Ah, Those Entitlements!
The idea that people working in certain professions must be entitled over and above their earned salaries to charging on the taxpayer's dime expenses relating to professional garb, entertainment, and all manner of trifling things like taxi charges, parking fees, hairdressers, laundry and dry cleaning, is one of those hard-to-swallow entitlements.
Some recent publicly-aired revelations that Elections Canada is routinely solicited to approve payment of such entitled charges for reimbursement relating to shoes, clothing, parking tickets and other like items through campaign charges is enlightening. And infuriating. Reminiscent of some types of employment, like the diplomatic corps, having just about everything subsidized by the taxpayer.
Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that in Canada all political parties engage in padding their expense claims with items that they should be expected to pay for themselves. Not that Canada is alone in this; fairly recent revelations that in staid old Britain members of Parliament charged illegally for thousands of pounds of entitlements having nothing whatever to do with their positions are a reflection that this is a universal human failing.
Which doesn't make it any more acceptable. Paradoxically, when charged expenses were scrutinized a while ago of all Members of Parliament, it was discovered that two members of the NDP out-charged and out-expensed all others; the leader of the NDP and his wife, Olivia Chow. When, at the time, she was asked about her conscience, she shrugged the enquiry off, stating that what she charged was perfectly "legal".
It may be legal, but is it ethical and morally acceptable? But then of course, MPs elected in 2008 who attempted to charge their personal grooming, wardrobe expenses and other tidbits as personal expense claims to Elections Canada represented the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives as well as the NDP. Of the thousands expensed and for which reimbursement was sought, however, Elections Canada sturdily permitted a standard $200 reimbursement for expenses incurred.
They're all rank amateurs, however, still on a learning curve, compared with recently-retired Senator Raymond Lavigne, who blithely called upon his entitlements to charge to the weary taxpayer $32,391 in expenses for a period of three months just prior to an Ontario Superior Court finding him guilty of fraud and breach of trust.
This former Liberal, appointed to the Senate, swiftly retired from the Chamber of Sober Second Thought anticipating a Senate vote to remove him from office, stripping him of both his salary and his hefty pension. Since he precipitated his own retirement just days before the Senate vote, he is still entitled to receive that pension, $79,000 annually.
Even while he was barred from taking part in all Senate proceedings while he was under RCMP investigations since 2007, he managed to spend $315,355 for office expenses and travel on top of his annual $132,300 salary. If enough people expressed enough outrage, it might be conceivable that some legal way could be found to strip the man of his pension; he has certainly earned public censure.
As an expression of justice he should be stripped of his pension, and should be required to pay back the bulk of what he expensed and was paid for through Senate expenses, even while he was not permitted to participate in Senate proceedings while under investigation. On the other hand, the man's sentencing hearing takes place in one month; May 10.
At which time he could be facing up to 14 years in prison for his very particular brand of malfeasance. Just hold your breath.
Some recent publicly-aired revelations that Elections Canada is routinely solicited to approve payment of such entitled charges for reimbursement relating to shoes, clothing, parking tickets and other like items through campaign charges is enlightening. And infuriating. Reminiscent of some types of employment, like the diplomatic corps, having just about everything subsidized by the taxpayer.
Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that in Canada all political parties engage in padding their expense claims with items that they should be expected to pay for themselves. Not that Canada is alone in this; fairly recent revelations that in staid old Britain members of Parliament charged illegally for thousands of pounds of entitlements having nothing whatever to do with their positions are a reflection that this is a universal human failing.
Which doesn't make it any more acceptable. Paradoxically, when charged expenses were scrutinized a while ago of all Members of Parliament, it was discovered that two members of the NDP out-charged and out-expensed all others; the leader of the NDP and his wife, Olivia Chow. When, at the time, she was asked about her conscience, she shrugged the enquiry off, stating that what she charged was perfectly "legal".
It may be legal, but is it ethical and morally acceptable? But then of course, MPs elected in 2008 who attempted to charge their personal grooming, wardrobe expenses and other tidbits as personal expense claims to Elections Canada represented the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives as well as the NDP. Of the thousands expensed and for which reimbursement was sought, however, Elections Canada sturdily permitted a standard $200 reimbursement for expenses incurred.
They're all rank amateurs, however, still on a learning curve, compared with recently-retired Senator Raymond Lavigne, who blithely called upon his entitlements to charge to the weary taxpayer $32,391 in expenses for a period of three months just prior to an Ontario Superior Court finding him guilty of fraud and breach of trust.
This former Liberal, appointed to the Senate, swiftly retired from the Chamber of Sober Second Thought anticipating a Senate vote to remove him from office, stripping him of both his salary and his hefty pension. Since he precipitated his own retirement just days before the Senate vote, he is still entitled to receive that pension, $79,000 annually.
Even while he was barred from taking part in all Senate proceedings while he was under RCMP investigations since 2007, he managed to spend $315,355 for office expenses and travel on top of his annual $132,300 salary. If enough people expressed enough outrage, it might be conceivable that some legal way could be found to strip the man of his pension; he has certainly earned public censure.
As an expression of justice he should be stripped of his pension, and should be required to pay back the bulk of what he expensed and was paid for through Senate expenses, even while he was not permitted to participate in Senate proceedings while under investigation. On the other hand, the man's sentencing hearing takes place in one month; May 10.
At which time he could be facing up to 14 years in prison for his very particular brand of malfeasance. Just hold your breath.
Labels: Economy, Government of Canada, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 2:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home