scribblet

It's right that conservatives often do get labelled (erroneously) as the liberals love to play on anti Americanism on various issues and play it well, especially when it comes to health care. Some of the left buy into it regularly and use the U.S. health care system as a boogy man. Shady is right that OHIP (Ontario) doesn't pay for birth control, they won't even cover pap smears now. This is relevant because a pap smear is required before taking hormonal birth control

Well yes it is the abortion zealots. The ruling is what actually amount to family run business, and the only forms of B/C they cannot be forced to pay for are those that induce abortion. It was narrow in that it is specific to which corporations and only to the contraceptive mandate focusing on four specific means of birth control And even this is limited only to what essentially amounts to family-run businesses. e.g. the likes of WalMart would have to pay for all of it. It is restricted only to the contraceptive mandate and does not provide a shield or cloak for discrimination. There are other cases coming up in the S.C. where companies are contending that ALL forms of contraception are against their religious beliefs so they should not have to pay. It ain't over yet. http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/huge-day-at-supreme-court-as-hobby-lobby-decision-expected-court-also-could-limit-public-unions.html/ It’s also important to note that the business owners’ objections were not to contraception, per se, but to abortion. They argued that four types of contraception required to be covered amounted to abortion, as Alito noted and which Solicitor General, in arguing the Obama Administration case in March, has rejected as contrary to any ordinary understanding of what abortion is. Alito: Actually, 85% of employers covered contraception prior to Obamacare.

This is a fairly narrow ruling really. HobbLobby actually does provide coverage for 16 types of contraceptives; it’s those they believe contain ‘abortifacients’. This is really about abortion. http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/

I know there have been changes to the CPP since around 2012 so I'm not up on that, I know only that you can get a larger amount after 65 if you don't take it early. It will decrease by a larger percentage if taken before 65. The additional bridge benefit is only available between ages 60 - 65 and I haven't seen anything that changes that. If you did not collect CPP until age 65, you would never see the bridge benefit. When the total pension amount is calculated it includes CPP, if it does not include CPP then it's a stacked pension plan, premiums are based on that. Not too many places have that one/ Integration means that the plan is designed to take into account CPP contributions and benefits. http://www.omers.com/pension/The_Building_Blocks_of_Your_OMERS_Pension.aspx OMERS Bridge Benefit I found this saying early retirees cost federal pension plan $2 billion a year and makes a case for eliminating the bridge benefit. That is a huge savings which would surely help with the unfunded liabilities. http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1185521/early-retirees-cost-federal-pension-plan-2-billion-a-year All members are entitled to receive an OMERS lifetime pension that includes inflation protection and excellent survivor benefits. If your lifetime pension starts before age 65, you are entitled to the OMERS bridge benefit. This temporary benefit helps “bridge” your OMERS pension until age 65, when your Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is expected to begin. Your bridge benefit: is paid until you reach age 65, even if you receive your CPP pension from age 60; will not be the same amount as your CPP pension. http://www.optrust.com/Employers/Employer-Manual/Retirement/Canada-Pension-Plan-integration-at-age-65.asp Veterans are the same... http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/news/did-you-know/military-pensions

They did bargain for pensions over the years, and yes they did concede wages or something else in the process. Are you saying that no one should have a pension plan, even if its for less ?

Sorry not so. Most defined pensions are integrated with CPP so if you retired at age 60 there was a gap in pension income as there was no CPP until 65. The bridge benefit was brought in as a temporary bridge between age 60 and 65 but was never discontinued when CPP became available early. There is a huge misunderstanding about this and as to why it stops at age 65. I suspect that maybe the reason nothing is done about, it seems impossible to explain to people they are not entitled to it after 65. While the origins of the bridge benefit (originally called calculated CPP offset) may be misunderstood or not known, the fact is that it confuses a lot of people who firmly believe they are losing something that is rightly theirs forever. It is not, if they retired at 60 they double dipped for 5 years ) This offset amount used to be fixed until the Martin Liberals indexed it, thus causing it to increase each year. This results in a larger offset amount at age 65. I hope I’m clear on this because the bridge benefit is double dipping (until 65) and should be cancelled ASAP. If you retire at 65 then you would never see the bridge benefit. The smart thing to do would be to put aside that bridge amount as it is extra, save it in a TFSA or something. http://www.caw4304.ca/informer/200704/04-OMERS-Part2.htm What is the purpose of the bridge benefit? An information booklet from OMERS states, “This temporary benefit helps smooth (‘bridge’) your OMERS pension until you reach the age of 65, when it is expected your Canada Pension Plan (CPP) pension will start.” The key word in that explanation is “temporary.” Who receives the bridge benefit? The bridge benefit is paid only to those who retire before the age of 65. At the age of 65, the bridge benefit ceases to be paid. Retirement at 65 or later If a member retires from their municipal employer at the age of 65 or later, they will never receive the bridge benefit. Bridge Benefit and CPP If a member is retired between the ages of 60 and 65, and chooses to begin collecting the Canada Pension Plan before the age of 65, then they will continue to receive the OMERS bridge benefit until 65. A member who is retired between the ages of 60 and 65 is eligible to collect three payments: the CPP, the bridge benefit and the OMERS lifetime pension.

I agree that it is becoming more difficult to maintain these plans but there are things they can do. One of the problems with pensions is the lower retirement age as people are living and collecting longer. It wouldn’t be a lot to lose if they raised the age factor to at least 60 or higher, rather than 55. Another benefit that should have been taken away years ago is the ‘bridge benefit’. Originally CPP could not be taken early but in most defined plans CPP is integrated (included in the calculations). Therefore people who retired at age 60 had no CPP for 5 years which resulted in a lower pension. This was when the ‘bridge benefit’ or the calculated CPP offset was agreed upon to cover the shortfall until age 65.. At age 65 the bridge benefit stops and CPP comes in from the gov’t. by separate payment. When CPP became available at age 60 the bridge benefit continued, therefore retirees were double dipping for 5 years (if they retired at 60). I seem to remember a big stink about this ‘clawback’ from veterans’ pensions but it was the same thing. People think they are losing something they have a right to but they are not, they seriously misunderstand what happens. If the bridge benefit had been stopped when CPP was available at age 60, no one would be missing the money now or complaining. I don't see anyone daring to complain about the teachers/university professors pensions which are pretty lucrative. These people are some of the the highest paid in the world so from high wages come higher pensions.

It sure is, I'm surprised we haven't heard more about this particular act, the gov't could stop that I think, maybe they don't want to. Nobody liked it when Black raided the pension plan, although was not a defined plan, it was totally funded by the company. Shady: Not so, OMERS consists of municipal employers/utilities and the plan pays for itself, the Ontario gov't kicks nothing in. (Hydro one is not part of OMERS) Back in the Harris days there was quite a surplus, so much so that the Harris decreed the surplus belonged to the employees so must be distributed among them. This was done by various means, the most lucrative being the premium holiday given to employees. Eventually they had to stop this earlier than intended because of the downfall in the market. OMERS is managed very well and has not needed an infusion of money/ I think there is a lot of pension envy here, but if you look at the average worker bee it's not too much. Maybe the CEOs pensions are and consultants who agree upon the terms, but that is something Hydro et al have to deal with if they can't get top CEOs without paying that much. Are they worth it, I don't know, maybe Hydro et al could tell us. Premiums are based on facts and actuarial figures, if the benefits were lowered then the premiums would be also. I can understand a company bargaining for lesser benefits for new employees. What I don't understand is why people who complain bitterly about low wages and benefits want to lower pensions.

I don't think we should have to pay for Hydro appropriating pension funds thereby not meeting their pension obligations, in fact I'm surprised that a public utility can do that. There are other problems too,as the article said To deal with this surplus, OPG is often forced (without compensation) to spill cheap clean hydro power and lose the associated revenue. That has driven down OPG’s revenue and profit, meaning it is less able to fund its pension obligations. The worker bees aren't getting insane pensions at all and from what I read they are on a par with other pensions such as teachers, I don't see anyone suggesting that teachers should get smaller pensions or smaller salaries, they wouldn't dare or our kids will be held hostage again. CEO salaries and pensions are high but I'm not sure that capping CEO salaries would work - would less competitive mean they don't attract the best people for the job? Hydro could try re-negotiating some benefits, if the pension is 2.5% per year then they should lower it to 2% for new employees. Good luck to the Liberals when they try to lower pensions for public workers.. Nobody liked it when the feds lowered for new employees at Canada Post and Air Canada, Harper was bad and evil for doing that yet it would be okay for the Liberals to do the same thing to utility workers ? http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/09/ontario-liberals-plan-bill-will-cap-public-sector-executive-salaries-as-ndp-push-for-top-compensation-of-418000/

Seems to me that this guy Brand is spewing as much invective or more than the commentator, he’s just as sensationalist. She’s getting the 60% increase from here I guess. http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20140131-report-60-percent-increase-in-terrorism-in-arc-of-instability-across-north-africa-sahel

I don't think many other cars passed her, I've read that only one vehicle passed her which was ahead of the bikes, it swerved and got around. It was said that, that vehicle was blocking his view... The wife also testified that he wasn't speeding as she was only a learner so he was driving more slowly. If that is true, why was he in the passing lane ? If the estimate of his driving speed is accurate than the wife is not telling the truth, but speed didn't seem to matter to the jury. I agree that the woman was absolutely stupid to stop in the passing lane like that, but I do think there appears to be a small portion of culpability to be assigned to the bike. The Jury didn't see it that way though.

I admit I'm not clear on what this means from the article - I'm no accountant. What both entities have done for many years is capitalize a large portion of their pension obligations. This is allowed by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), meaning that ratepayers wind up picking up the pension deficits. In fact it is not unusual for both OPG and Hydro One to capitalize as much as 50% of their required pension contributions along with actual labour costs associated with their build-out of infrastructure. Those capital expenditures allow them to apply for a rate hike from the OEB and it eventually shows up on ratepayers electricity bills as either electricity or delivery costs. If I understand it correctly, Hydro is taking 50% of their pension contributions out of the pension fund to use for other purposes e.g. infrastructure. Maybe it's just on paper, either way it seems to me they are are raiding the pension plan then applying for rate increases to cover the pension shortfall they have created.

I agree that high paid executives are insanely high, which is what you are probably looking at, but the average Hydro One worker's pension in 2010 was $33,122. a year, hardly insane. Their benefits are bargained for in the same manner other unions such as CUPE bargain for them, and I've seen complaints here about conservatives wanting to lower wages and so on, but here some people seem to agree with it. Part of the reason they have a liability is due to decreased revenue, e.g. selling off hydro cheap Hydro one is in line with other defined benefit plans and other municipalities who have pensions under OMERS, it is a 50/50 contribution ratio and is integrated with CPP. They also have the ‘bridge’ benefit for people retiring between 60 and 65. The bridge benefits ceases at age 65. I don’t believe it is any better than the teachers’ pension plan, the firefighters and police, are they insanely outrageous too. Would anyone dare speak out against the teachers' pension and the billions paid into that. It is possible Hydro % is 2.5 rather than 2% which is better than the average, but I'm not clear on that one. I believe their factor is 80, age + years of service, so someone age 60 could retire on full pension after 20 years of service. Full pension being 40% of the average of the last 5 years earnings. Someone with an average salary of $60,000 and 20 years of service would get around $24,000, 30 years would around $36,000. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/06/04/exhydro_one_head_fights_to_increase_25000_monthly_pension.html I think people are looking at executive salaries/pensions which would be much higher. However the gov’t capped executive pensions in 2013. A teacher making $85,000 a year would get a pension of $51,000 with 30 years service 2% x 30 x $85,000 = $51,000

It was land outside of the reserve that they did not have title to and is supposedly lands still used for traditional purposes.

IMO this will have major implications for our economy, and it's not good. How many people are aware of the major Algonquin land claim in Ontario which includes Algonquin Park and Ottawa. Right now they are saying nothing will be affected and private property will not be appropriated - sure.. wait a few years down the road, the fun is only just beginning. http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201303252694/commentary/inside-queens-park-cottagers-miffed-at-lack-of-consultation-on-massive-land-deal For those whose livelihoods the agreement may affect, however, the overriding issue is the unknown. Somehow, having the Ontario government tell people to trust it just isn’t carrying any weight. But that’s no surprise. In the meantime, meegwetch for reading this far. (That means thank you in Algonquin.)

I've never seen that said, where is it 'said'

Okay... thanks

Are you talking to me? I didn't need to 'trawl for data' I had an interest in pensions so kept the info. Teachers' pensions are also paid by the taxpayers per se and every public organization that has a pension plan. Are the employees not entitled to a pension ? The Green Energy act and the Liberal gov'ts actions are part of the reason Hydro One is experiencing a loss of revenue .http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/07/09/ontarios-power-trip-retirement-deficit-coming-to-your-hydro-bill/ In the case of OPG and as a consequence of the Green Energy Act, the addition of wind, solar and gas generation via private contracts executed by the Ontario Power Authority has created a huge surplus of base-load power in the province. To deal with this surplus, OPG is often forced (without compensation) to spill cheap clean hydro power and lose the associated revenue. That has driven down OPG’s revenue and profit, meaning it is less able to fund its pension obligations. It has also been directed by the Liberal energy ministers to spend $4.2-billion on major projects which will add marginal additional hydroelectric generation capacity that may wind up “spilled” as more wind and solar are added to the grid. The profitability of OPG is also hampered by the vagaries of the stock market, due to the nuclear decommissioning fund which amounts to almost $13-billion on its balance sheet. The foregoing will result in increased electricity and delivery costs for years to come as both OPG and Hydro One cover off their future pension liabilities on the backs of the ratepayers.

and... 'Pierre Poutine' had nothing to do with that one.

Maybe he'll run into Dalton McGuinty, he's there now, they can do some reminisceing.

You mean like MSNB's hateful bits, including a tweet they had to pull.

Do you have a link to that article please. They do have a pretty lucrative pension plan but as long as it’s the usual 50/50 what’s the problem? Is their pension different from other defined plans e.g. based on age and years of service factor so 35 years would get you 70% of the average of your best 5 years at age 55 (depending on years of service). I’m pretty sure CPP is built into it also, it's not stacked. Sure Hydro customers pay for it really, but hydro is an employer and the union has bargained for the benefits. I don’t begrudge decent pensions to people as long as the employees pay their share. The same goes for the teachers’ pension plan that we the taxpayers pay for. Back in ‘89 the Liberals bought into an auditors report that the teachers pension plan had an 'unfunded liability' and if I remember there was no another independent audit to confirm the findings. So, 1989, the Ontario provincial government identified that the pension plan had a large initial unfunded liability which they estimated to be $4 billion. At the time, the plan was solely sponsored by the government, and so the Liberal government of the day agreed to pay off this debt through a schedule of payments over 40 years from 1990 to 2030. In 1990, the plan's actuary determined that the debt was actually $7.8 billion. In 1992, the NDP government entered into a pension partnership agreement with the Ontario Teachers' Federation. Under the terms of the agreement, plan sponsorship was shared. However, the government remained responsible for the initial unfunded liability and continued to make both matching contributions and the special payments to pay off the plan's debt. By 1998, the PC government was determined to eliminate the initial unfunded liability which, by then, stood at $8.4 billion, through the use of actuarial gains in the teachers' plan. This was negotiated successfully with the OTF, and the last special payment was made on April 1, 1999. So… what about the teachers plan and the taxpayer funding that one… same thing really.

Much ado about nothing. Parsing words just looking for something that really isn't there, some people have too much time on their hands.

Maybe their racism is a gift from the creator - who knows. <roll eyes>

A couple of articles with pictures http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/father-daughter-killed-because-woman-stopped-car-to-help-ducks-prosecutor-alleges-1.1850997 http://www.cjad.com/cjad-news/2014/06/03/dangerous-driving-trial-underway-for-woman-who-stopped-for-ducks Obviously you can't fix stupid, she was travelling in the passing lane on a 4 lane highway divided by a median, she pulled over to the edge of the passing lane and left the car door open. She obviously had some time where she got out to look after the ducks before the next car and two bikes came along so I'm not clear on why the bike couldn't go around like the first car did which was travelling behind but managed to veer off to the right hand lane. Not to trivialize what happened or make light of it, but why were the bikes in the passing lane in the first place and apparently travelling too close. No blame at all seems to be laid on the bikes but I do wonder if they were travelling too fast and should not have been in the passing lane. A tragedy but I don't believe she should get life...