's amendment harmonize it or do you think that is already there without this amendment?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:01
I'm not sure what the question was. You were asking why there is a disparity?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:01
I think that's an issue for—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
You made the statement that the legislation in the U.K. did not include the term “independent”, yet we had witness after witness come and say that this is not the U.K. Why is there the disparity between what people were asking for and this particular bill?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:02
I think you're asking me to speculate about what was on witnesses' minds. I'm not here to do that.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
You've raised a question in my mind just simply by saying that the legislation doesn't include the term “independent”. I'm just wondering what the big difference is. I would hope that you as an expert for the government would be able to answer the question.
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:02
What's the difference between what?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I mean between what the U.K. has and what is presented here in Bill C‑12, because I want to know whether or not the amendment Madam Collins has moved actually moves closer to a model like that.
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:02
It emphasizes the independent role of the committee.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay, but again, you said that “independent” is not mentioned in the U.K. legislation. Does that mean it doesn't move us any closer to that?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:03
I think you're asking me to speculate on the way the committee will function under this legislation.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I would imagine that you would have an understanding of how the committee will operate.
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 18:03
Mr. Chair, I think that the line of questioning is inappropriate for officials.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, Mr. Moffet was perfectly okay with inappropriate interventions in the last meeting. However, I do respect him and I do value his service. If he doesn't want to answer the question just because maybe the government has said we don't want to raise any distinctions between us and the U.K., I will just say, Mr. Chair—
Results: 201 - 300 of 147841 | Page: 3 of 1479

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data