Nanny is the New Niquab

Distractionary Politics at its Worst

Am I surprised at how little time it took for a "scandal" to emerge about Justin Trudeau. Um, no. In our current political climate it's more surprising that it took this long.

But this is the best they can come up? Really? He said that he wouldn't accept UCCB because he didn't need it. But now taxpayers are paying for his child care.

Now, I don't spend much time on social media anymore, but I'm told that it was the CBC who originally broke the story. If true, it makes it all the more disappointing the way that this was spun. And believe me, this was spun.

Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

Justin Trudeau Billing Taxpayers for Nannies is Hypocritical, Lisa Raitt says

"Rich" Justin Trudeau Should Pay for His Own Nannies, Rona Ambrose says

Funny thing that none of this hew and cry wants to mention? The Prime Minister has always received an allowance for running his household. This is not new. Each PM then chooses the staff that fits his (or her) family. The staff usually includes maids, groundskeepers, drivers, and yes, child care. No one has said that the Trudeaus are exceeding this budget. So is the expectation that he should use less of the budget than any other Prime Minister would be expected to, so that he can pay for his own children's care, or should he just hire other staff that he deems unnecessary to use up the budget and then pay the nannies out of pocket.

And, let's look at this logically: if between the two nannies, they are covering all day, every day, that is 168 hours per week. Given that would mean they were each working 84 hours per week, I don't think that's possible, but let's just go with it. For the sake of math, let's say that it's half day shift, half night shift. So at the highest reported rate, it would be $15/hr x 84 hrs, and $13/hr x 84 hrs, which comes out to $1260 and $1092, or $2352 per week. That comes to $122,304 per year. Over four years, it's $489,216. Rich or not, that's a lot of money for most families. For taxpayers, it means you would be paying approximately $0.02 of your taxes towards the cost of the nannies over the four-year period.

By contrast, Stephen Harper spent $1.2 million shipping armoured limos for a trip to India in 2012 even after the Indian government offered to provide them.

But the truth is that Justin Trudeau is the second youngest Prime Minister in history, and he has a very young family. Stephen Harper's children were six and nine when he was elected, and would have been in school full-time, making childcare during the day, at least, less of an issue. The truth is, I have no idea who looked after them when they weren't in school, and I don't really care, as for all intents and purposes they seem to have been looked after. It's none of my business. Before that, no Prime Minister had required child care since the early days of Brian Mulroney's tenure. And he got flack for it, too, so he ended up calling the nannies "maids." Personally, I like "special assistant" better.


No one has said if Justin Trudeau did, in fact, donate his Tory UCCB bribe cheque to charity. No one has said that the Trudeaus used taxpayer money for their nannies prior to moving into Rideau Cottage. It isn't likely that they will when they move out (assuming that they even need child care by that point). But Prime Minister of Canada is not a "normal" job by any means, and neither is the (unpaid) job of being spouse of the Prime Minister. The Trudeaus can be called away on a moment's notice, for days at a time. The Prime Minister can be called on at any time day or night in the case of an emergency. And the Trudeau children deserve to have consistent, loving care when their parents can't be with them. We owe them that much.

PS - I have more to say about the REAL issues we should be looking at when it comes to child care, but I'll save that for another post. 

That Time That I Got on the Wrong Side of the Right

This is Ezra Levant.

He looks like such a nice guy, doesn't he? Kind of like your friendly neighbourhood accountant. But instead, he's more like Canada's version of Ann Coulter, only less accurate and less likeable.

He's been a lawyer, a lobbyist, and a political candidate, but he's best known for his work for Sun Media, until their Faux News-wannabe station folded and they dumped his columns. Now he is the emperor of his own internet media domain, so he can spout out as many misrepresentations, out of context quotes, and outright lies as he wants to.

I don't follow him. I don't search him out. Almost every word that comes out of his mouth does nothing but enrage me. But I have some rather masochistic tendencies at times, and so once in a while when Facebook decides to taunt me by "suggesting" that I check out one of his posts I do get sucked in.

And of course, since the election was announced, and now that the Liberals have won, he's been especially petulant. He's especially gleeful since the announcement came that the Trudeau family will not move into 24 Sussex Drive, but instead will allow the renovations that The National Capital Commission says need to be done desperately and that Stephen Harper would not allow while he was in residence.

He's even claiming that the renovations will cost not the $10 million originally quoted by the NCC (which everyone agrees has increased since 2008 when the estimate was made) but $150 million dollars.

Um, what? (Note: there have, in fact, been several proposals put before the governement by the NCC, one of which included razing 24 Sussex and replacing it with a new, working residence like the White House. However, this was only ONE of the proposals put forward, and highly unlikely, IMO.)

And don't get me started on his campaign to get Calgary International Airport renamed in honour of Stephen Harper. Honestly, I could care less about the name of an airport, I just find the whole thing rather amusing.

But the truth is, I find him, and his band of Con-bots terribly frustrating. And I vented on Twitter. Probably not the smartest move, but hey - freedom of speech, right???

Then that last tweet caught his attention (despite that fact that he wasn't actually tagged in it.) He then decided to use me as an example, and retweeted it, with a comment.

Now, I'm a big girl, and I can take that. Would probably have gone to bed with a smirk on my face, thinking of all of the irony of that statement. Except here's the thing: Ezra Levant knew EXACTLY what he was doing with that tweet. It was like a Bat Signal to his 33,000 or so Con-bots to go on the attack, and they took up the task with all of the vigour of a Conservative making cuts to social services on Christmas morning.

Most of them simply accused me of not understanding freedom of speech (oh, the irony...)

Many honestly thought I wanted to go to Petsmart, buy a dog muzzle and put it on him (note to these people: you might want to look up the word "hyperbole.")

But a good portion of them went on a personal attack. I was accused of being a bad mother. I was accused of being stupid. Someone even thought it was insult to call me a single mother (which I'm not, but I think this was the most offensive of all, simply for the fact that they did think it was an insult.) And some people actually took the time to go through at least a year's worth of my tweets, looking for things to use to insult me. Because my taste in music totally has anything to do with my opinions of Ezra Levant. To these people, all I can really say is, GET A LIFE.

For the most part, I simply blocked them. In a few instances, I couldn't help from responding, but I'm sure that eventually those people will get blocked too. Because it's not that I don't prefer to debate, Ezra. I just simply can't have a battle of wits with opponents who are unarmed. So go ahead, gloat in your victory because the Socialist Leftie didn't fight back. With the Liberals in power I understand that you need to take your victories where you can get them.

This Election Might Be the Death of Me

The statement above is what I posted as my Facebook status a little while ago. And I honestly mean it.

Canada, you're scaring me to death.

I was blindly naive, I suppose, when this election campaign began. I truly believed that the majority of Canadians were adamant that the Conservatives needed to go, and we would soon be rid of Harper and his cronies. I knew that vote splitting was a possibility on the Left, but it still seemed a sure thing that we would have a new Prime Minister on October 20th.

Now I'm not so sure. I'm obsessed with polls - I read one that says the Conservatives are in 3rd, and I start to relax, then a few minutes later I see one where they're close to a majority and I start to lose it a little bit. I know, I know: looking at the polls is like reading the comments on the internet (just don't do it) but I can't help it.

Lately, this has not been the Canada I want to see, and it's not the Canada I want for my kids. Right now, my kids are caring, loving, accepting people. They don't care where you're from, what - if any - religion you believe in, or what your sexual orientation is: they care that you're a nice person.

If Canada elects another Conservative government, what kind of a message are we sending them?

• Scientific fact is less important than money, and political loyalty.
• It's okay to take money away from social programs and infrastructure and use it to kill innocent people in other countries in the name of "safety."
• The environment will be okay, so we don't need to worry. (Is it just me, or is the Conservative take on the environment the equivalent of "and the budget will balance itself"?)
• People don't matter if they weren't born here. Unless they're rich. And even if they were born here, if they don't look a certain way, practice the right religion, and have the right sexual orientation, they don't matter, either. Actually, they don't matter even if they were born here, they look the right way, practice the right religion and have the right sexual orientation unless they're rich. Or to simplify: people only matter if they're rich.
• The Bogeyman is around every corner. Your next door neighbour could be a suicide bomber, especially if they're Muslim. They only way we can possibly be safe is if we give up all of our rights and freedoms.
• First Nations peoples don't actually exist. They are a figment of your imagination, and so there is absolutely no need to wonder why these imaginary women keep disappearing.
• You should be happy with the job you have, no matter how many hours your boss demands, or how low your pay is. 
• A growth in part-time, minimum wage jobs is something to celebrate. Don't pay any attention to the drop in actual career jobs that, you know, pay a living wage. 
• Keeping up with the cost of living is for wusses.
• And if you don't have a job, it's your own fault.
• Health care is a luxury.
• So is education.
• If you want infrastructure investment, you should have elected the "right" candidate.

What have I missed?

Please Canada, if you're thinking of voting Conservative, think very hard before you cast your ballot. This is NOT the Progressive Conservative party of old: that party is long gone. What we have left is the Reform Party in Tory clothing. And shouldn't it tell us something that even Alberta - the birthplace of the travesty that is our current ruling party - has now rejected them?

The future of Canada depends on all of us.  Please don't screw it up.

Dear Justin: A Response to Your Fundraising Emails

Dear Justin,

I got your email today. And the one from a Toronto MP. I got one from your wife a day or so ago. Oh, and the ones from the National Party Director and the Senior Director of Fundraising. Each and every one has made me feel very special that I'm worthy of so much attention that you'd send me at least one per day.  I mean, you guys have so much to do - how on earth do you find time to send me so many emails???

I especially like the ones where you remind me that I haven't yet donated to the Liberal party. Seeing that $0 is an excellent reminder of my negligence.

But here's the thing: as much as I'd like to donate, I'd also like to ensure that there's food on the table for my kids, and maybe even manage the mortgage payment, to keep the house where that table sits. And right now, that's a bit of a challenge.

You see, back at the end of October, my husband's company decided that they no longer needed an IT department in Canada at all. They were just going to run everything remotely from the US. (That was almost as good as when the company he was working for decided that they could outsource all of their tech support to India.) So my husband was laid off from his job. That was challenging, but since I still had a pretty decent job, we knew we could manage if we cut back a bit. Sorry, but the political donations had to be one of those cutbacks.

Then last week, my company decided that my job wasn't really necessary, either, and I was laid off. That kind of stung.

So now, here we are: two university-educated, middle class parents of four children, without a single employed person in the house. One person working and one on EI was a stretch. Two parents both on EI will be a disaster.

It's likely that at least one of us will find work before my small severance package runs out, and we'll be okay. We're pretty resourceful, when it comes right down to it. But I have to say, I'm getting really tired of the constant uncertainty of our lives. I'm tired of food prices going up and up, and housing prices continuing to rise, and insane utility bills, and car insurance that was supposed to go down, but instead just keeps on heading north. I'm tired of all of this happening while people like us struggle to provide a comfortable, secure life for their kids, and people like the boss who just laid me off have three vacation homes. I'm tired of people not caring what happens to everyone else, as long as they get what they want out of life. I'm not asking to be rich: all I want is to pay my bills, keep my house, and maybe someday go on a vacation (it's been seventeen years, so I'm pretty sure our family is due for one soon.) I'd like to know that someday I'll be able to retire and not have to live on cat food. I have no need for three vacation homes.

Is that really so much to ask?

It probably seems like I'm just picking on you, Justin, and for that I'm sorry. The truth is, just before I was laid off I actually did join your party, because I do believe that at the core of it you do have our country's best interests at heart, and I sure don't want to see the Conservatives elected again. But once my family is back on its feet, if I'm going to support you financially, I just want to know that you actually intend to do something about all of this, and that you really do want to see the return of the middle class.

And another thing: in the last election, the Liberals couldn't even be bothered to have a candidate in Oshawa who was actually FROM Oshawa. Instead, they chose this guy as their candidate. Which, to my way of thinking was their way of saying that they knew there wasn't a hope of unseating Colin Carrie, so why bother. If you're expecting support from me, do you think you could at least get a real Oshawa resident as a candidate this time?

Thank you for your time. I'm afraid I won't be able to keep up our daily correspondence. I have resumes to send out.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Hill
Oshawa, ON

Election Rant #1: The Outsider

It suddenly occurred to me this morning, as I was ranting to my husband about an election issue, that I hadn't used this blog in a LONG time, and, coincidentally, that this blog was originally intended for, among other things, my political rants. Hmmm...

So here's the rant of the day:

I am a Liberal. Not an official member of the Liberal Party of Canada, although I am now seriously considering it, just so that I can yell at whomever came up with this hairbrained idea. But I live in an area that is very much NOT Liberal. The last several elections have had a Conservative win the riding. You would think, given the GM plant, that it would be an NDP area, but I haven't seen much of that. However, back in the days of the Chretien government, my riding was Liberal. It seems that it's kind of a "go with the majority" kind of area.

The last several elections, both provincial and federal, the Liberal Party has run the same candidate, over and over and OVER again. Said candidate, Louise Parks, was a councilwoman on the City Council for many years, until she lost the mayoral election this past year. Said candidate is also a very polarizing figure: you either love her or hate her. I've tended towards the latter, and I believe that the majority of the city feels the same way. Something about her just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it's just the feeling that, rather than working for the electorate, she's working for her own political ambitions. Realistically (and somewhat cynically) I think most politicians may be that way, but most of them hide it a little better.

Anyway, the Liberals have dumped Louise Parks this time. Originally, when I saw a lawn sign showing another name, James Morton, I rejoiced in that they had listened to my rants (although, since I never expressed my dismay to the local party leaders, I wonder if they've been bugging my house or something...)

But then I saw our local paper, listing the candidates and their backgrounds, and I knew that the Liberals haven't got a snowball's chance in the eternal fires of winning this riding. The Liberal Party, Oshawa riding, have decided that rather than finding a local candidate, they should put forward a Toronto lawyer who lives in Thornhill, but has "signed a lease" in Oshawa. In other words, they think they've brought in a ringer.

Pardon my language, but WHAT THE FUCK?

They honestly don't believe that there is a single qualified person anywhere in the city of Oshawa who could put up a fight for this Parliamentary seat? I believe that Whitby tried this in the last election, and it failed miserably. Oshawa people, if they actually read the news, will NOT be happy about a person who knows NOTHING about Oshawa being brought in to potentially represent their interests. Oshawa is a totally different kind of city - truthfully, it's one of the things that I like about it. Despite being a part of the GTA, it isn't Pickering, or Ajax, or Whitby, and it sure as Hell isn't Thornhill.

I will say that I'm sure he's perfectly qualified to be an MP. Reading about him on the website I'm not totally unimpressed, I'm just frustrated to be backing another sure loss. 

Nice going, Liberals.

ARGH!

This is probably why as much as I'd like to, I'll never get into politics.

Yesterday on Climbing Up the Slide I wrote about the new changes to the sex ed curriculum in Ontario. If you didn't read the article, I'm fully in support of them.

What I'm not in support of is wishy-washy politicians who fold at the first sign of protest. A few hours after I wrote my post Dalton McGuinty decided that there hadn't been enough consultation with parents, and that apparently the Catholic bishops hadn't been consulted, and so the changes are "on hold."

You believe in something enough to publicly announce it, then stick to your damned guns! Yes, you may run the risk of alienating some voters, but face it: the ones you're going to alienate wouldn't have voted for you anyway.

I know I'm obnoxiously opinionated. Heck, that's the whole point of this blog. One thing about me is that I'm not easily swayed from my opinions. Not to the point that I won't even consider the other side, but I'm not going to change just because someone tells me (even repeatedly) that I'm wrong. Maybe I wouldn't make a good politician just for that very reason, but then again, maybe I'd make a damned good one.

Liberals Get a Tongue-Lashing!

Big news today about Robert Fowler's remarks to the Liberals at their policy conference. Fowler is a former diplomat and Al Qaeda hostage (four months in Africa in 2008-2009). He said that the Liberal party had "lost its soul." He said that they don't appear to really stand for anything anymore. They're so obsessed with regaining power that they'll say anything they think that the public wants to hear.

I think he's right.

And honestly, it makes me sad. I've always considered myself a Liberal. I'm about as far from a Conservative as you can get on 90% of issues. I suppose to a certain extent I swing more NDP, but a) I'm not big on unions; and b) I can't see them ever taking power in this country, and I'm not interested in attaching myself to a cement block if I'm drowning.

I've considered actually joining the Liberal Party many times. I'd like to have some say in the future of the party. Ideally I'd like them to recognize my brilliance and personal charisma and elect me leader so that I can be the first elected female Prime Minister. Is that too much to ask? Oh...

But anyway, in the past few years I have grown more and more disillusioned with the Grits (where on EARTH did that nickname come from, anyway?) I was disappointed in my country for getting rid of Paul Martin after such a short tenure, when he, according to the Gomery Report, apparently had nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal which brought the Liberals out of power for the first time in 13 years. I honestly believe it had little to do with the actual "scandal" of the sponsorships, as it did with the very Canadian idea that after a while in power the majority Party always gets "too big for its britches". The fact that "the Right" finally united, when the Canadian Alliance (AKA The Reform Party) joined forces with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the Conservative Party of Canada (note that "Progressive" had to go) didn't help.

Since Martin's minority government was defeated four years ago, there has been a bitter struggle for power between the two major parties. The Liberals threaten to bring down the Conservative government, Harper prorogues Parliament to stall them, and by the time they go back somehow the CPC has managed to appease the Liberals enough to stay in power for a few more months before they start the dance all over again. The Liberals are desperate to regain power, the CPC is desperate not to lose it. That's the main focus of the Canadian government right now, and it's sickening.

Michael Ignatieff seems like an intelligent man. I just don't understand the rush for his coronation. Desperation to make people forget about Stéphane Dion? I like Justin Trudeau well enough, but I think that people expecting his father will be sorely disappointed, and sadly I think he'll be eaten up by the hordes expecting the Second Coming.

Robert Fowler is right: the Liberals need someone who has the guts to make a statement and stick with it. They need to come up with a comprehensive, understandable platform and make sure that every voter in the country can at least name the main points. They need to stand up for something, instead of sitting back and hoping that the Conservatives will trip and fall over their own feet. That could very well happen (and I can't say I won't be grinning like the Cheshire Cat if it does) but it's not a very proactive approach.

I hate seeing what the CPC is doing to this country, and I really hope that the Liberals take Fowler's comments seriously. When they're ready for me to take over, they can let me know!