Response To Dalton

Response to Dalton

Mr. McGuinty,Your response below is an affront of magnanimous proportions to all seniors in this province who hold Locked-In pension accounts.

I just flat out ... don't believe you, Mr. McGuinty ... "My colleagues and I believe that all our seniors deserve to enjoy the best possible quality of life and to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.

"Let the facts speak for themselves. Locked-In pensioners are denied but a measly pittance of their own pension monies (per annum) while living ... but

on death the same funds that were denied during life are now suddenly UNLOCKED for one purpose only ... so that you can RAPE and PILLAGE those untouched pension monies through exorbitant estate taxation!

Locked-In pensions are INDEFENSIBLE, except that all MPPs have their pensions in a similar format They are further INDEFENSIBLE, given the extraordinary, exclusive financial privilege of Bill 27 given to 61 special MPPs (of all party affiliations).

Why don't you, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Bradley (MInister Responsible for Seniors) immediately surrender all your accrued pension benefits (paid for in part by Locked-In pensioners) to a Locked-In status ... that would be the HONOURABLE thing to do.

Then you might just appreciate the financial discrimination you so strongly advocate for all other Ontarians who own Locked-In pensions. Instead ... you offer Locked-In pensioners a one-time 25% unlocking privilege with total unlocking being available at age 90 ...

when most pensioners of course will already be dead.

That is a far cry from what Jim Bradley got as a result of Bill 27. ... and you have him looking out for the interests of seniors ...

Mr. Bradley's continued silence on this issue means one thing only ... when it comes to pension benefits, Mr. Bradley firsts looks out for himself!

Your former colleague Sean Conway, called Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act) "wrong and immoral".

He took his unlocked pension anyway.

Michael Bryant called Bill 27 "repugnant" ...but since becoming Attorney General has become quite accustomed to such repugnancy ... given that the exclusivity of Bill 27 has been allowed to continue under his watch as Attorney General.

About Bill 27 Mr. McGuinty ... these are your words from the Toronto Star,December 16, 1999 ... "The Progressive Conservative government is changing pension laws to give a select group of MPPs, including Premier Mike Harris and Finance Minister Ernie Eves, access to pension funds worth about $850,000 each,

Liberal Party Dalton McGuinty says."You are, and have been all along, aware of the exclusivity pact of Bill 27 that gave 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) 100% unfettered access to their pension monies. Some of those 61 were Liberals ... some of them are still serving as elected MPPs today in your party.

Your party's words of eloquence against Bill 27 were nothing more than a hollow sham ...MPPs who have integrity do not treat seniors (those holding Locked-Inpensions) in the manner in which your government has done since 2003.

Why do the 61 MPPs get 100% unfettered access at age 55 ... yet all other Ontarians who hold Locked-In pensions will very soon, be entitled to only25% unlocking ... with total unlocking coming a age 90?

What "means" test, Mr. McGuinty, was ever administered that justified only 61 individuals, who owned Locked-In pensions, worthy of having their pension monies totally unlocked?

The "REAL" stench behind this whole deceit was and is the fact that ... the 61 worthy individuals who just happened to have their pensions totally unlocked ... all were MPPs (of all party affiliations) ... and the hundreds of thousands of other Ontarians who also owned Locked-In pensions have, in effect have been told they are too stupid to mange their own pension accounts ... and thus must be treated like total imbeciles by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario

(your regulatory agency, Mr. McGuinty) as it doles back to them measly dribs and drabs of their own monies Your actions tell seniors they don't deserve ANY quality of life ... except on death when they can contribute to your scandals such as the COLLE-GATE affair ...

who is it that can't manage their money Mr. McGuinty??????

Any other names on the list of 61 come to mind Mr. McGuinty?

K. Elliott

PLEASE NOTE:

John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65.

The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds.

Bill Costello

Daltons Response

This is Daltons Response

Thanks for your online message regarding locked-in retirement pensions.I'm always interested in hearing about the things that matter most toOntarians.

Our government recognizes that Ontario's seniors have made and continueto make invaluable contributions to our province's strength andprosperity.

Communities across Ontario are reaping the benefits of thewisdom, knowledge and expertise of seniors. My colleagues and I believethat all our seniors deserve to enjoy the best possible quality of lifeand to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.

That is why to help provide security for seniors, we announced in our2007 Ontario Budget that we are proposing to give seniors enhancedaccess to their locked-in accounts, which originate with fundstransferred from pension plans.

As your comments would also be of interest to the Honourable GregSorbara, Minister of Finance, I have passed on a copy of yourcorrespondence to him for his information.Thanks again for contacting me. Your input is always welcome.

Mycolleagues and I look forward to our continued journey with you and yourfellow Ontarians to build a healthier, more prosperous Ontario.Dalton McGuintyPremier of Ontarioc: The Honourable Greg Sorbara

A Letter to McGuinty

This was a letter sent out to Dalton McGuinty in July . We have received a response which will follow

Good evening Mr. McGuinty,The following e-mail with the attached letter was sent to Mr. Jim Bradley earlier this evening.

Would you please inform me ... and the many other seniors ... with whom I network daily across this province . why it is that you (the Liberal Party) are only willing to permit locked-in pension holders a one-time 25% unlocking privilege ... with total unlocking having to wait until age 90?

This is extremely disconcerting when one considers the following:(a) members of the Liberal Party (some still elected members of the Legislature) belong to the group of 61 special MPPs who received totally unlocked pensions . courtesy of Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act)... full access being available at age 55

(b) you were quoted in the Toronto Star on February 27, 2002 Wednesday Ontario Edition as having said about Bill 27 ... "What we need here is an independent public inquiry that could be presided over by the provincial auditor or a judge ... This nothing short of a scandal"(c) Michael Bryant spoke the following words about Bill 27 in the Legislature on Mon 13 Dec 1999 ... quote taken from the Legislative Hansard ... " a bill that blatantly gives opportunities to members of provincial Parliament that do not exist for the rest of the population. That is the height of the appearance of inequity, the height of the appearance of injustice and the height of hypocrisy.......... obviously we cannot support an act which treats MPPs in a favourable manner with respect to their remuneration from pension benefits, in a more beneficial way than the rest of the public.......... Are we going to sit in opposition and vote in favour of an act which contains provisions that are repugnant?

No."Mr. McGuinty ... both you and Mr. Bryant spoke the above words while your Party was in opposition.

However, given that you have now been in power since 2003, your proposed 25% unlocking option to Ontarians holding locked-in pension plans, offered up just before the October 2007, election is highly suspect.

Please explain to the electorate. This includes seniors who are presently labouring under the confines of locked-in pensions ... trying to survive on the meagre withdrawals allowed of their own money by your government ... and those Ontarians who are years away from drawing pension benefits ... who are already participating in one ... but as is becoming painfully obvious . are not yet aware of the disastrous consequences awaiting them when they do reach retirement age.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR LIBERAL PARTY CAN ONLY OFFER UP A ONE-TIME, 25% UNLOCKING PRIVILEGE TO ORDINARY ONTARIANS ... WHEN MEMBERS OF YOUR OWN PARTY ... SOME OF THEM STILL SITTING AS ELECTED MPPs ... HAVE TOTAL, 100 %, UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THEIR PREVIOUSLY LOCKED-IN PENSIONS ... SUCH PRIVILEGE PAID FOR BY THE ONTARIO TAXPAYER.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS ALL BEING ... "NOTHING SHORT OF A SCANDAL" ... OR BEING ... "REPUGNANT"?

I await your answer ... seniors across this province await your answer.

Regards,Kenneth Elliott

My Response to Greg Sorbara

This is a reply that I e-mailed Greg Sorbara , Ontario Finance Minister in Response to the Response he made to my interview on CBC Radio July 30.

The full interview can be heard at the Ontario today Web site, Under Archive and then Pension Fight.http://www.cbc.ca/ontariotoday/

Mr Sorbara;I would like to thank you for responding to me on the CBC Radio Interview .

It has shown how little respect you and your party have for Senior Citizens of Ontario!!!

You or your party have obviously not even looked into the rules of locked in funds.

You said."So for example pensioners ah who ah put in one half of the contribution into the pension plan are freed when those pension plans are transferred ah to the individual retire They are free to take that money out. This is just about the money the employer whether it is a school board or a municipality or a manufacture put in towards the retirement pension of that individual and that part of the bargain that we are trying to respect and at the same time trying to provide seniors with

"WRONG Mr. Finance Minister. Ask any Bank or Financial Institution in Ontario and they will tell You that all of these funds are locked in for ever.If You feel that this is the way the rules should be then please notify every Financial institution to free up and unlock at least 50% of our investments IMEDIATELY. Then when Your Party unlocks the 25% in 2008. We will have 75%.

Quote " We are just trying to represent the bargain that was made when those funds were ah put in

"What would you know about a bargain ?

The bargain was that the Company would contribute X number of Dollars to the fund or the Employees would go on strike and cease working.

The Employers did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The work force has always bargained with the employer for such things as pensions Drugs Dental Etc.

You and fellow MPP's obviously don't bargain as we see that You all just legislate things as Unlocking these very pensions for your selves, Giving Your selves enormous raises , Making sure that You have plenty of perks.

As far as Bargains You and 60 other MPP's broke their bargain and had their pensions unlocked.

The Provinces of Saskatchewan , Alberta , Manitoba and New Brunswick Broke their bargains.

We did not see the employers drop out of pension plans as you said they would .

Quote " I think down the road many employers will say well you know what we are not interested in ah providing a pension plan anymore for our employees :If they did their company would have no workers.

YOU SEEM TO FORGET The workers are the back bone of this Province and if they DONT WORK, there is NO PROVINCE.

I am glad You answered the Question "Do senior citizens really need protection from unscrupulous investors?

" You stated "

Ah I don't think that this has any thing to do with protecting senior citizens from ah ah investors whether unscrupulous or not."

I am glad You clarified this issue as this is the stance that many of the members in your party use for the reason for not unlocking pensions.

You Said " It's about simply ah honoring the ah agreement the trust relationship between the employer and the employee at the time those funds were put in

"Mr Sorbara: If this is the only reason that the funds can not be unlocked!!

We have no problem then Unlock The Locked in Pensions.

The agreement was that if the employer paid into a pension fund the employees would keep working., also many people were led to believe that these funds would be unlocked at time of retirement.

I would like to give you a example of what happened in my company.

When we came to realize that these funds would not become unlocked at retirement. We went to our employer and just plain said that we wanted our pension changed to a regular RRSP because of those unjust rules.

The result was. The Locked in fund was shut down and then the company and ourselves started investing in a RRSP.

Why Don't You tell the real reason for these funds to be locked in.

In my opinion the real reason is not concern for the Employer or the Employee , It is the greed of Government wanting to latch onto these funds when the holders Die and the Money goes to the estate.

A much more compassionate and responsible thing to do would be to unlock these funds.

It would be better for the people of Ontario and better for the economies of Ontario.

When asked "All three major political party's are taking a stand on this issue. Do you see it becoming a election issue.

"Your response was "No ah ah I don't at all I mean it's it's a relatively ah ah minor issue "

Well Mr. Sorbara !! You are gambling with your party's future.

My self I am not a gambling man but on this issue I think you would lose the Bet !!!

You Said " Ahh it is interesting to here John Tory talk about the fact that ah he he would unlock up to I think 50% or perhaps a 100% .

My response to You is!! The Conservatives have come to realize that this is the Just and Fair thing to do.To give the Seniors Care and Control of their OWN MONEY.

We COMMEND John Tory for his compassionate decision.

You were asked "So you don't think it's going to be difficult to plan financially What If" ( he cut Jerry off)

You Responded " No No I don't "You also stated "fact is that most pensioners will be simply be able to go to a bank and say I have this asset and I would like to borrow 20 or 30 thousand dollars because we want to buy a recreational vehicle or we want to take the holiday that we never had "

This again shows how little you and your party have looked in to the issue of locked in pensions.

YOU CAN NOT go to the bank and say that you have so much in locked in funds and that you would like to borrow $ 20,000. or $ 30,000.

The Bank will tell you that looked in funds CAN NOT BE USED TO BACK UP A LOAN.

I would also like to say. Maybe Seniors don't want to go into debt. Maybe Seniors would like to use some of their OWN MONEY instead of leaving it to their estate so the government can have a big tax grab.Maybe Seniors would like to Diversify their money into other things.

After all it is their money!!!

You were asked "Where did that 25% number come from?

"Your response "well we did an analyses of what was going on in other provinces. Most provinces do not provide any access Saskatchewan is the outlier because it provides 100% access but again it is a very small jurisdiction and it regulates actually very few pension plans.Ah so other provinces have ah various mechanisms of access and we thought that this was just right within that great ah Canadian norm that was our target "

Here again it shows that You and the Liberal Party have not even looked into locked in funds and have very little respect for the Seniors of Ontario.

You say most provinces do not provide any access other then the province of Saskatchewan.

You know full well that some of the other big provinces do. I personally sent You all the information on what the other provinces have been doing.

But looking at the respect you and Your party have for seniors I could only guess what you did with that information. THREW IT IN THE GARBAGE I GUESS !!!!!!!!

You Said " we thought that this was just right within that great ah Canadian norm that was our target "

SIR I hate to think that the Finance Minister of the province of Ontario thinks that 25% is right within that great Canadian Norm!!!

That is pretty poor math to my standards that 25% is comparable to 100% in Saskatchewan 50% in Alberta and 50% in Manitoba which are being lobbied for the remaining 50% And 25% in the SMALL Province of New Brunswick. ((( By the way British Columbia is also being lobbied to unlock 100% )))

Bill Costello ,

A response to Bill Costello's CBC interview by Greg Sorbara Ontario Finance Minister

Jerry) Mr Sorbara what is your response to what Mr. Costello was saying

( Sorbara ) Well you know ah the first thing to ah mention is that in the budget I presented on March 22 we provided for ah pensioners who have so called locked in funds to be able to access 25% of those funds.

The important thing to remember Jerry is that These funds are not funds that ah pensioners were paid during their working life .They were funds provided by employers on the biases that those funds would serve ah to provide pensions for those employees after they retired and that was one part of the bargain that one has to respect the other thing to say is that ah ah well ah ah Brian mentioned Saskatchewan .

We have to remember that there are very few pension plans that are actually regulated in the province of Saskatchewan (unable to make out) Ah paternalistic sense that the government has to oversee how seniors spend their money .

Far from it.We are just trying to represent the bargain that was made when those funds were ah put in ,So for example pensioners ah who ah put in one half of the contribution into the pension plan are freed when those pension planes are transferred ah to the individual retire

They are free to take that money out.

This is just about the money the employer whether it is a school board or a municipality or a manufacture put in towards the retirement pension of that individual and that part of the bargain that we are trying to respect and at the same time trying to provide seniors with access up to 25% of those funds at any time that they chose to unlock them.

( Jerry) Ok 25% at what age )

( Sorbara) Ah well ah I think its at the age when its whenever the individual retire moves from the pension plan to a locked in fund. Ah but for example during the transition ah when the Bill is finally passed ah any pensioner with a locked in fund ah will be able to have access at that time ah to 25%of the fund.

( Jerry) so no set age then just

(Sorbara) ya no set age

( Jerry ) Ok . Well why would the government tie up private pensions at all. You mentioned that you feel that it was part of the bargain but these people worked for this money and that was their part of the bargain

( Sorbara ) Ya they sure did and they worked hard and ah during their working lives ah
they received obviously a regular salary There were contributions made to the Canada pension Plan . there were contributions made to perhaps ah a group insurance plan and there are contributions made to pension plans. Ah we are just talking about the funds that are made by employers to the private pension plan and as I said a moment ago ah aga

we think that many private pension plans would think twice about continuing to be contributors to those plans if at the end of the day when the employee leaves he could simply or she could simply take that money and do what ever they want.

Again if I am providing money to you in order to provide for your retirement and then at the end of the employment relationship you say well forget about that part of the bargain , We don't think we are discharging our responsibility's if we just provide 100% access to those funds

. ( Jerry) Do senior citizens really need protection from unscrupulous investors?

(Sorbara) Ah I don't think that this has any thing to do with protecting senior citizens from ah ah investors whether unscrupulous or not.

It's about simply ah honoring the ah agreement the trust relationship between the employer and the employee at the time those funds were put in. and again if we if we simply ignore that I think down the road many employers will say well you know what we are not interested in ah providing a pension plan anymore for our employees And that would be to the determent of hundred's of thousands of workers across the province.

( Jerry) All three major political party's are taking a stand on this issue. Do you see it becoming a election issue.

( Sorbara) No ah ah I don't at all I mean it's it's a relatively ah ah minor issue Ahh it is interesting to here John Tory talk about the fact that ah he he would unlock up to i think 50% or perhaps a 100% Ah You know his party was in government for 8 1/2 years. They didn't make any move on this ah and ah I think he is trying to play to constituency ah where he thinks there may be some votes available but the vast majority of of pensioners who are have these kinds of locked in funds are perfectly happy with the current system and they are a well their glad we are providing access of up to 25% of the funds We don't think that there is going to be a major move towards ah by most pensioners to access these funds because they rely on the annual income ah to you know pay their mortgages to pay their taxes ah and to you know keep them in grocery's for the course of their retirement.

( Jerry ) So you don't think it's going to be difficult to plan financialy What If ( he cut Jerry off)

( Sorbara) No No I don't infact obviously you know if you know if you have a steady stream of income. ah lets say a pension ah income plan that provides you a thousand dollars a month ah as one of your retirement incomes sources. well if that's guaranteed under a locked in fund ah

the fact is that most pensioners will be simply be able to go to a bank and say I have this asset and I would like to borrow 20 or 30 thousand dollars because we want to buy a recreational vehicle or we want to take the holiday that we never had.

So this is not the kind of ah urgent crisis that some people would suggest and the fact that this government has now moved I think is to the ah it's something that most pensioners are saying was the right thing to do.

( Jerry ) Where did that 25% number come from?

( Sorbara) well we did an analyses of what was going on in other provinces. Most provinces do not provide any access Saskatchewan is the outlier because it provides 100% access but again it is a very small jurisdiction and it regulates actually very few pension plans.Ah so other provinces have ah various mechanisms of access and we thought that this was just right within that great ah Canadian norm that was our target

A Open Letter to all Financial Institutions and PlanersSuppose you and your husband were left a sizeable amount of money on the death of a close relative.

There was one condition. You must use the money to purchase a particular dream home that you and your husband had for years, always admired from a distance.

With the estate wind-up complete and your inheritance in hand, you purchased the dream house and sold your previous home all in one day.Shortly thereafter you proceeded to move in to your new home. On moving day though, a building inspector arrived to inform you that there were certain by-laws in place preventing you from ever living in your new home.

Your local municipality still wanted you to feel welcome in their neighbourhood though, so they offered you alternate accommodations across town. Upon inspection, you quickly realized these alternate accommodations were terribly sparse . almost pathetic when compared with your new home.

Given that you had no other home available, you and your husband begrudgingly moved in across town. Each day questions/thoughts arose in your mind as to why you were not allowed to live in your own new home.

Finally you decided to confront the building inspector. Here are the answers/rationale he gave you.1.)

Why can't we live in our dream home? ... because the municipality doesn't think you are capable of prudent home management. ... they think you might just let it fall into ruins ... they think you are incapable of providing general upkeep ... you might never cut the grass or shovel the snow ... you might never wash the windows or tend the gardens etc. .......... It is quite OK for you to have bought the house though!

2.) Why do we have to live across town in such pathetic conditions? ... because the municipality thinks that is more the quality of home suited to your abilities as a homeowner ... and the municipality is always looking out for the best interest of its citizens ............ It is quite OK that you pay the taxes on your new home though!

3.) ... but we own that new home! That is correct. You can go over there every day if you wish ... water the plants ... decorate . clean ... change the linens etc. etc. ... nothing like keeping your home in immaculate condition ... it certainly helps the re-sale value .you just can't stay there overnight ............. Once again, it is quite OK to own YOUR new home. You just can't live there!

4.) If it is OUR home, we want to sell it then because it has already appreciated in value. Correct again. It is your home but unfortunately we can't allow you to sell it. You might just go to the casino and waste all the proceeds. ............. Again, it is YOUR own home ... but we feel we must protect you from yourself!

5.) ... then we want to borrow against the equity in our home! Sorry ... we, can't allow that either. You see, we have designated your home as off limits to any creditors you might have . we call it protection ... again, protection from yourself ... Sorry ........... You do have another option though.

6.) What option might that be? When one of you passes away, the municipality will immediately allow the surviving spouse to live in the dream home ... we just can't allow both of you, while you are both living, to enjoy that privilege. ... Sorry ......... One final word .

7.) What might that word be? . If both of you pass away at the same time, your estate cannot claim that the house was your principal residence either, since you never really lived there. Therefore all proceeds from the sale of your home must be declared as income in the year of death and subject to estate taxation ............. Still ... be of good cheer ... after all, it was your dream home!

Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... in the above story (metaphor) .

(a) the inheritance represents the commuted value of a previous pension before it was transferred into a Locked-In pension( the dream home represents a Locked-In pension

© the alternate accommodations represent FSCO's 6% annual withdrawal limit on Locked-In accounts

(d) the building inspector represents financial planners

(e) the municipality represents the Financial Services Commission of Ontario

(f) the rules and regulations quoted by the building inspector represent FSCO's rules governing Locked-In pensions

On a personal note Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... I don't think in a million years you would ever submit to such a ridiculous scenario of home ownership. No sane person would! Instead you would immediately become the most vocal person on the face of the earth, if presented with such stupidity, as in the above story.

As outlandish as this story is . it is the reality facing all Ontarians that hold Locked-In pensions.

8.) One final question .... who are all these new neighbours that have moved in beside our dream home? They all ... are apparently living in their new homes! Why are they allowed to live in their new homes and we can't?Again, you are correct. Others are allowed privilege that you cannot have. Why? They are special people. Their names are Bradley, Conway, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Kormos, Laughren, McGuinty, Rae, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Wildman etc.

Each day your industry makes financial decisions that ultimately come under Mr.Sorbara's jurisdiction, as does the Pension Benefits Act.

At the same time, your industry witnesses daily, the plight of Locked-In pensioners.

Why is there not a sustained fight from within your industry to expose the discrimination behind Locked-In pensions?

Why are you not prepared to fight to the bitter end to quash this discrimination against Locked-In pensioners?

Are Locked-In pensioners really of such little value to the financial service industry that all you can muster is ... "I hear your frustration"?

After all, your industry collects MERs, commissions and administration fees from Locked-In accounts too.Or is that the answer in a nutshell?

Your industry makes money from Locked-In accounts in exactly the same manner as it does with Unlocked accounts .

so it is just easier to look the other way ... because the whole issue really does not affect any financial service company's bottom line ... its corporate balance sheet?

When government(s) pass legislation as abhorrent as Bill 27, such passage does not also, automatically mandate silence from the people. People must be prepared to speak out against such atrocity, wherever and whenever it might arise!

To do otherwise, is to stifle the only check and balance available against self-serving politicians.

There never was any means test administered confirming that just 61 special people in Ontario (special MPPs) were the only ones capable of managing their own pension accounts. ...

is it easier, Mr. Financial Planner (CFP), to just to look the other way and comply, without challenge, to any and all regulations from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, no matter how discriminatory they might be?

By Ken Elliott