Category Archives: Pork Barrel

Are these senators representative?

There are three aspects that I want to consider about the four Canadian senators who are under scrutiny at present over claims for allowances for second residences.

Do senators have any kind of ‘obligation’, ‘duty’ or ‘responsibility’ to the public?

‘Should’ senators have to pay back taxpayers’ money/public funds that they obtained via claims that turn out not to be true or valid? Do those who aspire to the highest public offices in the country demonstrate any kind of ‘obligation’ to the people who pay their salaries, pensions, benefits, perks? Obligation raises related terms such as duty and responsibility. Yet, the language of obligation, duty and responsibility, the ‘should’ as it were, only appears more archaic or obsolete when mentioned in the same sentence as the present government (it is not necessarily restricted to just one party, though the Conservative government appears to be especially resistant to such arguments).

‘Should’ there be a ‘penalty’?

The second aspect is raised by the respective Conservative and Liberal party leaders in Senate, who ‘represent’ two of Canada’s three largest parties, saying in their joint statement that their peers ‘should be required to repay immediately all monies … with interest’.

Returning money that does not belong to you cannot be a ‘penalty’ (i.e. a punishment) since you end up where you started — i.e. without money you didn’t have to begin with (although, perhaps, if you hadn’t been caught…).

The only ‘penalty’ raised here is the interest to be paid on the amount claimed. Will they be charged ‘credit card’ or ‘pay-day loan’ interest rates on the sums they obtained? That would definitely be a ‘penalty’ for most Canadians, but probably not for those so well connected to the corporate and political elites, would it?

These senators, if guilty, have betrayed the public’s trust and further instilled distrust of both the politicians that appointed them as well as Senate itself — and, indeed, of many other democratic institutions, even those unconnected to Senate.

A ‘penalty’ worthy of the meaning of punishment ‘should’ at least mean that the senator is stripped of his/her position, title, salary, benefits, pensions, the way that so many working Canadians in the private sector have been stripped of their jobs, pensions, salaries, wages and benefits because of the same political parties — to which these senators are affiliated — which, when in government, passed laws that enabled corporations to ransack pension plans and let CEOs get paid bonuses, even when their companies were declaring ‘bankruptcy’ (Nortel?). Shouldn’t senators be treated the same as everyone else? Or are they ‘above’ or ‘exempt’ from the law?

The third aspect that one should think about is whether Senate or senators are ‘representative’?

Even though they are ‘unelected’, I would suggest that these senators (all senators in fact) are ‘representative’. Of course, they are not ‘representative’ in terms of being elected by citizens voting in a democratic process. But, they are very much ‘representative’ of the values, attitudes, beliefs, idea(l)s, perspectives of those who appoint them. Indeed, they are representative of the political parties of which they are members, regardless of whether the party rejects them when they are under public scrutiny.

Otherwise, you should ask: ‘Why were they appointed in the first place?’

Leave a comment

Filed under Corruption, Cronyism, Parliament, Pork Barrel, Uncategorized

June 30 – What does a pension mean to you?

As a young child, I remember awaking in the wee hours of the morning and listening in the dark as my father prepared to go out to work as a deckhand on ferries moving crew, cargo and passengers between various islands in cold, sleet, rain, fog, wind, and sun, too!

My father, along with thousands of other seamen, got millions of passengers, employees and employers, families, relatives, tourists, and others, travelling between various islands and the mainland, safely to and from their destinations.

While I learned to hate the idea of what work might mean for me (I was too young to realise how it might change), I knew all too well what it meant for my father: early to rise, away for five days, a week or more at a time, and sometimes also away from home at Christmas and birthdays. His family grew up and experienced life as he spent (reluctant) time away from family – and at times appeared remote from our concerns.

Yet, once he got full-time – unionised – employment, my siblings and I (there were eight of us, including foster children) benefitted from the fact that my father’s earnings during the late 1960s and 1970s ensured that my mother could stay home with the children. (Talk about a ‘family-friendly’ policy – something you won’t hear these days from Tories or Republicans!!)

My father dreamed of retiring after a life-time spent at work, helping companies make profits, ensuring passengers arrived safely at their destinations and raising a family where the children were able to become relatively socially (and financially!!) mobile: moving up and out of the working class into the middle class. A result of both my father’s and my mother’s love of education, learning and books, as well as their belief that, while they made sacrifices for us in terms of their job prospects, respect and dignity on the job (and in life generally – since so many people’s sense of their own self-worth was dependent upon their occupations in life!) and ‘creature comforts’, they could reasonably expect that we would have a better life ahead of us.

And they, at least, would be able to view that from the comfort of a small, tidy pension which would enable them – unlike their own parents and grandparents – to be free from the compulsion to work until their death, as my father’s father – my own grandfather – had done (had to do!).

A small, but decent (and well-earned) pension that rewarded them for the diligence and loyalty for working hard at unsung jobs, that recognised the work that was still necessary for the movement of goods and people, and for the personal sacrifices that people, like my father, made to do a job in the present to enable a future for their/his children.

My father, left school at 13 years of age, but was self-taught. At a time when merchant seamen had only books (rather than satellite telly) to entertain them (after gambling and/or drinking away their money!!), my father became not just an auto-didact, but a parent who wanted to teach his children to experience a real life of education, knowledge and learning. An education that would take them away from being stuck with getting up at an ungodly hour to do a thankless task for decades.

Pensions are also a recognition that when you give up a part of your life to ensure that certain tasks are carried out, you lose the opportunity to engage in other activities and (possible alternative career paths) – and it is this loss of opportunity which is part of what pensions also represent.

It’s not just the potential that their own lives might have had that people lose, when they do these thankless tasks, but that their own lives may be shortened or become otherwise less fulfilling because of a lack of opportunity to realise their own potential.

That is, pensions are not just a means to which people have contributed as part of their financial planning for life after work, but that we have to recognise that people lose out other possibilities, other potentials that remain unrealised, because – for whatever reason – they chose, or were forced to choose, a life that excluded other opportunities.

My father always talked about how much he would have loved to have been a teacher, a second-hand bookseller, a writer and so many other things. The opportunity for my father never arrived. However, he had hopes that we would not have to live the lives that he had: moving in and out of unemployment; moving from job to job; being ripped off by employers; and so  on.

Knowing that a pension would allow one enough to live on in at least minimal comfort at the end of 30, 40, 50 or 60 years of working is an expectation that should be offerred to every man, woman and child, regardless of their position or which position they have ended up in!

Everyone should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour, shouldn’t they?

When people think that governments and politicians should just be able to rip up people’s pensions, they never consider perhaps how those people made sacrifices that enabled the economy to function, goods and people to be transported, and so on.

And, that these working people made great sacrifices during their working lives. Why shouldn’t they be able to retire?

Why do we think that only CEOs should enjoy the fruits (profits) of your labour?

Leave a comment

Filed under Canadian Universities, Corporate Welfare, Corruption, Cronyism, Cutbacks, Democracy, Economics, Education, Elections, environment, Higher Education, History, Humour, Language, Metaphors, News, Parliament, Pensions, Politics, Pork Barrel, Private Universities, Public Sector, Social Media, Uncategorized, Wages, Work and working conditions, Youth

Tony Clement gives new meaning for ‘fiscal conservative’ as Harper’s ‘Minister without receipts’

So, if I understand the news correctly, Tony Clement, Conservative MP for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ontario, the riding where the G8 was held the day before the G20 was held in Toronto, Canada, June 2011, and the current President of the Treasury Board, there were no receipts for some $50 million spent in his riding (never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the G20 fiasco).

So, a cabinet minister who can show no receipts about how $50 million dollars was spent, is in charge of overseeing all government spending (and, of course, cutbacks)?!

I think we should consider it as a new position that has been created: ‘Minister without receipts’.

This new position will replace the position of ‘Minister of State without any responsibilities attached’ (I don’t believe that was the actual title, but it is the description in Wikipedia, which I have quoted here), which was a position that replaced ‘minister without portfolio’, under the government of Progressive Conservative Brian Mulroney.

‘Minister without portfolio’ was seen as a ‘patronage appointment’, according to Wikipedia, but it points out that the position had actually been filled by future Canadian prime ministers (see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_without_portfolio). Of course, they have had nothing to do with patronage appointments.

The new position enables the ‘minister without receipts’ to spend taxpayers’ money, preferably in the tens or hundreds of millions or billions, preferably in cabinet ministers’ ridings, while ensuring that no receipts will be accepted.

Well, it certainly gives the term ‘fiscal conservative’ new meaning, eh?!

Leave a comment

Filed under Cutbacks, Democracy, Economics, Humour, Parliament, Politics, Pork Barrel, Public Sector, Uncategorized