Reverse Robin Hood 2012

Posted Feb 2, 2012 By Paul Whittaker

Dear Editor,

Canada's Prime Minister, perhaps thinking on the fly, announced in Davos, that Canadian pensioners might have to manage with less, unless of course they are rich enough to not be reliant on the public pension plan.

Consider our MPs' own platinum plated pensions and dream along with me. Our leaders would do well to lead by example. They might then be more credible.

After slicing millions from foreign aid programs, our government now hands seven million dollars of tax money to a very profitable gold mining company to train workers abroad. I should mention that Canadian mining companies have a dubious track record on human rights abuses.

Next we have the EI financing agency set up by Harper in 2008 to set EI premiums, a function which became redundant after Harper simply capped the premiums, and invested surpluses which disappeared with the economic downturn. Last, the agency was to manage a $2-billion contingency fund which never materialized.

The board has exceeded its expectations in each year and moved into new larger quarters, hired consultants, and generally spent millions doing what?

In a similar vein we have the Federal Appointment Commission, set up six years ago by Mr. Harper to remove the heat over the hundreds of cronies being handed cushy jobs across Canada. The opposition which still held some clout, refused Mr. Harper's choice of his best buddy to head up this particular pork barrel, wherein Harper scrapped the commission, but not the Secretariat. They have since moved into larger quarters (there is a pattern here) and hired more staff. The 2012 budget is over $1 million, for doing what?

The question though is, since this board would have answered directly to the Prime Minster, how would that change the culture of cronyism?

To celebrate this shift of tax money to those best suited to handle it, we have 66 million tax dollars to be spent on a "Party Room," as in booze and balloons type party. I have a hard time trying to grasp how anyone could spend $66 million on a room to throw parties. Am I missing some thing? Even with Italian marble walls, 20-foot ceilings and chandeliers, how could one room cost this much? How can the same mind, which came up with such a vision be thinking of cutting pensions from those at the very bottom?

Paul Whittaker,

Gilmour