60

Why Trudeau’s babysitters are in the news

Justin Trudeau’s first controversy erupts—over taxpayer-funded child care in his own home


 
Margaret Trudeau with her grandchildren Hadrian, Xavier and Ella-Grace Trudeau, Ottawa, Ont., on Nov. 4, 2015. (Lars Hagberg/CP)

Margaret Trudeau with her grandchildren Hadrian, Xavier and Ella-Grace Trudeau, Ottawa, Ont., on Nov. 4, 2015. (Lars Hagberg/CP)

The trouble for the prime minister started when a press aide was asked by a reporter to identify a member of his staff. “Oh, that’s the nanny,” the spokeswoman explained. That might not have mattered but for what Brian Mulroney had said six months earlier, in May 1984. As leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Mulroney had been asked whether he would charge taxpayers for a nanny and food, as Pierre Trudeau had done, were he to become prime minister. “It seems to me there are a number of things symbolically like that that have to be changed,” Mulroney responded, “that if you’re going to ask other people to make sacrifices and to join you, then you have to provide the leadership—that’s one area.”

There ensued some explaining on the part of Mulroney’s office. The woman in question, Elizabeth MacDonald, was said to be not a nanny, but simply a member of the “domestic staff,” explained the press secretary—she had been a nanny for the Mulroneys, but no longer had any particular responsibility for the Mulroney children. A senior adviser said MacDonald was among those members of the household staff who “interfaces with the children in a habitual way.” Mila Mulroney described her as a “mother’s helper.”

Thirty-one years later, the son of Pierre Trudeau is re-enacting Brian Mulroney’s dilemma. The boy who had a nanny at 24 Sussex is now the man who employs a nanny at Rideau Cottage (where the Trudeaus are residing while the condition and future of 24 Sussex is assessed). If that matters, it is mostly because of what Justin Trudeau, like Mulroney, said along the way to becoming Prime Minister.

The orders-in-council, the official notifications of decisions recommended by the federal cabinet, are numbered 2015-1264 and 2015-1265 and set out that, pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Official Residences Act, two individuals were appointed last week as special assistants at the Prime Minister’s residence. The CBC first identified the two women as nannies. The Prime Minister’s Office explained, “Like all families of prime ministers, a small number of staff provide assistance,” and, “Given the nature of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities and his young family, the Trudeaus employ two household employees who, in addition to performing other duties around the house, act as secondary caregivers to the three children.” One of the women was reportedly minding the Trudeau children in Paris during the United Nations climate conference and posted pictures of them to Facebook. Both of the women worked for the Trudeaus previously.

The Official Residences Act gives the Prime Minister wide latitude to hire household staff “as necessary”—as of July there would seem to have been at least six people minding 24 Sussex, including the chef—but Trudeau is only months removed from taking his own stand on family assistance. In opposing the former Conservative government’s Universal Child Care Benefit, Trudeau argued that such a tax break shouldn’t be going to “wealthy” families like his and Stephen Harper’s. “My family qualified for about $3,000, even though we’re doing very well and didn’t need it,” Trudeau told Chatelaine in September. Trudeau went further than criticizing the policy—he promised to donate his family’s amount to a charity in his riding that supported vulnerable women during pregnancy and motherhood.

Justin Trudeau, Alexandre "Sacha" TrudeauLaureen Harper enthused to an interviewer in 2007 that there was no nanny at 24 Sussex and even Pierre Trudeau once bristled at the suggestion that his children had nannies: “Don’t call them nannies. Call them maids. I have had maids since I have been prime minister. They are not nannies. They haven’t been hired in England,” he told a reporter in 1977.

A reasonable argument can be constructed for the prime minister and his spouse to employ a “secondary caregiver.” The prime minister has the most demanding job in the country and his spouse might be involved in his or her own job or charity work, in addition to whatever official functions he or she wishes or is expected to attend. It is even easier to argue that tax credits should be targeted at those who most need the assistance and that the wealthy don’t need an extra few thousand dollars.

But it requires a certain dexterity to maintain both those arguments simultaneously. It could be that the public demands placed upon a prime minister and his spouse justify the assistance, regardless of that prime minister’s personal means; essentially, that Trudeau’s circumstances and official burden have changed. (Trudeau did invoke Harper’s family, but Harper’s children no longer required such supervision.)

Otherwise, it could simply be argued that fretting over how the Trudeau children are cared for is not worth the effort. That in the context of federal governance, all that ails this country and all the Trudeau government is promising to do, the expense of a nanny or two is a rather minor concern. Somewhere here is a larger discussion about the thin line between useful accountability and overly worrying about the relatively small personal expenses that officeholders sometimes incur.

“I think this has become a political issue because Mr. Trudeau, during the campaign, repeatedly said that his family was wealthy and so they didn’t need any child care support through the Universal Child Care Benefit and in fact he donated it back to charity,” interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday. “I think that now that his nannies are being paid by taxpayers, I think the right thing to do would be for his family to just pay that himself.”

Ambrose’s description of the matter as a “political issue” has it about right—not only in terms of potential hypocrisy, but as a possible suggestion of personal extravagance, the great sin of political life. Inasmuch as the optics of employing a nanny with public funds after the UCCB debate might have been a controversy waiting to happen, Trudeau, who makes $334,800 as Prime Minister, and the Liberals might have let one get past them. A Speech from the Throne and the government’s pursuit of its agenda will likely soon overtake the nanny debate (and public and media opinion might yet move in the Trudeaus’ favour on this particular point), but it will linger if reinforced. The Liberals, for instance, might yet decide, justifiably, to renovate 24 Sussex. That would presumably cost some amount of money and risk some amount of complaint. And that, plus the nannies, plus perhaps another example or two of some nice benefit of office, and the narrative of an entitled, out-of-touch Prime Minister would be easy to write. That likely alone wouldn’t be enough to defeat the Liberals in four years time, but it would be a nagging minor injury.

The cost of covering two special assistants would not make an actual difference to anything that happens in this country over the next four years—it is entirely symbolic. But professional politics and public leadership are built on symbolism. And so getting to be prime minister means not only being responsible for managing the country, but also having to decide how your nannies should be paid.


PHOTO GALLERY: JUSTIN TRUDEAU MEETS AND GREETS


 

Why Trudeau’s babysitters are in the news

    • Perhaps if we paid the Prime Minister’s spouse a proper salary, child care services — if required — could be covered from the personal budget of the Prime Minister’s family.

      • Why should his spouse get a “proper” salary? She doesn’t do anything other than hang around her hubby and jet set around the world with him. that’s what they have all done, other than some charitable work. Remember, these two both come from very wealthy families…and could easily afford to pay for their own babysitters. This is only an issue because Trudeau made it an issue.

        Frankly, I don’t care if the PM of the country has someone looking after his kids. At least the former PM’s wife did most of the raising of their kids, but still…….it’s not a huge deal.

        • The former PM’s wife did use household staff in raising the kids…. Remember:
          http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/whats-it-pay-to-be-stephen-harpers-chef-or-housekeeper

          “In 2006, Harper was sued for wrongful dismissal by his former chef, who claimed the prime minister never paid him for additional duties that included babysitting, washing the family car and burying one of Harper’s pet cats.

          Henrik Lundsgaard, who was employed at Stornoway — residence of the official Opposition leader — for over four years, was seeking $250,000 in lost wages and emotional damage. He alleged Harper and his wife, Laureen Harper, led him to believe he would become the head chef at 24 Sussex Drive if the Conservatives came to power. Instead, he was served with a letter of dismissal on Jan. 23, 2006 the day of Harper’s election victory.

          The case was later settled out of court.”

          Ah the pet cats. It could be that we’ve paid our fair share of kitty litter. You need a lot of kitty litter when you shelter 200 cats over 9 years. Really busy guy, that Harper, as PM, playing the piano, looking after hundreds of cats, taking them to the vet, buying their food, cleaning up their litter. It seems he drew the line at burying dead cats. I wonder how he found enough time to manage the economy.

          • And this has to do with taxpayer funded nannies how?

    • When the right wing nut cases are out complaining about babysitters for PMs and comparing the PMs job as the average Joe or Jane Doe’s job, Oxymoron, get over it, it used to cost taxpayers 10 million a year to cut and paste Harper’s hair to his head annually, and he even had his toenails clipped as a bonus. Get over it righties.

      • You might have some credibility if you hadn’t spent a year screeching and howling about Bev Oda’s $16 glass of orange juice. Truly fascinating that you could be outraged by $16, but a couple hundred thousand dollars doesn’t bother you a bit. Hypocrite.

  1. “Somewhere here is a larger discussion about the thin line between useful accountability and overly worrying about the relatively small personal expenses that officeholders sometimes incur.”

    Let’s ask Duffy what he thinks about it.

  2. What else would one expect of Trudeau, who shook down charities and NGO’s for speaking fees while he was an elected MP?

    He said over and over and over during the election campaign that rich people like him and Harper did NOT need government help for child care. Now he has a $300K something salary, and shaking the taxpayer down for not one, but two nannies.

    “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” F. Scott Fitzgerald.

    • Now, now…I am sure JT and Sophie did the Vogue Shoot for free…or if not, they gave the proceeds to charity, just like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie always do. Of course they need two nannies and everything has changed now that he left his competitors in the dust. As Macleans pointed out, Sophie has to dress well and she plans to take a first lady role even if Canada does not have one. It seems we taxpayers should gratefully pay for their childcare, even if they do need twice as much as any other Canadian family with 3 children.

    • The prime minister can employ household staff at his official residence to help his family, be it looking after a cat shelter or changing Hadrian’s diaper if mommy and daddy are at the Cenotaph on November 11.

      Mr Trudeau has promised to abolish certain payments to millionnaires and as far as we know is still planning to stop these payments. He has never promised to ban the provision of benefits by employers to employees, including those that we have made available to all prime ministers before him.

      • When you tell the employer (the Canadian citizens) that an employee (an elected member of Parliament) such as he should not be receiving such a benefit, should we not take him at his word. Or at least ask him why he has now seen fit to change his mind?

        • Justin Trudeau never told Canadian citizens that members of Parliament should not be receiving family allowance. Nor did he promise that as a prime minister he would forgo hiring household staff for his residence.

          Mr. Trudeau has not changed his mind, but some people here are changing the nature of his commitment.

          He promised that he would stop giving a financial allowance to millionnaires, and he will in the next budget. Meanwhile, he his giving to a charity the child allowance he receives, like all millionnaires who receive this kind of payment should do.

          • Loraine Lamontagne wrote:

            “He promised that he would stop giving a financial allowance to millionnaires”

            Actually, Loraine, you are correct that this is what he promised, but what he actually MEANT is:

            “He promised that he would stop giving a financial allowance to OTHER millionnaires, but keep it for himself”

            Just thought I’d fix it for you so you could see what the problem has been.

      • Yes, Trudeau did promise to abolish certain payments such as taxpayer funded childcare to rich people like himself and the prime minister at the time, Harper. If he had not have pointed out how the middle class was getting s#rewed by rich people such as himself getting taxpayer funded childcare, this issue would never have arisen. He is the one who reminded us all that everyone pays taxes, even the working poor and he made us question whether taxpayers should be funding childcare for the rich like himself and Harper. He said we should not. Now he is putting his hand out and letting us do so because Harper had a hair dresser….and you guys thought Harper was short on morals. This guy cannot keep his word for a minute after he is elected.

        • But there are still other child benefits in the tax code that even affect rich people like the Child Tax Credit and even credits for your kids tuition and text books. Does Trudeau have to abolish all of these too so that their are no ” taxpayer funded childcare to rich people” as you claim is now official government policy?

          I don’t remember any this commitment to end all tax credits/benefits to wealthy families during the election but then I don’t remember him committing to paying for the staff at 24 Sussex either.

  3. Wherry and other journalists are exhibiting the poverty of professionalism in their field with the attention to the domestic help at the Prime Minister residence. Canadians are ready for a new way of doing politics but may be disappointed by a lack of courage among journalists to try a new way of reporting.

    • A new way of politics for Canadians would be if politicians kept their word after they got elected. Trudeau said rich Canadians like himself should not get taxpayer money to help pay for their childcare and he said he would refuse it. He got elected and he has accepted taxpayer money to fund his childcare in its entirety and you believe the opposition should not bring it up and journalists should not report on it when it is our money being spent and he used that speech and that sentiment to get elected. Perhaps you would feel differently were one of the many that did not vote for him.

      • He has not promised to make it illegal for employers to provide benefits to employees. He has promised to end certain payments of moneys to the wealthiest, and as far as we know he will end these payments.

        • @LL, If you want to put it that way, can you confirm that Trudeau is in fact taxed on the employer provided benefit of 2 nannies in the same manner as the rest of us would be?

          • I will confirm right after Rona Ambrose confirms that Stehen Harper was in fact taxed for having a chef on staff at 24 Sussex from the day he became PM to the day he left.

            Having staff is a benefit that executives have to help them in the functions, but it is not a taxable benefit. CEOs are not taxed on the salary of their executive assistant.

          • @LL, Not sure if “Harper did it, so it’s OK if Trudeau does it” is really a line of reasoning worth pursuing given the low bar being set.

            Having said that, executive assistants are germane to the job at hand and are working on behalf of the company, nannies are not and do not. If my company paid for my (imaginary) nanny, it would be a taxable benefit. It’s not wrong to ask if it’s a taxable benefit for Trudeau (although getting an answer is starting to look like pulling teeth).

          • As far as I am concerned, Stephen Harper did nothing wrong in having four staff on payroll at 24 Sussex, including persons whose job descriptions are not public. The Harper had a right to their private lives, and as long as expenses remain within a reasonable budget, I have no problem with taxpayers’ money being used for a full-time chef, or to change the cat litter or the baby’s diaper at an official residence. Children are part of the household at 24 Sussex and the staff will be asked to help look after them, moreso if they are young children still in diapers as is Hadrien Trudeau. These household employees are working on behalf of the government of Canada to assist its executive, the prime minister. Fitting family life into his schedule is definitely germane to the job of a prime minister.

  4. I have always voted left-of-centre and volunteered to help get rid of Harper. Sure, relatively speaking it’s only a few bucks, but that’s not the point. It’s the sense of entitlement so often exhibited by the wealthy. The guy makes $327k + benefits, will receive an exorbitant pension and probably doesn’t pick up many dinner cheques. The spin masters can call them whatever, they are nannies. The vast majority of parents pay for child care and so should Trudeau.

    • Why should Trudeau pay for childcare when no other Prime Minister in history has had to pay out of their own pockets? Not like they can just hire the teenager from up the street to come give them a hand now and then. The household staff has to pass a security clearance and background check. They have to be sworn to secrecy and be trustworthy. Of course it is a household expense. The Trudeau’s are very hands on parents and I am sure if they had a choice they would not have a nanny at all. Not like Trudeau has a 9-5 job and can just call in and say, sorry I can’t be there today, one of the kids is sick or my wife is feeling under the weather so I have to stay home and look after the kids today.

      Harper had an RCMP detail for his teens because they could not be trusted to behave, that was obvious from the drunken teen party that came to light and that only became news because one of the partiers had to be hauled away in an ambulance for being too drunk. What kind of parents allow their teens to have a drinking party and no parents around to supervise?

      • Classy Diane…

        Let’s go after the kids. After all…they are the children of a Conservative.

        No biggie though…..sort of like Frank magazine when it called for someone to rape Mulroney’s daughter.

        • Sure go after the wife instead as has been rampant in the comments to articles such as this one after all she is a Liberal…

          • When the wife starts to think she’s entitlted to have the public pay for her new “status” then yes, it is fair to go after her. She is an arm-hangar and their is no official role for her. NO ONE elected her.

            She is not now entitled to act as though she has been.

  5. Actually, things are about to get interesting again.

    1. Former Liberal backroom boy sentenced and order to pay back a huge sum of money that was acquired fraudulently;
    2. Trudeau campaigning on how unfair it was for the middle class to pay for the child care of the wealthy; then promptly dipping into the public purse to have the same middle and lower class taxpayers pay for the care of his own kids;
    3. Sounds being made about how buying new Navy ships (even after cancelling the F-35’s) may need “revision” after new estimates are out – even though, this is one of the main reasons for the Liberal sweep of the Martimes (ship contracts and jobs)
    4. Carbon taxes about to be imposed Nationally – though it hasn’t been mentioned yet.

    Yep….instead of saying, “Canada is Back” we should simply say, “the old time Liberals are back”

    And expect more money to be wasted, stolen, or misspent. but hey…at least a lot of Liberal MP’s and supporters will make out like bandits.

    Sunny ways indeed.

  6. Well for goodness sake, how did our new PM let this tempest in a little teapot happen.

    It’s not like he could possibly be distracted by such mundane matters as global warming and terrorism and war refugees and the economy and the price of oil and …

    We look like a bunch of coffee shop gossips with nothing better to do than waste ink and air to make this a scandalous national political issue.

    To justify the ‘outrage’ about this ‘scandal’ by citing Trudeau’s election campaign promise about limiting the Universal Child Care Benefit to families that are not wealthy is beyond petty. Should we have a PM sign an agreement before he or she is sworn in that sets out in chapter and verse the limits of the duties of PM household staff including a restriction for staff against ‘interfacing’ with the children unless said staff are compensated for their ‘interfacing’ time by the PM — which would, of course, require said staff to keep detailed records of their ‘interfacing’ time?

    • Ordinary CDN wrote:

      “To justify the ‘outrage’ about this ‘scandal’ by citing Trudeau’s election campaign promise about limiting the Universal Child Care Benefit to families that are not wealthy is beyond petty”

      Actually, Ordinary, all that we are asking is for Justin Trudeau to stop lying. If he lied before he was the PM…..that is a good indication he will lie now that he is a PM. In fact, now that we know he is a liar, there is nothing really stopping him from doing it many more times. And I’m sure he will do exactly that.

      • Mr. Trudeau has promised to limit the Universal Child Care Benefit to families that are not wealthy and he will in the next budget. Stop lying Jameshalifax by pretending that he promised to have no household staff at the residence of the prime minister.

        When the next budget is approved, Mr. Trudeau will no longer be receiving the Universal Child Care Benefit.

        • Loraine, Lamontagne….are you really that stupid? did you really just write that?

          You wrote: “When the next budget is approved, Mr. Trudeau will no longer be receiving the Universal Child Care Benefit.”

          Well….DUHHHH!!!!…

          You are a moron. He will not even NEED the UCCB….as we are already paying 100% of his childcare costs you duffus. What will happen in the next budget in fact is this. People currently receiving help in childcare costs will no longer be receiving it, but they will be paying for Trudeau’s nannies.

          My god……you really do make it easy.

  7. CBC found a tid bit and made a non issue, an issue. Look again at Mr.Trudeau’s speech re Child Tax Credit. That is one issue. Who the PM hires for his household is a completely different matter but CBC thrives on connecting the two. Shame. There is no news but what they created.Any one with a more worldly mind would understand that. the Conservatives have chosen to be ignorant of these differences.

  8. I believe it’s perfectly alright for the Government of Canada to supply the PM with childcare staff. An employer should be able to give an employee any perk they like. However the Canadian Revenue Agency deems many perks, like a company vehicle for example, to be taxable benefits. So I would like to know if they deem a nanny to be a taxable benefit; I would expect they would be taxable if they were being paid for by your a private sector company. If that’s the case as long as the Prime Minister is declaring the perk on his taxes I have no problem with it.

    Actually it would be interesting to know how the CRA views all MPs perks and see if they are treated any different than they would if they were offered to private sector employees.

    • That is an interesting question. Do the PM and other MPs get dinged by the CRA for various employer provided perks like the rest of us? My (after-tax) money is on “no”.

    • Public officials get 1/3 of their salaries tax free and get tax free allowances/reimbursements for many types of personal expenses. The fact the nannies may result in him paying a little more tax (typically around 40 cents for each $1 of benefit) doesn’t seem much of an exoneration, if you ask me.

      • This reminds me of the great democratic step taken by The Harper Government : they decided to tax the salary of the Governor General because, you know he too should pay tax. In order to do so they had to double his salary…

        • Putting the GG on the same tax footing as the rest of us ordinary Canadians was indeed a good step, even at a cost of increasing his salary.

          • It accomplished nothing. The government gives him money, then takes it back. It’s just more costly but it makes some feel good that the GG is on the same footing, so why not waste money for nothing else than to make some people feel good. It’s always good politics.

          • The GG’s salary was increased so that his after-tax income would not change. Why do you feel bureaucratic waste is a good step?

          • @LL
            It’s not bureaucratic waste to have the GG’s nominal salary directly comparable to that of other people making the same amount of money. That was not the case when his salary was tax free, and in fact it made it seem that the GG was making much less than he actually was. So, making the GG’s salary taxable was actually an act of transparency (allowing apples to apples comparisons), which is 100% in step with the new government’s desire for greater transparency.

            Additionally, by the logic you’re espousing, the salaries of *all* government workers should be lowered and made non-taxable as not doing so represents “bureaucratic waste”.

            Finally, I’d imagine that having the CRA process the GG’s T4 (in all likelihood the GG already had T3s and T5s that needed processing) is an *immeasurably* small increase in cost. If you genuinely consider this to be a “bureaucratic waste” and a way to “waste money”, then I’d be interested in what you quantify this waste to be.

            It’s very, very, very rarely wrong to have government officials live by the same rules as the rest of us.

    • Having staff, a secretary, a chief of staff, a chef, is not a personal benefit. Mr. Harper always had a chef on staff at 24 Sussex, and I doubt that was ever considered a personal benefit, whether or not the chef was cooking for an official reception or for the Harper family alone. We should ask Rona Ambrose but I am sure she will refuse to answer.

      Transparency has a price. It’s much easier to, say, operate a cat shelter at taxpayers’ expense when journalists believe that you can shelter more than 200 cats without ever feeding them, changing cat litter or getting them to a vet.

  9. In Canada childcare is now considered more ‘out of touch with ordinary Canadians’ than a chef, a gardener, house staff and a chauffeur.

  10. You’re all forgetting the essential piece in this situation. Mr. Trudeau and his family, because of the nature and 24-7 demands of his job, are effectively captives of the Canadian public for the duration of the time he serves as our Prime Minister. We are responsible, therefore, for his (and his family’s) living expenses – all of them. The Trudeaus are a young, modern couple and both aspire to be godparents and productive individuals. As all other modern couples with children have found, it’s not easy and childcare is the most challenging thing many of them face. The Trudeaus have young children and they also have unique security concerns. They and their children need to have consistent and stable support, so the parents can both fulfill the demands of their new life without worry and stress. We owe them that.

    • What we do or do not owe a PM and his family is not the point. The point is that Trudeau got himself elected using the sentiment that the PM of the time, Harper was rich and like himself should not be given taxpayer funded childcare. Then once elected, Trudeau took the two nannies he already employed and situated such that the taxpayer would start picking up the tab. Meanwhile, they are pretending these two women do not really provide childcare because that would make Trudeau a liar.

    • Fujikats wrote:
      “Mr. Trudeau and his family, because of the nature and 24-7 demands of his job, are effectively captives of the Canadian public for the duration of the time he serves as our Prime Minister”

      You have it backwards Fujikats. The trudeaus are not Captives of Canadians, they hold us CAPTIVES, and are forcing us to pay for their expenses. Wait until the policies Trudeau campained on start…..then we’ll really be hooped. lol.

      I never heard such a narrative when harper was the PM. He was never OUR CAPTIVE…but hey, maybe it’s different for Liberals.

  11. Imagine Don Martin’s mouth if this had been an issue with PM Harper. The issue is about politics and fairness. Trudeau loses points because he spent a lot of time talking about the same issues. If we make issues of $17 orange juice, it is fair to criticize Trudeau.

  12. To repeat a previous commentator (considering all the world’s problems) you’re all just like “coffee shop gossips”.

    Can we, now, get back to managing our great country?

  13. It is a matter of principle.
    He says one thing then does something else.
    If he doesn’t do what is right, will this just be the first of many scandals — small and large?

  14. I can’t help but wonder, if these staff members were men, would the media be calling them nannies and having this discussion?

    • Hey Jenn…..

      I guess you needed to comment on this to justify the four years you spent getting that womyn’s studies degree eh?

      PS…..how’s the job at starbucks going?

      • Wow, Jameshalifax – nothing like attacking a complete stranger with a misogynistic comment.

        I actually was wondering the same thing. If these people were men, would the fact that they were also assisting with child-minding even have caused a stir?

        • Well then,

          I would guess that you and Jenn were in the same useless class trying to earn the same useless degree.

          Enjoy the coffee shop.

        • Sorry….forgot to actually answer your question.

          The term “nannies” is not the issue. The issue is Trudeau casitgating Harper for providing some measure of childcare benefits to RICH folks such as himself, and then after getting elected providing it to himself at a 100% rate of return.

          What does that say about someone’s morals when he would take away a small benefit for some, and then immediately take a huge benefit for himself. I mean really…a guy like that would probably charge a charity thousands of dollars to hear him speak and….umm..er,…wait a minute?

  15. So national tax policies should reflect the household staff at the PM’s official residence?

    That’s a new one.

    • For the folks who still don’t understand why this is an issue…..I’m not surprised you are stupid enough to vote Liberal or NDP.

      Enjoy the tax hikes.

Sign in to comment.