First, Mr. Speaker, let us establish one thing. The nature of dealing with lobbyists is not in itself judicial. One might argue it is quasi-judicial. We do not start off with the premise that someone who is being investigated has committed a crime. This is not at the same level. The member would understand that first premise. I am sure he does.
We do not start off with the premise that anyone who is before the body in question has committed some sort of wrongdoing. In fact the ethnics counsellor will be producing the rules to govern these people, the code of conduct, providing advice to them. If a lobbyist is deciding whether or not a particular lobbying activity is ethical, he will be able to consult the ethics counsellor and so on. That is the first proposition.
The second proposition is that the member has said that I have not convinced him why someone who reports nominally through a minister for a report to be tabled in the House would be independent. I have to turn it right around on its head and say he has not proven that he is not. He has far from made that proof.
I gave the example of the director of investigation and research, who does work in regard to dealings in the corporate sector, and how if groups are guilty of collusion, price fixing, and so on, these people are investigated.
There are administrative tribunals involving international trade that report through a minister to the House. None of the pension tribunals report directly to the Speaker of Parliament. Does the veterans pensions appeal board report directly to the Speaker? Of course not. It reports through the minister to the House. Does anyone say that all these people are tainted, incompetent, and that their judgment is biased? I do not think so. What about all the other administrative tribunals? Does anyone make that allegation?
There is an interesting point. One minister has as his task to report the estimates of the CRTC in this House: the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Because that minister passed a complaint on, without even a recommendation, referred a letter from a constituent, that was brought on the floor of the House as saying that this body is quite independent, even though it reports to the minister. If that is true, that a person reporting through the minister had previously, according to the same people asking the questions today, always been independent, how is it that this job of being the administrator of these rules will never be independent? How can that be? Obviously it is wrong. Their judgment is incorrect.
I say that even though the person reports to a minister of the crown, the person is not a police officer or a judge of the Supreme Court. He administers rules of ethics. There are two facets to it: one involves lobbyists reporting through the minister to the House; the other one is reporting the conduct of ministers to the Prime Minister. The reason for that, of course, is we operate under the principle of responsible government.
With the indulgence of my colleagues, may I end with this comment? What if we had a system pertaining to the conduct of ministers where the Prime Minister was not responsible?
If the Prime Minister answered questions saying: "Do not ask me. There is an independent officer investigating this", what we would hear from the opposition was: "Prime Minister, you are the boss. You appointed these people. You are the one who is supposed to administer discipline". In other words, the opposition would turn it around. Its members would say quite correctly that we live under a system of responsible government and the buck has to stop with the person in charge.
Those are the two functions that person will have to administer, one closer to a judicial role and the other something where the ultimate responsibility has to lie with the Prime Minister. Those are the two functions that the person will have according to my understanding of the job. That is the important thing for us to remember.
I hope this legislation will be passed expeditiously and that we have better rules of conduct not for us in this bill-we will have those too, some other time-but a better code of conduct for lobbyists for the betterment of the whole country.