I take a different view from the commissioner on this. I have a lot of respect for her and for others in the field. For example, David Mullen is a colleague in this field, and we both served as integrity commissioner for the city at different periods. We take a different view. His view is that no gift should be under the radar.
Commissioner Dawson has said that the radar should reach deeper than it does.
I'm comfortable with a fairly healthy de minimis line because I don't think the public is concerned about the nickel-and-dime stuff. The example I used to use is that city councillors would complaint that they wanted to give out Marlies tickets, and they heard the integrity commissioner wouldn't let them go to the neighbourhood Boys and Girls Club to give out Marlies tickets because it was a gift they were dispensing or had received from the city-owned organization.
My view is that the public knows the difference between Marlies tickets going to the Boys and Girls Club and box tickets at the Air Canada Centre to watch the Leafs. In other words, it's not that going to a hockey game is in one category, the potential of influencing through the giving of gifts is the mischief.
I'd rather we had a standard that says that, and lets the Commissioner make the determination, than these arbitrary cut-offs. For administrative convenience I can see you need a number and obviously we can't have everything resting on broad discretion. But I'd be fine with $200, $300, or $400. Eyebrows will be raised at some level, and that's the level at which I would put this. I don't think that $50 is in any reasonable person's view the kind of gift that is going to get a public official to act contrary to the public interest. That kind of benefit just doesn't ring true to me.
But again, I respect the Commissioner closer to this. I respect colleagues who say there shouldn't be any limit below which you don't get the scrutiny.
This is one about which people committed to accountability may disagree.