Mr. Calkins, go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
So the bottom line, Commissioner, or the line in the sand, is that the $200 to $500 thresholds we've talked about don't necessarily need the perception of a quid pro quo arrangement. Is that correct?
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, the code is very clear on that—if it can lead a reasonable person to believe that it was given. There's no need to prove an absolute quid pro quo.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you.
Do you believe there should be a quid pro quo, or do you believe the reasonable perception is good enough?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Based on the four years of experience, Madam Chair, I believe the test is perfectly good the way it is.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I do have a question with regard to the process that is currently being followed. As a returning member of Parliament several times now—and I believe everybody here at the table is a returning member, although not right now.... Well, yes, even now; I'm sorry, Eric. You're just so young.
One thing that I think some colleagues around the table may find not necessarily frustrating, but maybe an exercise in not the best use of time is that when an election is called, all of the information that you have about us is considered gone—null and void. If we've just submitted our annual declaration to you, we simply have to go through the process again a few months after having an election. Do you see a way in which we can streamline that and make that better?
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Madam Chair, my answer is always that unfortunately we have to apply the code the way it is crafted. At this point in time, it is required that you submit a new statement as if you were a brand new member of Parliament. We could certainly look at the minimum period of time—not in real time, but it has to be recent. Is the line six months, nine months, three months? I don't know. It would be for the committee to review as part of the comprehensive review.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Through the chair, Mr. Dion, I would first and foremost like to thank you for always being available and present for this committee. I know that you had made an offer even in the last Parliament to be present if the committee undertook a review of the code. The committee at that time was busy with other matters, I guess, and was not able to get to the code. We might be doing that this time around.
I want to go back to some of the common questions you referred to earlier and the fact that you were surprised that members were still having questions about this. I don't think it should come as a surprise, quite frankly. Oftentimes, when members talk amongst themselves, there is a lot of confusion. Even in the 43rd Parliament we had Ms. Dawson come before this committee, and there were many questions asked quite pointedly to Ms. Dawson where there were no clear answers. Most of them were surrounding gifts and how to report them.
I feel that your position today has been a little clearer. Could you go into some more detail on cases, without naming members in specific cases, that you encounter often where it might not be intentional but due to a lack of knowledge?
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
On the issue of gifts, point one is that nothing happens until we find out that somebody has accepted a gift. Typically, or 95% of the time, the member tells us that he or she has accepted a gift. From time to time, we can also find out from social media, for instance, that a member has accepted a gift. It has happened in practice, but usually the member self-declares.
Our role is to determine whether the gift was acceptable. If it was accepted, was it acceptable? The test, as I've mentioned, is whether it can be reasonably seen by a reasonable person to have been given to influence. We discuss that with the member, and we generally come to a conclusion that the gift was acceptable. Sometimes it's not, and we require the member to return the gift when it can be returned, or to repay the gift when it has been consumed already.
Grosso modo, that is the issue. You come to us and we assess together whether it meets the test in section 14 of the code so that you can actually keep it. If not, we take measures.
Noon
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Can you provide some examples of times when you have required the gift to be returned? Is it when the amount is over $200, or is it just because of the perception of that particular gift?
Noon
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The acceptability does not relate to the value, so the issue is the same whether it's worth $100 or $500: Can it be seen as having been given to influence you unduly?
The value is a factor, of course, because a reasonable person might think that a gift worth $500 is more likely to sway you than a gift worth $100 or $50, and it's only declared when it's valued at $200 or more. Members do not usually come to tell us about a gift that's valued at less than $200. They don't. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. Invitations are the classic case—to an event, to a show, or to a banquet.
Noon
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Previously, there was confusion. Ms. Dawson was at this committee and stated that even gifts under $200 should be declared. They would just not be recorded or reported.
So that is not your understanding, then.