socialist Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 "Canadian taxpayers are paying the wages of two nannies hired to care for the children of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, according to cabinet orders posted online." So the uber wealthy Trudeau and his wife need the taxpayers to cover the costs of his nannies. So JT criticized Harper and the UCCB, yet JT feels he's entitled to having taxpayers pay for his nannies? Is JT a member of the middle class that he is supposedly helping? This reeks folks. Some of us could see through these phony promises before the election. THE LIBERALS ARE BACK, BABY!!!!! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 He was charging 20k to speak at orphanages so this really isn't surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted December 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 He was charging 20k to speak at orphanages so this really isn't surprising. And he was speaking when he should have been at the HoC representing his constituents. Liberanoism at its finest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) We paid for Mulroney's nannies too ... But he lied and misled people about it. It is clear that there are expectations of public appearances, etc by the wife of the PM, but she gets no pay. I think it's reasonable that their child care costs are covered. . Edited December 1, 2015 by Charles Anthony excessive quoting; deleted re-copied [Opening Post] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 And he was speaking when he should have been at the HoC representing his constituents. Liberanoism at its finest. Can you prove that? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 We paid for Mulroney's nannies too ... But he lied and misled people about it. It is clear that there are expectations of public appearances, etc by the wife of the PM, but she gets no pay. I think it's reasonable that their child care costs are covered. . So you would support the proposal to send Laureen Harper a half million or so in back pay for the way she was exploited for ten years by Canadian taxpayers? It is only reasonable, as you point out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Can you prove that? . There was an itemized list of Trudeaus speakng enagements on the CBC website, payments made while he was also paid by Canadians as an MP. Now the list has vanished, to be replaced by a page apologizing for 'technical difficulties'. One thing that worked out in a heartwarming way.... is that Justin repaid the expenses he charged to the taxpayers while attending those paid speaking engagements while also an MP. It is wonderful to think that he and Mike Duffy have that in common. It brings us together as a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Son of PET used his relative wealth as a campaign prop ("... wealthy individuals like me do not need taxpayer help and Canada cannot afford to pay them..."). This rhetoric was an important element in the Liberal campaign effort to out flank the NDP on the left. Trudeau's failure to deliver 25,000 refugees by year's end could be chalked up to youthful exuberance, however, this nannie subsidy issue shows the failures are now morphing into something more ominous - a return to "pigs at the trough"?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 We paid for Mulroney's nannies too ... But he lied and misled people about it. You have a cite on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Trudeau makes over $300k per year, and is a multi-millionaire from the money left to him from his father. Why in the hell should the taxpayers have to pay for his nanny? Did we pay for Harper's child care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I'm trying to put this into perspective........I can understand and support, for obvious reasons, taxpayers footing the bill for security and drivers (RCMP). I can also understand taxpayers paying the bill for a cook, a maid and a gardener. They live in an official house, that they will likely entertain Heads of State on official visits etc....frankly, I'd be embarrassed if Trudeau was out cutting the lawn or mucking out the gutters, likewise if Sophie Trudeau served a Head of State a roast chicken from Costco, powdered mash potatoes and frozen veg.........these are expenses I get, and wouldn't fault any Prime Minister........likewise being flown around in RCAF aircraft etc. But not one, but two nannies? Did they need two nannies before he became Prime Minister? If so, who paid for them then and why are we paying for them now? Does Sophie Trudeau even work? I could have sworn I read Margaret was moving in with them............oh well, this will be an interesting circle for them to square, and I'm surprised the CBC broke this...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 So you would support the proposal to send Laureen Harper a half million or so in back pay for the way she was exploited for ten years by Canadian taxpayers? It is only reasonable, as you point out. Jacee? Hello? Bump that number up to one million bucks owed to Laureen Harper. Two nannies plus benefits plus travel costs are at least $100k per year x 10 years. An even $1M cheque for Laureen should cover her suffering. It is only fair, wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I have no problem with the taxpayer paying for any kind of family support for the Prime Minister of Canada and his family. I suspect that the cost is far, far less than the secret services and secuity that now surrounds the PM. I am surprised that it is the same posters who have been warning us of the danger of terrorism in Canada seem to be the same ones who feel that the PM should be footing the bill for supervision of his children. How much money is being spent on secret services protection for Harper - and he is now a lowly legislator? I guess I am trying to put this into perspective - criticism for a PM getting the taxpayer to foot the bill for nannies but no problem with $billions to spend Canadian taxpayer money on "toys for the boys" in the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Caregivers will be paid $15-$20 an hour during the day and $11-$13 hourly at night Seems reasonable. Now we know what the standard for a federal caregiving program will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I have no problem with the taxpayer paying for any kind of family support for the Prime Minister of Canada and his family. I suspect that the cost is far, far less than the secret services and secuity that now surrounds the PM. I am surprised that it is the same posters who have been warning us of the danger of terrorism in Canada seem to be the same ones who feel that the PM should be footing the bill for supervision of his children. Are you suggesting the nannies are there to protect them from terrorists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Seems reasonable. Now we know what the standard for a federal caregiving program will be. The federal govt program will have similar hourly rates, plus a $15 billion markup annually for admin costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I think it's reasonable that their child care costs are covered. Why? Can you name other types of public servants, or any other jobs, who are given live-in nannies for free? Do they even pay rent or are they given free housing too (at 24 Sussex or whatever swanky place they're staying now)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Why? Can you name other types of public servants, or any other jobs, who are given live-in nannies for free? Do they even pay rent or are they given free housing too (at 24 Sussex or whatever swanky place they're staying now)? Their job isn't like any other job in the country - they're our active executive and head of government. Seriously, would this even be brought up in the US? Why would we expect our head of government to live the same way as us? Why would we expect them to pay rent on an official residence that we provide as part of their job? Edited December 1, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 It just seems like such petty jealousy, the way people used to begrudge Harper a hockey game or security costs. These aren't normal people with normal lives. You can't expect them to get the same things as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeloader1969 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't expect him to pay his housing costs, but he should pay his child care costs out of his own pocket like the rest of us hard working Joe Blows have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't expect him to pay his housing costs, but he should pay his child care costs out of his own pocket like the rest of us hard working Joe Blows have to. Why? What's the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Their job isn't like any other job in the country - they're our active executive and head of government. Seriously, would this even be brought up in the US? Why would we expect our head of government to live the same way as us? Why would we expect them to pay rent on an official residence that we provide as part of their job? I don't have a problem with the housing, he can even have a cleaner and a person to keep the grounds kept since 24 Sussex is a public building (if/when he lives there). For a millionaire who gets paid big bucks, the free live-in nanny is a little ridiculous, since it doesn't have much if anything to do with the actual job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Their job isn't like any other job in the country - they're our active executive and head of government. Seriously, would this even be brought up in the US? Why would we expect our head of government to live the same way as us? Why would we expect them to pay rent on an official residence that we provide as part of their job? Are you saying that the US government pays for nannies for the president's children? Because I've never heard that was the case. David Cameron employs a nanny for his children but he pays for her out of his own pocket. Edited December 1, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeloader1969 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Why? What's the difference? The difference to what? Him paying or us (taxpayers) paying? That's a silly question if you think we should be paying his daycare bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 It just seems like such petty jealousy, the way people used to begrudge Harper a hockey game or security costs. These aren't normal people with normal lives. You can't expect them to get the same things as you. That's garbage. I don't begrudge the cost of providing services like security and transportation because those are job related. There is nothing job related about having kids. Lots of people are very busy in very high pressure jobs, but they take care of their child care themselves. There is no reason whatsoever for me to have to pay his child care expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.