GooglePMOWatch: Does this seem ... a little odd to anyone else?

[...] Gifts can be many types of things. The Office has interpreted the definition to include 

such things as: 

     

money, other than a bona fide loan, regardless of format (cash, cheques, 

etc.); 

     property (a book, flowers, a painting or sculpture, a car, a house, furniture, 

wine, etc.); 

     use of property or facilities (a vehicle, an office, a house or cottage, a sports 

facility, a golf course, etc.) at a reduced rate or at no cost; 

     membership in a club or other organization (a golf club, a tennis club, etc.) at 

a reduced rate or at no cost; 

     a service (dry cleaning, a haircut, etc.), at a reduced rate or at no cost; 

     a meal paid for by another individual (see Specific guidance on business 

lunches); 

     an invitation to and/or tickets to attend an event (a game, a concert, a play, 

etc.) at a reduced rate or at no cost (see Specific guidance on invitations and 

fundraisers); or 

     an invitation to attend a gala or fund-raising event at a reduced rate or at no 

cost (see Specific guidance on invitations and fundraisers). 

The purpose of prohibiting public office holders or their family members from 

receiving gifts is to preserve confidence in the integrity of public decision-making. 

The determining factor is whether the gift might reasonably be seen to have been 

given to influence the public office holder's decision-making. 

In order to determine whether a gift is being offered inappropriately, all the 

circumstances surrounding that gift must be considered; hence, no specific rule 

exists as to which gifts can be accepted by public office holders. The value of a gift is 

NOT a criterion of acceptability; it is a threshold for the purpose of disclosure to the 

Office and the public.  

It is important to consider who is offering the gift and why it is being offered. The 

donor's existing, or future relationship to the public office holder is of particular 

relevance. 

In the following examples, the identity of the donor might reasonably be seen to 

suggest that the gift was given to influence the public office holder's decision-

making. 

Gifts can be many types of things. The Office has interpreted the definition to include 

such things as: 

1.   The donor or the donor's client or firm has or may, in the future, have 

dealings with the public sector entity of the public office holder. 

2.   The donor or the donor's client or firm is or may, in the future, be affected by 

programs, policies or regulations reviewed or controlled by the public sector 

entity of the public office holder. 

3.   The donor or the donor's firm is a registered lobbyist or has hired a registered 

lobbyist to lobby the public office holder or the public sector entity of the 

public office holder. 

4.   The donor or the donor's client or firm has or may, in the future, have a 

contract with the public sector entity of the public office holder. 

5.   The donor or the donor's client or firm could submit a bid in respect of a 

request for proposals that the public sector entity of the public office holder 

has issued or may issue in the future. 

A public office holder or family member should consider why a gift is being offered. If 

a gift is being offered by someone whose interests could be affected by a decision 

the public office holder may be called upon to make, then the Act will likely apply 

and prohibit its acceptance. 

 

Trinkets or favours of relatively little value such as pens, notepads, key chains, t-

shirts or inexpensive carrying cases provided to attendees at a convention or similar 

event would generally not reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the 

public office holder's decision-making. However, depending on the public office 

holder's role or the public sector entity of the public office holder, it may still be 

inadvisable to possess an article that clearly advertises a particular donor.