Trudeau speaking fees not an open and shut case.

He plainly was representing Liberals at union conference

Justin Trudeau’s claim that he has “never charged anyone a single penny” while speaking as an MP, has been leaped upon by the Conservatives, who say he was paid $20,000 to speak at a conference three years ago alongside representatives from the NDP and Conservative party, who were not paid.

Mr. Trudeau spoke at a conference on March 5, 2010 at a conference organized by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union called Ontario 2020.

He was billed as “Justin Trudeau MP” and spoke on a bill that also included Conservative Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology, and Peggy Nash, who was then the president of the NDP (she replaced Chris Charlton, the NDP MP).

Mr. Trudeau, who was Liberal critic for youth, talked about the importance of empowering young people in effecting economic change. According to the list of speaking engagements that he released, Mr. Trudeau was paid $20,000 by OPSEU to speak at the conference on that day. The union confirmed Friday that neither Mr. Goodyear nor Ms. Nash was paid.

At first blush, it seems a pretty open and shut case. Mr. Trudeau says he didn’t receive any money for speaking as an MP, yet was paid $20,000 to speak alongside two politicians from rival parties who did not receive a fee.

The Liberal case for the defence is that the ethics commissioner has already ruled on the substance of the case. Mary Dawson said she found no information suggesting Mr. Trudeau was performing parliamentary duties and functions when he spoke at these events. Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro had complained that Mr. Trudeau contravened the rules by allowing others to describe him as an MP in promotional materials.

“I do not agree that allowing himself to be referred to as a member of Parliament, on its own, constitutes using his position as a member to influence the decisions of others to engage him as a paid speaker,” wrote Ms. Dawson. “It is simply making a reference to his current occupation as an MP.”

Ms. Dawson also noted that any requests for private speaking engagements that landed in Mr. Trudeau’s MP office were directed to his speaking agency, Speaker’s Spotlight. An OPSEU spokesman confirmed that the union did deal with the agency.

The Liberals claim that Mr. Trudeau was not speaking as an MP, but was merely identified as one, and likely didn’t even know that there were other MPs speaking alongside him.

The contract for the event was between Speaker’s Spotlight and the OPSEU, and thus not done in Mr. Trudeau’s capacity as an MP, said a Liberal spokesperson. Moreover, all of Mr. Trudeau’s appearances were cleared by the ethics commissioner, and the spirit of every appearance he made was as a professional speaker and fundraiser.

Hmmm. The operative words in Ms. Dawson’s ruling seem to me to be “on its own.” Being listed as “Justin Trudeau MP” on its own would not constitute grounds for complaint. But it was not on its own and neither was he — he spoke at a conference that featured “key federal politicians,” according to the OPSEU release. Reasonable people in the audience must have concluded he was the Liberal party speaker in a political triumvirate and that he was espousing the Liberal party line on youth and the environment.

There is no part of this broader speaking engagements story that reflects well on the Liberal leader, apart from his decision to repay some charities. But this instance looks particularly dubious. Ms. Dawson may want to revisit the ruling that said Mr. Trudeau did not breach conflict of interest guidelines.