Letters to the Editor

Mixed messages


Re: Federal budget thinks long term, April 3 editorial.

Your editorial in Tuesday’s edition loudly toots the horn for the recent federal budget’s increase in the age to qualify for OAS, improvements to government employee pensions and cutting expenditures for deficit reduction, while commenting that it will be those who still remain working who will carry the brunt for future pension contributions, but it will be good in the long term.

At the same time, you run a Page 11 story about a federally funded employment program which was designed to help get young people job experience and into the workforce, and has been cut as part of those same federal government cutbacks to reduce the deficit (Coffee mates lament loss of program).

Aren’t these the same folks, if employed, whom the future contributions to government pensions will come from?

Good for the long term?

Which horn are you tooting?

John Haviland, Surrey


We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

Community Events, March 2017

Add an Event