Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

eyeball · December 3, 2015

Our national daycare program will probably be dubbed Trudeaucare.

msj · December 4, 2015

Lots of terribly busy people have children. Should they all get government paid nannies?

If there are rules in place that allow it then it's fine with me.

That's the case here so so sad, too bad about the hair stylist getting laid off.

Argus · December 4, 2015

No we just paid for Harper to drag her around. If Trudeau were doing even that you'd be complaining.

Trudeau is dragging his whole family around and I'm not complaining.

msj · December 4, 2015

There never was a taxpayer paid hair stylist.

Harper had one on contract.

The National Post even saw fit to try and censor Margaret Atwood's opinion piece about this back in August.

Check her Twitter feed around mid-August and follow the links to The Walrus magazine which eventually republished it.

Smallc · December 4, 2015

Trudeau is dragging his whole family around and I'm not complaining.

And why would you?

Smeelious · December 4, 2015

Can the spouse of the PM actually take a job?

(Realistically...I don't think so)

The_Squid · December 4, 2015

There never was a taxpayer paid hair stylist.

Just her airfare and accommodation all over the country/globe following Harper around was paid for by taxpayers.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/the-high-cost-of-making-stephen-harper-look-ordinary

But CP colleague Bruce Cheadle recently wrestled anonymous confirmation from a senior PMO official that Ms. Muntean’s salary has since been transferred from the public purse to be covered by tax-deductible donations to the Conservative party.

Unfortunately, however, she’s still enjoying a free ride on the taxpayer’s tab whenever and wherever she flies on Harper trips. While incidentals such as makeup, hairspray and lint removers are covered by the Conservative warchest, her airfare and accommodation costs are still listed under the Prime Minister’s travel budget.

WestCanMan · December 4, 2015

Nobody has a problem with JT having household staff - housekeeper, maids, chef, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc. Just the nannies seem to be a problem. So, if he drops a gardener and a maid and he and Sophie and kids spends weekends gardening and housecleaning, to enable him to hire two nannies instead and stay within the current household budget, what's the difference? He's giving up some perks in order to obtain other ones he figures more important. This is called "setting priorities", and is a strategy available to any family of any income.

Unless you simply want to find fault, of course, in which case keep on biatching about the "nannies". Maybe he'll fire them, and simply re-purpose existing staff to 'interface' with the kids on a regular basis, and you can rest easy knowing JT didn't hire any nannies.

Hypocrisy dialamah, hypocrisy. That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to ignore.

He said that he didn't need gov't funds for childcare because he takes so much money from charities, he cancelled it for everyone else, and now that he has access to the funds he is taking them and yet noone else can, because of him.

That's hypocrisy at it's best and that's what everyone else is acknowledging.

Trudeau's like a little kid walking around making declarative statements that he can't live up to. In the military we'd say "keep your mouth shut and make people guess how stupid you are."

WestCanMan · December 4, 2015

Can the spouse of the PM actually take a job?

(Realistically...I don't think so)

No, she's running the country. You'd know that if you were married.

On Guard for Thee · December 4, 2015

No, she's running the country. You'd know that if you were married.

Is she, you really think so, or are you just trying to be funny?

drummindiver · December 4, 2015

Harper had one on contract.

The National Post even saw fit to try and censor Margaret Atwood's opinion piece about this back in August.

Check her Twitter feed around mid-August and follow the links to The Walrus magazine which eventually republished it.

We're worrying about Margaret Atwood's opinion why?

While you're at it, how about an opinion from Naomi Klein or Harsha Walia?

On Guard for Thee · December 4, 2015

We're worrying about Margaret Atwood's opinion why?

While you're at it, how about an opinion from Naomi Klein or Harsha Walia?

Psst. Because Margaret Atwood is smart.

drummindiver · December 4, 2015

Psst. Because Margaret Atwood is smart.

So were Marx and Engels.

dialamah · December 4, 2015

Hypocrisy dialamah, hypocrisy. That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to ignore.

He said that he didn't need gov't funds for childcare because he takes so much money from charities, he cancelled it for everyone else, and now that he has access to the funds he is taking them and yet noone else can, because of him.

That's hypocrisy at it's best and that's what everyone else is acknowledging.

Trudeau's like a little kid walking around making declarative statements that he can't live up to. In the military we'd say "keep your mouth shut and make people guess how stupid you are."

Bad optics, I agree. But if he has X amount of dollars to spend as part of his PM job, and he chooses to spend some of that on nannies instead of other household help, its not hypocrisy. It's making choices, like we all do.

If, next week or week after or somewhere down the road, we hear he never got rid of any other household staff and ADDED two more nannies on to the budget - then yeah, that could more reasonably be called hypocrisy.

scribblet · December 4, 2015

You lost your bet. Harper's children were older and they each had their "nannies" - they are called RCMP.

They were 5 & 8 when he took office, provide proof that the RCMP babysat for them. Harper did not have nannies as Mrs. Harper quit her job to stay home to look after them.

hitops · December 4, 2015

The issue is not that Trudeau has staff, obviously heads of state needs staff. The issue not that he has nannies, he has a super busy job and young kids. The issue is not even that the taxpayer is paying for the nannies. The taxpayer has always paid for domestic servants including those who help take care of kids, and Trudeau's kids arguably need more care than any previous PM's kids, due to their ages.

The issue is that Trudeau specifically complained that the UCCB was taxpayer money going to rich people, publicly announced he was giving his back, and specifically said that "Families like mine..." should not get childcare help from the taxpayer.

And then he readily accepts the most generous childcare taxpayer subsidy of anyone in the country.

I don't care how much money he makes. I understand why this is needed for this job. I don't need to be partisan about it. You hate Trudeau. That's great. He's not doing anything wrong here.

He certainly is, according to campaign-Trudeau. That guy said there is no reason the taxpayer should help rich people with their kids.

Edited December 4, 2015 by hitops

Keepitsimple · December 4, 2015

The apologists are still fighting the real issue. It's not about the rules. It's not about the money. It's not about what Trudeau Senior or Mulroney did. It's about his clear often-stated mantra that wealthy people - like himself and Harper - don't need funds for Child Care....coupled with making the rich pay more. Call it hypocricy or bad optics or plain bad judgement. It's a major gaffe that his issues-management team has mishandled terribly.

Smallc · December 4, 2015

I've heard no one off of the Internet say anything about this

Big Guy · December 4, 2015

They were 5 & 8 when he took office, provide proof that the RCMP babysat for them. Harper did not have nannies as Mrs. Harper quit her job to stay home to look after them.

You are absolutely correct scribblet, I have no documentation of how the security of the PM and his family is organized. I have no idea why it is not readily available to the public (or any terrorists).

And why would the RCMP provide any security for the children of the Prime Minister of Canada? It is not if they might be a target for anyone going after the PM.

Bob Macadoo · December 4, 2015

The apologists are still fighting the real issue. ... Call it hypocricy or bad optics or plain bad judgement. It's a major gaffe that his issues-management team has mishandled terribly.

1) It's not a real issue. It's not fraud. It's not deceit. It's not grift. It's not even slightly immoral. It's hypocrisy.....the lifeblood of Ottawa. You can't throw a dead cat and not hit that.

2) A real issue is what are the logistical risks we have right now accepting refugees, how are we going to navigate out of this Navy ship fiasco we're stuck in, or what are we going to do when the US Fed raises rates this or next month.......those are valid issues.......this is 24hr news cycle fluff.

drummindiver · December 5, 2015

I've heard no one off of the Internet say anything about this

All four major papers here in Ontario are talking about it.

drummindiver · December 5, 2015

You are absolutely correct scribblet, I have no documentation of how the security of the PM and his family is organized. I have no idea why it is not readily available to the public (or any terrorists).

And why would the RCMP provide any security for the children of the Prime Minister of Canada? It is not if they might be a target for anyone going after the PM.

Why the sarcasm Big Guy when all Scribblet did is ask you to back up a claim you had made.

Clearly, you could not/should not have the information you cited.

No need for sarcasm.

Smallc · December 5, 2015

All four major papers here in Ontario are talking about it.

I think it was being talked about...was.

Hudson Jones · December 5, 2015

The issue is not that Trudeau has staff, obviously heads of state needs staff. The issue not that he has nannies, he has a super busy job and young kids. The issue is not even that the taxpayer is paying for the nannies. The taxpayer has always paid for domestic servants including those who help take care of kids, and Trudeau's kids arguably need more care than any previous PM's kids, due to their ages.

Agreed.

The issue is that Trudeau specifically complained that the UCCB was taxpayer money going to rich people, publicly announced he was giving his back, and specifically said that "Families like mine..." should not get childcare help from the taxpayer.

And then he readily accepts the most generous childcare taxpayer subsidy of anyone in the country.

Even though I see how this could be interpreted as "taxpayer funded childcare", I can't really accept that the UCCB is equivalent to the nannies, who are considered as domestic staff for the Prime Minister. I have no problem calling out hypocrisy when I see it, but I just don't see this as hypocrisy.

The UCCB is a program for all Canadians, while having staff at the Prime Minister's home is only an exclusive option for the PM. My understanding is that Trudeau disagreed with the wealthy receiving the same tax break as those who have a lower family income. I just don't see the hypocrisy.

ReeferMadness · December 5, 2015

Good news for all the people worried about Trudeau's childcare costs sinking the budget or underpaid caregiver costs. Trudeau has just announced that he's decided that his kids will be raised by wolves.

“My children will know what it is to range for hundreds of miles in search of the next meal. They will know what it is to nip at the hamstrings of a caribou, to bring it down and eat of its hindquarters as it writhes in the crimson snow.

“They will do so in a better Canada.”

Another bold move by our new PM.