[Gunnair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not defending the Liberals or JT, I'm defending the right of ever Canadian to do anything they want (legally of course) in their off hours.

I have a very difficult time expecting you to be so cordial with a Conservative MP if they were in the same situation. Comparing my profession to that of an MP is apples and oranges.

Having worked with politicians, you know that they attend and speak at tons of events throughout the year. Some within their community, some not. Politicans, especially Federal ones are paid to speak and represent the public on policy. If the fees are to cover travel expenses, that's acceptable.

Do you find it acceptable that any politician, House sitting or not, would charge a CHARITY $20,000 to speak at an event? I know I don't....and I don't care if it's JT or that fat fuck Duffy.

bootlegga bootlegga:

As for why he's paying it back, it's obvious - he got caught working his second job when he should have been at his first one. It's only right that he pays it back. An apology in the House would be nice too, but I don't think we'll get that, no matter how much you or some other want it.

He's only paying it back because he was embarrassed publicly and it looks terrible. He brushed off the charity for 4 months and only decided to respond to the charity when the situation went public....this wasn't a gesture of good will, it was a gesture to save face and maintain image.

It is and it's unfortunate that he's doing it. If he did nothing wrong then this face saving attempt is worse than taking the money in the first place because it smacks of emotive kneejerkism in the face of partisan attacks. Nothing wrong with him earning money from speaking engagements, charities or not. I bet the charity made a lot of money from having Trudeau wax politic for an evening and the $20,000 was a pittance.

Lots of people work for charities and get paid. Do they all now suffer under your judgement or shall we call a spade a spade here?

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

I bet the charity made a lot of money from having Trudeau wax politic for an evening and the $20,000 was a pittance.

No. According to the article, it clearly states the seniors advocacy charity lost a shit load of money.

[OnTheIce]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I bet the charity made a lot of money from having Trudeau wax politic for an evening and the $20,000 was a pittance.

Lots of people work for charities and get paid. Do they all now suffer under your judgement or shall we call a spade a spade here?

The charity in question, the one that went public, lost money at their event.

Yes, lots of people work for charities and get paid...but those same people aren't Federal MP's being paid $160,000 to represent their constituents and the Country.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yes, lots of people work for charities and get paid...but those same people aren't Federal MP's being paid $160,000 to represent their constituents and the Country.

So where do you draw the line? If an MP, say, owns a small business, does he/she have to shut down that business while they're serving and being paid $160K by the government? If an MP likes to paint, can they not sell their artwork? What's different about public speaking for money than other economic activities?

[stratos]

$1:

So where do you draw the line? If an MP, say, owns a small business, does he/she have to shut down that business while they're serving and being paid $160K by the government? If an MP likes to paint, can they not sell their artwork? What's different about public speaking for money than other economic activities?

If the MP is back at the shop when he/she is supposed to be at the House and casting votes, this is wrong. If the MP is painting a picture while siting in his/her House seat, this is wrong. If an MP is out making guest speaking apperance and getting paid while missing votes in the House, this is wrong.

[Brenda]

stratos stratos:

$1:

So where do you draw the line? If an MP, say, owns a small business, does he/she have to shut down that business while they're serving and being paid $160K by the government? If an MP likes to paint, can they not sell their artwork? What's different about public speaking for money than other economic activities?

If the MP is back at the shop when he/she is supposed to be at the House and casting votes, this is wrong. If the MP is painting a picture while siting in his/her House seat, this is wrong. If an MP is out making guest speaking apperance and getting paid while missing votes in the House, this is wrong.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yes, lots of people work for charities and get paid...but those same people aren't Federal MP's being paid $160,000 to represent their constituents and the Country.

So where do you draw the line? If an MP, say, owns a small business, does he/she have to shut down that business while they're serving and being paid $160K by the government? If an MP likes to paint, can they not sell their artwork? What's different about public speaking for money than other economic activities?

I think there is a difference between someone who makes their money working for a not for profit organisation or an MP.
We hold them to different standards, as we should.

Being an MP is not a private business. If you own a small business and run for MP, your small business is going to come second, or even third or fourth.

[Lemmy]

I agree. And I agree with stratos' comments as well. MPs should not be moonlighting if/when it interferes with their ability to do their MP duties. But OTI seems to think that MPs should be confined to MPing and be prohibited from doing anything else but. I'm just trying to understand where his line is.

[stratos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I agree. And I agree with stratos' comments as well. MPs should not be moonlighting if/when it interferes with their ability to do their MP duties. But OTI seems to think that MPs should be confined to MPing and be prohibited from doing anything else but. I'm just trying to understand where his line is.

Ahhh in this context your earlier statment makes a lot more sense.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I agree. And I agree with stratos' comments as well. MPs should not be moonlighting if/when it interferes with their ability to do their MP duties. But OTI seems to think that MPs should be confined to MPing and be prohibited from doing anything else but. I'm just trying to understand where his line is.

So do I. Which is why I asked the question what we expect are working hours for an MP. Is it just when the house is in session? Is it 24/7?

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

I bet the charity made a lot of money from having Trudeau wax politic for an evening and the $20,000 was a pittance.

No. According to the article, it clearly states the seniors advocacy charity lost a shit load of money.

Maybe. Maybe not. The letter was not released by the charity, but by the PMO. A board member on that charity is a Conservative political appointee. The charity itself is part of a larger charitable organization that receives millions a year in federal funding. That organziations spends more on "management and adminsitration" than it does on programs.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

That organziations spends more on "management and adminsitration" than it does on programs.

sounds like the MoE and most school divisions

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I agree. And I agree with stratos' comments as well. MPs should not be moonlighting if/when it interferes with their ability to do their MP duties. But OTI seems to think that MPs should be confined to MPing and be prohibited from doing anything else but. I'm just trying to understand where his line is.

The problem here isn't the fact that Justin has a "second job", it's because he's charging for appearances that the vast majority of MP's would be doing for free as part of their job.

I can understand event organizers offering to cover travel to and from the event but having to pay a MOP $20,000 to attend an event to raise money for charity is BS...show up and lend your support to the event or don't show up at all.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

That organziations spends more on "management and adminsitration" than it does on programs.

sounds like the MoE and most school divisions

Sounds like premeditated stunt to me.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The problem here isn't the fact that Justin has a "second job", it's because he's charging for appearances that the vast majority of MP's would be doing for free as part of their job.

I can understand event organizers offering to cover travel to and from the event but having to pay a MOP $20,000 to attend an event to raise money for charity is BS...show up and lend your support to the event or don't show up at all.

But that's your personal opinion, not one of official policy. And I disagree with you on that. I think that if they want to speak and get paid for it, so be it. Lots of people get paid to speak. MPs shouldn't be excluded from doing so just because they're MPs (again, so long as it isn't interfering with their work). You conservatives are supposed to be free-marketers. If the going rate for a speaking engagement is $20,000 or $1M, they ought to get it. If they want to do it for free, fine too, but they shouldn't have to.

Further, I'd rather not pay MPs at all out of the tax coffers at all. Make the lot of them earn their meals on the speaking circuit instead of sucking on the government teet. At $20K a night, they could make up the lost $160K in a week.