Speaking fees: A guide to the dos and don’ts

All of your questions about the Justin Trudeau speaking fees imbroglio, answered in one place:

Is it wrong, in general, to take money for speaking? Of course not. It’s a lawful service that does no harm and that people are willing to pay for.

Is it wrong to take a lot of money for speaking? Again, no: if people are willing to pay that much, that’s their business.

Is it wrong to take money from a charity for speaking? Here things start to get trickier. People do charge charities for things: that’s what they purchase with the money you give them. But people also give to charities. Lots of people speak to charities for free. It’s not necessarily wrong to charge a fee, but it’s not as right as donating it.

Is it wrong for a millionaire to take a lot of money from a charity for speaking? This tips the scales further. How much is “a lot” is hard to say. But the less a charity has at its disposal, and the more the speaker has, the more selfish it seems to charge.

Is it wrong for an MP to take money for speaking? It’s certainly unusual, although there is nothing in the rules to prevent it. Most MPs regard it as part of the job. But it’s hard to say it’s unethical, on its own.

Is it wrong for an MP to take money from a charity for speaking? No more so than for a private citizen. OK, maybe a little: we might hope MPs would set a higher example.

Is it wrong for an MP to take money for speaking to industries and interests he is in a position to help or hinder in his role as an MP? Yes, though this raises questions of definition. In principle, a speaking fee is not a gift: it’s payment for services rendered. But Trudeau is a public official, in a position of public trust. He has an obligation not to place himself in a position where the public could reasonably doubt if that trust was misplaced.

Theoretically any industry could at some point hope to benefit from his influence: the more diffuse the possibility, the less clear there’s a conflict. MPs, moreover, unlike ministers, do not have executive authority. But taking money, even as an MP, from federally regulated industries such as banks or telecoms, would seem ill-advised at best.

Is it wrong for an MP to miss debate in the House? Not always. They may have more pressing public duties on that day.

Is it wrong for an MP to miss debate in the House to take money for speaking? Yes. Unequivocally. He’s being paid by the public to do the public’s business, not to pad his private income.

Is it wrong for an MP to miss debate in the House to take a lot of money from charities and federally regulated industries for speaking? Put it all together and, good God, yes. And Trudeau didn’t just do it once, but often. But let’s get into specifics …

Was it wrong for the Grace Foundation to pay Trudeau to speak? It was ill-judged, considering all we have learned since.

Was it wrong for the charity to ask for its money back? It’s ungracious. But charities are in the business of asking for money. The letter from the Grace Foundation, on the other hand, crassly refers to the “positive public impression” repayment would make. That’s no business of theirs.

Was it wrong for Trudeau to refuse? A contract is a contract, and he was within his rights to refuse. But that didn’t make it right to do so. He’d have been better placed if the charity had benefited from the exchange. But as it apparently didn’t, it leaves him in rather a weaker position.

Was it wrong for a member of the Grace Foundation board to leak the letter to the Conservatives? Yes. It would be one thing if the board had elected to go public with its request, though even that strikes me as unseemly. But for one board member to selectively leak the matter, to a member of a political party with whom she had both personal and professional ties, crosses the line.

Was it wrong for the media to point out the relationship between the board member and the Conservatives? Of course not. If she wanted this to be a private matter, she should have kept it private. If she had a political motive for disclosing it, that’s worth knowing.

Was it wrong for the Conservatives to alert the media to the story? No. Political parties are entitled to raise concerns about each other’s conduct, where the public interest is involved. Indeed, they have an obligation to do so.

Was it wrong for the prime minister’s office to do so? Yes. The PMO’s role is to support the prime minister in his public duties. It is expected to leave such overtly partisan activities to the party.

Does the Conservatives’ involvement in spreading the story mean it’s not a story? No. The indiscretion of one board member does not mean the whole business was a setup. And quite apart from the Grace Foundation, there are all those other fees Trudeau accepted.

Does Trudeau’s willingness to repay the fees resolve the issue? Not entirely. His willingness to take the fees tells us something about his character and judgment; his willingness, after his initial refusal, to repay them tells us something again. It’s all useful information, fragments of data for voters to consider, alongside everything else.

Does any of this matter? Yes. It does. Partisan Liberals denounce the controversy around Trudeau as a distraction from the “real” issue of the Senate expenses scandal. Partisan Tories denounce the media for focusing on the Senate mess for weeks on end, while giving Trudeau a pass. But there is more than one issue in the universe, and more than one day to comment on them.