Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

374 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Uh huh.  So when is the jerk going to declare, "Okay, I was wrong.  I got two nannies on the public dime.  But don't be mad.  I feel child care should be for both the rich and the poor.  So I'm going to steal the NDP's platform promise now and bring affordable universal child care to everyone."

It's not the "NDP platform". It's the pretend platform for losing campaigns. The NDP has never championed affordable universal child care in any province where it has formed the government. Ever. That would have been the PQ.

This thread reflects well everything that is wrong with the NDP today. Incapability of distinguishing real issues facing Canadians (like child care) from celebrity gossip. Like, the condemnation of Bev Oda for paying $16 for a glass of orange juice, while giving her a pass for stopping the funding of KAIROS. There are many other examples of political death, but the current one is quite classic.

mark_alfred

"pretend platform"?  Geeze Unionist, you usually have better arguments than that.  It was clearly in the real platform, and had been talked about for some time.  It was central to the campaign.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

"pretend platform"?  Geeze Unionist, you usually have better arguments than that.  It was clearly in the real platform, and had been talked about for some time.  It was central to the campaign.

Did you understand what I said about NDP provincial governments?

Did you also understand that the federal NDP child care promise could not be implemented without agreements with provinces?

So perhaps the word "pretend" was a bit extreme. How about: "toothless"? or, "maybe yes, maybe no"? Or, "one-half what Québec has been doing for a generation?"

Explain to me again why all the provincial NDP governments have failed to even attempt what Québec has done.

 

 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Child care is a provincial responsibility.  So, the NDP offering to federally fund it by 60% is fabulous.  The argument that if they're not funding it by 100% then it's a fake promise is nonsense.  How much federal funding is there for other provincial responsibilities?  Like health care?  I'm willing to bet it's not as high as 60%.  The NDP promise on child care was fabulous.  I'm surprised you're spewing Liberal talking points.

The NDP said it would take 8 years to roll out and Quebec could opt out and Ontario wanted their current programs to be funded. It required the provincial governments to chip in when they are running deficits already. Coupled with the balanced budgets promises it was not fabulous.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Child care is a provincial responsibility.  So, the NDP offering to federally fund it by 60% is fabulous.  The argument that if they're not funding it by 100% then it's a fake promise is nonsense.  How much federal funding is there for other provincial responsibilities?  Like health care?  I'm willing to bet it's not as high as 60%.  The NDP promise on child care was fabulous.  I'm surprised you're spewing Liberal talking points.

Who made the argument that 60% funding is a fake promise? Who? Where?

And how about answering the questions I posed, instead of dreaming up straw men?

As for the Liberals, they are the enemies of public child care, in case you hadn't noticed. They betrayed it federally, and they're trying to destroy it now in Québec (they will fail). You're accusing me of spewing Liberal talking points? Get a life free from delusions. There were some on sale as late as Cyber Monday.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Why should I pay for your nannies? Why should I pay for your health care? Why should I pay for your kids' education? This is the domain of the right wing nut job. If you are saying Trudeau should pay you are in the same court as Ezra. Vile.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

We might get into the gendered and raced aspects of low-wage labour here - like so many nannies, these are both Filipina-Canadian women. And we know that poverty has a colour - and it ain't white. 

But the focus on the Trudeaus and child care? I dunno, reminds me of "celebrity couple" stuff in reverse. And it definitely has the undertone of "women shoud stay at home and care for their kids." I'd be more presuaded if the call was "let's have free child care for all," but it isn't. Instead, it's "they should pay for their own child care." 

Yup, and if the NDP stays on the same track for the next four years we will continue hearing about how the NDP agrees with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives and the NDP dissed Trudeau on ruling out the F35s.

The Conservatives and the NDP agree that balanced budgets are a top priority.

The Conservatives and the NDP both have a problem with paying for household staff for the Prime Minister that has child care duties.

The Conservatives and the NDP both want the Senate abolished.

 

The Conservatives and the NDP are both opposition parties. Opposition parties often agree on criticisms of the government. In fact any two parties largely agree about criticisms of the third.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it good optics for the NDP. In another thread we were discussing how shallow much of the electorate is in terms of political knowledge. Ironically marketing has never been more significant in convincing voters that a leader or party is credible and authentic. It's not that the NDP shouldn't play politics, they should just make sure they do it well. Right now, they are not doing it well.

The general impression Mulcair is leaving is negative. What he does now makes no difference to the election in 2019. It will only have an impact if it becomes habitual.

Trudeau is "rising above" the "negativity" by ignoring criticism and simply moving forward on his agenda. By not defending himself he is positioning the criticisms as unimportant and/or without merit while maintaining his sunny ways and "lets all be friends" attitude. It makes the Conservatives and NDP look petty. If the criticism were substantial that approach wouldn't work but so far the criticisms have been insignificant. Trudeau and his team are excellent strategists.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
As for the Liberals, they are the enemies of public child care, in case you hadn't noticed. They betrayed it federally, and they're trying to destroy it now in Québec (they will fail).

The federal and provincial parties are independent from one another and neither has expressed opposition to public daycare in principle. The federal Liberals may have it on their next platform in 2019. During this mandate it is all about undoing the harm Harper did.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Nasty! Could you raise a family on 11 to 13 dollars an hour Pondering? Why can't you just admit once that Trudeau is in the wrong here and should pay his help better. Responsiblity is resonsibility; its about the kids. That is why the help is there. Seems to me there can't be more responsiblity than that. Its pretty clear you'll say anything to defend Trudeau. I'm not kidding, for someone labelling themselves "progressive", this comment seems pretty anti labout to me. Admit it.

And I say again, the issue is Universal Daycare for all. The NDP ought to be hammering at this. Why they are being so f***ing stupid about this is completely beyond me. I guess Tom thinks less than 10% national polling support is a worthy goal. What an F***ing idiot he has become.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

I just read that the NDP focus has been the wages being paid which I agree with but it is over the top partisan.....

Of course you do!

Pondering wrote:

The more appropriate response should be to ask who determines the pay and benefits for household staff and a suggestion that the government should serve as an example and encourage the staff to join a union.

No, the more approrpriate response is for Junior to admit he's been a chearp, 1%er SOB, and pay his nannies a living wage! He's a typical low wage employer. All for me and none for thee!

quizzical

pondering the issue isn't about cost to taxpayers it's about lying or hypocrisy and paying for their own nannies because the rich can afford to according to Justin himself.....

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I just read that the NDP focus has been the wages being paid which I agree with but it is over the top partisan.....

Of course you do!

Pondering wrote:

The more appropriate response should be to ask who determines the pay and benefits for household staff and a suggestion that the government should serve as an example and encourage the staff to join a union.

No, the more approrpriate response is for Junior to admit he's been a chearp, 1%er SOB, and pay his nannies a living wage! He's a typical low wage employer. All for me and none for thee!

He isn't the employer. They are employees of the National Capital Commission classified as special assistants to the PM and spouse same as all other PMs get.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I have no issue with paying for this. I DO have an issue with the PM's hypocricy attacking the Universality aspect of the NDP Childcare Plan during the election after saying the rich should pay for their own children. But more importantly is the issue of providing Childcare to all.

Clearly Trudeau has no issue with the Public paying his Childcare costs, but he hasn't addressed the issue of publicly funded, UNIVERSAL, Childcare for all! This is a chance for him to lead, to show this great vision his sycophants boost of. Its time for him to step up. I voted NDP and was sickened by his attacks on the NDP Childcare plan. He should state publiclly now his committment to Universal, Public Childcare and state his willingness to use political capital to achieve this.

I am also angered to learn he won't pay all of his staff a living wage. EVERYONE knows that that you can't raise a family on 11 to 13 dollars an hour. How ironic that he also attacked the NDP's propsal regarding a Federal Minimum Wage; were it in place, he'd be FORCED to pay all his hellp AT LEAST 15 dollars an hour. The fact he couldn't see this coming is no surprise.

It is a manifestation of the traditional LPC sense of entitelement and privilege, and a reflection of how as a member of the 1%, Trudeau is unable to truly relate and show through HIS ACTIONS that he understands just how hard it is for oridnary Canadians to live their lives.

It is time for LPC sycophants, here and elsewhere to stop calling anyone who disagrees with as a "partisan", (as if embracing a set of principles by which one lives is somehow bad) and truly drop their own unflinching partisan support of Trudeau, and call on him to do both the right thing and pay his help fairly, and publiclly call for and use his political capital starting with a Public statement now that he will use this policial capital to secure Universal Chilcare for all and set the frame for the Provinces now; in other words throw down the gauntlet and make it clear you want this. You attacked the NDP Trudeau, its time for you to PUT UP OR SHUTUP! 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I have no issue with paying for this. I DO have an issue with the PM's hypocricy attacking the Universality aspect of the NDP Childcare Plan during the election after saying the rich should pay for their own children. 

Trudeau didn't do that. It's the child tax benefit he is taking from the wealthy. Criticism of the daycare plan is that the NDP wouldn't get it done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-ndp-spar-o...

Liberal candidate John McCallum, the incumbent in Markham-Unionville, called NDP financial policies in general "a mirage," and suggested NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is not being realistic about funding child care.

"The NDP does not tell us that the provincial governments have to put up $3.3 billion per year to make this plan work," McCallum told reporters in Ottawa. "Where are the provinces going to come up with $3.3 billion?

"I come from Ontario," he continued. "Ontario has a significant deficit. Ontario would have to come up with a billion dollars plus per year. Where's Ontario going to get that money? If the provinces don't come up with the money, there won't be child-care spaces."

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Clearly Trudeau has no issue with the Public paying his Childcare costs, but he hasn't addressed the issue of publicly funded, UNIVERSAL, Childcare for all! This is a chance for him to lead, to show this great vision his sycophants boost of. Its time for him to step up. I voted NDP and was sickened by his attacks on the NDP Childcare plan. He should state publiclly now his committment to Universal, Public Childcare and state his willingness to use political capital to achieve this. 

He didn't run on that. I think it will be in his next platform in 2019. Prime Ministers get a lot of perks the general population doesn't get. Support staff paid for out of the public purse is among those perks a PM gets because they are on call 24/7.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I am also angered to learn he won't pay all of his staff a living wage. EVERYONE knows that that you can't raise a family on 11 to 13 dollars an hour. How ironic that he also attacked the NDP's propsal regarding a Federal Minimum Wage; were it in place, he'd be FORCED to pay all his hellp AT LEAST 15 dollars an hour. The fact he couldn't see this coming is no surprise. 

They are the employees of the National Capital Commission. Trudeau pointed out that the 15$ minimum wage would only apply to 1% of workers. I hope that if the Liberals don't do it the NDP will present a bill in the HoC and that the Liberals pass it.

If the National Capital Commission doesn't increase their wages I think Trudeau should top them up and I'd like to know if they have a minimum hours per week deal and benefits.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
It is a manifestation of the traditional LPC sense of entitelement and privilege, and a reflection of how as a member of the 1%, Trudeau is unable to truly relate and show through HIS ACTIONS that he understands just how hard it is for oridnary Canadians to live their lives. 

Not really. The National Capital Commission is paying the market rate which I agree is too low. I'm more concerned that low income people didn't get a tax break and the lack of a basic income program. These women should be paid better but the broader problem is that this is the market rate. 

Arthur Cramer wrote:
It is time for LPC sycophants, here and elsewhere to stop calling anyone who disagrees with as a "partisan", (as if embracing a set of principles by which one lives is somehow bad) and truly drop their own unflinching partisan support of Trudeau, and call on him to do both the right thing and pay his help fairly, and publiclly call for and use his political capital starting with a Public statement now that he will use this policial capital to secure Universal Chilcare for all and set the frame for the Provinces now; in other words throw down the gauntlet and make it clear you want this. You attacked the NDP Trudeau, its time for you to PUT UP OR SHUTUP! 

There is nothing wrong with embracing principles and living by them. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the shortcomings of Liberal policy and indicating how you think your party's policy is better, but the election is over. Trudeau won and daycare was not part of his platform.

Trudeau didn't attack the NDP he criticized their policy as unrealistic. There is currently no money in the budgets, federal or provincial for national daycare. It makes no sense to fault the Liberal government for not implementing a plan that the NDP lost an election on.

Do I support national daycare? Absolutely. I hope it's in the next Liberal platform.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

 

if one had been with them since 2012 why would Gregoire report they had no nannies in 2013 when being interviewed on a parenting blog?

whose telling the truth? the news report, Gregoire? did the Globe and Mail say in October they had no nannies?

 

This is a good question and there is some credibility on the line. I think the public has a right to know how these contradictory statements co-exist on the public record.

I am not condemning without all the facts but we sure do deserve an answer don't we?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I just read that the NDP focus has been the wages being paid which I agree with but it is over the top partisan.....

Of course you do!

Pondering wrote:

The more appropriate response should be to ask who determines the pay and benefits for household staff and a suggestion that the government should serve as an example and encourage the staff to join a union.

No, the more approrpriate response is for Junior to admit he's been a chearp, 1%er SOB, and pay his nannies a living wage! He's a typical low wage employer. All for me and none for thee!

He isn't the employer. They are employees of the National Capital Commission classified as special assistants to the PM and spouse same as all other PMs get.

Seriously -- you saying the PM cannot exert some pressure to make sure they are paid well?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

Trudeau is "rising above" the "negativity" by ignoring criticism and simply moving forward on his agenda.

Spectacular. You call that "rising above."

I would call "ignoring criticism" as a practice to be supremely arrogant.

The NDP approaching this as a wage issue is not petty. I have gone after the NDP for being petty but hell no, not this time. The wage paid in the PM's household is a leadership issue. You saying it is a petty partisan complaint only exposes your attitude to the issue and exposes you to more valid questions about how progressive you are.

Now before answering with another massive flame -- consider that I would say this to anyone here.Consider that sometimes when you are accused of not being progressive there are good reasons for it. Rather than answer with anger, try reconsidering your position a bit.

Also consider that opposition parties (that you are not friendly towards and not part of) can hold positions and priorities that you do not share and that does not make them petty. These same opposition parties have a job to oppose and propose. The NDP is doing both on this issue -- proposing a national childcare program and opposing the elitism of tax-payers supporting a few people who claimed they did not need it and opposing the low rate being offered. Your response on this looks far more partisan than the NDP position.

I do not share the NDP's concern with the idea that a PM would have this paid for as I think a lot of demands go with the job that intrude in a very particular way on families. I do think that the role of PM is one that should not have a higher than needed cost on a family and I think that it is right that it be a coveted and desired position. I have no trouble with some luxury. But I still respect the NDP position on this as no petty. and I recognize that Trudeau brought some of this on himself by claiming he did not need state help and then accepting a fairly massive amount of it for the same issue.

When it comes to the wages, I would be sharply critical of the NDP if they did not make this a big deal. The NDP is a social justice and labour party -- or should be. To ignore any issue of fair wages, symbolic or otherwise would be a scandal as far as I am concerned.

At issue is the recognition that the public should offer the PM some luxury and the PM personally is quite wealthy. How is it possible that he could offer anything less than a great wage in the PM's residence for childcare? And since the PM is a policy position, how does offering a low wage not reflect on the impression we have about his attitudes to working people in general, childcare workers in particular and childcare itself? As a young and very, very priveleged parent he should know better and offer a good example. No, not petty at all.

I have been measured about my criticisms of Trudeau since the election because I don't want to be seen as attacking automatically but there is a real issue here and if the public does not see it as such, then I think that is a sad reflection. I recognize that in the early days of a political honeymoon valid criticims such as this are liable to be ignored but they are still valid, the opposition bound to that role.

And, never, never, never should a leader be considered "rising above" by ignoring criticism. Perhaps insults, sure but nmot criticism. Criticism should be responded to -- especially on an issue like this.

Trudeau has an additional responsibility or compact if you like. He has portrayed himself as a man of the people even though he is wealthy. His understood compact with Canadians has to be to be more sensitive to issues of his personal wealth and privilege due to his status. Anytime he does not live up to this compact, he should be roundly criticized and he should always be expected to answer and explain.

Unionist

Sean, obviously I agree that workers should not be paid poverty wages. But why should Trudeau "put pressure" on anyone to pay the nannies more? Why should he have any say in the matter whatsoever? His job should be to legislate a decent living minimum wage for all workers under federal jurisdiction - besides many other thing. Not to look after "his" personal servants. Who apparently are not even his employees.

Here's my question:

If in fact they are employees of the National Capital Commission, then why aren't they unionized? Everyone else in the public service is.

And if they were unionized, no way would they be earning poverty wages, whether Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Grégoire are generous souls or not.

swallow swallow's picture

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

This is my impression. There is no evidence that anyone other than the Trudeau Household decided what they would be paid. In fact it looks like the household budget is being managed largely by the family. Trudeau is trying to minimize complaints about the size of the budget, I suspect, and this is leading to some hard-nosed offers to household staff.

Yes, Unionist. Trudeau is the PM and can speak up about this if he thinks the wages are unfair. You bet the government, that ultimately does report to him, would do something about this if Trudeau demanded it.

If we have elected a PM so powerless that he cannot make sure that the staff of his household get good wages -- what have we done?

For starters -- Trudeau can write an effing mandate letter telling the minister responsible to fix it. No?

mark_alfred

Quote:
Did you also understand that the federal NDP child care promise could not be implemented without agreements with provinces?

Child care is a provincial responsibility.  So, the NDP offering to federally fund it by 60% is fabulous.  The argument that if they're not funding it by 100% then it's a fake promise is nonsense.  How much federal funding is there for other provincial responsibilities?  Like health care?  I'm willing to bet it's not as high as 60%.  The NDP promise on child care was fabulous.  I'm surprised you're spewing Liberal talking points.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Child care is a provincial responsibility.  So, the NDP offering to federally fund it by 60% is fabulous.  The argument that if they're not funding it by 100% then it's a fake promise is nonsense.  How much federal funding is there for other provincial responsibilities?  Like health care?  I'm willing to bet it's not as high as 60%.  The NDP promise on child care was fabulous.  I'm surprised you're spewing Liberal talking points.

 

Who made the argument that 60% funding is a fake promise? Who? Where?

 

And how about answering the questions I posed, instead of dreaming up straw men?

 

As for the Liberals, they are the enemies of public child care, in case you hadn't noticed. They betrayed it federally, and they're trying to destroy it now in Québec (they will fail). You're accusing me of spewing Liberal talking points? Get a life free from delusions. There were some on sale as late as Cyber Monday.

For clarity, I was responding specifically to your question of "Did you also understand that the federal NDP child care promise could not be implemented without agreements with provinces?"  I do feel that's a Lib talking point that neglects to consider that the NDP were offering federal funding of 60% of child care, which is a provincial responsibility.  The Libs often stated (one right here, actually) that provinces which have financial issues would not be able to come up with 40% (implying that if it's not a 100%, then it's an empty promise), when in reality the offer of 60% for something that isn't even a federal responsibility is fabulous. The Lib criticism is based on the idea that child care is optional, which I don't buy. 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

mark_alfred

Good ol' Karl on Parl (Karl Nerenberg) of Rabble gives us some much needed perspective on the whole nanny issue.  He argues it is small potatoes that is not a scandal.  Keeping corporate taxes low, on the other hand, is a scandal.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/12/trudeaus-nannies-...

Karl Nerenberg wrote:

The cumulative cost in lost revenue to the federal government of ill-conceived corporate tax cuts has been in the multiple billions of dollars.

You could hire whole armies of nannies with that wasted money.

Or have national universal affordable child care.

Unionist

swallow wrote:

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

I was relying on Pondering information earlier in the thread (which she repeated several times) for the story that they are NCC employees. If that's incorrect (and I did say "IF" they are NCC employees), then I withdraw my comments about unionization. And I still can't grasp why Trudeau's nannies should be paid more than any others. Trudeau (and the provinces) should be listening to demands of the workers and other social movements and raising minimum wages in all jurisdictions. How he treats his employees (if indeed they are his employees...) is, I'm sad to say, of utterly no interest to me.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
Good ol' Karl on Parl (Karl Nerenberg) of Rabble gives us some much needed perspective on the whole nanny issue.  He argues it is small potatoes that is not a scandal.  Keeping corporate taxes low, on the other hand, is a scandal.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/12/trudeaus-nannies-...

Karl Nerenberg wrote:

The cumulative cost in lost revenue to the federal government of ill-conceived corporate tax cuts has been in the multiple billions of dollars.

You could hire whole armies of nannies with that wasted money.

Or have national universal affordable child care.

as i  said prior when this same article was posted; i dont give a shit what a privileged retired man has to say about this hypocrisy of Justin's  in respect to no universal childcare and then having tax payers pay for his as soon as he's elected. it doesn't affect him in the least.

and i don't believe the bs released today by the Liberals to try and make this example of out of control hypocrisy and sense of privilege go away.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 

if one had been with them since 2012 why would Gregoire report they had no nannies in 2013 when being interviewed on a parenting blog?

whose telling the truth? the news report, Gregoire? did the Globe and Mail say in October they had no nannies?

 

This is a good question and there is some credibility on the line. I think the public has a right to know how these contradictory statements co-exist on the public record.

I am not condemning without all the facts but we sure do deserve an answer don't we?

Because she wasn't a nanny then and she isn't a nanny now. Now she is being designated an assistant, at the Trudeau household she was probably a mother's helper meaning doing dishes, cooking and laundry and helping with the kids. An extra two hands, not a nanny who looks after the kids while mommy is at work.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Seriously -- you saying the PM cannot exert some pressure to make sure they are paid well?

Yes of course he can and I have said the government should be setting a standard for livable wages not paying "market rates" and that the 15$ minimum wage for federal workers should be introduced as a bill by the NDP.

Now that he knows he should take action for them but the larger issue is a living wage for all. Making the household assistants the issue makes it personal, about Trudeau, not about the issue of living wages. Nobody is shocked that he has household staff paid for by taxpapers and that they help with the children. All the PMs have had household help that assists with the children. They have their own guards too.

Right now Trudeau is extremely popular and people want to be happy about his election and don't want to talk politics anymore. They had their fill of that during the election period, or rather the last two weeks which is when most swing voters paid attention.

It is no accident the parties focus on a couple of very short messages repeated ad nauseam. I got so tired of hearing "tax the 1% to give to the middle class" and "in Canada, better is always possible" but it worked. Remember the debate when he completely ignored the question and repeated his primary pitch instead? I had trouble judging the first debate. My own impression was much more negative. I thought he did what he had to do, but I didn't think he did great.

Telling people Trudeau dissed the NDP's childcare plan and has two nannies the taxpayers are paying for and during the election he said he wouldn't take money for his kids isn't making anyone upset about Trudeau other than NDPers.

Most people are thinking "whatever, the election is over, the NDP lost, call me in 4 years."

Twice the Duffy/Wright affair was big news, the summer Mulcair cross-examined Harper in the HoC and this summer when we heard all the testimony about how the PMO was directing the senate and the senate was obeying and they tried to fix the Deloitte report. It didn't take 2 months before people forgot all about it. Security concerns repeatedly boosted Harper's numbers just because he appeared to be tough on crime and into bombing even though if anything his actions increase our danger. Even those numbers only lasted a month or so before they would drop again.

That doesn't mean nothing gets through. Harper's "not ready" ads did have impact but it is because they weren't over the top and they were very repetitive. Their reefer madness stripper ads were a complete flop because they came across as a personal attack. "Not now, but maybe someday" resonated.

The Liberals went from 3rd to 1st overnight when he was elected leader, but it didn't hold. He was still able to regain it during the election campaign of 11 weeks because he was liked. All he had to do was have a credible platform and prove he could be PM in the debates. He didn't have to win the debates, only prove that he was adequate.

He got a bigger burst than most new leaders because of his name but even Mulcair had a honeymoon and the NDP was in first place for a time. That does give the NDP lasting credibility even though they fell back to 3rd.

The Liberals stepped back and let the NDP be the official opposition. Trudeau was hardly in the house. He used that time to build up the riding associations, pump up the volunteers, attend community events. He seriously did listen to what people wanted because that told him how to sell his platform once it was ready.

quizzical

bs she sure is or they sure are. stop with the farications too many reports and pics indicating otherwise.

and they need to come clean on it r they're just lyin liars as per....

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 

if one had been with them since 2012 why would Gregoire report they had no nannies in 2013 when being interviewed on a parenting blog?

whose telling the truth? the news report, Gregoire? did the Globe and Mail say in October they had no nannies?

 

This is a good question and there is some credibility on the line. I think the public has a right to know how these contradictory statements co-exist on the public record.

I am not condemning without all the facts but we sure do deserve an answer don't we?

Because she wasn't a nanny then and she isn't a nanny now. Now she is being designated an assistant, at the Trudeau household she was probably a mother's helper meaning doing dishes, cooking and laundry and helping with the kids. An extra two hands, not a nanny who looks after the kids while mommy is at work.

That is ridiculous.  The pretzle logic you choose to defend your Trudeau.

To say you don't have a nanny becuase you have a "mother's helper" would fit under the category of a steaming pile of bullshit. Just focus that argument around and see if your semantic game fixes the problem. Just take off those Liberal coloured glasses for a moment and read what you wrote.

As for the wages -- no, they are not market wages. Market wages are an average of day and night. based on what we have seen the average of the day and night wages they are paying is below market rates.

You saw the argument -- they are even going to be paid below minimum wage at times -- justified by effectively charging them for the meals they have there.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

swallow wrote:

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

I was relying on Pondering information earlier in the thread (which she repeated several times) for the story that they are NCC employees. If that's incorrect (and I did say "IF" they are NCC employees), then I withdraw my comments about unionization. And I still can't grasp why Trudeau's nannies should be paid more than any others. Trudeau (and the provinces) should be listening to demands of the workers and other social movements and raising minimum wages in all jurisdictions. How he treats his employees (if indeed they are his employees...) is, I'm sad to say, of utterly no interest to me.

I couldn't find my original reference...

This means the Trudeau caregivers are not additional full-time hires at the prime minister’s residence — news that seems to have deflated some of the criticism.

Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says he doesn’t think taxpayers need to be concerned if there is no additional cost.

“If they’re prepared to shift … some of the other uses of the staff, to give that up in exchange for child care services so taxpayers are not out any additional money, I don’t see that as a problem,” Wudrick said.

The nannies, considered special assistants under the Official Residences Act, have been hired for $15 to $20 an hour during the day and $11 to $13 at night — a fee nanny associations say reflects the average rate.

They aren't nannies at all. They are special assistants.

Could Trudeau have said "please pay them both 30$ an hour? I doubt it because he isn't paying. We haven't actually been told what each woman is earning specifically. How would that work out? Today I am paying you 20$ an hour but next week it will be 15$. Each assistant must expect a specific wage.

The range given must be what is allowed under the Official Residences Act for special assistants. Why else would a range be given? Some bizarre guessing game?  There is probably a range for gardeners and chefs and some sort of set range for stipends for travelling as well. The Trudeau's aren't sitting down every week doling out their household budget. They are permitted to have household staff which is then paid by the National Capital Commission. The Chef probably has a line of credit at a grocery store which is also paid by the National Capital Commission as part of it's mandate to oversee the running of official residences. How else would that work? They can't just hand the Trudeaus a lump sum and tell them to decide how to divey it up.

So, why these are not unionized positions is a pertinent question. They are federal employees, probably part of the less than 1% of federal employees making less than 15$ an hour. I read that Harper's chef quit because he was asked to do other duties like gardening. That's an indication that another word for "household staff" is servants.

This is not an opportunity to bash Trudeau personally. It is an opportunity to illustrate why the NDP's 15$ federal minimum wage should still be passed even though they lost the election. Tearing down the Liberals or Trudeau may be satisfying but it won't do anything to improve the reputation of the NDP.

The NDP can't be Liberal lite anymore so they have to craft themselves a new image that casts them again as essentially different rather than almost the same. That doesn't mean going back to the 30s or 50s. It means re-evaluating who the NDP seeks to represent now and how best to do that. I'm biased towards the 99%.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

The range given must be what is allowed under the Official Residences Act for special assistants. Why else would a range be given? Some bizarre guessing game?  There is probably a range for gardeners and chefs and some sort of set range for stipends for travelling as well. The Trudeau's aren't sitting down every week doling out their household budget. They are permitted to have household staff which is then paid by the National Capital Commission.

Question: Why do you refer to documents and then spout on about them and not read them?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/o-4/page-2.html#docCont

Staff of Prime Minister’s residence

  • 7. (1) The Governor in Council may appoint a steward or housekeeper and such other employees as the Governor in Council deems necessary for the management of the Prime Minister’s residence, and may fix their rate of remuneration and conditions of employment.

  • Marginal note:Casual employees

    (2) The steward or housekeeper may, from time to time, with the approval of the Prime Minister, engage casual employees to assist the regular staff appointed under subsection (1).

Now the Governor in Council is the Governor General acting on the advice of none other than the PM and cabinet.

This means that the PM has a HUGE role in these appointments and a responsibility. But it gets better. There is the engagement og casual employees to assist regualr staff -- and I think that is what these nannies are hired as. If so this is also the Housekeeper with, you guessed it, the approval of the PM.

"Executive authority in Canada is formally vested in the Crown, and it is exercised in its name. The Governor General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet ("the Governor in Council"), represents the Crown in Canada, and exercises the powers of government that are reserved for the Crown, by the Constitution"

So please stop pretending that the PM has no influence role or responsibility becuase that is a load of crap.

And, please don't name an Act and pretend it limits or sets wages or does anything else and presume nobody with internet and a computer will look it up. It is tiresome. You want to raise the Act go ahead -- but read it becuase we all can do that.

Cody87

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

I'm going to avoid the main debate because I don't understand it.

But, regarding night shift workers: this is a false comparison. Paramedics, nurses, policement etc are generally equally busy at night (at least in populated jurisdictions). There is presumably less work to be done, but there are also less workers because there is less work. For example, a nurse on an acute care floor might have 4 patients during the day, but at night have 7. This is because there might be 7 nurses working the floor (of 28 patients) during the day and only 4 nurses on the night shift. As a result, the night shift nurses work equally hard, despite there being less work in total (as individuals, there is the same amount of work).

If there was 28 children to be looked after, they would presumably have 6 workers during the day (I believe the requirement is 1 worker for every 5 children) and could do with less overnight (if overnight daycare was a thing, presumably regulations might allow 1 worker per 8 or 10 children for overnight shifts). In such a case, the overnight workers should be paid the same as the day workers because they are doing a comparable amount of work (they are watching over more children, but the children are mostly asleep). But when there is only 3 children involved, the amount of work required at night is strictly less than what is required during the day, in the same way as a nurse watching 3 patients at night would have less work than a nurse watching 3 patients during the day.

That being said, while I have no issue with the day nanny making more (for more work), I do believe the degree of difference in the rates is too high. Not that I have the degree of emotional investment that many here seem to...

(I edited out a sentence in the preamble that would just distract).

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

I'm going to avoid the main debate because I don't understand it.

But, regarding night shift workers: this is a false comparison. Paramedics, nurses, policement etc are generally equally busy at night (at least in populated jurisdictions). There is presumably less work to be done, but there are also less workers because there is less work. For example, a nurse on an acute care floor might have 4 patients during the day, but at night have 7. This is because there might be 7 nurses working the floor (of 28 patients) during the day and only 4 nurses on the night shift. As a result, the night shift nurses work equally hard, despite there being less work in total (as individuals, there is the same amount of work).

If there was 28 children to be looked after, they would presumably have 6 workers during the day (I believe the requirement is 1 worker for every 5 children) and could do with less overnight (if overnight daycare was a thing, presumably regulations might allow 1 worker per 8 or 10 children for overnight shifts). In such a case, the overnight workers should be paid the same as the day workers because they are doing a comparable amount of work (they are watching over more children, but the children are mostly asleep). But when there is only 3 children involved, the amount of work required at night is strictly less than what is required during the day, in the same way as a nurse watching 3 patients at night would have less work than a nurse watching 3 patients during the day.

That being said, while I have no issue with the day nanny making more (for more work), I do believe the degree of difference in the rates is too high. Not that I have the degree of emotional investment that many here seem to...

(I edited out a sentence in the preamble that would just distract).

The idea of different pays based on time is not accepted as reasonable in the pay scale averages presented here. Some do it but it is frowned on for good reason. The idea that some work time is paid less becuase there are busier times defies logic. How many other jobs are like that with busier times? It averages out with a single rate of pay in other jobs why not this one? Should retail workers get paid less in the mornming becuase there is less to do? What about restaurant workers outside of meal times? We presume busier times and harder times in lots of work places. But when you have a responsibility to an employer, when you cannot leave or set your time to do whatever you want -- you are on. And you get paid a rate that averages the work, responsibility etc. The rates of pay for this job include this as we have seen in this thread -- look at the lilnks I provided.

swallow swallow's picture

I've worked two jobs ona  night shift. At one, it was casual factory-floor labour, and paid the same as the day rate. In the other, it was being present in case of emergencies, and paid less than day shift because it involved less work and required less skills training (in emergencies, call someone who ahs the skills to address the crisis). There can't be hard and fast rules. 

Cody - as an aside, I think the guardian to child ratio in childcare facilities varies by child age, and by province. Older kids in Quebec child care centres are not at 1:5, sadly, and the private in-home daycares are often at especially high de facto ratios. Younger kids require more care, diaper changes etc. (This is one reason that private daycare under capitalism in most of Canada creates an incentive to give spots to 3 and 4 year olds and makes it hard to find spots for 1 and 2 year olds - who are charged the same but take spots that could be filled by 2 or 3 older kids.) 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This means that the PM has a HUGE role in these appointments and a responsibility. But it gets better. There is the engagement og casual employees to assist regualr staff -- and I think that is what these nannies are hired as. If so this is also the Housekeeper with, you guessed it, the approval of the PM.

This came out as some sort of a leak. Why would anyone leak a pay range rather than simply stating the wage?

Why would Trudeau give the Housekeeper a pay range?

What can be achieved by attacking Trudeau directly on this when the women are earning the market rate?

What would be achieved if the focus was on the need for the 15$ federal minimum wage proposed by the NDP?

The conversation has revolved around these two particular women and if they should be paid the same day and night and if Trudeau should be paying out of pocket and if it makes him a hypocrite for not supporting national daycare.

The conversation should be revolving around what it is like to live on 11 dollars an hour and the lack of unionization for household staff hence the need for a federal minimum wage, an NDP policy.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

I'm going to avoid the main debate because I don't understand it.

But, regarding night shift workers: this is a false comparison. Paramedics, nurses, policement etc are generally equally busy at night (at least in populated jurisdictions). There is presumably less work to be done, but there are also less workers because there is less work. For example, a nurse on an acute care floor might have 4 patients during the day, but at night have 7. This is because there might be 7 nurses working the floor (of 28 patients) during the day and only 4 nurses on the night shift. As a result, the night shift nurses work equally hard, despite there being less work in total (as individuals, there is the same amount of work).

If there was 28 children to be looked after, they would presumably have 6 workers during the day (I believe the requirement is 1 worker for every 5 children) and could do with less overnight (if overnight daycare was a thing, presumably regulations might allow 1 worker per 8 or 10 children for overnight shifts). In such a case, the overnight workers should be paid the same as the day workers because they are doing a comparable amount of work (they are watching over more children, but the children are mostly asleep). But when there is only 3 children involved, the amount of work required at night is strictly less than what is required during the day, in the same way as a nurse watching 3 patients at night would have less work than a nurse watching 3 patients during the day.

That being said, while I have no issue with the day nanny making more (for more work), I do believe the degree of difference in the rates is too high. Not that I have the degree of emotional investment that many here seem to...

(I edited out a sentence in the preamble that would just distract).

The idea of different pays based on time is not accepted as reasonable in the pay scale averages presented here. Some do it but it is frowned on for good reason. The idea that some work time is paid less becuase there are busier times defies logic. How many other jobs are like that with busier times? It averages out with a single rate of pay in other jobs why not this one? Should retail workers get paid less in the mornming becuase there is less to do? What about restaurant workers outside of meal times? We presume busier times and harder times in lots of work places. But when you have a responsibility to an employer, when you cannot leave or set your time to do whatever you want -- you are on. And you get paid a rate that averages the work, responsibility etc. The rates of pay for this job include this as we have seen in this thread -- look at the lilnks I provided.

I have already said I believe the difference is too much in this case, but I agree with there being a difference in the pay. A morning shift retail employee works just as hard as an afternoon retail employee - either it's a large store and there are more employees in the evening (so each employee is going to help 30 customers an hour for example, regardless of time of day), or it's a small store and the morning shift has additional responsibilities like cleaning, sweeping, and restocking, etc. Same with restaurant and fast food employees. None of these scenarios are comparable to a night shift nanny vs a day shift nanny. A day shift nanny has vastly more responsibilities and requires far more work than a night shift nanny. The day shift nanny needs to feed, entertain, and play with the kids. Considering it's the Trudeau's they probably have a big focus on teaching their children languages, cultures, and both practical (eg. cooking) and recreational (eg. piano) skills so there may also be an education factor in there too. The night nanny just needs to make sure the kids go to bed (and go to sleep) and maybe change a diaper if the youngest (who should be well past the stage where he's up half the night) wakes up in the middle of the night. Maybe make breakfast assuming the chef only does lunch and dinner (or just dinner). This doesn't even get into the fact that, as was mentioned by another poster earlier in this thread, a typical day shift nanny would be expected to do household chores with any free time. In this case probably the cook takes care of the kitchen and they have someone for the laundry and other chores but in general a night shift nanny has a far less tiring/easier job than a day shift nanny. Why shouldn't the day shift nanny make more, relatively speaking, for doing the more demanding, tiring job?

Unionist

This conversation has descended beneath the threshold. And the threshold was low to start with.

quizzical

the trudeau's need to pay their own childcare costs and only because  Justin's remark on the campaign trail. if they don't then the reality is they're privileged lying liars and Canadians are going to get slapped hard because people out east were stupid enough AGAIN to support the Liberals.

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

the trudeau's need to pay their own childcare costs and only because  Justin's remark on the campaign trail. if they don't then the reality is they're privileged lying liars and Canadians are going to get slapped hard because people out east were stupid enough AGAIN to support the Liberals.

I know, I know, people out west tried to re-elect the truthful and honest Conservatives, but we easterners fucked it up as usual - because we fell in love with Justin and believed every word he said. God are we gullible.

By the way, Trudeau is very bad news for Canada, but he never lied about returning his child care benefit to charity. So get your story straight, because when you accuse him of the wrong things, he'll get away with the huge crimes.

And tell your neighbours to stop voting for the Conservatives. Please. We're sick of being ruled by the West.

 

quizzical

there was a more credible 3rd choice....and i'm not. there are plenty of quotes flying arund these forums

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

We've had universal affordable child care in Québec since 1998. And we're fighting to keep it. Women and men alike. Get back to me when some other province has proven that it thinks child care is a huge issue.

 

Pondering

So does that mean night workers shouldn't be paid more because that would be unfair to the day workers?

thorin_bane

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

We've had universal affordable child care in Québec since 1998. And we're fighting to keep it. Women and men alike. Get back to me when some other province has proven that it thinks child care is a huge issue.

 

And so the righteous did proclaim taht all others are heathens. Maybe you should compare your nasty tone to your post about how you felt you were being attacked by a blanket statement, pot meet kettle. You just throw a lot more vitriol into your statements and make them attacks at posters.

You are still a huge asshole.

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

there was a more credible 3rd choice....and i'm not. there are plenty of quotes flying arund these forums

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

I happen to think Mulcair wouldn't have succeeded in creating a national childcare plan - certainly not with a minority mandate. Whether it's important or not, we weren't getting it. The only difference between childcare and some other important issues like guaranteed income for example is that this one got lip service which the human rights of palestinians didn't.

And Mulcair has no credibility, not by the end of the election and certainly not now.

Unionist

thorin_bane wrote:

You are still a huge asshole.

Thanks, friend. Glad I've made a huge impression.

mark_alfred

Cody87 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

there was a more credible 3rd choice....and i'm not. there are plenty of quotes flying arund these forums

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

I happen to think Mulcair wouldn't have succeeded in creating a national childcare plan - certainly not with a minority mandate. Whether it's important or not, we weren't getting it. The only difference between childcare and some other important issues like guaranteed income for example is that this one got lip service which the human rights of palestinians didn't.

And Mulcair has no credibility, not by the end of the election and certainly not now.

I'm curious what it is that the Liberal posters here have against child care.  Odd.  The Liberal Party itself did promise to fund child care spaces, so really shouldn't the Liberal posters here be in favour?  Anyway, the Liberal Party promised to fund child care as part of their "social infrastructure".  The exact amounts and the number of spaces were never fleshed out, but that's true of almost everything in the Liberal platform (democratic reform, the environment, etc.)  The platform isn't specific, but the policy resolutions do make reference to bringing back Dryden's deal from years past, which promised a billion payment a year over five years (if I remember correctly).  Anyway, this is from their platform:

Liberal Platform wrote wrote:

We will develop a child care framework that meets the needs of Canadian families, wherever they live.

Child care needs vary from family to family, and provinces and territories have responded to these needs in different ways. A one-size-fits all national program – particularly one that imposes pre-determined costs on other orders of government – is impractical and unfair.

We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.

The framework we design together will be administered in collaboration with, and in respect of, provincial jurisdictions.

The argument from some Liberal partisans here, who say that it's wrong for Mulcair to express disappointment in the fact that the Liberals didn't mention child care in their Throne Speech, is just bizarre.  From their platform, the Libs promised action in the first 100 days.  And even if the Liberals had not promised it, it's still a good thing to push for.  Why be against advocating for government funding for child care?  Some Liberals supporters here are just bizarre.  Seems they're even less progressive than their own party.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

The argument from some Liberal partisans here, who say that it's wrong for Mulcair to express disappointment in the fact that the Liberals didn't mention child care in their Throne Speech, is just bizarre.  From their platform, the Libs promised action in the first 100 days.  And even if the Liberals had not promised it, it's still a good thing to push for.  Why be against advocating for government funding for child care?  Some Liberals supporters here are just bizarre.  Seems they're even less progressive than their own party.

Worth repeating!

MegB

thorin_bane wrote:

You are still a huge asshole.

And you, my friend, have just earned yourself a 24 hour suspension.

Pages