Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

A mousetrap.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—that kind of thing, and I have no idea who it came from. Normally I give most of it away. If I could use it in my apartment, I throw it in the apartment, but we had one similar to that a couple of weeks before and we were advised that we needed to send it all back. It's just the practicality of it. Nobody here is trying in this day and age to find a loophole where we can get secret gifts. I think you understand that's relatively rare.

It's that practical idea. I don't know what to do with this darned thing. Under the last direction we had, I would be expected to rewrap it in a courier format, I guess, and send it back. But it just doesn't seem to make common sense that someone could give me $1,500, someone I know who's saying, “I like you, Dave. Here's $1,500 of my hard-earned cash. I want you to get re-elected,” yet some group, practically anonymously, sends me a bag of products to promote something—I don't know what it is—and suddenly this is like a major issue and we're violating all kinds of rules.

We're having trouble understanding, and I'll end with this. We're struggling with the common sense of that $1,500 and that you can do this. There's a declaration at $500. There's a $200 threshold at one point, and oftentimes the code and the loss are two different things. Then we get down to what looks like small potatoes, yet it's being made into a big deal. I'm sitting here. I have the darned thing in my office. I don't know what to do with it. By rights, I should spend all that money and time and send it back, but I have to tell you, I begrudge that because I have other things for my staff to be doing rather than messing around with that kind of thing.

So I'd like your thoughts, sir, on how you approach that common-sense idea of what's okay and what isn't okay.

[Paul Fraser]

First of all, we're sympathetic to that, as opposed to saying, “You're trivializing the problem and get over it“. For anyone who wonders about those people who operate in the environment that we operate in on both sides of our, I'm going to say, partnership, they'll understand the meaning of that. It has been my experience without exception that people aren't in the business of public service as members to get rich or to accept gifts under the table. They're there to make a contribution and hopefully not get absolutely poor in the meantime because they have some pension rights and they have a fair salary. Beyond that, what do we do?

I've not been faced with the situation that you've described. I have said to people who have received gifts—not in an abundance of a Niagara Falls of gifts like this was—to just give it back or send a note thanking them and indicating them it's not something that you can accept: no offence, we know it's well intended, but, etc. That's worked.

What I have found is that dealing with caucus representatives is invaluable in terms of understanding what the caucuses themselves are prepared to think is reasonable treatment. Not that everybody has to come up with a homogenized solution, but everybody has this problem and everybody's solution is going to make a difference. We don't want to have solutions that are in search of a problem, but we want to make sure that when the problem arrives there is a response that seems to be uniform.

We have had situations arise where—as you do every day and we know this—people are giving you token gifts as a thank you simply for taking time out to come and speak to them. We understand that. It's part of what this country is all about. It's comity, it's appreciation of others, and it's courtesy. How does all of that translate in our real world?

At this very moment, for example, we're trying to deal with a situation where some members who have gone out and spoken at, I'm going to say, neutral audience situations have had said to them by the organizing committee of the event, “We would like to make a charitable donation in your name as opposed to giving you a trinket.” We've had members come forward and say, “Well, what do you think of that?” We're at the stage in that analysis where we're trying to figure out what the donor is like. Is the contribution going to be made to a registered charity? That's important. Who is the donor? Is the donor someone who would be seen objectively as being acceptable? What's the amount? Then the problem arises, “Well, I don't want to be embarrassed by having to ask what the amount is because that will be a reflection of whether they think I was worth it”. We're grappling with all of that.

In your situation, I would basically take everybody's grab bag gifts together and off it goes to the homeless shelter. Anybody that wants it there could take it. That's a practical solution. Throwing it out is another solution if you want to. I find that solution on humanitarian grounds to be less acceptable than the first one, but it's difficult.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I may, sir, just from a practical application point of view, where $1,500 is legal and is basically a promotional gift....

I don't know what it's worth. The last time somebody said it was worth $120. I can't imagine how, but okay.

[Paul Fraser]

Are we talking about a political contribution to you?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I'm talking about going back to the example I gave.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The first part of your example. The political contribution to your—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The $1,500 is a political contribution.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, but that's the context. I'm saying that's legal, someone could do that. But somebody can't send me a bag of whatever that they've sent to everybody else without asking for anything other than this is a sample of what we do and maybe they're going to have a day on the Hill or something. The reason I'm following up is that your inclination was similar, that we ought not have it. I'm simply trying to understand the why of that.

[Alyne Mochan]

Could I jump in?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Alyne Mochan]

I think the basic principle of the gifts provisions is that you shouldn't be benefiting, getting perks, just for being an MLA, or an MP in your case. So the gifts that are acceptable for you to receive are those that are related to your position in terms of protocol or thank you gifts. But where it's getting freebies because of your role, just because you're an MLA and you haven't done anything, you haven't given a speech, you haven't shown up to do anything, you're simply sitting in your office and a bag comes to you, it's similar to getting a ski pass. That's an extra benefit you're getting just because of your position. What's off about it is that it's something you're getting as a perk simply for being an MLA or an MP.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What about a reception, just to play devil's advocate?

[Alyne Mochan]

That's a little different though. If you're going to a reception in your official capacity and you're there in your role, you're doing something and it's a thank you. But as I understand it, you're saying that you get sent stuff. A member of the public, if they look at that, would think it's a little off, your just getting gifts.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

A medal from the Governor General, I get that, and that's just for being.

[Alyne Mochan]

I guess, but those are the sort of subtleties that we think of as sort of the principle for not accepting a bunch of extra stuff out of context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Richards and Mr. Lamoureux and I need it to be very short.

You get one question because I know how long they are.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's not a problem, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that.

I will make it short actually. It's a quick follow-up on the previous question I asked about the service standards. You indicated that you had a sort of internal self-imposed standard that you applied to yourself.

I can certainly say that my experience with our commissioner is that when I've had to ask, I've always gotten a speedy response. There has never been any issue. I have heard from others that maybe that wasn't the case, but in my experience there has been no issue at all in terms of this.

Because we are looking at our legislation, should we look at formalizing something in terms of a service standard? Would that be something you would think would be advisable or suggestible, that maybe a service standard would be good, especially because we are talking about things like clearing attendance at events, clearing acceptance of gifts? Obviously, those can be time sensitive for members, so is that something we should look at?

[Paul Fraser]

We have separated the financial aspect of that, in terms of reporting and in terms of keeping statistics, from everything else. I don't know what the system is here, but every year the officers of the legislature are required to go before the finance committee and present a budget, and on that basis uniformly be told there is no money. Then everybody goes away and we come back the next year.

But in the course of all that we have to defend, and we should have to defend, how we're spending the money and how effective it is, which is why the statistics that I referred to are kept. If we're claiming a certain amount of money for wages and for administration and we're not providing statistics about how we're delivering those services and how often and so on, then there's a disconnect. That's why we keep those statistics and that's why, in my view, that financial process is important.

I'm very reluctant to take the step that I think you're suggesting. I mentioned incidentally that I think this committee's presence is of some great assistance and it is because you are the real world. While everybody reports to parliaments or legislatures, you can't possibly get feedback except in these kinds of circumstances, which are very helpful.

I'm not sure that answers your question, but that's how we deal with it in terms of showing people that they're getting value for service.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

As I'm told I'm allowed only one question, I'll have to say I think that does really answer the question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Maybe Mr. Lamoureux will ask what you wanted to ask.

Mr. Lamoureux, go ahead for one quick question, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

With regard to your last answer, I understood you to say that you meet with the other opposition parties and the government. Is it the House leaders you meet with?

Now I only get the one question, so I'm going to put it in two parts.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would think there is a benefit. Sometimes around the table, we might be offside or we're thinking, “Why doesn't the commissioner do this?” This is a very formal group. You don't want a formal group like this beating up on the commissioner or ganging up or saying, “Well, what about this? What about this?”, and all this kind of stuff, but sometimes there could be informal discussions. It sounds as if you have some sort of informal discussions.

Do you believe that you, as a commissioner, benefit from having those informal discussions with the party designates?

[Paul Fraser]

The answer to that is yes.

There will be various levels of tolerance among my colleagues across the country, in response to your question. Some will see it in terms of protecting the independence of their office and so on. I get that. I understand that. But in terms of being effective in the work I do, where I do it, I have accepted invitations to go to speak to caucuses when they have requested, and those sessions have been helpful. I have made it a point after an election to meet especially with the new members and to talk to them as part of their, if you like, initiation. I have spoken to caucus chairs on occasion when I've considered that there's a problem looming. I will continue to do all of those things.

Some of my colleagues may have no appetite for that, but I find that it has been helpful to me in the sense that it allows people to figure out, as one of your colleagues was essentially raising, whether I am a person they can talk to, whether I am realistic, and whether I am somebody who seems to understand what the problems are. I do those things without apology and quite happily.