Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. I know he thinks in a very technical and reasonable way. He has given the example of a judge in this instance and I want to draw an example to his attention.
Let us take an individual named Jean who is to go before a judge to be judged. Before he goes before the trial judge on allegations he gets to pick and appoint the judge. Then Jean appears before the judge. While Jean is there, he is the only one who gets to present the evidence. Jean presents his case to the judge that he appointed and hired. After the judge has heard Jean's submissions he then retires. After making his decision on the evidence presented by Jean, he then reports back to Jean. He reports back to the person who hired him and then passes judgment.
The hon. member talks about the perception. I know he appreciates the nuance. The public should have confidence in the office of ethics counsellor which in and of itself includes the important distinction of ethics. Would he not agree that the perception here is wrong?
Would he not agree that the in this instance the Prime Minister is being judged by a person he has appointed and who reports only to him? Does the hon. member not see something wrong with the perception here?