New mill, more wheat

© AgMedia Inc.


Looking the gift horse in the mouth who is going to say that the fund does not work when you are getting money from it . The auditor general is right in her statement .

That criticism by the Auditor General could be applied right across the board.

After all how do we know the Baby bonus/child benefit supplement actually goes to providing for the children, it could be gobbled up at the slots.Least these grants are dealt with on a case by case application.

Agreed . Now what about our new Prime Minister ? We the taxpayers are paying for two nannies now when he himself said rich families like his don't need help paying for it .

The new PM is on the same household budget as the former PM. The Trudeau's, with 3 small children have every right to spend the money any way they choose.If we the taxpayers think the amount of money to run a PM's household is excessive then maybe we should have complained about it 9 years ago when the Conservatives took office.

One of Trudeau's campaign promises during his run for office was that the rich do not need subsidized childcare. Once elected, obviously, he broke that one.
Harper was always about respecting taxpayer money, this liberal leadership is not.

Raube Beuerman

You can pretty much never trust elected officials . Federal , Provincial and some farm reps .

Believe me, no one would ever think of comparing Mr. Harper and PM Justin Trudeau ! You are obviously ignoring the fact that they both were under the same PM household budget.The PM simply let go Harper's overpaid chef and was able with the money to hire 2 nannies.I realize some taxpayers of this Country would love to see our PM out mowing the lawn or taking out the garbage but that is just not going to happen nor should it, l would hope the PM has more pressing matters.
PM Trudeau never said that he would eliminate domestic staff who service any PM's official residence, however he did make it quite clear that well-to-do parents didn't need the Conservatives Universal Child Care Benefit and proposed replacing it with something that was "means tested".PM Trudeau was probably one of the few that had any guts to call the program for what it was, simply a vote getter and taxpayers have doled out Billions over the last nine years for something a great deal of families don't need but what Politician is going to say "No, some families don't need $160/mo. for child care"..Mr. Trudeau did!

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

Get over it, Trudeau campaigned that the rich do not need subsidized daycare, only to be the beneficiary of it. He was dishonest and a google search will show plenty of quotes of him stating so.
Two nannies for 3 kids. Give me a break. He can afford it out of his own pocket.
On top of that, as soon as Trudeau was elected, he felt that the residence was not good enough to suit him, so 10 million of taxpayer dollars was the proposed budget for fixup. It was good enough for Harper.
He also rolled back a good savings tool for the private sector, which the conservatives had just increased last year. Apparently, when you are the recipient of a trust fund(and subsidized daycare), you don't need quality savings vehicles.
Since Trudeau has been in office, he has demonstrated very poor respect for taxpayer money.

Raube Beuerman

Oh l get it, your more upset about the Liberals slashing your TFSA in half than the actual nannies being hired, just another avenue of the wealthy to keep from paying taxes on.Most lower income families can't afford a savings account ! Period!

You better do your homework,PM Trudeau and family moved into Rideau Cottage while the National Capital Commission decides on when to do the 10 million in repairs that 24 Sussex needs. Mr. Harper feared the potential "negative political optics" on spending much needed money on the residence, however the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has no problems with spending the amount needed for a fix-up and say its entirely reasonable "Leaving this stuff too long can actually result in greater expense down the road.”

..and actually PM Trudeau is paying for the nannies out of his pocket, the annual UCCB payments of about $3,400 his family would receive for their 3 children is being giving to a Montreal charity.I suspect the gravy train that some wealthy families have been on in regards to the child care benefits will soon be coming to an end.

If the readers of this site are to believe any of the statements you are making, then identify yourself so we can see your "self interests". If you are indeed as it seems, a Liberal spokesperson, then let us know...otherwise...spare us from your propaganda. Oh, and by the way rural Ontario was painted "Tory Blue" and that's where most of us (on this site) live.
D. Linton

Once wasn't bad enough but Rural Ontario had to do it again, we didn't learn l guess.Now we have no spokesmen (or women), no voice, no representation, Provincial or Federal ! That's great that we are Tory blue but what does that mean when the Liberals are in power and worse yet, realize they don't need rural Ontario to get elected...rural Ontario is like the little boy on Christmas morning that finds coal in his stocking.

Did you only read the second paragraph...because that's all you replied to.
Since you won't identify yourself then we know you want to hide and we can only guess why.
Although to reply to your bias posting...yes sure...lets have a parliament without any opposition then the government could do what they want without any questions asked...kind of like a dictatorship...although that's kind of what seems to be happening in Ontario now, don't you think?
D. Linton

Editor: Anonymous comment will be published if repoted and signed.

Have the requirement that every comment on here must be signed and you would have more of a dictatorship in here than we do at Queen's Park! Fact is this forum would be a ghost town.I have come to believe signing ones name on here is not statement of truth, in some cases, far from it.
However, as a disgusted Conserative voter in the last Provincial election that saw the Tories literally hand the reins of Government back to the Liberals on a platter, there was no way l was voting for them again federally.
Any information l post on here is simply a goggle search away,there are always two sides to every story.PM Trudeau and the child care benefits are just one case.I would have to counter with your bias is showing as well.

It is oxymoronic that on a site over-populated with anonymous supply management supporters, so-many anonymous posters are so-able to so-quickly criticize government for appearing to do what supply management actually does.

"without any opposition" and "do what they want without any questions asked" could be a dictatorship, as Mr. Linton suggests, and which farmers oppose, or supply management which farmers love - it's exactly the same thing.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

trudeau lowering the tsfa limit is no more than a tax grab. why not leave it where is was. only explanation is a tax grab. at least harper wanted money in the people pockets

Whatever Trudeau gives to charity has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he campaigned on the claims that the wealthy 1% in Canada do not need subsidized daycare. He falls into this category and his family is now the recipient of subsidized daycare.

Raube Beuerman

Give him time,l believe Mr. Harper had 9 years, PM Trudeau has had 2 months. He campaigned to change it and Liberal voters have given him a mandate to do so.

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.