Dingwall and other federal follies - and a real scandal

VICTORIA - And on to the perennial column topic - more reasons why you should be angry at the federal government.
Let's start with David Dingwall, who has quit as the president of the Royal Mint, a $240,000-a-year patronage job that Jean Chretien gave his former cabinet minister by Jean Chretien.
Dingwall resigned under a couple of clouds. His expense claims had come to light, and they looked bad. Despite being paid six times as much the average Canadian, Dingwall still stuck taxpayers with the bill for his home Internet connection and $1.29 package of gum. And he rang up $860,000 in expenses in one year, including $5,700 for one restaurant meal and $2,500 in limousine costs, on top of the company BMW.
Dingwall also acknowledged accepting an illegal $350,000 fee as a lobbyist in 2000. He was promised the money if he scored $15 million for his client under a dubious federal technology handout program. He lobbied well; they got the money; he got the illegal payment.
You quit your job, that's usually it. But Dingwall's Liberal friends plan to pay him severance, perhaps up to $500,000.
We have to, says Prime Minister Paul Martin.
There are no facts to support that claim. Nothing in Dingwall's contract, the law or anywhere else justifies a dime in severance.
And then there's gas prices.
Not something we can do much about, says the federal government.
That's not really true. For one thing, the federal government imposes the GST on gas. Every price increase means more money for Ottawa. Shifting to a flat levy - as B.C. imposes - would help consumers.
But the federal government has helped one group. Federal employees - including MPs - just got an increase in their car allowance from 46 cents to 50.6 cents per kilometre, because of rising gas prices.
First, that's a huge car allowance - and more than Ottawa lets other workers claim as a tax deduction. And the increase isn't warranted. For a typical car gas price increases have added costs of 3.4 cents a kilometre since last year. The federal government sportily adds an extra cent per kilometre.
Is it a big deal? Sure, because it shows - like Dingwall's severance - that the people in charge don't worry much about how they spend your money.
Or how they hurt your interests. The Nelson Daily News has reported admirably on a proposed 30-per-cent duty on the bicycles most of us ride - bikes that cost less than $650.
Two bicycle manufacturers in Quebec - in Liberal ridings - are worried about Asian competitors. So they lobbied for the duty, and won an early victory. If the federal cabinet agrees, then when it's time for the first two-wheeler for your child you'll pay 30-per-cent more than you should.
No one is saying Asian companies are doing anything wrong. The few Canadian producers just don't like the competition.
Finally, and most significantly, Parliament has once again rejected raising the age of consent for sex from 14 to 16. Years before you can vote, or drink, or get a credit card, children are prey for 40-year-old with a smooth line or bright promises. A boy or girl in Grade 9 is considered fair game.
Conservative MP Nina Grewal's motion to raise the age of consent was flawed, failing to exempt youngsters choosing to have sex with their peers. But other countries with higher ages of consent, like the U.S., Britain, Australia - even Thailand - have solved the problem by barring prosecution of people within two or three years of each other.
Changing the law would let parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter. Johns would have to factor one more risk into the equation when they hired young girls. Police, who favour the change, would gain a tool.
The Dingwall scandal, the other federal follies, they're serious.
But the federal Liberals' failure to protect children is scandalous.
Footnote: The age of consent in Canada was only lowered from 18 in 1987. The move to 14 went too far, and the result has been increased exploitation of children. The Liberal MPs who voted down the change need to hear directly from Canadians who think it's wrong for men to have sex with children.