Evidence of meeting #8 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gifts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The logical time would be after my annual report.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Should it be within 90 days? Then perhaps there could be an automated clause such that, if we haven't called you, you would appear at the next meeting within a set time frame.
12:20 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes. My report goes out in June, so it would probably be the following fall.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
It might be 120 days from then, if you haven't been called, because we don't sit over the summer, or some reasonable period of time by which you would be called. It should certainly be before your next annual report is due. That's something for us to consider.
12:20 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's not my proposal, but it seems to me that it's sensible to invite me from time to time.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards
All right, thank you. We certainly have always found your visits—this is the second one since I've been on the committee—informational. We appreciate them.
We're now going to go back to Mr. Reid, who has five minutes.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again I'm on gifts. In subsection 14(1), it says, “Neither a Member nor any member of a Member’s family shall accept”—that is not my wording, it's the wording in the rules—“any gift or other benefit”. You've taken the position in the past that in the case of certain gifts that have been sent to all MPs, we should all send them back. When you were here before I raised the problem that I was not in a position to do it because I'd taken it and thrown it in the garbage, which I suppose would mean technical non-compliance with the code.
Does it seem reasonable to you that we could rewrite that part of the code to say there are a number of ways of getting rid of it? Sending it back is one option, sending it to you is another option, throwing it in the garbage is the third option, and, I don't know, crushing it with a hammer is the fourth option. It's basically not accepting it, but doing it in a way that doesn't involve us having to guess every time something comes in whether or not we are dealing with a certain number. As was the case with that particular gift of alternative health care supplements, most of us have no idea about their value. It's value to me was zero.
12:20 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I was surprised that you would throw it in the garbage because it's not good to throw away pills into the garbage, but anyway it was interesting about that particular gift. We looked at the contents of that particular package and it was worth over $100. There was a significant cost to that stuff. I agree, but usually a gift is not going to be unacceptable to an MP. That's the other thing about it. It's just when there's something going on. Like a pharmaceutical may well be unacceptable, I suppose, because maybe they're looking for a particular bill or something in a committee or something, but generally—
Yes, go ahead.
12:25 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's important to review the documentation that comes with it. If there's a cover letter that asks for support on a bill or something like that, that is an indication the gift is most likely not acceptable.
12:25 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The marijuana that was sent to all the Liberals this Christmas was the classic one. That was bad on two fronts. First of all, they were considering making marijuana legal, and the letter that covered it said, “Here's some marijuana, make our bill legal”, or whatever. The second thing that was wrong with it, was that it was illegal for heaven's sake. It had to be gotten rid of.
There are some solutions to that particular problem. I would suggest a central place in the building to dump them, as long as they're reported as being dumped. Then the donors can know that's where they can get them back if they want them. There are solutions. I certainly don't want you each to have to mail them back.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I have one last thing. There had been a considerable amount of discussion in the committee in the last Parliament around the issue of going to events, and whether or not this triggers a violation of the code unless one pays. I gather it was a meaningful financial problem. This is not true for me. I'm in a rural constituency. There are no expensive events in rural constituencies of this sort, where you have to pay $200 or $300 to get in. This occurs in urban areas. It was raised by one of our colleagues, who said, “Look, I go because I have to. I would prefer to stay home if I had a choice, and now I have to pay on top of this”.
Keeping that thought in mind, I wonder whether we couldn't make it clear in subsection 14.(1.1) that we are trying to distinguish the admission to the event itself, and say, in that case, that's set aside as a...but food and drink are okay. What I'm trying to do here is to distinguish between events that are typically sporting events, where there's a high admission cost—and that's something where it's reasonable to expect the person should have to pay for it themselves—and other kinds of events, such as going to various cultural community annual fundraising dinners, where there's a high ticket price, as essentially a way of supporting this or that community.
12:25 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The test is always whether it could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence you. Normally it's okay to attend these events, but when it's a gala or something you're invited to, then you have to figure out who is giving you the ticket to go, if it's an expensive event. Those kinds of things come up from time to time.
This subsection 14(1.1) is still underneath the rubric of whether it could reasonably be seen.... It's usually the case where some stakeholder gives somebody a ticket to go to some event. It's a charitable event, but it's the stakeholder giving them the ticket. It's not the charitable event that's giving them the ticket.
I've had discussions with the National Arts Centre, for example. The NAC has this system whereby they issue VIP invitations to certain prominent people. That's all right, because they are not looking for something from the government. As I say, these cases usually come up in the act, not the code, but occasionally they can come up in the code as well. Those invitations from the charitable event people themselves, or the non-stakeholder event.... It's when a stakeholder buys a ticket to the NAC and invites somebody that there's sometimes a problem.
But really, don't worry about your constituencies very much at all, because you're meant to be visible out there.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
I want to follow up on Mr. Reid's point, because I do come from an urban environment where sometimes I'm probably at that threshold, where I attend.... I come from a particular community background where I really go to an endless array of.... I just came off Chinese New Year. I don't know how many events I did. It's not like I feel that there's some material benefit there. I literally am running from one event to another to deliver a speech, or in some cases I'm just sitting there, but I do that as part of the discharge of my function.
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Right.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's not a problem at all. Unless—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
The question is whether there's a disclosure requirement. That's my question.
I'll give you an example of one. The Prime Minister recently attended the Dragon Ball. That is not a cheap ticket. I was sitting at the table of, let's say, a large financial institution. Originally, they invited me, and I said, “I can't accept that.” Subsequently, I was invited by the organizers of the event, and I ended up getting seated at the same table of that large financial institution. I didn't know whether they were lobbying the government or not. Do I have a disclosure requirement? That's where I'm scratching my head.
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, the value of the ticket.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, you do.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
—even though it's a charity and it's raising money for older people. This is the Yee Hong Community Wellness Foundation and there was a significant amount of monies to obviously—
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
But that's part of the transparency principle. Basically, it's so they can see who in the heck is inviting you where.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I know that I'm being invited because I'm a community member of this particular community.
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, but there's nothing wrong with it.