Daryl Kramp is offended on multiple fronts

And the capitalist’s case for charging charities a speaking fee


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?


Daryl Kramp is offended on multiple fronts

  1. Daryl Kramp is a dyed-in-the wool lackey. He doesn’t even recognize his party has changed from his core values, as per Rathgeber. Nope, head in the sand, trundling along all the way….

    • I find “lackey” so…. pedestrian.
      Why don’t we go with “lickspittle” or “noodle maid”

      • “Trained seals” works well too. Never heard “noodle maid” before but I like.

  2. Brett Wilson is bang on! Has anyone else read the returns Grace Foundation filed with CRA? It was founded as The Church Home Charitable Foundation and it serves a seniors home with 80 beds. It’s all available here: http://bit.ly/14l1ntI.

    A quick run through their T3010s shows that they have very little capacity to raise money. In fact, the majority of their income comes from interest on investments, the rest from withdrawing those investments. When they try to raise money, it doesn’t even cover the cost of their 1 part-time worker. The exception is 2011, where they appeared to do something right.

    If I were on the board, I would either turn the fund into an endowment, reducing expenses to near nil, or completely rethink the charity’s purpose and the way it operates. Clearly, they haven’t been raising money the way they do things currently. Though they did alright when they didn’t try to fund raise in earlier years.

    Also of note, they didn’t pay Trudeau, someone else did. You can see in the return they have no expense for his speaking fee. According the the NP article, a third party paid the fee.

    • Nigel?

    • Missing ADSCAM money?

      • Laundering some of the $40 Million?

  3. Of course Brett Wilson’s “opinion” wouldn’t be influenced at all by the fact that he runs many charities of his own which are competing for the same donations as Grace. No, no, of course not. And Justin Trudeau’s opposition to Union transparency has nothing to do with the fact that he received over $100,000 from unions.

    • Rick Omen knows all the relevant code words.