Thunder Bay Weather Forecast, Canada


Home  »  The big question I have is ‘why?’ – John Rafferty MP

The big question I have is ‘why?’ – John Rafferty MP

Written by: John Rafferty MP on January 30, 2012.
www.facebook.com

John Rafferty MPOTTAWA – Leader’s Ledger – Word is that there are some steep cuts to public services and drastic changes to our pension system coming in the next federal budget. The big question I have is ‘why?’

The talk about what may be in the federal budget always begins early each year, and 2012 is proving to be no exception. Over the holidays, Treasury Board Secretary Tony Clement (the guy who blew $50 million beautifying his riding a three day G8 last year) was busy telling anyone who would listen that the government would be cutting back its spending from 5-10% in each and every department next year. This could result in the cutting of up to 22,000 jobs in Ottawa and tens of thousands elsewhere across the country with services cut for everything from Employment Insurance processing, border crossings, and highway maintenance.

While Clement was busy on the talk-show circuit back home, the Prime Minister went to Davos Switzerland, supposedly to launch an attack on those irresponsible Europeans over the perils of debt. He did attack them for a few seconds in a meandering speech, but then decided to drop a bomb on Canadian families while out of the country. Harper told the assorted group of foreign bankers and heads of states that there would be ‘major’ changes to Canada’s retirement support programs – the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS). When forced to clarify his remarks, his handlers said it would mostly be to OAS, which goes only to the poorest seniors who would not otherwise be able to survive on their CPP payments alone. Classy move.

I have no doubt that if it were necessary to save the federal government or the retirement income of every Canadian, then no Canadian would oppose reasonable and timely cuts to either program. However, the problem is that these proposed cuts simply aren’t necessary.

The proposed drastic cuts to our services and pensions are not necessary for at least two reasons. First, because the Harper government still maintains – in Canada, Switzerland, and elsewhere – that their spending and deficit reduction plans are ‘on track’ despite some economic risks on the horizon; and second, because there are many expensive and unnecessary programs that have been created by this government over the past five years that should be eliminated or at least reduced before they take an axe to our social programs and retirement income.

The strongest argument that I have heard against the need for service and retirement cuts has been made by the very same Conservatives that are planning the cuts. Day in and day out, the Harper government maintains that they have everything under control economically and that our budget deficits will melt away naturally in a couple of years’ time. This argument was after all, the crux of their election platform. Now if this is true, then why make drastic cuts to our services and retirement income? Something is wrong with this picture. Either Mr. Harper is dying to attack hard-working Canadian families and our retirement security, or he is lying about the current state affairs with our economy and his deficits. Simply put, if he is to be believed about the economy and his deficits, then the service and retirement cuts his government is floating simply aren’t necessary.

Secondly, why start with cuts to Service Canada and Old Age Security when Harper could stop his own spending binge on many expensive items of questionable utility? Like the $80 million of our money he spends advertising his federal budget each year, or the $9 billion in prisons he is building to reduce crime? Building more prisons to reduce crime doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin with, because you know, you have to commit a crime to go to jail, but then again neither does spending $20-30 billion on F-35 fighter jets that can’t fly in the arctic, you know where we most need to defend our airspace. Eliminating the advertising, needless prisons, and almost useless fighter jets would save us nearly $40 billion before the next election, so why do the Conservatives start by cutting essential services and retirement income for the poorest seniors?

My New Democrat colleagues and I stand with you and your family, and if the cuts to our services and our retirement income in the next budget aren’t proven to be absolutely necessary or come while this government continues to waste billions on misguided and unnecessary programs then my New Democrat colleagues and I will oppose this budget. It really is that simple.

John Rafferty MP
Thunder Bay Rainy River

  • Anonymous

    Thank-you for this article.  You, sir make more sense than the Harper led CONservatives.

  • Marik

    Stop Harper!

  • Poppager

    Finally a balanced voice of reason.  Harper has the largest and most expensive government in the history of Canada … and the spending has not slowed.

  • hebe

    The government needs to make cuts to social programs because our whole society in Canada is based on “me”, a world of entitlements for me.  What happened to earn your own life security by doing a days work and not depend on the government. Its called “get off your asses Canadians and earn your own retirement security.

  • Nite_Owl

    Harper must know that after we kick his ass to the curb next election (Or as I like to call it, giving him the Mulroney Bump) we’ll be changing everything back and cancelling the useless prisons and jets. I can only surmise that he’s busy taking care of as many friends as possible so as to guarantee his own financial comfort while he falls into obscurity, another reviled Conservative Prime Minister. Sad thing is we’ll have to throw out the baby with the bathwater when we abolish the Senate just to get rid of all the bottom feeding trash Harper has appointed. Perhaps when we abolish the Senate we can create a modern house of sober second thought with regular elections every decade.

  • XHospitalGuy

    The prisons are to lock-up all the people who will feel there is no other alternative but to turn to crime when the Conservative’s economic policies destroy our beloved nation. :( Not to mention hARPER’s political enemies. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_L7TETH5VOSLG3ZU2S36XMP53SY Johnathan

    I concur, although you did not mention that currently, taxpayers kick in $23.30 for every $1 an MP contributes to their
    pension plan.  How ironic.  I see some major cuts possible there too.

  • lori1947

    John, lets be honest. You are going to vote against this budget regardless even if it is fantastic. That is the truth. You outline several programs that should be cut. The airplan contract should be reviewed to see if we are getting the right plane but do not try to imply that the planes are not needed. They are and you are deceiving Canadians for suggesting otherwise. OUr fleet needs to be replaced. Getting another plane does not save the money that needs to be spent.

    Should CPP go to Canadians that are millionaires. I say no. Should it go to Canadians with large annual pensions. Again, I say no. Should an MP get a large pension after only 6 years. Step up to the plate John and say you will sacrifice too instead of your lame attempt to defend a pension plan that 99.9% of Canadians can only dream about. You sure changed your tune from the guy who yelled and screamed about the MPP pay raise, a group of people who wont’ get a millions tax payer dollars like you will John.

    Harper is not sitting around the table looking for ways to screw Canadians. He has his ideological positions like you have yours. He is in charge. It is what Canadians decided. Without Quebec, your party would be 3rd party as you always have been and where many believe you will return too after the next election.

    What is troubling about your articles is that you never wish to acknowledge your own political slant, positions that support your parties position. I am a constituent. While I don’t disagree with all of what you said, I disagree with much of it. Why do I, a voter, need to tolerate your position that I am opposed to. Because you won. And Harper won. He gets to govern, for better or worse. So maybe start giving us an honest assessment of what is happening instead of the usual John NDP rants that we are so used to.

    Prisons— I would probably agree with you. Jets, not a chance. Looking at the cradle to grave policies this country seems to embrace, for sure. Don’t stand in the way, find a way to be part of the solution. Isn’t that better than just telling us every week why the Prime Minister of this country is always wrong and you are always right.

  • Kyle

    I love it when people try to sully the word “entitlement”. You are “entitled” to something because you PAY INTO IT.

    Do you know what the Canada Pension Plan is? “Just about every working Canadian over the age of 18 must pay into the
    Canada Pension Plan (or the Quebec Pension Plan if you work in the
    province of Quebec). You contribute every year until you retire — at age
    60 at the earliest.”

    So you’re arguing that the government should be allowed to take our money and not pay it back to us in some form or another (tax breaks, services, pensions, etc.)?

    How about you get off your ass and read a goddamn book so you stop making stupid comments? You have to be the lowest of the low to advocate taking away support for poor seniors who have worked their asses off in this country, contributed to our society greatly, and then to boot you tell them to stop whining that they can’t afford food, medication, rent and to go do “a days work and not depend on the government”.

    And when they’ve contributed their whole lives to the CPP, tell them that they haven’t earned their own retirement security. Absolutely disgusting.

  • Kyle

    “John, lets be honest. You are going to vote against this budget regardless even if it is fantastic.”

    Lori, let’s be honest. John Rafferty could be the second coming of Jesus Christ and you’d still have something disparaging to say about him.

    “The airplan contract should be reviewed to see if we are getting the
    right plane but do not try to imply that the planes are not needed.”

    That’s not what Rafferty said. The F35 is incapable of operating in the Arctic, which is where we need to assert Canadian sovereignty the most. It is also fraught with delays and bugs. To add fuel to the fire, the Obama Administration is cutting the F35 program. We’re also vastly overpaying for the amount of fighter jets we’re getting. Few people disagree that we need to replace our aged Hornets. The question is with what and it’s generally accepted that the F35 is too expensive and too risky and investment, considering all the delays and technical problems associated with it. Well, unless you’re Conservative, then you have a horse in the race.

    The NDP actually have it in their platform to invest heavily in the Navy, rather than the Air Force. Submarines and icebreakers would be far more useful in asserting control over shipping in the Northwest Passage than fighter jets that cannot even operate in the Arctic. I’m sure you’d agree. Most Opposition MPs, as far as I know, would prefer a smaller number of SuperHornets, coupled with heavy Navy investment.

    “Should CPP go to Canadians that are millionaires….”

    I agree with you there and the rest of your paragraph. But Hyer for sure, and Rafferty somewhat agree with cutting MP pensions: http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/184561/MPs-should-have-same-pension-plan-as-fellow-citizens-Hyer

    “Harper is not sitting around the table looking for ways to screw Canadians.”

    I strongly disagree.

    “He is in charge. It is what Canadians decided. Without Quebec, your
    party would be 3rd party as you always have been and where many believe
    you will return too after the next election.”

    No, Lori. It’s what 39% of voting Canadians decided. The rest of us (61%), you know..the REAL majority would rather have had someone else. And I love the point that without Quebec, the NDP would be in 3rd again. So what? Without Alberta (and now the GTA), the Conservatives wouldn’t have a government. And like the Liberals before them, if the GTA hadn’t supported them, they wouldn’t have been able to form a government either. What’s your point? Yes, Canadian politics are highly regionalized. And? Quebec is more left-leaning and supports the NDP? What a shocker!

    “What is troubling about your articles is that you never wish to
    acknowledge your own political slant, positions that support your
    parties position.”

    He’s an NDP MP. I think his slant is pretty obvious. I don’t question political slant when a Conservative MP writes something. It’s pretty obvious what his or her slant is.

    “I am a constituent. While I don’t disagree with all of what you said, I
    disagree with much of it. Why do I, a voter, need to tolerate your
    position that I am opposed to. Because you won. And Harper won.”

    While both Hyer and Rafferty got less than 50% of the vote, it wasn’t all that far short of 50%. I still maintain my position that elected MPs should obtain over 50% support in their ridings, even if I agree with Hyer and somewhat with Rafferty on most things. That being said, a few percent short of 50% is a hell of a lot better than 39%. Had we multi-round voting in place, it’s doubtless that Hyer and Rafferty would have still won. That’s not the case with the Conservatives. Few people prefer the Conservatives as a second preference. Most people prefer the NDP. There are polls that show this.

    But even that’s not really accurate. “Harper” didn’t get 39%. The Conservatives got 39%. The only people who voted for Harper were those in his riding. That’s just yet another flaw of our outdated electoral system. That’s why we need to change things, so the only thing you have to “tolerate” is the views of the majority of your fellow constituents. A real majority. Not a 39% majority.

    “Don’t stand in the way, find a way to be part of the solution. Isn’t
    that better than just telling us every week why the Prime Minister of
    this country is always wrong and you are always right.”

    He is proposing a solution. You just don’t like it. Instead of cutting seniors’ pensions, we should look at wasteful government programs such as the F-35s and see if we can find cost savings elsewhere (either by purchasing a more suitable aircraft, or by reducing the amount we purchase while coupling that Navy investment). $80 million on advertising the budget. That can go. $9 billion on prisons, That can go too. $20-30 billion on fighter jets that can’t operate in our most important theatre? That can go too (and be replaced with something else, but not necessarily for the full $20-30 billion). What else do you expect? Rafferty isn’t a boogeyman.

  • lori1947

    First Kyle, thanks for calling me a Conservative. Normally I get called a Liberal. But I believe your accusation of always disliking the NDP ignores your constant support of the NDP.

    As for planes. John implied that we could save money because the proposed plane will not work. It may be the wrong plane but investing in different planes and new ships and subs will not save the money. Spend it better, absolutely, but don’t suggest that money can be used elsewhere. That was my point.

    As for pensions, sorry John bailed. He was trying to justify his gold plated pension after screaming for years about MPP’s, people who don’t get a pension. That is hypocritical no matter how you look at it.

    As for this continued old song about 50%. John and Bruce didn’t get 50% the first time but were still elected. The NDP in many seats didn’t get 50% but still got their seats. More people didn’t vote for the NDP than did. You can’t use that tired old song about Harper not getting 50%. He won. Have you noticed the NDP fighting for proportional representation. NO, neither have I. I wonder why that is.

    I will agree with you that cutting waste is always a good idea, but it ignores the reality that millionaires do not need CPP or OAS. People with huge pensions should not get it either. These programs were meant to support a certain minimum standard. I believe they should be for the people who need them, just like tax free cards should be based on need, not on race but that is a whole other story.

    As for the NDP and John. You are correct, I have a problem with a party that says anything and never gets challenged. Only now as officialy opposition, you can see that their policies are coming under far greater scrutiny. It is why the polling numbers show a drop for that party in most places including Quebec. As forl what I expect from John, something. Not the constant telling me how hard he works, something for T.Bay. A job, some dollars, some investment, something. His accomplishments, nothing. I don’t think I am asking for too much.

  • Kyle

    “First Kyle, thanks for calling me a Conservative.”

    I didn’t, but okay. But I do know from your previous comments that you support Harper and the Conservatives federally and the Liberals provincially. Was I not supposed to take this into account?

    “Normally I get called a Liberal. But I believe your accusation of always
    disliking the NDP ignores your constant support of the NDP.”

    You mean like when I wrote those comments and articles months ago about how much the NDP sucks for whipping the long gun registry vote? Are you talking about that constant support, Lori?

    “As for planes…”

    The thing is, those planes are hugely expensive. There is more to buying planes than just the fixed cost of the aircraft. You have to worry about the maintenance, spare parts, etc. The actual cost of a fighter jet is far, far, far above the fixed cost of purchasing it. It’s kind of like buying a car. Sometimes you’ll get into a fender bender. You’ll need to fill it with gas. You’ll need to take it to the car wash and for oil changes. Over the life of the car, the total cost of that maintenance exceeds the cost of the actual car itself.

    Spending the full $20-30 billion on a more suitable plane (and a lot of people argue the SuperHornets are more suitable) would mean that we have more planes than we can afford to keep. Going for another variant would save money. It depends on the quantity and specific model of the ships and planes being purchased, of course. But cutting back on those purchases even a little will save a buck or two.

    “As for pensions, sorry John bailed. He was trying to justify his gold
    plated pension after screaming for years about MPP’s, people who don’t
    get a pension. That is hypocritical no matter how you look at it.”

    I don’t understand how acknowledging that while MPs deserve some sort of compensation (which any reasonable person would agree with), Rafferty agreeing that MP pensions should be cut is trying to “justify his gold plated pension”. Perhaps you can explain.

    “As for this continued old song about 50%.”

    Yeah. How cumbersome that in a democracy, those in power should exercise the will of the majority. It really is an optimal situation that a minority should have 100% of the power. The rest (the real majority of the people) should have no power whatsoever. Besides that point, it’s funny how Harper was for PR when it was advantageous to him. He has his majority now. What’s stopping him? Yet you blame the NDP? Do you see him fight for PR? NO, neither have I.

    “It is why the polling numbers show a drop for that party in most places including Quebec.”

    You do realize the Conservatives have fallen too, right? The only party that has made any notable gain is the Liberal Party.

    “I will agree with you that cutting waste is always a good idea, but it
    ignores the reality that millionaires do not need CPP or OAS.”

    I agree with your point 100%. That’s not what Harper is doing, though. He’s cutting from poor seniors, not millionaires.