The_Squid Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 So ... we're going to start paying his wife when her presence is required ? We're getting off cheap just paying her child care expenses! . While I don't think this is a big issue, your argument doesn't make sense. Why would her presence ever be required? Quote
The_Squid Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 If I recall, Harper had a makeup artist on staff. And an entire camera/production crew for his faux news service.... Quote
cybercoma Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 If I recall, Harper had a makeup artist on staff.Trudeau also fired Harper's chef, so there's that too. Quote
Smallc Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Trudeau also fired Harper's chef, so there's that too. That's apparently a tradition. A new chef was hired in his place. The Harper chef got a job at Stornoway. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Doesn't the new chef know how to change diapers then? This is bullshit. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 While I don't think this is a big issue, your argument doesn't make sense. Why would her presence ever be required? While she doesn't have an official function, she's still a public figure and would expected to be at functions with Trudeau. Or participate in hosting dignitaries at the official residence. The direct comparison with Harper isn't quite right either - his children were quite a bit older. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 That's apparently a tradition. A new chef was hired in his place. The Harper chef got a job at Stornoway. You definitely wouldn't want the other guys chef - food poisoning and all. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
The_Squid Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) ... Edited December 2, 2015 by The_Squid Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Who paid for their child care? Did Harper claim vaguely that housekeeping staff sometimes "interfaced" with the children ... like Mulroney did? . No, Lauren Harper quite her day job when the family moved to Ottawa after he won the leadership of the then Canadian Alliance. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 While she doesn't have an official function, she's still a public figure and would expected to be at functions with Trudeau. Or participate in hosting dignitaries at the official residence. Why not build upon the NDP's suggestion, from a year or two ago, and build a pay for service daycare on Parliament Hill? Quote
The_Squid Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Why not build upon the NDP's suggestion, from a year or two ago, and build a pay for service daycare on Parliament Hill? Possibly a good suggestion. They've been in power a matter of weeks. Maybe they'll do so in the future. Conservatives had 12 years to institute such a progressive idea.... Wonder why it never happened...? Quote
BC_chick Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) It's an issue because Justin used this as a wedge issue in the election. He asserted millionaires (defined as 200k+ incomes) don't need tax payer assistance and then has an exception *only* for him.I can sort of see the point whether or not childcare should be accepted as a 'perk' of being a PM and that's some thing to be debated but bringing the UCCB cheque into it is not really relevant to the discussion. One is a government handout to everyone which Trudeau said is not needed equally and should not be given equally and the other is one of the many benefits provided to a prime minister, and prime minister only. It's not like he said he wouldn't take nannies on taxpayer dime and then did. As for whether or not it should be part of the perks, I'm on the fence, but after being reminded of Harper's hairstylist, I'm inclined to agree they all get ridiculous perks - just different ones. Having said that, there is much to be said about Harper having a hairstylist and ending up with helmet head so I'm willing to concede the nannies cost a lot more. Edited December 2, 2015 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 No, Lauren Harper quite her day job when the family moved to Ottawa after he won the leadership of the then Canadian Alliance. Ok, but was childcare offered and she turned it down? It seems strange, I don't know anyone who makes that kind of money and doesn't have some kind of childcare, even with a stay-at-home-mom. You're sure it wasn't the Harpers' choice to raise their own kids instead of some blatant favourtism for team 'natural government''? Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Ok, but was childcare offered and she turned it down? It seems strange, I don't know anyone who makes that kind of money and doesn't have some kind of childcare, even with a stay-at-home-mom. You're sure it wasn't the Harpers' choice to raise their own kids instead of some blatant favourtism for team 'natural government''? Harper's kids were quite a bit older and less in need of constant minding. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Possibly a good suggestion. They've been in power a matter of weeks. Maybe they'll do so in the future. Conservatives had 12 years to institute such a progressive idea.... Wonder why it never happened...? It wasn't suggested until a year or so ago........and I would assume, a reflection on the past median age of MPs (versus today/post 2011 election, which saw the NDP with an youngish group), likely not many "new mothers" in the House, and in years prior the number of males versus female MPs. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Ok, but was childcare offered and she turned it down? It seems strange, I don't know anyone who makes that kind of money and doesn't have some kind of childcare, even with a stay-at-home-mom. You're sure it wasn't the Harpers' choice to raise their own kids instead of some blatant favourtism for team 'natural government''? I have no idea to be honest.........but would suggest very few of our past Prime Ministers needed a nanny service on entering office.........how many Prime Ministers has Canada had that also had a young family? Trudeau, Trudeau, Mulroney.......Clark maybe? Quote
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) 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.Oh ya because having nice looking grounds is certainly higher priority than taking good care of children while their parents are working for us, one of them working for free!!Do you even hear yourself?!?!! . Edited December 2, 2015 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Why not build upon the NDP's suggestion, from a year or two ago, and build a pay for service daycare on Parliament Hill?What if the Trudeau's are required to be away overnight?You men are idiots! You shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on child care because you obviously have no friggen clue!! Disgusting! Their mother works for us for free! We can cover her child care costs at least! Good grief. Idiots! . Edited December 2, 2015 by jacee Quote
Topaz Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Question, what's the difference of Trudeau paying for the nanny or the government paying...the government would get a deduction from taxes and not the Trudeau's. As the saying goes, "Don't sweat the small stuff". Petty. Quote
Boges Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) What if the Trudeau's are required to be away overnight? You men are idiots! You shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on child care because you obviously have no friggen clue!! Disgusting! Their mother works for us for free! We can cover her child care costs at least! Good grief. Idiots! . I'm sure a blanket accusation by calling men "idiots" is breaking some sort of forum rule. No one is saying she's undeserving of childcare. And no one is saying that Mrs. Trudeau has to work for us for free. Where's the tears for Laureen Harper doing pet projects because her husband had a high profile government job. The question here is making a few hundred dollars a year plus having your residence and transportation paid for and still billing the taxpayer for your childcare expenses. Even that wouldn't have been so galling if he wasn't so adamant that people of means SHOULDN'T get tax relief for childcare during the campaign. It's smacks of hypocrisy. Edited December 2, 2015 by Boges Quote
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Some men here are idiots about child care. And I'll bet they're the ones who have never cared for children full time and haven't got a friggen clue! . Quote
drummindiver Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 cabinet made the decision in line with the Official Residences Act as "special assistants at the prime minister's residence"... performing domestic as well as childcare duties/paid between $15-20 dollars per hour. The promises you speak to were in regards to the UCCB and income-splitting policies of the Harper Conservative government. Be vigilant... keep watch... ensure those equivalencies are, per promise, provided to charities. the 'charging charities' talking point has been so done over: the Parliamentary ethics commissioner was approached to ensure paid speaking events were allowed... when orchestrated SunNews coverage raised its head, Trudeau did offer to return fees paid to the charities in question. Imagine that when the charities refused to accept reimbursement... one profiled case had the charity head interviewed stating that they more than got their "money's worth", more than meeting their expectations. Imagine that. Waldo's back hey! Defending the ne'er do wells of the left. Evil Harper wrote a book and donated all the proceeds to vets, and changed pension allotments which cost him a million bucks personally. But he's evil hey! You think we should get past a multi millionaire charging charities and orphanages 20k and up to speak while being paid, who gets voted in on "Real change" then has the uber audacity to charge us for his daycare while gettting paid $350k a year? Listen, we know the 350 a year hardly covers what he has to pay in taxes on his millions, but he needs to suck it up and try to stand on his own. Daddies been dead a while now. Time to grow up, leader of Canada, and look after your own children. Quote
Boges Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Question, what's the difference of Trudeau paying for the nanny or the government paying...the government would get a deduction from taxes and not the Trudeau's. As the saying goes, "Don't sweat the small stuff". Petty. That taxpayer would be out less if the Trudeau's paid for it. We always sweat the small stuff. $90,000 paid to a Senator was relatively small stuff. The money for these nannies isn't the issue, it's more the hypocrisy of taking them on the government's dime after consistently saying people of means shouldn't get tax relief during the campaign. I remember the campaign ads "Mr. Harper keeps giving cheque's to millionaires". Quote
Boges Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Some men here are idiots about child care. And I'll bet they're the ones who have never cared for children full time and haven't got a friggen clue! . So only mothers have the right to comment on this issue? What about a man who's raised children and dealt with childcare expenses? or a woman who's never raised a child? The only people that have the right to comment on the hypocrisy of our PM is mothers? Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 You think we should get past a multi millionaire charging charities and orphanages 20k and up to speak while being paid, who gets voted in on "Real change" then has the uber audacity to charge us for his daycare while gettting paid $350k a year? yes - you should. Again, the ethics commissionaire indicated the speaking events, regardless of organization, were not in violation; approval/ruling was sought prior to any occurrences. Again, the few charities involved were offered reimbursement; as I'm aware, no charities took up the offer and, as I indicated, one profiled charity indicated they would not accept a reimbursement as they were quite happy with the result of the speaking engagement and felt they more than received value for their payment. So, again, yes... you should get past it. again, by requirement of the Official Residences Act, it was a part of the cabinet level decision made to secure the vetting and employment of all persons working within the official residence of the Prime Minister. The official response has been to advise that the two individuals in question are not just performing childcare duties. I appreciate it's early. You have so little to rant about so far... you should, as they say, 'keep your powder dry'! Quote
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.