Trudeau's nanny state

[Barney Google]

"Come Canada Day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's family will be down to one publicly funded nanny.

A cabinet decision released Tuesday shows that Marylou Trayvilla, who has worked for the family since before Trudeau became prime minister, will be off the public payroll on July 1.

The notice posted to the Privy Council Office website gives no reason for the dismissal. The Prime Minister's Office says the family will seek a replacement to watch after their three children, but won't be asking taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Spokesman Olivier Duchesneau said the Trudeaus plan to hire a caregiver and pay the salary out of their own pockets.

He says the status of the other nanny, Marian Pueyo, remains unchanged...."


http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#167641

Edited to add:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau ... -1.3620702

[occasional thoughts]

Good, I think. I was never clear on why the federal public purse was paying for the Trudeaus' childcare.

[dondouglas99]

Really, this is some peoples cause. Burn the village, turn the cars over, because the Head of Canada is needing nanny help and it will be our tax. Hmmm, I see I'm paying the 6 over weight city workers looking in the hole down the street, on no wait, it's 4 looking in the hole, one taking a smoke break and the other is flirting with the flag lady. But let that rest, let's complain about a couple running a country need some domestic help. That's folks, you make me smile.

[Veovis]

Really, this is some peoples cause. Burn the village, turn the cars over, because the Head of Canada is needing nanny help and it will be our tax. Hmmm, I see I'm paying the 6 over weight city workers looking in the hole down the street, on no wait, it's 4 looking in the hole, one taking a smoke break and the other is flirting with the flag lady. But let that rest, let's complain about a couple running a country need some domestic help. That's folks, you make me smile.

JT made the error of stating that people with his level of money should never receive financial help with their kids....then won the election and made the taxpayers pay the money he said he didn't need being as rich as he was. It was bad form, and political suicide.

He also said he wouldn't increase the family assistance budget over what Harper used, yet he did. This is a decision to hold him back to not "saying one thing and doing something different" as it hurts his party.

The PM stated he would never need help, then billed for it because he could, in political sense it was media hay day hypocrisy and that will hurt a party when the leader does stupid things like that, then his wife asked for even more assistants to help her be "Mrs PM"....it didn't go over well.

There was a budget he said he would adhere to. He didn't personally, and didn't federally and it's doing political harm. A nanny leaving and being replaced with personal funds (which were used before he was elected without issue), isn't a big deal and is for political reasons of trying to create the image of "see he did what he said he would" ....yet hasn't.

Image matters in politics and the honeymoon is ending and people are wanting to see progress, yet seeing failures.......even if they are only perceived failures. (keep in mind the image many stated of Harper was far from realty but reality matters little in politics)

[Rosemary1]

Whether JT needs one or two nanny's is not the issue.

It is however one of the smaller examples of setting up expectations with statements or pledges that were not thought out making himself target for criticism.

Like I have said elsewhere, he wont be the first or the last politicians whose actions don't always line up with spiel from the talking head.

[Treblehook]

One nanny is summarily let go... no explanation offered. Maybe she was an "illegal" or some other circumstance existed that would cause Trudeau embarrassment. Who knows. Who cares. We the tax payer have gained... one less nanny to pay for!!!

[Omnitheo]

For those that still can't grasp why he had state funded nannies, it is because they are his house staff. Something that all prime ministers are entitled to as part of the Official Residences Act. Something that no prime minister since it's inception has not taken advantage of. Some prime ministers used the house staff for cleaning or gardening. Harper had chefs for instance. Trudeau decided to use his towards nannies as this would be the most beneficial.

The house staff can be considered something like a job perk to compensate for work done. The same as an executive position at a prestigious company may offer you a company car.

In regards to the hypocracy of his statement, people are taking it out of context. It was in regards to the child care rebate which is given to wealthy Canadians in addition to poor Canadians. Trudeau has donated away this rebate, as he believes that people in his income level should not require it.

I suppose he could also forgo the job perk of provided house staff. Provided security personal, provided work travel expenses. Provided house. But then much the relatively small salary he receives (relatively being compared to other executive positions) is going to his own expenses, and resulting in a significantly lower take home that would make anyone think "why become a Prime Minister when I could become a lawyer or surgeon"

[SmokeOnTheWater]

We the tax payer have gained... one less nanny to pay for!!!

I'll donate the quarter of a penny per year that I saved to one of my favorite charity.

[bob vernon]

He should have just done what Harper did. Hire the nanny and extra cleaning staff through the PMs Office and not through the 24 Sussex Drive budget. That way you don't have to answer any questions about the nanny. The PMO is off limits and can hide all sorts of stuff. Even some kids in short pants in a basement somewhere trolling the internet.

[maryjane48]

He should have just done what Harper did. Hire the nanny and extra cleaning staff through the PMs Office and not through the 24 Sussex Drive budget. That way you don't have to answer any questions about the nanny. The PMO is off limits and can hide all sorts of stuff. Even some kids in short pants in a basement somewhere trolling the internet.

but the rightwing doesnt want jt to act like them . be no one to cry about if that happened

[Veovis]

For those that still can't grasp why he had state funded nannies, it is because they are his house staff. Something that all prime ministers are entitled to as part of the Official Residences Act. Something that no prime minister since it's inception has not taken advantage of. Some prime ministers used the house staff for cleaning or gardening. Harper had chefs for instance. Trudeau decided to use his towards nannies as this would be the most beneficial.

The house staff can be considered something like a job perk to compensate for work done. The same as an executive position at a prestigious company may offer you a company car.

In regards to the hypocracy of his statement, people are taking it out of context. It was in regards to the child care rebate which is given to wealthy Canadians in addition to poor Canadians. Trudeau has donated away this rebate, as he believes that people in his income level should not require it.

I suppose he could also forgo the job perk of provided house staff. Provided security personal, provided work travel expenses. Provided house. But then much the relatively small salary he receives (relatively being compared to other executive positions) is going to his own expenses, and resulting in a significantly lower take home that would make anyone think "why become a Prime Minister when I could become a lawyer or surgeon"

Yes, but you don't do it after saying "I will never need this" then billing for it while sating "I will never bill more than Harper" and adding 2-4 more staff.

NO one cares he has nannys, then or now, they care he said one thing and did the complete opposite which changes what people thought they were voting for. That is the actual issue, that fact missed is poor sight by the people.

If his budget was the same as Harper (as JT stated he would adhere to) and it was 1,000,000. and he spent it on 5 nannies and 4 assistants for his wife I don't care.....saying I will keep it at 1,000,000 and spending 2,000,000, I take notice of a hypocrite. The current nanny leaving and not being replaced by government funds is a political attempt to reverse the negative reaction he created in those actions.

You are trying to make it a deep issue of proper PM staff not the political issue that has occurred. He will always have security, chefs etc etc same as every PM, it was the added two nannies he stated "don't need taxpayers money for" and then "wife needs more assistants" where people went.....what? Why? So now they are trying to fix that affect or public opinion.

This isn't the practical affects of the PM's actions is the hypocrisy and poor media he has gotten from poor choices they are trying to fix.

[JLives]

My understanding is Harper and Trudeau had very close budgets for household staff. The only difference was the titles and responsibilities of the staff but the tax dollars going to pay for them were close to equal. If I mistaken please link the correct numbers.

His comment on not needing childcare subsidies was referring to a specific government subsidy so context absolutely matters.

[yummyinmytummy]

NO one cares he has nannys, then or now

Actually, a ton of people care that he has nannies - check archived topics. Trudeau has been brutally, just savagely personally attacked for having nannies despite it being a perk of the job. And no, most of these people did NOT mention anything about the UCCB benefit.

Jlives and Omnitheo are spot on - Trudeau said he didn't need the benefit, he never said anything about nannies. Why this lie keeps being perpetuated over and over is a testament to how people will only believe what they want to believe.

[Barney Google]

..."why become a Prime Minister when I could become a lawyer or surgeon"

Good point, Omnitheo...However, JT does not have the education or abilities of a lawyer or a surgeon. As a drama teacher I'm also sure he did not have the "perks" or salary he has now. Perhaps as a public speaker his "salary" was comparable. Fact is JT comes from considerable wealth and many of the "perks" he had in his 'private' life he paid for himself. When he mentioned his status of being in the, I believe it was, top 1% of Canadian income earners he blew it for me. I found it crass then and I find it crass now. Bragging about how rich you are is extremely unbecoming.

So back to why the nanny in question was let go and now the replacement will be paid for by JT? Maybe a new assistant for SGT will be hired and the funds for the former nanny will be used for that position instead. Wonder what brought on this change in nannies....NannyGate?

[GordonH]

So whats the big deal that Canada’s head of State has staff at their Residence.