Canadian Politics

[The Unknown Poster]

I honestly don't begrudge Trudeau this cost, but on the other hand, did anyone expect him to back up his words with personal action? That's like asking David Suzuki to sell off one of his four houses.

Agreed. Ofcourse. But it still rubs me the wrong way. Seems stereotypically elitist. Id feel that way of it was Harper.

What does his wife do? Isn't she home from a recent birth? I wonder how the regular public manages to raise their children without two nannies.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I honestly don't begrudge Trudeau this cost, but on the other hand, did anyone expect him to back up his words with personal action? That's like asking David Suzuki to sell off one of his four houses.

Agreed. Ofcourse. But it still rubs me the wrong way. Seems stereotypically elitist. Id feel that way of it was Harper.

What does his wife do? Isn't she home from a recent birth? I wonder how the regular public manages to raise their children without two nannies.

 

 

Well they do travel a lot.  Has Trudeau been home more than 3 days since the election?  Seems every time I see him on the news he is posing for selfies with adoring fans in either Turkey or Malta and now at the big Climate party in Paris.  He probably needs a travel and stay at home nanny, depending on if the kids are coming.

 

Like I said though, I don't begrudge him the cost.  But I also didn't begrudge Harper the costs of bringing his own limo when the RCMP told him he needed to for security reasons.

[rebusrankin]

Trudeau makes $327,000 per year as Prime Minister. The top 1% is $272,000. The entitled brat should pay for his own childcare. I challenge anybody to defend this action by Justin "I support the middle class" Trudeau.

[kelownabomberfan]

This is the first negative story I've seen in the media about Trudeau, in like, ever (other than Ezra's stuff).  I wonder how "open and transparent" his government is going to be to the media if these kinds of stories keep popping up about him.

[kelownabomberfan]

I just read that both nannies are female.  I thought it was 2015.

[The Unknown Poster]

I just read that both nannies are female. I thought it was 2015.

No kidding. Not to mention I wonder what other duties they perform.

This is hilarious. Mr "we don't need $3000 for child care from the taxpayers" suddenly needs two nannies from the taxpayers. It wouldn't be such a story if he wasn't running on making the wealthy pay. I'm sure they could afford to have one parent stay home if need be. And look on he bright side of that, they can use income splitting to their advantage!

[kelownabomberfan]

The plot sickens.  Looks like the two nannies were being paid for by Trudeau personally, and now that he is PM he has moved their expenses to the taxpayer.  AND it looks like Justin is paying them less than minimum wage.  Yikes.

 

 

The two nannies hired by Justin Trudeau to work at his new residence were previously employed by his family to look after his children, a cost he is passing on to taxpayers now that he is prime minister.

Marilou Nemiada Trayvilla and Marian Pueyo were hired last month as “special assistants” in the prime minister’s residence, although their roles appear chiefly to be providing child care to the three Trudeau children, who are 19 months, six years and eight years old.

Trayvilla was photographed carrying the youngest child, Hadrien, during his father’s swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall last month, and one of the nannies was seen with the children in Paris, where Trudeau was attending the UN climate change summit this week.

Trayvilla appears to have moved to Ottawa with family from the Philippines.

Ottawa lawyer Kirsten Crain, who had previously employed Trayvilla, declined to say whether she was hired through the special government program that gives temporary work visas to foreign child care workers brought to Canada.

The women are to be paid between $15 and $20 an hour during the day and from $11 to $13 on the night shift, retroactive to the date Trudeau became prime minister, according to an order passed by cabinet last week.

The lowest wage in the range, $11 an hour, is below the Ontario minimum wage of $11.25 because the nannies are given meals as part of their employment, with salaries adjusted accordingly in keeping with the Ontario Employment Standards Act, the PMO says.

Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose said Tuesday that Trudeau ought to be footing his own child-care bills.

“I just think he should pay for it himself,” Ambrose said in an interview.

“It’s not a reflection of their child care choice — every family has a different makeup, every family has to make decisions about their child care — but I think … Canadians would expect them to just pay for their own nanny out of their own pocket.”

New Democrat MP Sheila Malcolmson, the party’s status of women critic, called out the prime minister for paying his nannies so little.

“Surely the people looking after his children should be paid more than $11 an hour,” Malcolmson said. “I’m stunned to hear that figure and I am saddened.”

 

 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-hires-his-childrens-former-nannies-to-work-in-official-residence

[The Unknown Poster]

Wow. Didn't take long for him for him to saddle up to the trough. $11/hour? That seems low for child care. Anyone with kids able to weigh in? (I'm childless)

[Mark H.]

$11 per hour with meals included is decent pay. It may also be full room and board - we don't have that info

[rebusrankin]

He makes over $50,000 more than the line for the beginning of the 1%, ero he's even better than the 1%, he can afford to pay for his own child care.

[The Unknown Poster]

Worse still he was paying and then quietly slipped these two under taxpayers. So he knew. Question is what was he thinking? Sense of entitlement? Ridiculous.

[Mark H.]

It comes down to optics. Remember Harper in '06 getting Emerson to cross the floor shortly after the election? There was more to the story but at that point optics were everything. Sometimes you wonder who's advising the PM...

[The Unknown Poster]

Chatelaine response:

 

But as this week’s ginned-up outrage over “nannygate” reminds us, the real babies in the nation’s capital are Xavier, Ella-Grace and Hadrien Trudeau, who have the nerve to expect supervision, regular snacks, a consistent bath and bed time and the odd diaper change while their parents are at work.

 

And the trio’s parents are busier than most of us these days, with their father running a country and their mother doing the soft-diplomacy work demanded of the spouse of a head of state. The children have two occasional nannies, whose salaries, it was just reported, come out of the general housekeeping budget allotted to the prime minister’s family. This has led to varying degrees of outrage across social media and in the press. There’s the explicit criticism of the prime minister’s hypocrisy, since during the campaign he spoke out against Conservative tax and benefits policies that favoured wealthier families (like his) over poor ones. And then there’s the veiled critique of Gregoire-Trudeau’s approach to mothering.

 

Let’s take the hypocrisy argument first. That would carry more weight if the uproar were also about all the other expenses associated with running an official residence.

 

The prime minister is not expected to pay for the running of this rarified household. We citizens and taxpayers cover that: We pay for the cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards. Yet none of these salaries has caused a fuss.

 

Only someone unaware of the effort and work involved in raising kids would consider the care of the prime minister’s children an “unessential” household expense. Are the people who watch the Trudeau children less necessary than the people who maintain the family’s car? The Trudeaus aren’t the first family to pay for child care from the household budget: Brian Mulroney had a nanny (though, perhaps to avoid similar criticism, he called her a maid). But if there are questions about the nannies’ salaries, maybe we could start with why their fees are so low. At $15 to $20 an hour during the day — and $11 to $13 an hour at night — for official prime ministerial babysitting, Canadian taxpayers are getting off cheap.

 

What’s been unsaid in the criticism (but is nonetheless understood by many women) is that this is in part a judgment on Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau — a mother who, like most mothers, gets criticized when she is seen as not taking care of her kids properly, especially since being the prime minister’s spouse isn’t considered a real job.

 

 

***Bolded is my favourite part.  The criticism is "unsaid" but lets make it part of the story.  Also, the scandal shouldnt be that tax payers foot the bill, but that we dont pay the nannies more.  Hilarious.

[The Unknown Poster]

A few comments from people in the twitterverse

I'm sorry, but Nannygate is a creation of Canada's right wing media. If he was paying for childcare with his salary, still our money.

"What is understood by many women is that this is in part a judgment on Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau"

Hey @lraitt It's not like they blew up a town and killed 49 people because of govt deregulation or anything...

Funny how Liberals think the whole #nannygate is stupid, yet thought #wafergate and #handshakegate were legitimate issues. #cdnpoli

Months ago Trudeau said taxpayers shouldn't pay for wealthy families like his - what changed?

robertsopuck.ca/news-riding/so… #cdnpoli #nannygate

Nothing like a manufactured scandal like #nannygate to bring out the sexism and lowest common denominator thinkers among us #cdnpoli

[sweep the leg]

If it's a regular benenfit that's been provided to all PM's, I have no problem with it. Anybody who turns down perks of their job is an idiot.

 

The two things that bother me in this story are people trying to paint this as an attack on his wife's parenting ability, and anybody who adds "gate" behind a word to make it seem more scandalous. This prior is a blatant attempt to change the narrative of the story to a feminist issue and the latter is so overdone it's ridiculous.

[The Unknown Poster]

If it's a regular benenfit that's been provided to all PM's, I have no problem with it. Anybody who turns down perks of their job is an idiot.

 

The two things that bother me in this story are people trying to paint this as an attack on his wife's parenting ability, and anybody who adds "gate" behind a word to make it seem more scandalous. This prior is a blatant attempt to change the narrative of the story to a feminist issue and the latter is so overdone it's ridiculous.

The idea of it being an attack on his wife and all women, seems to be an invention of Liberal defenders trying to frame the narrative as something sinister, hoping people will back away from it.  Aside from the occasional moron online, the general unease with this arrangement has nothing to do with the PM's wife.  I do, however, find it amusing that the defenders' per-emptive response to the criticism they invented is that she's far too busy being the PM's wife to be a stay at home mom.  That's certainly her right and no one should begrudge her that, but it might not play well with many Canadians who either do choose to have one parent stay home or those that cant afford it and yet somehow manage.

 

I dont mind "gate".  Its both amusing and indicative of it as a scandal of the subject's own creation which he's trying to avoid accepting responsibility.  Its also an easy hashtag. 

[iso_55]

I love it when Trudeau supporters say that the political attacks are unfair & mean spirited. Well, what were their attacks on Harper? If the shoe fits... Ha, ha... Four more years of Trudeau bashing, get used to it.

[The Unknown Poster]

. @CPC_HQ @RonaAmbrose has more supporters than detractors in all regions & among Liberal, left & centrist voters

[kelownabomberfan]

I love it when Trudeau supporters say that the political attacks are unfair & mean spirited. Well, what were their attacks on Harper? If the shoe fits... Ha, ha... Four more years of Trudeau bashing, get used to it.

 

Yeah these were my thoughts exactly.  For 10 years all of the anti-Harper crew had it easy, just take whatever decision he made, or action he took, or word he said, and spin it to the negative, and if that failed, just make **** up and say that, and they were rarely challenged on it, or called out for out-right lying.  It was a great job.  Now the shoe is on the other foot.  For four years (or more) all of those whiners and criers now have the difficult task of being on the defensive instead of the offensive.  Not quite so exhilarating.  Especially when the guy you are defending is known to be extremely gaffe-prone, and not really that politically astute.  Welcome to your new role, defenders of the indefensible.  How does it feel?

[sweep the leg]

 

I love it when Trudeau supporters say that the political attacks are unfair & mean spirited. Well, what were their attacks on Harper? If the shoe fits... Ha, ha... Four more years of Trudeau bashing, get used to it.

 

Yeah these were my thoughts exactly.  For 10 years all of the anti-Harper crew had it easy, just take whatever decision he made, or action he took, or word he said, and spin it to the negative, and if that failed, just make **** up and say that, and they were rarely challenged on it, or called out for out-right lying.  It was a great job.  Now the shoe is on the other foot.  For four years (or more) all of those whiners and criers now have the difficult task of being on the defensive instead of the offensive.  Not quite so exhilarating.  Especially when the guy you are defending is known to be extremely gaffe-prone, and not really that politically astute.  Welcome to your new role, defenders of the indefensible.  How does it feel?

 

I'm sure it feels great to have their guy in charge. I  think the other side has it worse off with their label changing to "whiners and criers".

[The Unknown Poster]

Considering their incredibly defensive posture on this Nanny thing, I'd say it doesnt feel very good.

 

Not to mention the whole Syrian refugee thing where there was no issue with timing and no issue with security...until there was on both counts.

 

Goes with the territory.  Im sure the Liberals will get used to it and be less silly in their responses.  I expect Trudeau will announce he will pay for nanny duties by late Friday.

[StevetheClub]

Something that isn't being said (as far as I know) that should be is how much Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau makes. My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.

 

If she's not able to attend to her children full-time and not make an income because of her role I don't see why there shouldn't be some accommodations.  I don't see anything wrong with Chatelaine's response.

 

*edit I see this has already been brought up. Regardless of how it might "play", it's still valid.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I'm sure it feels great to have their guy in charge. I  think the other side has it worse off with their label changing to "whiners and criers".

 

We will see.  I personally am loving it, watching all of the cry-babies now being forced into defensive mode.

[kelownabomberfan]

Considering their incredibly defensive posture on this Nanny thing, I'd say it doesnt feel very good.

 

Not to mention the whole Syrian refugee thing where there was no issue with timing and no issue with security...until there was on both counts.

 

Goes with the territory.  Im sure the Liberals will get used to it and be less silly in their responses.  I expect Trudeau will announce he will pay for nanny duties by late Friday.

 

When is JT back from his Paris climate party?  He's got to get the wife and kiddies home too, as they all went to Paris with him on our dime, along with the nanny.  He's far too concerned with the climate change fairy tale, and giving away control of Canada's economy to EU bureaucrats to be worried about nanny-gate right now.  I would expect that he will hope that this whole thing blows over, and if not, Plan B, start paying for the nannies, then back-door expensing them back to the taxpayer.

[The Unknown Poster]

Something that isn't being said (as far as I know) that should be is how much Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau makes. My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.

 

If she's not able to attend to her children full-time and not make an income because of her role I don't see why there shouldn't be some accommodations.  I don't see anything wrong with Chatelaine's response.

 

*edit I see this has already been brought up. Regardless of how it might "play", it's still valid.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom?  Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either.  But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home.  And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care.  No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys.

 

Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it.  Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care.

 

And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means.  "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said.  Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers.

 

Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not.  And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer.  If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it....