scribblet

Okay thanks, if it is the Church itself providing the benefits then I can see the argument about religious freedom. Are the employees usually R.C. only, or do they hire from all faiths ? I can understand to some extent getting upset if they required to pay for abortions, but birth control in this day and age! IMO most RCs don't follow that anyway.

For free ? For free would be expecting the gov't or someone else to pay for them, expecting a legal prescription to be part of a normal health care benefits compensation package is not 'for free' per se. If the employer otherwise pays very well and it's a good job, why should one have to move because an employer doesn't like what an individual's choice. It actually sounds discriminatory to me. They are not asking the RC churches to pay for it are they ?

Have to say the uproar over this is bemusing, I just don't understand how any employer can exempt some provisions of their health care benefit package on religious grounds. Are all the employees of the same faith, I kind of doubt it, why should an employer tell me I can't have a particular prescription covered because they are mired in the stone age. What about employee rights

Right, and is a myth that needs to be put aside http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/juggle%2Bhuman%2Brights%2Btrade%2Bissues/6117445/story.html#ixzz1lno6whe5

Exactly, and the 5 million was a tax break for purchasers not the company.

We've had them before, the Toronto zoo was very pleased and will be again. Scotland has two of them now.

I don't see how a change of tax laws that effects many companies could be tied to creating jobs etc. If it's an actual cash bailout, no problem, there should be strings attached. I saw a comment somewhere that maybe the gov't could put a tariff on Caterpillar's goods making them unacceptable to buyers here.

Sheez, how soon people forget the huge cuts to health care and education transfers - imagine the uproar if the conservatives did that..

Agree about the venom being spewed towards Harper when in fact, the tax breaks where on industrial capital investment which would affect numerous companies, not just EMD, how would the gov't single out and exempt one company, or demand breaks be given back !! The '$5 million they go on about was a tax break for purchasers, not EMD itself, so for those demanding the money be given back, how would they do that, under what law, what legislation. And it really is a provincial problem, not federal. Caterpillar is moving because the U.S. is replacing their rail engines and their American First policy requires that they be built in the U.S., plus there are tax incentives from the State which gave Caterpillar the motivation to move. Did Caterpillar know this when they bought EMD, not sure but I think the new policy came after.

Have to say, there was no mention of the OAS in the Davos speech, all this really is hyperventilating over what they think might happen. Of course, Rae et al aren't going to let a little thing like that stop them from fuming and fulmigating in order to score political points.

LOL Funny that Harper's comment have Bob Rae et al to jump off the deep end and fear monger for all they are worth. There is no hurry to act on pensions and contrary to the frothing there is nothing concrete and nothing but insinuations and fearmongering. What Mr. Harper might do is bring in rational reforms which may include revised clawbacks on OAS, lower limits for GIS and a staged increase in pension age over say, five years, he has the income splitting allready in place to add to the mix. Harper knows it is the millions of people who have no company or private pensions to supplement the CPP/OAS/GIS who need to be protected.

Merging of policies was an overstatement I admit which does speak to the issue of the Tories more or less taking over Reform as far as I know there are very few if any, core Reform policies left, although Reform of the Senate was one which we might see partly come to fruition. Would that we had more referenda on major issues.

Possibly, I'm never sure on what's fact and what isn't, I do wish there was a neutral non partisan source of information and facts rather than relying on a partisan newspaper or blogger etc. I think its worth noting that the Conservatives haven't issued any proposals for pension reform, yet the left has seriously jumped the shark in their efforts to make conservatives look bad. I suppose if no cuts are announced they will claim that Harper backed down and should've done something. So, in that context Mr. Harper has to do something now,in order to deflect the attack ads which I bet are being written as we speak.

As far as ex Reform members I count 7 including PM Harper, I could've missed some, not sure. I agree about the money part, as Reform and now CPC always have been better at getting individual donations, I guess we differ on some of what happened, at the time of the merger I was on the riding board, and I do remember the first couple of meetings after the merger and being very careful about equal time for all members. Our board was 50/50 at the time with the past conservative president, retaining that position. Can't speak for all of course, but my remembering is such that it seemed to me to be more of a 50/50, at least in bodies and merging of policies.

PM Harper did say that it was about retaining the sustainability of our programs as there is no doubt that the upcoming surge of retiring boomers will be hard on the treasury. I have to say, our PM is usually more politically astute and should've held off on this until there were more details. This has allready been manipulated and spun enough to scare the bee jeesus out of little old ladies and anyone who buys into the propaganda. Having said that, as far as MP pensions go it is my understanding that matters such as these must be referred to the Board of Internal Economy, parliament itself cannot unilaterally make a decision on it. It's pretty hard to get at the actual truth with all the conflicting reports and agit prop going around. I'm not positive but I don't think they can bypass this board. http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/house/BOIE/boie-e.html some FAQs about the BOIE which is allready functioning as required by law http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/house/BOIE/boie-faq-e.html The Board is responsible for establishing By-laws, policies and guidelines relating to expenditures and resources provided to Members in order to carry out their parliamentary functions. The Board also has the exclusive authority to determine whether expenditures are proper and in accordance with the By-laws, policies and guidelines that have been established. This authority is given to the Board by the Parliament of Canada Act. The Board delegates to the Clerk of the House and the House Administration the responsibility to implement its policies and programs and the day-to-day management of House resources.

I'm not sure about that, when the Alliance merged with the PCs there were just as many PCs in the new united party as Reform, and a majority of PCs voted for the merger also. In fact, although my memory is shaky it was more like the PCs swallowing Reform. Having said that, there are very few ex Reform MPs in parliament now, no where near enough to hijack legislation and so on. Of course, they and any others have as much right to a voice in our democracy.

Agree, but the media et al are taking Harper derangement syndrome to the extreme, frothing at the mouth of what ifs and scary scarys, they are outdoing themselves in the frothing and spin dept. these days. This is an interesting take on the PM's proposed changes to the OAS. And of course Mr. Harper has now convened the required parliamentary panel to look into MPs pensions. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/well-keep-working-past-65-and-well-like-it/article2320096/print/ Brian Lee Crowley Prime Minister Stephen Harper has renewed a perennial debate about when Canadians should expect to retire. Mr. Harper reportedly has in mind changes to the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement that would raise eligibility for these benefits from 65 to 67. Much of the reaction has focused on how such changes would affect public finances and the Canadian economy, essentially asking whether the benefits of reducing the cost of old-age income programs, plus the increased labour supply, justifies making older Canadians “worse off.” But that approaches such changes exactly backward. Such reforms, far from taking something away from seniors, are a tiny step in reversing decades of bad policy that has marginalized older Canadians, damaged their health and harmed their morale. Raising the age of eligibility is emphatically not a matter of imposing costs on seniors in order to benefit the rest of the population. It is an exceptionally pro-seniors policy to reduce the incentives to stop working at 65. There was a time when 65 and retirement were closely linked for a compelling reason. A life of labour had left the average worker depleted. A few short years of decline was all they could expect before death. A Canadian male born in 1966, when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, would only expect to live to age 68 or so. Today, it’s 79. Age 65 and the moment when one can no longer reasonably be expected to work have long since parted company. We live longer and are in better health. Much of the work in our increasingly service-based economy is not physically taxing. Many conditions associated with aging can be controlled by medication or corrected by surgery, with new breakthroughs daily. It is only a modest exaggeration when some say that 60 is the new 40. cont...

According to this the gun registry vote was whipped, and two MP punished http://netnewsledger.com/2011/11/11/nycole-turmel-shuts-down-democracy-in-thunder-bay/ The interim leader of the NDP has kicked both Rafferty and Hyer off of their critic roles, tossed the two MPs off of Commons Committees, and taken away their right to deliver Member’s Statements in the House of Commons. The NDP has taken away our two MPs right to travel on anything but the basics. A few weeks back, to better understand the role and work of the Canadian military, our two MPs traveled to spend a week with the Canadian Forces. Such an effort now would be deemed unacceptable by the interim NDP leader. All that for the unforgivable political crime of listening to the people who they represent, and continuing to do so. Turmel has in effect tried to silence the voices of Thunder Bay Superior North and Thunder Bay Rainy River in the federal Parliament.

I'm pretty sure the ND whipped the vote for the gun registry and punished two MPs who defied the party’s decision. I'm pretty sure the vote was whipped for SSM also.

He can't call an election, he brought in fixed 4 year term, so if he did do it, you'd be all over him for breaking that. Besides, people don't want elections at the drop of hat, we really want stability, so - gotta wait until the term is up.

Excellent post Peeves..

It'll be a lot longer that, if ever, he will likely present a package of reforms including public servants and MPs pension, it would be bad optics to not do that. I'm 'guessing' you will be wrong and that if anything, the clawback threshold will be lowered, (partly because income splitting in some cases has staved off the clawback for some) lower income people will get a bit more via another GIS increase. He might lower the monthly amount but if he did he would allow people to pay more into a pooled pension fund, or something similar, which will only apply to the much younger people, not those nearing retirement. It's possible there will be other options, incentives to get people to collect at a later age, or a choice of system, as Paul Martin did with his proposed benefit package (which was quite draconian). So far none of the dire booga booga predictions have come true from the tin foil hat crowd either.

Agree on that... I think people will agree that our current OAS system is unsustainable, but The CPC should also recognize that the response to the real problem of OAS unsustainability should have been a lot more politically astute, because we know what the knee-jerk reaction to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 would be. Any reforms need to be packaged with reforms to MPs and civil servant pensions, and clearly spelled out. Not that it would stop the usual people from spinning into Harper killing old grannies or some such twaddle.

I didn't think that we'd heard a firm proposal from the government, everything is speculation, but one can say that the P.M. and the finance minister are looking at the options for making social programs sustainable in the future. It doesn't matter what he might propose or how much good it might be for the country, it will be trumpeted as dumping on little old ladies sending seniors into poverty - yadda yadda. There are some things best left alone, unless it's some kind of incentive to take the OAS at a later age. It's a lose lose situation for any part that tries to mess with senior's 'entitlements'.

I agree, often people read their favourite anti Harper blogs etc. without fact checking or reading other opinions. They buy into every negative issue they are fed without ever knowing the real issue, or the other side.