﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Hansard xml:lang="EN" id="9887076">
  <StartPageNumber>1</StartPageNumber>
  <DocumentTitle>
    <DocumentName>EVIDENCE</DocumentName>
  </DocumentTitle>
  <ExtractedInformation>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebate">Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Number">NUMBER 083</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Session">1st SESSION</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Parliament">42nd PARLIAMENT</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Date">Monday, December 11, 2017</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="DateOtherLang">Le lundi 11 décembre 2017</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Institution">Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Country">CANADA</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="RecordingNote">[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="HeaderTitle">EVIDENCE</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="HeaderDate">December 11, 2017</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDocumentCategory">Committee</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitle">Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 083 (Official Version)</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleEn">Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 083 (Official Version)</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleFr">Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 083 (Version officielle)</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaNumberNumber">83</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumDay">11</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumMonth">12</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumYear">2017</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaCreationTime">2017/12/11 15:40:00</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaInstitution">House of Commons</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateFr">Comité permanent de l'accès à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateEn">Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Acronyme">ETHI</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerTitle">Chair</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerName">Mr. Bob Zimmer</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="ParliamentNumber">42</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SessionNumber">1</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InCameraNote">PUBLIC PART ONLY - PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT</ExtractedItem>
  </ExtractedInformation>
  <HansardBody>
    <OrderOfBusiness>
      <CatchLine />
      <SubjectOfBusiness>
        <SubjectOfBusinessContent>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="45">(1545)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="9887224" ToCText="">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234683" Type="35">The Chair (Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC))</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199745"> We'll bring the meeting back to order.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199746">We have a motion by Mr. Cullen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="9887227" ToCText="">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234684" Type="40">Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199747">We have a motion and much vigorous debate.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199748">
                <B>Some hon. members:</B> Oh, oh!</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199749">
                <B>Mr. Nathan Cullen:</B> Originally, I drafted this to read “Wednesday, December 13”, assuming our normal committee day hearing, but there are some rumours, as there always are at the end of session, that we might not be here late Wednesday or that votes will interfere.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199750">The motion is simple:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199751">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2"> That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(iii), the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons be invited to appear before the Committee on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, for one hour in her capacity as the Minister responsible for the appointment of the next Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to discuss the effectiveness, management and operation of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner during the upcoming transition. </QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199752">That's how the motion reads. I can read it again or slow it down, but everyone gets the gist of what we are suggesting.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199753">The challenge is this. The government wrote to us—and I assume to the Conservatives as well—a week or so ago. We responded this morning, and the announcement was made a few hours later, putting forward Mr. Dion's name. We found out from the nominee for Information—</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199754">
                <B>An hon. member:</B> Lobbying....</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199755">
                <B>Mr. Nathan Cullen:</B> For Commissioner of Lobbying, excuse me.... It's weird, because she applied for Information Commissioner and got lobbying. We found out from the Commissioner of Lobbying how the process worked from her perspective, which I think was very informative for committee members.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199756">I don't want to assume that or put that on the candidate. It can be tricky, and there were a few moments where she didn't want to.... She said, “It's not for me to comment.” It's on the people who are responsible for the nomination process itself. I think <Affiliation DbId="224672" Type="96">Ms. Chagger</Affiliation> would be the person. She is the point person for the government on this nomination process, so if there are any questions about how we got here, she would be the best-qualified person to do it. It makes sense for me to have her testify.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199757">I would imagine one hour with the nominee and one hour with <Affiliation DbId="224672" Type="96">Ms. Chagger</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887269">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234683" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199758">Thank you, Mr. Cullen.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199759">Is there any further debate or discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199760">Mr. Kent, go ahead.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="9887277" ToCText="">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234389" Type="47">Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199761">We certainly support this motion and have a good many questions for the House leader with regard to the timing, the lack of meaningful consultation, and more or less just the presentation of a name late in the week, with a deadline of noon today for the official opposition's response. We support the motion and look forward to talking to both the nominee and the government House leader.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199762">There are obviously questions we would be interested in, and assurances we would be looking to receive from the nominee regarding the open-endedness—or not—of current investigations in that office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887293">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234683" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199763">Thank you, Mr. Kent.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199764">Are there any further comments?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199765">Mr. Cullen, go ahead.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887295">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234684" Type="40">Mr. Nathan Cullen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199766">I just have a small addition.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199767">It's just to give colleagues on the government side—the Liberals, not the government....</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887300">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="216078" Type="47">Mr. Raj Saini (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199768">They are the same thing.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887305">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234684" Type="40">Mr. Nathan Cullen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199769">Not really, a government is a cabinet, but never mind.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199770">It's the question around timing. I'm just giving you a flavour of what we are looking to investigate with <Affiliation DbId="224672" Type="96">Ms. Chagger</Affiliation>. Obviously, there would be the same questions we put to the Commissioner of Lobbying in terms of committee composition and how it is structured. There have been recusals on this hiring. I suppose there were recusals on lobbying, too, from within the <Affiliation DbId="214296" Type="1">Prime Minister</Affiliation>'s Office. I think so. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The recusals...just to be clear, because there has been some indication in the press, but that's not...I can't take that for everything.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199771">That's where we want to go, that openness, transparency piece around it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="50">(1550)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887314">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234683" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199772">Is there any further discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199773">(Motion negatived)</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="9887328">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="234683" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="5199774">We will see you Tuesday at 3:30 in Centre Block. It will be televised.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="5199775">Have a good day. The meeting is adjourned.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
        </SubjectOfBusinessContent>
      </SubjectOfBusiness>
    </OrderOfBusiness>
  </HansardBody>
</Hansard>