Mike Davies, Editor-in-Chief Ω
“The RCMP says it regrets a decision that eventually led a judge to stay charges against a father for allegedly sexually and physically abusing his daughter and wife,” said the opening of a CBC.ca article I read last week.
You regret that, do you?
Oh. OK then. Thanks for regretting that.
In a case described by B.C.’s children and youth representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as “one of the most horrific instances of child abuse she had ever encountered,” according to the CBC article, the RCMP and the Crown fought over who should pay the costs for translation of the victims’ statements for so long that the case was thrown out.
So let me get this straight — we have the money to pay members of parliament (MPs) well over a living wage long after they’ve left the public sector (as long as they were there for a few years) but we don’t have the money to translate the statements of citizens who claim to have been repeatedly raped and beaten?
Is this for real?
According to a report published by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) in January, 2012, MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault, who was elected in the last election at the age of 19, will be eligible to collect an annual pension of $40,000 if he is re-elected once and retires at the age of 27.
I can’t find the exact numbers on how much of that payout he will have contributed to that pension during that hypothetical eight years in office — but I somehow doubt that it will be in the millions-of-dollars range, which is the range of what he’ll be eligible to receive in benefits.
Whether he is re-elected or not, he will be eligible to collect his $78,000 severance cheque when he leaves office, as a “thanks for your time,” from the Canadian taxpayer, I guess.
There are a whole lot of calculations and graphs and footnotes and averages contained in the study, but basically it confirmed that for every dollar an MP (or senator) contributes to his or her own pension, the Canadian taxpayer contributes $23.30.
I think if these (and many other) public officials — who are already well-overcompensated during their time “serving” the public — can’t save a few bucks here and there on their own while they “work,” it shouldn’t be up to us to keep paying them after they’re out of office.
Don’t we already pay their salary while they’re in office?
According to the aforementioned CBC article (remember? The one about the wife and young child who were allegedly beaten and raped repeatedly by the patriarch of the family?), “RCMP superintendent Paul Richards says a now-retired commander decided against spending $40,000 to translate the statements because of the cost.”
Thank you for deciding that, public sector employee.
I can’t help but wonder what a commander in the RCMP receives in pension cheques.
So apparently we’ve decided that public-sector employees can decide where our tax money will go, and they have chosen their own pockets over justice for families decimated by abuse.
Good work, us.