Before the House adjourned on Tuesday, Conservative MP Daryl Kramp was able to register his displeasure with Justin Trudeau’s decision to accept payment for a speech to the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board in 2010.
After QP, Elizabeth May rose on a point of order to remind the Speaker—without specifically referring to Mr. Kramp or any other MP—of her concern that the time reserved for statements by members was being used partisan remarks and personal attacks. Despite having not been referenced, Mr. Kramp rose to say that this too offended him.
The school board itself is not seeking a reimbursement.
Meanwhile, Brett Wilson makes the capitalist’s case for charging charities a speaking fee.
I give away multiples of what I earn every year to charities of my choice. But I also believe that creating a relationship of mutual benefit is far more advantageous to the charity in the long run, because it forces them to think and act with an entrepreneurial mindset. Effective charities will lever the popularity of a given speaker to multiply interest and generate greater revenue. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.
For example, several years ago I was asked to speak at a “Philanthropy Day” event for a somewhat discounted fee. The organizers were projecting upwards of 500 ticket sales at $45 per person, or around $22,500 in revenue. But I saw upside. I only agreed to participate if they bumped up the ticket price to $75 and doubled sales projections to 1,000. Inspired by the challenge, they sold more than 900 higher-priced tickets and increased revenues by some $45,000. This is what is known in every other sector as a win-win. Why would the same rules not apply in the philanthropic sector?