There's an expression in the law, a $5 expression, in Latin, called de minimis. It has to do with the law not concerning itself with trifles, and on that basis, judges every day in this country do not descend to a level of detail that they think is unproductive and unhelpful.
I agree with Commissioner Morrison, and I agree with the sentiments of Commissioner Dawson that the sections having to do with gifts are misunderstood.
That said, we do know that what is called the custom, protocol, and social obligation is an exception in Ontario. In British Columbia we say that the exception has to do with whether the benefit was “received as an incident of the protocol or social obligations that normally accompany the responsibilities of office”.
The concern I would have, frankly, if it was reduced to $30, even though to do that is logically consistent with the point that Commissioner Dawson has made, is that many members, it seems to me, wouldn't bother reporting. It just doesn't seem to be enough, and in terms of the real world and the gifts that people get that fall within the definitions contained in the statute, I don't think today thirty bucks is enough. I think $250, or $200, as it is in some jurisdictions, more accurately reflects what the cost of a lunch would be and makes more practical sense, frankly, and if it's practical and it makes sense, it's more likely to be obeyed, in my experience.