The issue with Trudeau’s nannies is not one of undue entitlements, but glaring hypocrisy
- 主题发起人 YINGWA
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 241,106
- 荣誉分数
- 37,888
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Robyn Urback: The issue with Trudeau’s nannies is not one of undue entitlements, but glaring hypocrisy
Republish
Reprint
Robyn Urback | December 2, 2015 2:29 PM ET
More from Robyn Urback | @RobynUrback
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand Back in July, when he said that child care benefits should go to families who need them, not “wealthy families like mine,” he should have added “unless they become Prime Minister” to avoid the snafu he finds himself in now.
Should taxpayers pick up the tab for the Prime Minister’s childcare? Yes, actually, I think they should. I agree to a certain extent with my colleague Matt Gurney, who lamented in his column yesterday Canadians’ tendency to nickel-and-dime (and often, begrudge) every last expense of those who hold public office. I don’t believe our Prime Minister should make a habit of ending conference calls early because he needs to go salt the driveway, nor should he queue in the Air Canada Rouge line for his trips to Halifax or Calgary. There are certain perks that come with being the Prime Minister of Canada, and by and large, I’m OK with that.
Matt Gurney: Two nannies? I’m sorry, Prime Minister, but no
Canadians have a miserly, cheap streak in them. It often manifests itself as grumbling loudly at the first sign of our elected officials, if travelling abroad on government business, enjoying anything tastier than a breakfast of instant oats in their Motel 6 unit. It’s unbecoming of us, and partisans of every type engage in it. It’s a national failing. When you consider the size of the federal budget, splurging a bit on some of the frills of national greatness — properly maintaining a comfortable official residence for the prime minister and their family, just to pluck one example out of thin air — is chump change.
So I never get testy when I hear that the Prime Minister travelled on a specialized military jet instead of flying commercial, or that his security arrangements cost big money, or that the official residence (Rideau Cottage, these days) has a chef, groundskeepers or cleaners. Canada can afford to take care of the person it elects to lead it. I resent those among us who, either through inherent cheapness or partisan bias, want to nickle-and-dime our heads of government to death.
Continue reading…
Where Gurney and I diverge is on the question of childcare. He believes there is a distinction to be drawn between those who care for the residence of the Prime Minister (gardeners, cooks, maids, etc.) and those who care for his children. I believe the distinction is an inconsequential one: Justin Trudeau’s aides are there such that he can focus on the many pressing demands of office, and in that sense, his children’s two nannies are no different. As long as we’re paying for the people who cut the Trudeau’s grass, and make their meals, and drive them around, we might as well pay for the people who look after their three children as well.
The issue here is thus not one of undue entitlements, in my opinion, but one of hypocrisy: during the election campaign, Trudeau railed against the Conservatives’ Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) saying that “wealthy” families like his shouldn’t be given government handouts to help raise their kids.
“When it comes to child benefits, fair doesn’t mean giving everyone the same thing, it means giving people what they need,” he said. Trudeau also said, somewhat sanctimoniously, that he and his wife would be donating their $3,400 UCCB cheque to charity.
It all seems a bit rich now, if you’ll excuse the expression, considering Justin Trudeau will probably be the only person earning over $334,000 to have his childcare paid for by the taxpayer. Under the Liberals’ Canada Child Benefit, which will replace the UCCB, the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement, Canadian families earning around $200,000 will receive no money from the government, whereas those parents would have collected about $1,425 for one child under the Conservatives.
Trudeau has said that that family shouldn’t expect government support to help pay for its childcare — but if that family shouldn’t, why should his?
I accept that the role of Prime Minister places extraordinary demands on Trudeau and his wife, just as any high-profile job would place on any ordinary family. Lots of wealthy families have nannies (indeed, the Trudeaus had two nannies before Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister, which they ostensibly paid for out of their own pocket). But most wealthy families don’t rely on taxpayers to pay the bill, and those same families are poised to lose the benefit they once received as soon the Liberals fulfil their promise to overhaul the child benefit system.
The issue is essentially that Trudeau is clawing back a benefit for the wealthy while putting an asterisk beside his name. Back in July, when he said that child care benefits should go to families who need them, not “wealthy families like mine,” he should have added “unless they become Prime Minister” to avoid the snafu he finds himself in now. That, or just pay for the nannies himself.
National Post
相关推荐
