Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is embroiled in a controversy involving his children’s nannies, which in predictably Canadian fashion is a lot less titillating than it sounds. (The prime minister may be a certified stud, but he has very little in common with Jude Law).

It turns out that despite Trudeau’s repeated criticism of the Conservatives’ Universal Child Care Benefit — a policy he argued would unjustly benefit the wealthy — the Liberal PM’s nannies are paid with taxpayers’ money. “Special assistants” under the Official Residences Act, the two caregivers make average industry wages of $15 to $20 during the day and $11 to $13 an hour at night. It’s hardly Watergate but Nannygate, as it’s recently been dubbed, is proof that the very wealthy Trudeau isn’t merely getting a break on child-care costs, he’s getting a free ride. No wonder people are peeved at the prime minister; the hypocrisy is impossible to deny.

But it would be a big mistake to let Trudeau’s two-faced position on this matter prejudice us against the notion of taxpayer-funded child care altogether. In fact, for the purpose of this column, let’s strike Trudeau’s hypocritical stance from our minds entirely so that we can judge the issue separately from the controversy.

Do we really care that the leader of our nation — and hopefully the busiest person in it — receives tax-payer funded child care? After all, the Trudeaus have very young children and the new PM — while not the only parent on the road — is often away from home. While Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau has no official duties in the running of the country, the Liberal government maintains she will be “accompanying her husband to many events he attends in capacity as prime minister, including some international travel.” Hence the nannies; being first lady is no walk in the park (anyone who watches Scandal should already know this).

So to revise: do we really care that the insanely busy PM and his insanely busy spouse are receiving taxpayer-funded child care? I know I don’t.

In fact, I care so little about this supposed injustice I would advise taking Nannygate nationwide: I would like to propose a national experiment in which any Canadian in an elected government position, no matter his or her station, receives taxpayer-funded child care for the next four years. I know, it sounds like an absurd idea and a recipe for the flagrant abuse of public funds. But I am making this outlandish proposal because I am thoroughly annoyed by the reality that while we complain endlessly about the absence of quality political candidates, we are at the same time endlessly suspicious and critical of anyone who chooses to devote his or her life to civic service.

We wonder why — gender-balanced cabinet aside — women and lower-income people are underrepresented in most levels of government, when the reason is as plain as the nose on Trudeau’s perfectly symmetrical face: who in their right mind would want to do a job which — even when well paid — is all consuming, humiliating and thankless?

Politicians, especially those far removed from the lofty heights of the PMO, aren’t necessarily the recipients of too many perks — they are often the recipients of too few. You want to see better people run for office, people who aren’t swayed by the prospect of power alone? Offer them free child care and, just for kicks, free dry cleaning, too! Otherwise watch the status quo continue to prevail, in which the only Canadians who campaign and govern in this country are people who can afford to.

“What’s in it for me?” is a totally valid question when contemplating a career in a field that erodes a person’s privacy, depletes her bank account and takes an astronomically high toll on her personal relationships.

No, Justin and Sophie do not need taxpayer-funded child care, and they certainly don’t need free dry cleaning. It’s entirely possible they don’t need anything at all. But if their first (and let’s face it, rather lame) controversy sets a precedent for subsidized child care in the lives of leaders who don’t make six figures, maybe it’s less a scandal than it is a boon for public service. Because civic duty without meaningful perks doesn’t preclude dishonest, cynical people from running for office; it precludes almost everyone else.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: