My impression has always been and continues to be that the problems that arise deal not with the way in which you've administered the code, but rather with the way in which the code was written. I think to some degree it was written in haste when it was designed. There are some problems that have gradually been ironed out, but in particular I think they still exist vis-à-vis section 14 of the code, which deals with gifts. That's the area you mentioned that's problematic. I was going to ask if you have your copy of the code because I'm going to suggest some ideas that might be helpful in resolving some of this.
I believe there's a problem because subsection 14(1) of the code is to some degree in contradiction to subsection 14(3) of the code. Subsection 14(3) states that gifts are reportable if they have a value of $200 or more, but subsection 14(1) reads, and I'll quote:
Neither a Member nor any member of a Member’s family shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the Member in the exercise of a duty or function of his or her office.
It seems to me that part—might reasonably be understood to have been given in expectation—is saying that what is important if I receive a gift is not how I'll act, but how someone assumes that the person who gave the gift to me thought I would act. It's entirely conceivable that someone would give me a gift that's under $200, which may have been intended to who knows how affect me but that is not realistically, plausibly going to have that effect.
I wonder if we could resolve part of the gift problem by adding something that says this. It would be a subsection that would go after subsection 14(3). It would have the number subsection 14(3.1) possibly, and it would say, “For greater certainly, a gift or other benefit that does not require disclosure under subsection 14(3) shall be deemed not to be capable of influencing the member in the exercise of a duty or function of his or her office.”
Would that to some degree accomplish dealing with problems with that?