Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 1849
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2019-06-17 15:50
Expand
Thank you.
I was very happy to see this bill because, Minister, as you know, pretty much every time you have been before this committee, I have asked you about CBSA oversight and when it would be forthcoming, so when I saw this bill had been tabled, it was a happy day for me.
You talked a little about the history of the bill. You talked about Senator Wilfred Moore's bill and how you dealt with the different oversights in Bill C-59 and NSICOP.
Why did we have to wait so long to see this bill come forward?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-17 16:04
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you for being here.
I want to go back to the question Ms. Dabrusin was asking in terms of the time that this took. The fact is, there was a Senate report prior to the last election in 2015, legislation by Senator Segal in the previous Parliament and a recommendation from this committee in 2017.
Also, for anyone who wants to take a minute to google it, you can find articles from at least the last three years with you promising this legislation—it's coming, it's coming. Also, most of the bills you enumerated in responding to my colleague, if not all, were tabled in 2016 or 2017.
I'm wondering about this mechanism. You called it simple and straightforward, faster and cost-effective and said it builds on existing infrastructure. I'm having a hard time with this, especially in knowing that the legislation is only going to come into effect in 2020, if I'm understanding correctly, with regard to the ability of Canadians to make complaints.
I'm still not quite understanding why, with all those pieces on the table and at the very least two or three years in the lead-up.... To me, it doesn't seem to wash that you sort of dropped your arms and said, “Oh well, the senator's proposal won't work in Bill C-59.” That seemed to be what you were implying in response to the question.
I want to ask again why it took so long when there continue to be incidents with work relations for those who work at CBSA—allegations of harassment and things of that nature—and obviously, of course, the issues that some Canadians face in the way they are treated at the border.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-17 16:07
Expand
I think maybe three of those bills were tabled after 2017 or early 2018. I mean, for the C-20s and the single digits, we're talking days after your government was sworn in. I think there needs to be some accountability, because you've been on the record strongly saying that this needed to be done, and so I don't want to leave it being said that.... For example, with Bill C-59, why not make the change then?
I just want to understand, because my concern, Minister, is that I want to make sure there's no, for example, resistance internally to this issue. I can't understand, if this is a simple and straightforward mechanism in BillC-98, why it took years to come to the conclusion that this was the way to go.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-17 17:23
Expand
That's fine.
In terms of paragraph (b), not only in the context of the proposed subclause 18(2), but in general, Mr. Graham spoke earlier about the risk of stepping on the other agency's toes. That's interesting. As part of our study of Bill  C-59, we met with representatives of your commission. Forgive me, I don't remember whether the information came from you or other representatives, but we were told that there was no issue with regard to the RCMP, since the functions weren't national security functions. However, during the presentations and debate on Bill  C-59, some people pointed out that, in the case of the Canada Border Services Agency, the issue still concerned national security, given that we're talking about border integrity.
Are you concerned that, in terms of the agency, it may be more difficult to determine what falls under the different oversight mechanisms for national security issues? For example, in the case of the committee created by Bill  C-59 or the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, there's a clearer and more obvious distinction with respect to the RCMP.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Minister Goodale appeared before this committee during the hearings on Bill  C-59, I believe. At that time, he told us that he could not answer certain questions because it was a matter of national security. After that, in the House of Commons, Minister Goodale said the opposite. Daniel Jean also testified before our committee that it was not a matter of national security.
In your opinion, is it a matter of national security?
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Your notes mention Bill  C-59. You make recommendations involving the Department of National Defence, DND. I know that the bill is being studied in the Senate at the moment, but I no longer recall which stage it has reached. Do you think that amendments will be proposed by the Senate or the government? Have you heard anything about that?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-05-13 15:56
Expand
Right, thank you.
I have another question on National Defence and the recommendation to amend Bill  C-59 as well as on the definition of the mandate that would be given to the new committee.
Is your committee concerned about the resources that this new sister committee would have to do this monitoring? The resources are already rather limited. If the mandate is expanded, are you concerned about whether the new committee will be able to carry it out each year? I would like it to be and I agree with the recommendation, but the question is whether it will be able to do so adequately given current or planned resources.
Collapse
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2019-05-13 16:10
Expand
Over the past few exchanges, we've heard a little bit about Bill C-59 and the other forms of oversight or review that might be put in place. In respect of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA, how would you see the complementarity between the review agency and yourself?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-03-18 17:29
Expand
So, my question becomes this: If we look at Bill C-59, for example, where you're giving CSE defensive and offensive capabilities—and part of that is proactively shutting down malware that might be...or an IP, or things like that—is there concern about escalation and where the line is drawn?
Part of this study.... The problem is that we're all lay people, or most of us anyway—I won't speak for all—when it comes to these things. My understanding of AI—because I've heard that, too—is that it's not what we think of it as being from popular culture. Does that mean that if, due to employing AI to use some of these capabilities that the law has conferred on different agencies, AI is continuing...? How much human involvement is there in the adjustments? If that line is so blurry as to what the rules of engagement are, is there concern that AI is learning how to shut something down, that the consequences can be graver than they were initially, but the system is sort of evolving on its own? I don't want to get lost. I don't know what the proper jargon is there, but....
Collapse
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thanks, Chair.
Minister, it's always great to have you here, along with your very able officials. Thank you for taking the time to join us this afternoon.
On Friday, media reported that the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence had delayed consideration of crucial government legislation on national security, as well as firearms, in order to hold meetings on the number of ministers who had held the Veterans Affairs portfolio.
Dr. Stephanie Carvin, an expert in national security at Carleton University, tweeted on Friday with regard to the delay, and this is her tweet:
Not great, @SenateCA. You came to work late and you need to get the job done and pass #C59. Failure to do so will mean @NoFlyListKids will go years without redress, CSIS will not have a legal basis to store datasets crucial for ops and CSE will not have powers to protect Canada.
Are you concerned about Bill C-59, our national security legislation, as well as BillC-71, which included really important protections for survivors of intimate partner violence, being delayed in the Senate?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-01-30 16:14
Expand
I wanted to quickly touch on the cyberwarfare piece with Bill C-59, for example, and CSE having the active cyber capabilities. My understanding is that there is not really any clarity in international law. Some would argue that when you attack a country's sovereignty.... Is data a part of sovereignty? I think that's the uncertainty we're at now.
There's a risk of escalation, but does it go both ways? Even with the announcement today, for example, on fighting foreign interference, if there's any kind of disruption that's being done proactively or pre-emptively, is there a risk there that we might antagonize while trying to protect ourselves if there's no action from a foreign state actor prior to whatever action our agencies are taking?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-01-30 16:58
Expand
Just really quickly, with the 15 seconds I have left, would that structure and who's taking the lead look different if Bill C-59 receives royal assent today?
Collapse
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
A year or so ago, this committee was tasked with doing a study on Bill C-59, which was a national security bill. In the testimonies we heard from Retired General Michael Day who reported to the committee that he has zero confidence in Canada's readiness to deal with emerging threats like artificial intelligence used in cyber-attacks and quantum computing that could hack through regular security regimens now in a matter of seconds.
With that in mind, how is the RCMP getting ready for that or how are you helping other agencies in the industry prepare for that emerging threat that's occurring right now?
Collapse
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay, very good.
You talk about Bill C-59. You mentioned that, I believe, in your opening remarks. Now, from what I see in the estimates—and I've heard conversations and seen documents—$100 million will be added to the administrative costs for CSIS and CSE and other national security agencies. If we're taking money and we're going to be spending it on administrative issues, then the actual operational end of national security is not going to be dealt with. There's going to be a pullback from there. Is that what I'm seeing and hearing and understanding in these documents?
Collapse
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2018-11-27 16:21
Expand
I know that we'll be looking forward to that.
The other thing—and I don't have a whole lot of time left to me—is that I also saw that there was money put towards enhancing the passenger protect program. There have been people in my community and people whom I have met who form part of the “no-fly kids”. The last time you were here, I believe, or one of the times you were here, we talked about the timelines based on the changes that were brought about in Bill C-59 to improve the passenger protect system. Do you have a sense of where we're at on timing at this stage?
Collapse
View James Maloney Profile
Lib. (ON)
This motion reconciles amendments proposed in BillC-75 and Bill C-59 to section 83.3, the provision governing the imposition of a terrorism recognizance with conditions. It also takes into consideration the fact that section 83.3 of the Criminal Code will sunset in October.
If C-59 is passed, it would re-enact section 83.3. As such, the motion would deem clause 26 of our bill to never come into force if section 83.3 sunsets and is not otherwise re-enacted through Bill C-59. If section 83.3 is re-enacted, this motion would ensure the new police release terminology is included in it.
Collapse
View Colin Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Colin Fraser Profile
2018-10-29 20:43
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment modifies the coordinating amendment in subclause 407(5) to reflect the changes made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to section 83.221 in Bill C-59, the national security act, 2017. This amendment ensures that the amendments made to section 83.221 during committee study of Bill C-59 are reflected in BillC-75.
Collapse
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
We heard from the Bill C-59 conversations that it's like a hockey analogy, in that it depends on the coach. They say that a good defence is a strong offence. I'm intrigued by how we always defer or default to a defensive posture when actually that defensive posture may be an offensive posture.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-09-20 17:00
Expand
The other piece I want to ask about is the vulnerabilities equities process that exists within the NSA in the U.S. On the same topic of transparency, I'm wondering about this. More and more, especially with the existence of the centre, I'm assuming that there's going to be more work done to identify these vulnerabilities.
In Bill C-59, a lot of the pieces involve working with the private sector to identify the vulnerabilities and to, in some cases, even study them to a certain extent. I don't want to rehash the debate that we've had quite extensively at this committee, but is there a specific protocol that exists here, in the same way that the NSA has developed one, in order to disclose to the public and parliamentarians, etc., the existence of vulnerabilities in software and such?
Collapse
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2018-09-20 17:22
Expand
I have two questions, and they're kind of related.
Under Bill C-59, you've been given the authority to lead the cyber centre, and you talk about the other government agencies: Public Safety, Shared Services, the RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the military.
Being a former policeman and having been involved in major crimes in larger communities, I know there are always conflicts, perhaps the bullheadness of one department over another department.
You've had some time since Bill C-59 came out, and we have been discussing it in the House and around. Are your agencies getting together already and working together? Do you see that this will be a fairly easy transition and a joint effort, or do you feel that there may be some stumbling blocks and pressure back and forth maybe because you've been given the lead?
Collapse
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
I like the language also proposed. We changed, in the act itself, in C-59, “is likely” to “is necessary”, if you recall, on terrorism or promoting terrorism or anything along those lines.
I think it's important to add that have been diagnosed with conditions that is necessary to prevent a risk to themselves or to anybody else.
It's a reasonable amendment, in my opinion.
Collapse
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2018-05-10 12:33
Expand
Actually, I was scrumming behind the minister, and he proved the adage that one should never use 10 words when a thousand may work.
The government has announced $81 million over five years toward the passenger protect program. Part of that is to implement a redress system like the one Canadian airlines already use for flights between Canada and the U.S.
I have two questions. First, how much of these funds will be directed toward the redress system? Second, how much is the establishment of the appeal process referred to in Bill C-59 expected to cost?
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ladies and gentlemen, let's get started. The meeting is called to order.
We anticipate we will be interrupted at some time in the not too distant future.
(On clause 108)
The Chair: My notes tell me that we left off at clause 108. There were two amendments, NDP-64 and PV-24. I stand to be corrected by the clerk, but I believe amendment NDP-64 has been dealt with; it's out of order. Therefore, we have amendment PV-24, and this one is also out of order.
That would mean we have only clause 108.
(Clause 108 agreed to on division)
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
That brings us up to amendment NDP-65, which is not in order. Amendment PV-25 is gone too.
That means we have LIB-44 up, and I'm looking at Ms. Damoff.
Collapse
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, this was actually dealt with at LIB-42, I believe, so I'll withdraw it.
(On clause 109)
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
NDP-66 is out of order and PV-26 is out of order, so we're on clause 109, on amendment CPC-23.
I'm assuming that is either Mr. Motz or—
Collapse
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
This amendment CPC-23, after line 25 on page 113, will add to clause 109 proposed new subsections 40.2(1) and (2), which read:
40.2 (1) Within the first four months after the commencement of each fiscal year, the Service shall submit to the Minister a report on the administrative costs of meeting the requirements imposed on the Service under the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act for the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The Minister shall, within 15 days after a report is submitted under subsection (1), publish the report on its Internet site.
It's similar to an amendment that we proposed, I believe it was as recent as yesterday, Mr. Chair.
The reason this amendment is brought forward is to address the issues raised by some national security experts. They raised the concern that the administrative costs for NSIRA and the parliamentary committee, and this whole business, might have a negative impact on the actual costs, or the money spent on national security as opposed to the administrative costs with regard to this.
That's all we're asking for. At a time when the world is more aware and has a heightened sensitivity to the risks that are present, we think that money allocated to national security should be spent there, and that we have a costing of the actual administrative costs.
Collapse
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Chair, the annual report required by this amendment would represent a new administrative burden for CSIS. During estimates, parliamentarians are free to ask questions regarding the impact of national security review, so we're not going to support this amendment.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 17:43
Expand
I just want to reiterate the point I made on this amendment, or on a similar one in the previous meeting, that I believe this could go a multitude of ways. There could be a burden on the agencies as well from the lack of response time from the agencies. At the end of the day, I think it creates a problem in terms of trying to undermine the credibility of these agencies as they're getting up and going.
There's no such thing, in my opinion, as an administrative cost to accountability and review and oversight mechanisms.
Collapse
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
You might remember the testimony of Dr. Leuprecht, Mr. Boisvert, as well as Mr. Fadden, and based on other conversations our office has had, with CSIS providing to Parliament and the minister an accounting of that administrative cost, Canadians will have a better idea of actually how much the government has cut from national security and could be spending on administrative costs.
In terms of compliance with the requirements within this particular piece of legislation, we don't know what the costs will be. It's never been factored in. I think it's responsible to know exactly what those administrative costs might be, moving forward.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
That leaves no further amendments for clause 109.
May I group clauses 109, 110, and 111 for one vote?
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, I often find that I do not have the time to react. I have to wait until the interpretation has been provided. In a lot of cases, you start speaking again before I have had the time to jump in.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Can I group the votes and do three votes at one time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Do you want a recorded vote?
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Members, I do need unanimous consent to carry on while the lights are flashing.
I would have hoped that we could have gotten in at least a few minutes, because the vote is just down the hall. In the event that certain members, I know, have anxiety to sit around and wait for half an hour for the vote, I'm just wondering whether there might be some consensus to carry on for the next 10 or 15 minutes until we actually have to go down and vote.
Are we good with that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: We're suspended.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ladies and gentlemen, we're back on.
(On clause 112)
The Chair: We have Mr. Dubé on NDP-67.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:39
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This is an amendment that seeks to change the definition of “activities that undermine the security of Canada” to “threats to the security of Canada”. This is a recommendation that came from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, among others, and from Professor Roach as well. It's obviously something that's been at the core of this debate for a long time, and with regard to former BillC-51 as well.
We believe this definition still gives the service the ability to do its work but will do more to protect rights and certain types of activities such as protests and things like that. There are a few consequential amendments to that as well.
It is so moved.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
Before I call on Ms. May, because she will be affected by any changes to NDP-67, colleagues should note that in the event that we vote on NDP-67, it will affect NDP-68, NDP-69, NDP-70, NDP-71, NDP-73, NDP-75, and NDP-76, so up or down they're affected. Similarly, if NDP-67 is defeated or adopted, it effectively defeats PV-27, PV-28, PV-30, PV-33, and PV-35, all of which cannot be moved because they're identical.
I'm going to call on Ms. May to speak to her amendments and then we will have debate.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you've accurately predicted, my amendments touch every single place where the quite novel definition of “activities that undermine the security of” is replaced with the definition more consistent to other acts within the Government of Canada: “threats to the security of”.
If I may, I've picked a very short excerpt from the testimony of Professor Roach, which is that if this goes ahead as written, this definition will remain, “the broadest definition of...national security in the law books”. He went on to say:
This distinguishes this approach from a similar approach to protest taken in the CSIS Act which is indexed not to the overbroad and relatively novel concept of “activities that undermine the security of Canada”, but the more limited and traditional definition of “threats to the security of Canada”, [as] in [section] 2 of the CSIS Act.
I would put to my friends the Liberals in this committee, as well as my friends the Conservatives and New Democrats—obviously Monsieur Dubé and I agree on this—that there's no policy rationale that's been put forward and there's no explanation for having this quasi-sedition section, with language that is so overbroad that it can't be found anywhere else in legislation that accomplishes the same purpose, in security legislation or anti-terrorism legislation.
I hope my amendments will meet with success here, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Collapse
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The concern I have—and it is a policy concern—is that “threats to the security of Canada” is a term that is used extensively in the CSIS Act for a purpose that is specific to CSIS's mandate. It would be problematic, therefore, to employ the same term for two distinct purposes in Canadian law and could lead to interpretive issues with the term in the context of the CSIS Act in the future, something that should obviously be avoided.
Before I ask the officials to comment with their view, because I hope they would have something to offer on this—and I think they probably do, especially since we're talking about interpretive issues—this same concern that I've expressed applies to Green Party-27, NDP-68, Green Party-28, NDP-75, and Green Party-34.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I appreciate the view of the officials, but with all due respect to Mr. Fragiskatos, Professor Roach and the Canadian Bar Association aren't pikers, and this isn't, as we like to say, their first rodeo. Professor Roach is one of the country's leading experts in security law, and the same departments and the same Justice officials in the previous government gave us completely dangerous broad definitions such as “terrorism...in general” in part 3 of BillC-51, which made no sense, but they defended them just as vigorously to a committee then.
With all due respect to our officials here, there is no justification for having a different definition. It doesn't add confusion to the law to be consistent. It adds confusion to the law to use a novel definition that's found only in the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:45
Expand
I agree with Ms. May entirely and I would simply add that it's even more dangerous, to my mind, in this context, because information sharing is at the heart of one of the most problematic elements of former BillC-51, now being modified through Bill C-59.
I think the wording that both Ms. May and I are proposing here is far more appropriate and, as she so eloquently pointed out, is what is proposed by many experts who clearly have expertise in the field.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I read into the record the consequential results of defeating amendment NDP-67 on both PV amendments and the other NDP amendments. Therefore, amendment PV-27 has been dealt with.
(Clause 112 agreed to on division)
(On clause 113)
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
We're now on clause 113, and I'm going to ask the clerk what we did with amendment NDP-9.6.
I'm advised that amendment NDP 9.6 is inadmissible. Amendment NDP-68 was dealt with in a previous vote, as was amendment PV-28.
(Clause 113 agreed to on division)
(On clause 114)
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Now we're going to clause 114 and amendment NDP-9.7.
I'm advised that amendment NDP-9.7 is inadmissible.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
If you wish. We didn't actually vote, so going back to amendment NDP-9.7, you can speak to it.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:50
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This will be brief. This is another consequential amendment to what I presented in the first meeting that seeks to fully repeal what was SCISA, now SCIDA, the information sharing regime brought in by former BillC-51.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, shall clause 114 carry?
(Clause 114 agreed to on division)
(On clause 115)
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:50
Expand
Chair, there are several amendments, NDP-9.8 and so forth, which I believe, since they seek to repeal the SCIDA, will be ruled inadmissible. However, it was important for me to move these amendments to make the point that this is probably the most unchanged element of former BillC-51. These are cosmetic changes at best.
I won't speak to and move all of them, but I want that on the record as the reason for presenting these amendments today. That is a key point for New Democrats with regard to Bill C-59.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
As you know, it's going to be ruled as inadmissible.
On amendment PV-29, we have Ms. May.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I thought that was defeated with amendment PV-27. It's again to replace “undermine the security” to the test of “threats” to the security of Canada.
I'm perfectly happy to put forward an argument in favour of it.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
That's wonderful. Let me then put it forward. I thought it was caught under the same argument.
At page 114, it would amend the clause so that the language would be replaced with the more traditional definition of threats to the security of Canada in order to strengthen the act.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
Is there debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We've already dealt with amendment NDP-69.
Next is LIB-45.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 60 of 1849 | Page: 1 of 31

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

For more data options, please see Open Data