It is a legitimate argument that if he's being paid to give speeches pertaining to his current profession, then there is a conflict of interest. That said, for any other topic, no.
Conservatives accuse Justin Trudeau of profiting from not-for-profits
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Blame the charity, not Trudeau. It wasn't up to him to assess whether the charity's money was being well spent by engaging his services.
That's quite separate from the issue of whether he should have been giving paid speeches as a sitting MP.
That's quite separate from the issue of whether he should have been giving paid speeches as a sitting MP.
I'm not so sure about that. Once one has been elected as a representative of the people, how does one turn that off exactly? Now don't misunderstand me, I don't personally care if we are talking about Trudeau or some other MP, but I don't think they should be charging or accepting a fee for speaking at any event, anywhere when they are an elected official. I don't care that the Ethics Committee sees no wrongdoing either. There is a lot of 'wrong doing' going on on Parliament Hill, expenses out of control and what not, that I don't put a lot of faith or stock in any Ethics Committee run from the hill. Would any speaker be a draw or as much of a draw, Trudeau aside obviously because of name recognition with or without MP status, if they were not an MP?
Again, I think we're talking about optics here. From the point of view of many average Canadians, we have more than adequate compensation for the job of MP, along with what is generally deemed to be outrageous retirement packages, for individuals who then go out and create more revenue for themselves because we've elected them to a position, at least perceptively speaking. I think there needs to be a hard line drawn. These are not pre-existing income sources, like a family business, but are new revenue streams that open up after we've put them in the position that they are in.
Trudeau should not have been missing sittings of the House to give paid speeches. I don't think that as a sitting MP he should have been giving paid speeches at all.
You have a point there. But if he should be hired to give a speech on his experience as a teacher, would that not be legitimate? I doubt they'd hire him for that anyway, seeing that they'd be more likely to hire a professor of educaiton or something for that, and I'm sure most if not all of this speeches likely pertained to his current profession, not his former one.
I have stated they (all MP's) should not be permitted to charge fees- reimbursement for expenses are fine. A small honorarium would also be fine.
Again, whether we're talking about Trudeau or someone else, if they are currently serving as an elected official, they should not be accepting fees for things like speeches. Irrespective of the topic. Elected officials make speeches all the time, as part of their job. That's way too fine of a line to be drawing, in my opinion.
Now let me preface this next piece by stating that I certainly don't think an elected official gives over their life to complete servitude to the public or anything like that. But having said that, it's not a nine to five job, not even close. An elected official is always an elected official, even in their "off hours". So I would equate this notion of giving speeches for a fee whilst being an elected MP with my using my afternoon office at work where my boss is paying me by the hour to earn some part time income in a side business. Now I work a nine to five job so if I want to grab a part time job outside those hours, that's my choice but I don't think elected officials should really have the same choice. Because what they do is more than just a job, it is a position. If one does not agree with that, one should not go into politics.
The gig doesn't last forever, they can give speeches til the cows come home when they get voted out.
Granted that is another legitimate way of looking at it. At minimum he should not miss a Parliamentary debate for a speech. That goes without saying. That's the 9-5 thingy. However, if we interpret it to suggest that he's essentially on duty 24-7, then yes he should not accept paid speeches at all.
Good point.
AMAZING how the letter asking for re-imbursement was ACCIDENTALLY, one assumes , split in two and misdirected to the PMO and the CBC.
Dratted postal system...
Justin has decided to return the fee.
Guess he finally saw the optics on his rash decision.
And he is going to raise the bar.
Justin Trudeau to offer return of $20,000 speaking fee - The Globe and Mail
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he will offer to return a $20,000 speaking fee he received for speaking at a money-losing fundraising event last year for a New Brunswick charity, addressing a storm of criticism that arose late last week after he initially refused to do so at the charity’s request.
Furthermore, Mr. Trudeau told CTV’s Question Period in an interview aired Sunday that he would work with the Grace Foundation “and any other organization I spoke for as an MP” to either offer an equivalent donation for fees he received “or work with them to try and fix it and make it right.
“I am going to meet the high bar that Canadians expect of their leaders.”
The event for the Grace Foundation was held in June, 2012, and was part of a campaign to raise $300,0000 to buy furniture for a home for the elderly in Saint John. But the event lost $21,000, prompting the organization to ask Mr. Trudeau in a letter in March to return the money. Board member Susan Buck said in the letter that doing so “would meet our needs and would provide a positive public impression.”
Guess he finally saw the optics on his rash decision.
And he is going to raise the bar.
Justin Trudeau to offer return of $20,000 speaking fee - The Globe and Mail
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he will offer to return a $20,000 speaking fee he received for speaking at a money-losing fundraising event last year for a New Brunswick charity, addressing a storm of criticism that arose late last week after he initially refused to do so at the charity’s request.
Furthermore, Mr. Trudeau told CTV’s Question Period in an interview aired Sunday that he would work with the Grace Foundation “and any other organization I spoke for as an MP” to either offer an equivalent donation for fees he received “or work with them to try and fix it and make it right.
“I am going to meet the high bar that Canadians expect of their leaders.”
The event for the Grace Foundation was held in June, 2012, and was part of a campaign to raise $300,0000 to buy furniture for a home for the elderly in Saint John. But the event lost $21,000, prompting the organization to ask Mr. Trudeau in a letter in March to return the money. Board member Susan Buck said in the letter that doing so “would meet our needs and would provide a positive public impression.”
Whether one interprets it that way or not, I think it can be reasonably argued that these situations lead to a lot of time being taken up by the press, the public and the representatives themselves going back and forth over this, over and over again. Restricting this option for sitting MPs to give private revenue earning speeches is not going to cause any undue hardship for them (far from it), but it will serve to clear some of the meaningless obstructions that lay in the way of discussion of real issues facing this nation.
Again, they are elected to serve us, by us, at our pleasure.
As far as the title of the OP is concerned; JT DID profit from a non-profit.
The sole question relates to is it in his best interests as the leader of the Libs.
Expect all of the parties in the House to make political hay of this
The sole question relates to is it in his best interests as the leader of the Libs.
Expect all of the parties in the House to make political hay of this
Technically you're absolutely correct. On the same note, the local plumber can profit from a non-profit if it hires him to fix its plumbing.
Oops... I meant 'this is probably just dirty politics on the part of the CPC'.
If he skippd work to make money, that's not cool. Otherwise, what he does on his own time is his business.
Cons are just mad that Harper has to pay people to listen to him.
This just in...Trudeau reimbursing all charities.
Cons are just mad that Harper has to pay people to listen to him.
This just in...Trudeau reimbursing all charities.