It is all there. The part dealing with lobbyists is in the bill, if not more.
The red book went on to state that we would adopt the recommendations of the Holtmann committee and that is what we are doing.
So, let me quote from the Holtmann report on which was based the red book. Listen to what was said about the independence of the registrar. At the time, the title used was registrar instead of ethics counsellor. The title recommended by the Holtmann committee for this position was registrar.
On page 19, the Holtmann report says, and my colleagues may want to listen carefully and even write this down: "We listened with great interest to the arguments presented by these witnesses", meaning the witnesses who wanted the registrar to be placed under the authority of the House of Commons, but "heard no evidence that the Registrar has been hindered in the execution of her duties. Nevertheless, we are anxious that both the excellent performance and the public reputation of the Registrar be maintained. We feel that this can best be accomplished by giving the Registrar an increased measure of independence and additional authority to report on matters pertaining to the Act. Apart from the obvious benefit of reducing the possibility of political interference, this would allow the Registrar to comment on deficiencies and problems with the operation of the Act. Therefore, the committee recommends-listen to this-that the Registrar be appointed by the Governor
in Council-in other words by the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and get this-subject to the approval of a committee of Parliament".
There you go. It is already provided for in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. As you can see, the complaints and the lamentations that we heard earlier today from the members opposite-