Unlocking Locked in Pensions

A Politician who doesn't support seniors

2009-08-16T08:56:00.000-07:00

Hi All .It has been pretty quiet lately as we are waiting until the next election draws closer.In the meantime I thought I would post one of the letters sent out to let you all know we are still here .

Regards Bill C.

Good evening Liz Sandals, Liberal MPP, Guelph

Here is a small test for you. The subjects tested will be math and history. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part (A) - Math1.) 100% = 50% [TRUE or FALSE]

2.) 55 = 90 [TRUE or FALSE]3.)

$0 = $millions [TRUE or FALSE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Liz Sandals, you failed part (A).

By voting NO to Bill 116 (Pension Benefits Amendment Act (Unlocking Pension Funds)) on May 14th, 2009, you told Ontarians that each of the above equations is TRUE. By your vote you said ...........

(I) 100% access to locked-in retirement accounts for 20 Liberal MPPs is equal to 50% access to locked-in retirement accounts for all other Ontarians

(ii) 100% access at age 55 (and retired from the Legislature) for 20 Liberal MPPs is equal to 100% access at age 90 for all other Ontarians

(iii) $0 collected by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario from 20 Liberal MPPs who are allowed 100% access at age 55 is equal to $millions collected by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario from all other Ontarians who are forced to beg for additional access to their locked-in retirements, given they are denied 100% access until age 90

Liz Sandals, the numerical values in these equations are not equal.

Let's see how you do on part (.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part ( - History

(Quotes)1.) "I want to make it perfectly clear in this House today that I and my party will have none of it." [ACCURATE QUOTE or MISQUOTE]

2.) "Let me repeat again: It is wrong and it is immoral." [ ACCURATE QUOTE or MISQUOTE]

3.) "There's absolutely no reason in the world why members of Parliament should get access to a retirement benefit that is not available to everybody else in this province should they be in a position to have a retirement benefit."[ACCURATE QUOTE or MISQUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry again Liz Sandals, you failed Part ( also.

By voting NO to Bill 116 on May 14th, 2009 you said the statements above were all misquotes.

They are not.

They are accurate quotes of what Dalton McGuinty, Sean Conway and Michael Gravelle respectively told Ontarians in 1999 prior to the passage of Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs' Pension Act). These quotes are straight from the Hansard.In 1999, 61 MPPs including 20 Liberals, courtesy of Bill 27, were allowed full unlocking of their own locked-in retirement accounts. No other Ontarians were, or ever have been, allowed this same privilege. In 1999, your party called such privilege for MPPs only ...... Totally unusual, totally outrageous, totally beyond belief, inequitable, hypocritical, wrong, immoral, offensive, a double standard etc. (See attached quotes from the Hansard ....
Spoken on the days indicated)In 2003 when your party became the government, instead of honouring your words from 1999 and revoking Bill 27 just as fast as you invoked the new health tax, you chose just to keep silent about the incredible unlocking privileges given in 1999 to 20 Liberal MPPs including Jim Bradley (former Minister Responsible for Seniors), Michael Brown, Sean Conway, Bruce Crozier, Monte Kwinter, Dalton McGuinty, Lyn McLeod, Gerry Phillips and the list goes on.

Today these 20 Liberal MPPs still have their fully unlocked locked-in retirement accounts despite Dalton McGuinty having told Ontarians on December 15th, 1999 .......... "I want to make it perfectly clear in this House today that I and my party will have none of it." Having observed you in action for many years, first as a school trustee, then as a Board Chair and finally as President of the Ontario School Boards' Association I never thought you capable of voting down legislation (Bill 116) that would guarantee equality for all, in this case equality for pensioners who own locked-in retirement accounts.

Even more disturbing is your silence since 2003 as elderly couples under the age of 90 have repeatedly been refused full access to their locked-in retirement accounts by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

Sadly, after the spouses who owned these accounts have passed away though, FSCO immediately unlocks them for the surviving spouses.

Wow! By your silence you deem it proper that only a widow or widower be allowed full access to a locked-in retirement account, not full access for the elderly couple while both spouses are still living.

Such treatment of seniors is cruel beyond measure given 20 Liberal MPPs including Jim Bradley, the former Minister Responsible for Seniors are still allowed 100% access to their own locked-in retirement accounts at age 55 (and retired from the Legislature) even though your party voted NO to such privilege and your party called such privilege ...... totally unusual, totally outrageous, totally beyond belief, inequitable, hypocritical, wrong, immoral, offensive, a double standard etc.

Your colleague in both politics and education, Kitchener-Conestoga Liberal MPP, Leeanna Pendergast saw through all this hypocrisy.
She voted FOR Bill 116.

The question is ... why didn't you?If you choose not to reply, be assured many times before the next election you will be asked publicly why you support a double standard regarding locked-in retirement accounts.

"There's absolutely no reason in the world why members of Parliament should get access to a retirement benefit that is not available to everybody else in this province should they be in a position to have a retirement benefit."
Liberal MPP, Michael Gravelle ... December 14, 1999

K. Elliott

Nay Vote Bill 116 , Bill to unlock LIF's 100%

2009-05-16T08:38:00.000-07:00

Here are the MPP,s that voted against unlocking locked in pensions 100% for the Retiree,s and Seniors of Ontario .

These people , I assume feel that the seniors in the province of Ontario are not as Competent as the Seniors and Retiree,s in Saskatchewan.

They feel I assume that the Seniors and Retiree.s in Ontario need them , The Liberal Government to babysit them and dole out their OWN MONEY to them as if they are children in need of supervision .

It should be noted that every vote against Bill 116 , the Bill to unlock pensions 100% for the Citizens of Ontario was a Liberal Vote.

Just one more reason this province needs a change of government.

The Nay Voters Were .

Sophia Aggelonitis , Laura Albanese , Wayne Arthures , Bas Balkissoon , Lorenzo Berardinetti , Margarett Best , Laurel C Broten , Jim Brownell , Mike Colle , Bob Delaney , Joe Dickson , Daniel Kevin Flynn , Linda Jeffrey , Kuldip Kular , Marc Jean Lalonde , Dave Levac , Reza Moridi , Gerry Phillips , Shafiq Qaadri , Khalil Ramal . Tony Ruprecht , Liz Sandals , Mario Sergio , Harinder S Takhar , Kathleen O Wynne , David Zimmer , .

The Ayes Vote Were .

Ted Arnott , PC , Ted Chudleigh , PC , Cheri DiNovo , NDP , Ernie Hardeman , PC , Jerry J. Ouellette , PC , Leeanna Pendergast , Lib. , Peter Shurman , PC .

I would also like to mention . The NDP support was very poor also as only 1 NDP member voted for Bill 116 (( Cheri DiNovo )) .

This is also disturbing as before the last election Andrea presented a Bill to unlock pensions 100% and I was assured by the Leader at that time ( Howard Hampton ) that the NDP fully supported Andrea's Bill .

It makes one realize why nobody trusts Politicians !!!

(( Now they have Flip Flopped to 50% from what I have heard ))

Sound Familiar (( McGuinty on Promises ))

Other NDP members were present for a prior Bill and were in the house that day but did not see it fit to take the time support Bill 116 .

They were Andrea Horwath , Howard Hampton , Rosario Marchese , Frances Gelinas , Paul Miller , Peter Kormos (((( Which I find very disturbing considering Peter's and Howards locked in pension's are fully unlocked 100% , curtesey of Bill 27 in 1999 )))

The PC Party has said that they support unlocking the pensions 100% , and they did have it in their platform the last election.
I am told by some that it will be on the agenda of the 2011 election.

I guess we will just have to wait and see as the turn out of the PC Party was also very disappointing for the Vote for Ted's Bill 116

Bill 116 Results

2009-05-14T17:16:00.000-07:00

Hi All ,

The turn out for support was disappointing .

The names of the supporters were .
Ted Chudleigh PC , Ted Arnott PC , Ernie Hardeman PC , Jerry Ouelette PC , Peter Shurman PC , Cheri DiNovo NDP , Leeanna Pendergast , Liberal .

I have sent the above a thank you for their support . If any of you would like to send them a thank you ,feel free to do so .

I will list the 26 against unlocking our own money tomorrow.

Take Care Bill C

Liberals Vote Against Ontario Seniors

Government rejects Halton MPP’s campaign for respect and independence

(Queen’s Park – May 14, 2009)

Today Liberal MPPs voted against a Bill that would have given Ontario retirees more control over their own pensions.

Bill 116 was introduced by Halton MPP Ted Chudleigh and would have changed the law so that seniors could access 100% of their locked-in pension money.

Currently, retirees are only able to access half of their accrued assets.

“For too long, the government has rationed out locked-in pension money to seniors like parents giving allowance to their children,” said Chudleigh.“My Bill would have ended this disrespectful practice and given seniors the independence they have earned.

”The reason why Liberals don’t want seniors to have full access is because they think that retirees are not wise enough to manage their finances in the long-term, explained Chudleigh.

“What do you have to do to escape the McGuinty nanny-state?” asked Chudleigh.“Our seniors have proven themselves through lives that embodied responsibility and wisdom. But the McGuinty Liberals think they’ll blow all their cash and become wards of the State. That’s just insulting.

”Chudleigh pointed to successful legislation in Saskatchewan passed in 2002 that allows retirees 100% access to locked-in pensions.

“I haven’t heard of any wild and uncontrolled spending sprees by Saskatchewan seniors,” said Chudleigh.“They’re proof that the current legislation is out-of-touch with reality. Sadly, today the Liberals voted based on ideology and ignored the real concerns of their senior constituents.

”The vote on second reading on Bill 116 was lost by a count of 7-26. All votes against were from Liberal MPPs while the Bill received support from all present PC and NDP Members. MPP Leeanna Pendergast was the sole Liberal supporter of the Bill.
-30-

For further information contact:
Ben Ellis 416-325-5747

Second Reading Bill 116 Time

2009-05-14T07:48:00.000-07:00

Hi Everybody,

Second reading of Ted Chudleigh's Bill 116 .

Ted’s Bill 116 is second (of three) private members bills being debated today.

At 1pm, the House does Routine Proceedings which can take very little time or upwards of an hour and a half. Following that, each private members bill is debated for one hour.It looks like today’s Routine Proceedings will be fairly short.

So I imagine the first PMB will begin at about 1:30pm and Bill 116 will go at about 2:30pm.

Regards Bill C

Pension Press Release

2009-04-27T14:32:00.000-07:00

Hi Everybody ;

Feel free to pass on to your news papers and contacts .

Regards Bill C

For immediate release

Chudleigh Reads Locked-In Pension Petitions at Queen’s Park

Seniors Seek Independence and Respect through Halton MPP’s Private Members Bill

(Queen’s Park - April 27, 2009)

Today in the Ontario Legislature, PC MPP Ted Chudleigh (Halton) read into the record some of the first of hundreds of signatures which call on the Ontario government to allow retirees one hundred percent access to their locked-in pension accounts.

The McGuinty Liberals recently raised the allowed withdrawal of locked-in funds to fifty percent but Chudleigh says that doesn't go far enough.

“For too long, the government has controlled the hard-earned pension money of Ontarians, rationing out pension income like parents giving allowance to their children,” said Chudleigh. “During these trying economic times, seniors need financial flexibility not financial shackles.

”The petition calls for all-party support for Bill 116, Chudleigh’s Private Member’s Bill which would allow retirees to transfer accrued pension assets out of locked-in funds at the time of retirement, as early as age 55.

“Unlocking pensions means respect for seniors, a boost for the economy and a step towards fairness for Ontario and all its citizens,” said Chudleigh. “It is an optimistic idea that places faith in the individual above the heavy hand of government.

”Chudleigh said that the current system assumes that seniors are not responsible enough to manage their own retirement finances.

“Considering that retirees have generally shown fiscal wisdom and prudence throughout their lives, through the sound management of accounts and investments, as owners of houses and automobiles, as parents and grandparents, through community involvement, and as valued employees and employers, it is not right that they are treated with such disrespect,” said Chudleigh. “It’s time we start treating seniors like adults.

”Bill 116 will be debated in the Legislative Assembly on May 14th, 2009. Chudleigh plans to read the petition regularly before that date.

To view a copy of the petition, please visit:http://www.tedchudleigh.com/files/symlink/...onspetition.PDF

For information contact:

Ben Ellis @ 416-325-5747

Date Change

2009-04-27T14:08:00.000-07:00

Bill 116 Second reading date has been changed .

There has been a sudden change announced by the Speaker’s Office.

Ted’s Private Member’s Business day has been moved up one week. Therefore, Bill 116 will be debated on May 14th instead of May 7th. It seems there was some sort of scheduling error.Ted has received a good number of petitions and these will be read in the legislature starting Thursday and periodicly leading up to the second reading of Bill 116

Take Care Bill C

THANK YOU

2009-04-06T10:35:00.001-07:00

Hi Everybody;

I would like to say a great big THANK YOU to all of you that sent in e-mails to the Premier and Finance Minister of Ontario as well as sending letters to the MPP's of all party's .

I would also like to say a BIG THANK YOU to Susan Eng and CARP for their continuing efforts in having these pensions unlocked .

I would also like to thank you for the time you have taken to go out and get petitions signed in support of Bill 116.
The petition will be read by various MPP's of the Conservative Party in the legislature starting shortly .

If you haven't sent in your petitions yet , you can send them in now. If you haven't yet got one filled out .
It is not too late . Better Late then never .

The petition can be found here . Http://www.tedchudleigh.com/petitions

Well We All have finally convinced the Liberal Government to unlock a additional 25%.

While this is a nice gesture and we are thankful this is not enough !!!!!

Why should Government be interfering in a persons own private pension savings ?? We do not need government telling us how we should set up our budget for retirement.

We in LIF pensions do not have the protection of company pension plans . We do not get Government Bail Outs .

We say how our money is invested the same as a person with a regular unlocked RRSP.

Why ???? Then should we be treated differently and have our money locked in ?

We make our own GAINS and SUFFER OUR OWN LOSSES . WE do this with no help from government .

Why then should Government be DICTATING how our money is spent during our retirement years .

LAST BUT NOT LEAST .

Why should WE and the TAX PAYER be shelling out millions of dollars to FSCO to regulate these funds.

It Just doesn't make sense . ANOTHER TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY BY GOVERNMENT !!!

Anyway . THANK YOU AGAIN for all the time you have put into this.

Bill C PS> This isn't over yet . We do not have 100% . More letters are needed to MPP's .

Bill 116 Petition

2009-03-28T17:44:00.000-07:00

Hi Everybody ;
I just thought I best let everybody know . Even though the McGuinty Government has opened up 50% unlocking of Ontario LIF's .
We are not letting up . We still need the petitions sent in supporting Ted's Private Members Bill 116 .
If we have a little bit of luck on our side we could get the Bill passed if McGuinty allows a free vote and we have the support of the Conservatives and NDP .
If not at least it will be a good launch into the next election and at that time I am sure the party that gets in will unlock these pensions fully with protection of RRIF's from creditors . If the people of Ontario vote in this so called Premier again . Then all I can say is we deserve what we vote for .
Take Care Bill C

50% Unlocking , Half way there

2009-03-26T19:19:00.001-07:00

Hi Everybody ;

Bellow is a press release that Susan Eng of CARP has sent out .

The Coalition of Independent LIF holders would like to Thank Susan and CARP for all the efforts they have put into have these pensions unlocked . We in the Coalition and also CARP will be continuing the fight to have these funds unlocked 100%

As Susan Eng has stated in her Press release that she is concerned with the GST/PST Harmonization .

I am also concerned .

The Liberals are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Ontario Citizens again with a out and out tax grab . If they were sincere about helping business and the citizens of Ontario . Why did they not lower the PST to 5% it would have at least come close to leveling the field .

The way it stands . With the tax on Electricity and Heating and not taking into consideration the other items that will be taxed . The $1000 and the tax credits will be gobbled up pretty fast . I wish some of these people would have to spend 1 year in the boots of people that live in the north on the average income here and just see how far their credits go . Not saying that people in the GTA and all of Ontario will be any better off.

Bill C

March 26, 2009

CARP warns that proposal for $1,000 cheques diverts attention from potential tax grab but applauds major gain for retirees with locked in retirement funds

Toronto, Ontario: CARP warns that the proposal to send out $1,000 cheques diverts attention from potential tax grab but applauds major gain for retirees with locked in retirement funds.

GST/PST harmonization hides tax grab
People planning how they will spend their $1000 cheque from the provincial government will have to think twice. First not everyone gets the $1000. Families with 2 or more people, this includes single parents, will get the $1000. Single people, including those 65plus, only get $300 – and it’s spread over 3 payments.

The cut-off is $166,600 for families and $82,000 for singles – those with incomes above these amounts will not receive the transitional payments.

These payments were meant to soften the blow from the increase in Retail Sales Taxes due to the new combined tax now applying to goods and services that were not taxable provincially before harmonization. Based on government analysis of consumption patterns, people could be paying from $185 to $1000 more in sales taxes due to this change. The budget papers say that even after the $300/$1000 one time only payments have stopped, taxpayers will still be ahead but that depends on believing that businesses that stand to gain the most from this change will pass their savings through to consumers.

One huge flaw in this analysis is that some products like home heating oil- which is a major expense for most families, especially older Canadians, - is not much subject to competitive pressures.

“Instead of exempting essential products like home heating fuel, the government is leaving it to taxpayers to pressure businesses to pass through their savings,” said Susan Eng, Vice President, Advocacy, CARP. “Increasing sales taxes is no way to stimulate consumer spending and it in fact hurts those who have no choice but spend on necessities.”

Unlocking LIFs – increased from 25% to 50%
The good news for older Canadians who have locked in funds [LIFs] is that they will now be able to unlock up to 50% of their LIFs, up from the limit of 25%. CARP has called for full unlocking to allow people to access their own money, especially in these difficult economic times. In fact there could be more tax revenues as people spend on their immediate needs.

CARP has also called for the elimination of the fees payable when people get their fundes unlocked through financial hardship applications. Budget 2009 proposes to waive the fees – 2% of the amount withdrawn – minimum $200 to maximum of $600 –for 2 years only. CARP calls for a permanent elimination of these fees.

“It’s bad enough that people in dire financial circumstances can't get at their own money without a lot of bureaucracy – the fees were an unnecessary extra burden and should be eliminated permanently but CARP members will appreciate this temporary relief. It shows that the government is listening,” said Eng.

But CARP cautions that unlocking LIFs also mean that the funds are no longer creditor proof which is an important consideration in difficult economic times.

Pension reform proposals recognize need to protect retirees and broader access to pension plans

The proposals for pension reform are responsive to the calls for urgent reform and balancing the interests of employers and employees. For example the temporary funding relief requires the approval of plan beneficiaries which includes retirees, and greater limitations on contribution holidays. There is a nod to larger pension funds providing administrative support for smaller funds and mention of something approaching a universal pension plan which CARP has called for consistently as well as a pension summit to involve retirees in pension reform deliberations.

“The budget proposals acknowledge the urgent need for pension reform, including rebalancing the interest of employers and employees, protecting pensioners, considering a universal pension plan and involving retirees and other stakeholders in pension reform deliberations. CARP members who have become increasingly anxious about their retirement security will welcome these proposals,” added Eng

CARP is a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization committed to advocating for a New Vision of Aging for Canada, social change that will bring financial security, equitable access to health care and freedom from discrimination. CARP seeks to ensure that the marketplace serves the needs and expectations of our generation and provides value-added benefits, products and services to our members. Through our network of chapters across Canada, CARP is dedicated to building a sense of community and shared values among our members in support of CARP’s mission.

Bill 116 Petition Reminder

2009-03-23T12:03:00.000-07:00

Hi Everybody ;

The time is getting closer to hand in the petitions to unlock locked in pensions Bill 116 . We would like them sent in by April 10th .

If you haven't downloaded a petition yet . It can be downloaded at Ted Chudleigh's web site .

www.tedchudleigh.com/petitions

Please don't procrastinate and think the next person will do it . If everybody takes that attitude , We are then dead in the water .If we want these pensions unlocked we have to show that there are a great number of people behind unlocking.Have your family , children (( There is no age restriction )), friends , neighbors and whoever sign .

Please also pass this on to any contacts you have and also ask for their help .

We Can Do This !!!

The Petitions can be mailed to . Ted Chudleigh , Room 450 Legislative Building , Queen's Park , Toronto , Ontario , M7A 1A8

Or you can mail to me and I will bundle them up and send them on .Bill Costello , 6 Chub Lake Road , Box 56 , Atikokan Ontario , p0t 1c0

With the economie the way it is there are more and more people everyday that are ending up in locked in pensions .
If these pensions were unlocked it just may help some people bridge their way into retirement instead of having to rely on social assistance .

Thank You and Take Care , Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

A Statement by MPP Ernie Hardeman ( Oxford )

2009-03-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

Hi Everybody ;

Here is a statement from Mr.Ernie Hardeman (Oxford ) that was read in the Legislature today .
As Mr Hardeman says . "In the budget on March 26, the McGuinty government has an opportunity to do the right thing and ensure that people who worked hard for their money have access to it when they need it."

I wont hold my breath as we have been asking them to unlock these pensions for the Seniors and Retire's of Ontario for the past 5 years . It appears that the Liberal Party is not concerned with the struggles of their seniors and those close to retirement wanting to bridge the gap to 65 when they lose their jobs in troubled times .

It seems that the McGuinty Liberals are only concerned about them selves and to hell with the older population.

As I have said in the previous letter we owe the Conservative Party a Thanks for taking up this issue of unlocking locked in pensions 100% for the 55 plus in Ontario .

Please pass this on to your contacts and also the previous letter .

Take Care , Regards Bill C
Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford):

Imagine being a senior who is struggling to make ends meet, and being told by the government that even though you have money, you can’t use it. Imagine needing to repair your house or buy a new car, and being told by the government that you can’t spend your own money to do it.
That’s the situation that many seniors across the province are facing. They are owners of life income funds or locked-in retirement income funds. Both of these types of accounts severely restrict the amount of money that can be withdrawn. In fact, to access the account because of severe financial hardship, you have to apply and actually pay an application fee to try to get access to your own money.

Unlocking these pensions is a simple step the government can take to give people the flexibility they need to manage their own finances. Other provinces already allow significantly more flexibility on when people can withdraw money from these funds. Saskatchewan allows 100% to be withdrawn any time after the age of 55.

Like these other provinces, Ontario should recognize the importance of giving people access to their own money, and allow seniors to withdraw 100% of their life income funds or locked-in retirement income funds. These people worked hard to save for old age. Now that it has arrived, they should be entitled to access these savings.

This change wouldn’t cost the government anything. In fact, people who are finally making much-needed purchases will help the economy.

In the budget on March 26, the McGuinty government has an opportunity to do the right thing and ensure that people who worked hard for their money have access to it when they need it.

MPP Frank Klees Requesting LIF's be Unlocked

2009-03-13T21:05:00.001-07:00

Hi Everybody ;

Here is a transcript of the discussion between Mr. Frank Klees ( Newmarket - Aurora PC Party ) and Hon. Minister Aileen Carroll . ( Minister Responsible for Seniors ) .
I question the title Hon. , but then that is just my opinion.

The first time I sent a letter to Ms. Carroll concerning the issue with locked in pensions . She was so kind to let me know that I was not in her constituency . I then wrote her another letter asking her if she was the Minister Responsible for Seniors , If so , was she not supposed to be responsible for all seniors in Ontario and again asked her to help correct the unjustness of locked in pensions .

I received no response . I am also aware of others of you that had the same problem with this minister when asking for her help in unlocking locked in pensions .

After reading her answer to Mr Klees even after he asked her the same question twice . This is what she came up with "I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister of Finance at the federal level; I leave that to my colleague in cabinet to do so. "

It is very obvious that the letters that were sent to her concerning locked in pensions were thrown in the garbage , She obviously never even looked at the issue .

If she had she would have known that there are a few hundred thousand Senior Retire's in Ontario that have locked in pensions under Ontario Provincial Rule . NOT Federal Rule ,

Just plain incompetent and she is being paid by us the tax payer to represent Seniors in Government .

If any of you would like to drop a letter to Minister Carroll and let her know that we are taking notes . Please feel free to do so .

Below is the Transcript and I think we owe the Progressive Conservative Party a big thanks for taking this issue on .

You all Take Care Bill C

Senior citizens

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister Responsible for Seniors: Seniors across the province are not immune to the economic downturn. They’ve worked hard to put aside funds in a retirement account and they’re counting on that income to pay their day-to-day living expenses.

Many of those retirement accounts are eroded. The income from those retirement accounts is considerably less than it has been. My question is this: Has the Minister Responsible for Seniors advocated with the Minister of Finance to allow seniors in this province to have access to 100% of their locked-in retirement accounts, and if not, why not?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I can assure the honourable member that, the Seniors’ Secretariat being part of my portfolio, I am cognizant of the pressures of this economy on seniors in Ontario. I take every opportunity to convey to the Minister of Finance my concerns on issues such as elder abuse, and the fiscal impact as well. The property tax initiative, of course, was a response to that very dilemma, and it was done by this government in advance of the current economic malaise that we are now dealing with.

Be assured, honourable member, that I will continue to advocate on their behalf to the best of my ability.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: My question was very specific. Seniors from across the province are asking for the right to their own money. This is money that seniors have put aside through their hard work for the day that we now have, and that is when they are in need. This is their money. Under current legislation, they cannot access their own retirement funds. It will take an act of this Legislature to open up those locked-in retirement accounts.

I’d like to know from the minister, has she specifically made the request of the minister to include that measure in the next budget, and if she hasn’t, will she commit today that that will in fact be her request of the Minister of Finance on behalf of seniors across the province?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: As I assured the honourable member, I have and continue to convey my concerns and those of seniors in Ontario to the Minister of Finance. As the honourable member knows, we took measures to allow seniors more access in the budget of 2007. Unfortunately, the honourable member chose to vote against it.

There are indeed a number of aspects of this particular dilemma that belong in the federal domain. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister of Finance at the federal level; I leave that to my colleague in cabinet to do so. But I can only assure the House and the member that many of the initiatives that we have taken are assisting these seniors in these turbulent times. I would look for his support when we bring in a very, very excellent budget in a couple of weeks’ time.

A Letter of Response concerning differences about Unlocking Pensions

2009-02-26T13:21:00.000-08:00

Hi Everybody ;

This is a letter that Grant wrote to various people in Local Government when they become offended because Ken was sending them information on Bill 27 . I will not be naming names of the ones that that seem to think this is a frivolus issue , but to be sure I will be holding those names and answers in my e-mail folder .

Good Afternoon,

This is in response to ALL those who've responded to Ken Elliott and
Philip James, and a personal perspective from all sides of this issue.

Neither of these gentlemen have stated mistruths. The HANSARD quotes
are very accurate and truthful.

Sure, some, not all, are offended that anyone out there could/would
have the audacity to question our supposedly "highly esteemed",
"sometimes righteous", "honourable politicians". How dare any one of
the generally disconnected public even conceive a notion to penetrate
the protected inner-circle of politics - regional, provincial or
federal.

Mr. Elliot has simply regurgitated the words of it's provincial
legislators. I know it's disturbing. I too would be disgusted having
someone rub my nose in it, especially if I knew I had something to do
with the injustice of Bill 27.
Come-on everyone - have you not taken the time to read the statements
of your fellow politicians own words in the HANSARD!
These are not Mr. Elliott's words - they belong to politicians - yes,
some of the very politicians that some of you are voraciously
defending. Do you think ALL of the electorate do not pay attention?

As far as I can see, following the recent email train, Mr. Elliot has
also included regional officials as a matter of courtesy so that they
too can be aware of their constituents issues pertaining to provincial
restrictions on the very source of their well-being and financial
livelihood.

Why is their such disdain for truthful information and the reality of
locked-in pensions and the financial hardships it continues to wreak on
all Ontario locked-in pensioners?

I think Mr. Elliott's inclusion of regional leaders to the locked-in
pension issue is very valid and is certainly not "frivolous" at all.
Any municipal leader should welcome this information so that they may
better understand the "other issues" affecting their residents.
Perhaps, some leaders may even have the courage to stand up to their
provincial relatives and demand EQUALITY for their citizens, once
informed about the restrictive nature of those pensioners with
locked-in pensions and their ability, or lack there-of, to meet their
municipal financial obligations while putting food on their tables and
keeping their lights and heat on.

This is NOT A PERSONAL WITCH HUNT.
IT IS A QUEST for TRUE DEMOCRACY, EQUALITY and FAIRNESS for all
ONTARIANS - ALL ONTARIANS - NOT JUST THE SELF-PRIVILEGED!!
So turning it into a personal issue detracts from the real intent of
the message.

This battle started out the day after Dec 22, 1999 with the selfish
inclusion of an exclusive amendment to the MPP's Pension Act, granting
them and them ONLY, full 100% access to their locked-in pensions while
leaving the rest of ALL Ontarians with similar wound-up pensions on the
outside with no such privilege!

I personally have spoken to a previous individual, who along with
others in his group, back in 2000, attempted to bring the inequality
issue of locked-in pensions to their provincial rulers - all to no
avail - big surprise. He informed me, not unlike those of us today, he
too was stonewalled at every turn.
He was typically met with the all too often and convenient "blame
game", silent treatment, ignored emails, canned responses, endless
shell game referrals etc. - you all know what I mean.

So some of you who've come out against Ken Elliott's approach to bring
out the truth about the selfish exclusion of millions of Ontarians,
courtesy of Bill 27, and appeal to the common decency of "those
responsible" or "those who can affect change", I ask the following
questions;
1) How many years does it take to include ALL Ontarians and correct a
government implemented injustice?
2) How many more locked-in pensioners have to "LIVE BROKE - DIE RICH"?
3) How many more discussions, round tables, inquiries, panels,
commissions to investigate?
4) How many more political leaders will continue to stand down, "stay
out of it" and turn the other way?
5) How many more recognized economics experts, such as Jack Mintz,
Malcolm Hamilton, Gord Pape, numerous seniors organizations such as
CARP need to heard from before we do what's right?
6) What is the "polite" and "political way" to democracy? Ten years
using that approach have come and gone and we still have unequal
locked-in pension legislation.

And finally - to all those who are critical of Mr. Elliott's method
using email to inform people of the real hidden truth of Bill 27 as
being too drastic, hostile, impolite, rude, frivolous, vexatious etc.,
and since I've yet to read anyone openly challenge the Hansard and it's
contents relating to the exchanges of politicians regarding the "double
standard"- DM 1999, and injustice of two separate laws for the same
locked-in pensions, I welcome hearing the so-called proper detailed
approach to correcting the injustice so that we can finally put an end
to the collective silence and make ONTARIO an "equal" and "fair"
province for ALL it's residents and not just the clever.

For those of you who believe that all Ontarians should be treated
equally in terms of locked-in pensions, and who possess leadership
qualities and the knowledge to affect change, step forward and guide
the way for those less politically savvy and connected and rally behind
the cause to unlock pensions for ALL Ontarians. You too, are welcome to
rally to the aid of your residents.

Or, the choice can be to simply choose to continue to ignore it all, as
those in power have demonstrated for the past ten years, point the
finger to someone else as "not my problem - problem solved", detract
from, attack the writers style, and ignore the content of the problem
as evidenced by some of the responses I've seen.
Perhaps if some were on the other side of the equation, they might not
be so dismissive and more forthright in offering support to the very
residents with locked-in pensions, they serve.

... and we all wonder why no one votes any more.

Grant Fleury
Sudbury, Ontario

Open letter to the Ontario Finance Minister

2009-02-17T08:08:00.000-08:00

This is a letter I have sent to news papers across Ontario . Weather they print it or not is another story . Bill C

Dear Editor ;

My name is Bill Costello and I am with the Coalition of The Independent LIF ( locked in fund ) Holders.
We have for a number of years been requesting the government or Ontario to unlock these funds .
Now with the faltering economy it is more important then ever yet the government ignores the pleas of thousands of concerned fund holders .The government does not want to answer this simple question and this is why I am requesting of you to print this open letter.

Also any help from your paper with having the restriction lifted on these funds would be appreciated .
Unlocking these funds ( Locked in Retirement accounts ) is now not only a concern of the account holder ,but should be the concern of any Ontario Citizen as there are Millions of dollars in these accounts and if unlocked I am sure some of it would be spent and benefit the Ontario Economy .
Thank You , Regards Bill Costello , Box 56 , Atikokan Ontario

The Hon,.Dwight Duncan February 15 , 2009

Dear Finance Minister ;

First off I would like to inform you that I will also be mailing this letter out to news papers across Ontario as a open letter.

The reason for that being that I have asked the question numerous times " why will the Liberal Party of Ontario not unlock locked in pensions ( LIRA , LIRF , LIF ) 100% for retires 55 years of age and older in Ontario " . I have never received a answer to that Question even though I have asked the question of the Hon. Premier and the Hon. Finance Minister many a time .

The only answer I have received of late is that the Liberal government has unlocked 25% and are not prepared to go any further at this time .

I am sorry to say that does not answer the question. As a Taxpayer of Ontario I have a right to know why the Liberal Party will not unlock these funds .

Unlocking would be a big benefit to the Ontario economy . If seniors had access to their locked in accounts they may retire early . Therefor making room for the younger generation to have jobs . This would mean making room for family's that are on welfare because there are not enough jobs available .

It would also help seniors that have lost their jobs and are close to retirement . They may have enough money in their fund if it wasn't locked in to hold them over until 65 , but with the fund locked they have to go on welfare instead .

I know there are some that say if the seniors are given their money they might spend it and become wards of the government when they reach retirement age.

I am no financial wizard but when one reaches 65 they receive OAS, medical drugs , and CPP if they qualify . Yes some may require GIS but don't you think that is a lot cheaper than making them stay in the workforce and causing a young couple to go on welfare or making them go on welfare because the jobs are not available .

Not all fund holders are going to go out and blow all the money they saved for retirement all their lives . Some however may buy a new car or a house with some of their funds . This would be a boost for the Ontario economy . Best of all this is not bail out money . This is the peoples own personal savings .

I could go on and on how unlocking these funds can boost the economy with no cost to the Ontario government ,start up small business, buy furniture , etc , but I am sure you realizes all that .

People with regular unlocked RRSP's have 100% access to their funds so why should Thousands of Defined Contribution Contributors and the Thousand of Defined Benefit Contributors that never put in their required number of years and ended up in a locked in fund because of company cutbacks , Company closures etc. Not be entitled to the same financial freedom as RRSP holders .

From what I have been told there is anywhere from 300,000 to 350,000 locked in fund holders in Ontario and growing by the day .Nobody seems to actually know the real number , Wouldn't releasing these funds to the rightfully owners give a large boost to the Ontario economy ?

In closing Hon Finance Minister . Please tell me and thousand's of other locked in fund holders .

(( Why will the Liberal Government Of Ontario not unlock these funds 100% ?? ))

After All this would not be a first .

The province of Saskatchewan unlocked these funds for there citizens 7 years ago in 2002 with no bad results recorded after releasing the peoples own deferred wages to themselves .

Please Sir . Give me a direct answer .

I give Permission for this Letter to be used in any News Paper , TV Station , Radio in Ontario

Thank You , Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF holders ,

Box 56 , Atikokan , Ontario , P0t 1c0 ,

A Response from a Burlington Counselor

2009-02-17T07:37:00.000-08:00

I received a letter the other day that was copied to me from Rick Goldring . It was a response to Ken Elliott's request for his support of Ted Chudleigh's Private Members Bill 116,

I am sure Counselor Goldring doesn't really know the harm these locked in pensions are causing people in these turbulent times.
Locked in pensioners do not have the luxury that ordinary RRSP holders have even though they hold the same type of investment accounts and receive the same gains and losses .
The only difference is RRSP holders can access their funds unrestricted where as LIF holders are restricted to a small percentage .

I don't know why we cant get it through to the powers that be that unlocking these accounts would be a benefit to all citizens of Ontario , especially in these economic times .

Below is the Response Rick sent Ken and Ken's response . I would hope that Rick can answer Ken's Question as I would hope the ones against unlocking these funds can also answer .

Bill C.

Ken,

I am not sure if you want to give people the option of being able to cash in their locked in retirement accounts as these funds are supposed to be used for sustainable retirement income.

While I do not know your circumstances, I suggest converting your locked in registered funds to a life or joint life annuity may be an appropriate strategy to provide you with lifetime guaranteed sustainable income.

Just a thought??

Rick Goldring

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your reply.

Referring to your 1st paragraph below Rick, please ask yourself the following questions.

(a) Out of the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who are over the age of 55, how is it that there are only 61 people deemed capable of prudently managing their own pension monies contained within locked-in retirement accounts?

(b) What actual means tests were these 61 people ever subjected to, in order to validate such prudent management skills? Why haven't other Ontarians also been tested?

(c) Does it not seem a slight bit unusual that these 61 people just happen to be members of the Ontario Legislature?

(d) For the hundreds of thousands of Ontario seniors who own Locked-In Retirement Accounts and for whom the Ontario government feels justified in locking-in their hard earned pension dollars, assuming they might just pre-maturely squander all pension monies if given free access, why aren't these people prohibited by law from ever attending casinos, race tracks or playing the lottery? Might it just be because the government, through these facilities, is more interested in tax revenue than about the financial security of seniors?

(e) For the hundreds of thousands of Ontario seniors who own Locked-In Retirement Accounts and for whom the Ontario government feels justified in locking-in their hard earned pension dollars, how is it that all through their working days until age 55, they were able to raise families, buy and sell homes, buy and sell automobiles, pay all or part of the post secondary education costs for their children, pay medical bills not covered by insurance, give to charities, run successful businesses, and the list goes on and on, all without government intervention but the instant they turn 55, they suddenly become financially paralysed, according to our Ontario government?

(f) How is that the government can guarantee 61 MPPs will never acquire this same financial paralysis?

(h) Locked-In Retirement Accounts are protected from creditors If this benefit is so great, why did 61 MPPs willingly opt to forgo such when they unlocked their own Locked-In Retirement Accounts?

(i) Why, for a married couple with only one Locked-In Retirement Account, will the Ontario government only allow full unlocking after the death of a spouse? Why can't it be unlocked while both spouses are still alive? Why can't they have full use of their pension monies while both are still living instead of just one being allowed full unlocking privleges? Why must their golden years together be marginalized simply because they aren't allowed full access to their own hard-earned pension monies, monies that took years to accumulate? Why is that 61 MPPs and their spouses will never be subjected to such inhumane treatment?

(j) Why are provincial boundaries seemingly the determining factor concerning unlocking privileges. Residents of Saskatchewan since 2002, have been allowed full unlocking ... in Alberta & Manitoba, residents are now allowed 50% ... in Nova Scotia & Newfoundland, residents are allowed no access at all. Are Canadians not all equal?

(k) Why has there never been any statistical data out of Saskatchewan showing a spike in people on welfare as a result of people having pre-maturely spent all of their unlocked pension monies? Might it just be, contrary to what governments tell us, people, for the most part, are financially responsible?

(l) Why are governments, during this economic crisis, willing to give bailouts and handouts to corporations but at the same time, unwilling to allow seniors full access to their own pensions monies ... monies they have already earned ... monies that are neither a bailout or a handout?

(m) Why is a long time resident of Ontario, now living in Saskatchewan, still not allowed full access to his or her locked-in retirement account? The Ontario government says it's because the pension originated in Ontario. What does that have to do with anything, other than government suppression of the people? After all, 61 Ontario MPPs with their fully unlocked locked-in retirement accounts can choose to live in Saskatchewan anytime they wish, yet their pensions certainly orginated in Ontario.

(n) Why, as the end of February approaches, do all financial institutions always advertise about RRSPs? They never have any advertisements about Locked-In RRSPs? Is it because they don't really want you to know all about the restrictions overriding such accounts? Is it because by keeping your pension funds under lock, they stand to make a lot more in commissions, mers, adminstration fees etc.? Put bluntly, do Ontario financial institutions have a vested interest in keeping locked-in retirement accounts fully locked?

(o) Does it not seem a bit odd that two former Ministers Responsible for Seniors ... Mayor Cam Jackson of Burlington and Transportation Minister Jim Bradley of St. Catherines both had their own Locked-In Retirement Accounts fully unlocked, courtesy of Bill 27, but ever since, they have been totally silent about such privilege? Why don't they want their constituents to know? These are the same people whose mandate calls that they ensure all legislation concerning seniors is both fair and equitable ... not tilted so as to provide incredible financial benefit to MPPs only, especially Ministers Responsible.for Seniors.

(p) Both our current and former Finance Ministers, Dwight Duncan and Greg Sorbara, have indicated that locked-in pensions are necessary in order to protect the integrity of the pension from where the monies originated. If that be the case, why did MPPs from all party affiliations, during their party's tenure as government during the last number of years, turn the former MPPs defined benefit plan into a gold-plated defined benefit pension plan? Where's the integrity in that self-serving move?

(q) Why is it that 61 MPPs are the only ones allowed to circumvent all of the locking-in rules imposed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario? Why are no other Ontarians allowed the same privlege?

(r) Why are 61 MPPs, by virtue of being all allowed full unlocking of their own locked-in retirement accounts, able to enjoy their retirement to the fullest starting at age 55, but for ordinary Ontarians who die before age 90, most of their locked-in pension money will be lost to the government through estate taxation? Might it be that our government counts on seniors dying before age 90 so as to reap the rewards of high estate taxation? Given this is the reality for many Ontarians, why have Cam Jackson and Jim Bradley been so silent? Might it just be ... they already have their own locked-in retiremeet account fully unlocked?

(s) How is it that several months back the Ontario government can give $850,000 to the Toronto Cricket Club when they only ask for something around $100,000? Given the money, to my knowlege has never been recovered, who is it that can't manage their money? It for sure isn't seniors who own Locked-In Retirement Accounts.

Rick ... I could go on and on lisitng valid questions undermining our government's rationale that insists locked-in retirement accounts are necessary. Please don't ignore my questions. I would truly like to hear your answers to these questions..

Thanks,
Ken Elliott

The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

2009-02-14T12:29:00.000-08:00

The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders is composed of a number of private citizens assembled from various regions in Ontario who's sole purpose is to lobby the government to unlock all "locked-in" pensions in our province.

We are primarily arguing two issues within one campaign.

The primary issue is that of fairness and equality under one law for all Ontario citizens, regardless of vocation and void of political favouritism.
The secondary issue is that of the unjust government control of Ontarians access to their personal locked-in pension assets. Assets that were generally derived from former employers "wound-up" defined benefit plans and employers defined contribution ‘DC’ plans.

Regarding the primary issue, the current rules and regulations set out in the Pension Benefits Act are discriminatory, as they’re not equally applied to all Ontarians. The MPPs pension assets, derived from their former wound-up pension plan in 1995, fall under the jurisdiction of the MPP's Pension Act. These are two separate acts for the same type of locked-in pensions.

Discrimination, where there are currently 61 MPPs, both former and present, that through an amendment to the MPP Pensions Act, contained within Bill 27 in 1999, exempted themselves from the highly restrictive and paternalistic legislation that governs all other Ontarians LIRA's, LIF's and LRIF's.

Regarding the secondary issue, the yearly maximum withdrawal limits for those who meet the minimum age requirement (usually 55) for access to their locked-in LIF and LRIF pensions is approximately 6.5%, increasing slightly year after year, until age 90. The aforementioned 61 MPP's will have 100% unrestricted access to the same type of pension-derived locked-in assets, at age 55, as compared to the rest of all other Ontarians who will have to wait till’ age 90 to see their last penny (1/2 of 1% ever make it – Stats Can 2007)!

Having a law on the books for 61 MPP's, regardless of when and how it was contrived, and a different law for an estimated million plus other Ontarians for the exact same type of pension assets is unconscionable and a blatant double standard for an equal and fair Ontario.

Our Coalition is dead set against such inequality and obvious discrimination. Discrimination and silence since 1999 that continues to percolate within the ruling Liberal party.

We are demanding fair and equal treatment and insist on being included in this exclusive group of 61 privileged Ontarians by receiving the same 100% access to our locked-in pensions.

For the past six years, Premiere Dalton McGuinty and his ministers have continued to ignore the pleas of Ontarians begging for full access to their locked-in pensions, while specific members within their party, continue to have full 100% access to their own former locked-in pensions.

In the Liberal budget back in March of 2007, Greg Sorbara introduced a one time 25% unlocking option to hopefully appease the holders of locked-in pensions. This was an insult to all Ontarians and continues to fly in the face of democracy, and equality under the premise of equality and one law for all.

In 2002, Saskatchewan listened to the will of their people and eliminated these restrictions, granting full 100% access to all locked-in pensions through legislation that applied to all their residents, and not just their provincial politicians. Their belief was that their residents knew best how and when to use their own private pension assets.

In December of 2006, Andrea Horwath of the NDP, introduced Bill 175 to unlock all locked-in pensions in Ontario receiving verbal support in the legislature from Bob Runciman of the PCs. The Liberal party ignored this bill and instead went on to pass a bill for themselves in two weeks, that essentially granted all MPPs a 35% pay raise as well as doubling their contributions to their own RRSP’s, while seniors with locked-in pensions were ignored.

In spite of the ruling Liberal party’s refusal to further unlock pensions, the trend towards full unlocking continues in other jurisdictions as the Federal government recently granted 50% access to all of their regulated locked-in pensions in their 2008 budget. As well, other provinces have increased their access to 50% and are on track to eventually follow Saskatchewan’s lead towards 100% access thus resulting in the elimination of huge unnecessary government bureaucracy and expense.

In October of 2008, Ted Chudleigh, of the PC party, introduced another similar private members Bill 116 to unlock all locked-in pensions in Ontario. It is scheduled for second reading some time in May of 2009, unless it gets scuttled and killed by the Liberal party again.

Our goal is to create an awareness of these issues within the general public. A public with either DC type pensions, LIFs or LRIFs, who for the most part have no idea about the restrictions they will face when they qualify to withdraw their hard earned locked-in pension assets. A public who further, have no idea of the conceived legislation that was created by former and currently seated select politicians, for politicians, leaving the rest of Ontario shackled and begging for equal access to their own pension money.

As our economy withers, generally so does the value of our pensions and thus the yearly withdrawal maximum that those millions of Ontarians count on for survival. The inability of the current legislation to address the overwhelming devaluation of locked-in pension assets, which will likely be with us for a number of years, is precisely the scenario where the current legislation fails, thus creating a proportionately significant reduction in a locked-in pensioners LIF or LRIF yearly payments – in simpler terms, a substantial pay cut.

We encourage you to contact your local MPP to voice your support for Ted Chudleigh’s Bill 116 to unlock pensions 100% for ALL Ontarians and not just the select few politicians as was done in 1999. Inform your provincial member of parliament that Ontario pensioners are quite capable of managing their own money, however they determine and see fit, and to put an end to this ridiculous paternalism over private pension money that isn’t theirs. It’s simply the right thing to do for so many various and personally distinctive reasons, especially in order to keep up with these turbulent and recessionary times.

Having to continue to increasingly pay for more and more services is bad enough as it is, but to now do it with a cut to LIF and LRIF pension income because of outdated, inflexible and complicated legislation, is just plain cruelty and ignorance to the hard-working founders and contributors to our province.

Obviously it wasn’t such a bad idea to some of our elected public servants back in ‘99.

Sincerely,
Grant Fleury
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

March Budget

2009-02-13T12:55:00.000-08:00

Hi Everybody ;

The new Ontario Budget will be in early March . Susan Eng Vice President of Advocacy of CARP will be trying to convince the Finance Minister to unlock pensions for retire,s 100% in the upcoming budget
She can use all the support she can get behind her request .
Please E-Mail Finance Minister Dwight Duncan through the CARP E-Voice Mail and put some support behind Susan .

http://www.carp.ca/advocacy/index.cfm

Please also pass this on to all of your contacts .

Take Care , Regards , Bill C

Update on Private Members Bill 116

2009-02-11T13:26:00.000-08:00

Bill to Unlock Pensions to be Debated May 7th, 2009

MPP Chudleigh Seeks Fairness and Respect for Retirees

(Milton, ON – February 3, 2009) Today Halton MPP Ted Chudleigh announced that his
Private Member’s Bill 116, the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, will be read for the
Second time and debated on May 7th, 2009.

Bill 116 would allow retirees full access to locked-in funds (LIFs, LIRAs, LIRFs) at the
Age of 55. These funds are currently doled out in increments by the government and not
Fully paid out until the recipient is 90 years old. Too often, retirees pass away before
Receiving their hard-earned pensions.

“My Bill seeks respect for retirees first and foremost,” said Chudleigh. “Ontarians over
55 do not need the government to ration out their pensions like parents giving allowance
To their children. At the age of retirement, most Ontarians have raised families, bought
And sold homes, made investments and shown prudent and responsible management of
Their money and property. It’s time to start treating our seniors like adults.”

“An immediate unlocking of pension funds would also act as a timely stimulus to the
Economy,” added Chudleigh. “It would put money in the hands of the people and, while
I’m sure they won’t spend it all at once, I imagine they might use some of it on projects
And expenditures that would ease our provinces current economic trouble and create some
Well-needed jobs.”

Chudleigh has worked in concert with the Ontario Coaltion of Independent LIF Holders
(“The Coalition”) in understanding the issues and garnering public support. This
Province-wide group of activist citizens has been demanding changes to pension laws for
Many years.

“There have been several attempts to unlock pensions but so far the government has been
Reluctant to act,” said Coalition spokesman Bill Costello of Atikokan. “Yet we remain
Hopeful that Premier McGuinty and MPPs from all parties will finally see the light and
Vote for Mr. Chudleigh’s Bill 116 on May 7th. It is simply the right thing to do.”

The Coalition has begun a petition which calls on the Legislative Assembly to pass Bill
116 without delay.
The petition can be downloaded at www.tedchudleigh.com/petitions

And sent to Chudleigh’s Queen’s Park office: Room 450, Legislative Building, Toronto,
Ontario, M7A 1A8.

For information contact:
Ben Ellis - 416-325-5747 or 905-878-1729
Bill Costello - 807-597-6882

Petition Address

2009-02-04T11:36:00.000-08:00

Hi Everybody ;

This is the site to download the petition if you wish .
www.tedchudleigh.com/petitions

The second reading will be on May 7th and then it will be debated.

We need all the help we can get to try and have this petition accepted by the majority of members from all party's . Mailing your MPP and Premier Dalton McGuinty and requesting of them to pass Bill 116 . The Bill to unlock LIRA , LIRF , and LIF pensions in Ontario .

We also need all of you to download the petition and print out copy's and get them signed ...

Please don't procrastinate and think the next person will do it . If everybody takes that attitude , We are then dead in the water .
If we want these pensions unlocked we have to show that there are a great number of people behind unlocking.
Have your family , children (( There is no age restriction )), friends , neighbors and whoever sign .

There is one restriction however . Only citizens from Ontario may sign , overthought you may hold a locked in pension under Ontario rules . In this case e-mail Premier McGuinty and protest .

If you get at least one petition signed ( Great ) if you can get a hundred . ( Absolutely Fantastic ) . What ever the number it will be a big help in reaching our goal for every retiree , being able to control their own finances in times of need and not have to pay the government a fee and beg for their own money (( This is not CPP or OAS ))

Please also pass this on to any contacts you have and also ask for their help .

We Can Do This !!!

The Petitions can be mailed to . Ted Chudleigh , Room 450 Legislative Building , Queen's Park , Toronto , Ontario , M7A 1A8

Or you can mail to me and I will bundle them up and send them on .
Bill Costello , 6 Chub Lake Road , Box 56 , Atikokan Ontario , p0t 1c0

We would like the petitions sent in by April 10th .

Take Care , Regards Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders .

Update on Private Members Bill 116

2009-02-03T14:04:00.000-08:00

February 2, 2009

To all the people that would like to see LIRA , LIRF , and LIF's Unlock 100% in Ontario .

Great news! The Ballot Day lottery was held today and Ted pulled number 17. That means that second reading of Bill 116 will be held on May 7, 2009, much earlier than expected. There is still a chance that the Liberals will prorogue the house which might affect the number of the Bill and could possibly move the date back a few weeks but all signs indicate that they won’t prorogue.

This is a grassroots cause for fairness, respect and economic benefit. It is a cause for which many of you have been struggling for several years. While Ted Chudleigh is personally dedicated to Bill 116’s passage, he is also acting as your representative as Ontarians so I encourage you to keep in touch with him through me so that we stay united and so that your voices do not get muffled by the usual politics. Your ideas are most welcome. Even if we disagree, our own healthy debate will strengthen our position leading up to May 7th.

Thanks again to all for your continued support. Together, I think we have a real chance for success!

Best regards to you and your families,

Ben Ellis
Executive Assistant to
Ted Chudleigh, MPP Halton
Ben.Ellis@pc.ola.org
416-325-5747

PS . AS always we need your support in contacting your MPP's and Premier Dalton McGuinty and request of them to pass Bill 116.
There will be a site where you can download a petition . I will post it as soon as it is set up .

Regards Bill C

Private Members Bill 116

2009-01-24T10:11:00.000-08:00

Hi Everybody ;I thought I would pass private members bill 116 's address in case you would like to look at it .

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2074

Ted Chudleigh MPP Halton has assured me that he is fully committed to having these pensions unlocked as is his party .

He said if the current government should prorogue parliament he will present it again under a new number .

Please e- mail your MPP and ask him/her to support bill 116 . You could also e-mail Premier McGuinty and ask him to let this bill pass .

We have a petition in the works that I will mail out as soon as it is ready .

On another front a Liberal MPP is also having unlocking pensions 100% put on the agenda for discussion in the next caucus meeting February 4 . There are a number of Liberal MPP's that already support unlocking 100% , with your encouragement maybe we can get more .

I have received a letter from Gilles Bisson one of the NDP candidates that they now have decided to back unlocking 50% . I have asked him why the Turnaround from Andrea's private members bill of 100% . His reply was it was a party decision . I have not yet received a reply from any other of the candidates when I asked what percentage of unlocking they support.

I would ask of you all to mail the 4 NDP candidates and ask them why the change .I thought they always say they are for the people . Do they now feel that we are not competent enough to look after our own money .

We are getting to the stage that I really belive that we are going to succeed in having this cruel legislation changed . We just need the support from all of you and anybody else you can reach out to , to also mail the MPP's of Ontario and ask for LIF , LIRF , LIRA pensions be unlocked 100% .

To anybody out of province that has a locked in pension in Ontario or feels that this unjust legislation should be changed . You can e-mail Premier Dalton McGuinty and ask for change .

dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Until I have further Information , Take Care Bill Costello ,
The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

New Private Members Bill

2009-01-12T16:37:00.000-08:00

Hi All ;

I have just been notified by Ken Elliott that there is another Private Members bill to unlock locked in pensions 100 % in Ontario .

We can use all the help we can get from concerned Ontario Citizens , or if you are in any other province and hold a Ontario locked in pension . mail your MPP's of all party's , and asking them to support bill 116 on your behalf .

It would also be helpful if you also mailed Dalton McGuinty Premier of Ontario .

Here is the addresses of the MPP's .

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en&list_type=all_mpps&go=go

If you are stuck for words this is a letter Philip James set out to his MPP.

" Hello Peter.
We have received information that Mr Chudleigh of Halton has introduced a private members Bill to finally level the playing field Re: Locked in Pensions. His Bill states that all should get 100% unlocking as did the 61Mpp,s back in 1999, with some still sitting including Dalton McGuinty.
My question Peter is straightforward.

Can we the pensioners of Ontario count on your yes vote for Bill 116.

Your response will be appreciated.
Regards Philip James , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders . "

As Many of You know these locked in Pensions are Pensions arriving from your own private pension plans and the Ontrio Government has no right to keep them locked in when there has already been a presedent set in 2002 in Saskatchewan when they unlocked 100% for their Citizens , in 1999 61 Ontario MPP's passed legislation to unlock their pensions for them selves 100% .

This is your own money not Government money . This is not CPP or QAS .

Please pass this on to as many people as you can .
We need to fight the unjustness of the curent legislation .

Thank You Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Hoalders

-------Original Message------- Subject: Bill 116

Hi all,
Just received this e-mail this morning ... let's keep the pressure on ... even Chudleigh in his first sentence is acknowledging that MPPs have been given an exemption on locked-in pensions
Ken

----- Original Message ----- From: Ellis, Ben To: kenneth.elliott@sympatico.ca Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:05 AM

Subject: Locked-In Pensions
Dear Mr. Elliott,

I have been informed that you are interested in the issue of legislation surrounding locked-in pensions and the exemptions for certain people including the terminally ill and MPPs.

As you may have heard, Mr. Chudleigh has tabled legislation recently that would “level the playing field”, so to speak.
Bill 116 would amend the Pension Benefits Act to allow up to the entire amount in the account to be transferred into a registered retirement income fund for all Ontarians.

The transfer could be made at age 55 or, if the pension plan provides for retirement at an earlier age, at that age.

In drafting this legislation, Mr. Chudleigh is attempting to undo and simplify the complicated laws which rob people of the right to spend their own hard-earned money.

As a conservative, Mr. Chudleigh feels that retirees deserve more respect, and do not need pensions rationed out by government like parents giving allowance to their children.

Beyond that principle, Bill 116 would act as a significant and timely stimulus to the economy.

Bill 116 will be given second reading some time in 2009, at a date yet to be determined (depending on Mr. Chudleigh's ballot day). At that time, we hope there will be serious debate on this issue both in the House, in the media and in the public.

Even if Bill 116 fails to pass, we hope that the Liberal government will take note of the issue and at least introduce legislation that changes the current system.

I understand the frustration that exists regarding this matter but there are several steps that can be taken to increase our chances.
For instance, as a private citizen you might start a petition or letter-writing campaign, perhaps in concert with an organization like CARP. If you were able to stir up enough support, Mr. Chudleigh could read them into the record and demonstrate to the McGuinty Liberals that there is real public clamoring for change.

I would be happy to help with this process. Please feel free to contact me anytime to discuss this or other issues.
Best regards, Ben Ellis
Executive Assistant to Ted Chudleigh, M.P.P. Halton P.C. Critic for Economic Development and Trade

Liberals Hypocritical on Pension Unlocking

2008-11-16T14:14:00.000-08:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals hypocritical on pension unlocking :

This is a letter sent out to all Liberal MPP's .

Mr Duncan ;

Thank you for responding to my letter . Even though your response was still the Same Old , Same Old .

I would like to quote you on some of your response .

Quote " As you mentioned, some MPPs voted to unlock their RRSP-type retirement arrangement in 1999 "

" This legislation was passed by the former government despite the objection of Liberal MPPs . The Liberal Caucus Opposed to compleat unlocking in 1999, and its views remains consistent . "

You are Correct in the above statements .

I would like to now Quote for You also what Your Premier said at that time .

" I want to make it perfectly clear in this House today that I and my party will have none of it."

Dalton McGuinty plus Jim Bradley , Michael Brown , Sean Conway , Elinor Caplan , Monte Kwinter , Lyn McLeod , Gerry Philips , David Ramsay , Tony Rupercht , Richard Patten , and the list goes on took all of it . 100% Unlocking !!!!!!

Don't you think Mr Duncan that Your party is being a bit Hypocritical ,letting members take all of it when they retire ,when your leader said " MY PARTY WILL HAVE NONE OF IT ".

You Can be sure of one thing Mr Duncan that I and The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders will continue to inform the Seniors of Ontario who all the members of the Liberal Party are that will have 100% unfettered access to their pensions on retirement .

Where as any other citizen of Ontario has to wait until they are 90 Years of age OR DROP DEAD so they may receive the same privilege.

To Me Sir HYPOCRITICAL is not a strong enough word for the disparity and hardship You and the Liberal Party are forcing on the SENIORS of this Province .

People that worked hard all their lives . People that saved all their lives for a comfortable retirement ,
And now You Sir and your party are denying them their own money in their golden years .

Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders .

Ontario A Have Not Province

2008-05-12T06:42:00.000-07:00

Hi folks,Copying everyone on the May email sent to each of the 107 MPPs and various newspapers in Ontario

.Regards,Bill Nafziger

Ontario is a “Have Not Province” for Seniors with Locked-in Pensions.During 1999, MPPs in Ontario and Saskatchewan discussed the consequences of locked-in pensions for their retirees.

Dalton McGuinty eloquently expressed the unfairness of locked-in pensions, commenting on Ontario Seniors as “getting down on their bended knee asking for their own pension money”, as evidenced in the 1999 Hansard.

The discussions in Ontario resulted in 61 MPPs of all parties unlocking their pensions in 2000, but denying the same right to all other Ontarians with locked-in pensions.

Saskatchewan’s decision in 2002 was to unlock 100% of their locked-in pensions for their retirees.

"There'll be no restrictions on the amount of withdrawal that can come out," says David Wild, superintendent of pensions."Anyone with a locked-in retirement account will have the option of moving monies to a RRIF [registered retirement income fund] at retirement. Anyone who already has a LIF or an LRIF in Saskatchewan will have that money in a RRIF immediately. So the LIF and LRIF will no longer exist."

According to Wild, retirees, financial planners and financial institutions had become "frustrated" with LIF and LRIF rules in the last four years.

On a technical basis, he says, they couldn't plan ahead because maximum withdrawals from LIFs and LRIFs change according to market conditions. Also, many found the formulas for calculating maximums complicated.

On a philosophical level, Wild says regulators "received complaints, such as 'I'm a responsible adult. Who is the government to tell me how much money I can withdraw from my own LIF or LRIF?'"

Ontario reacted six years later in 2008, unlocking an insulting 25% of locked-in pensions.

Ontario locked-in pension holders paid between $5.2 and $15.6 million in financial hardship application fees, to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) over a three year period (2003 to 2006) to reject only 53 out of over 26,000 applicants. Taxpayers paid for additional remaining costs.

Ontario continues to require these huge costs, to support a full-time department at FSCO , whose sole objective, is to determine which pensioners can have access to more of their own money.

Saskatchewan pensioners and taxpayers paid nothing, as their government allowed pensioners the flexibility to determine their own income streams.Saskatchewan moved past the “age of government paternalism” in 2002, which continues to exist in Ontario in 2008.

Perhaps this is another reason why Ontario is moving towards a “Have Not Province”.

Best regards,Bill Nafziger

Member:Canadian Association of Retired People

Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

Common Front for Retirement Security

A Letter on Deaf Ears

2008-04-02T08:20:00.000-07:00

A Letter on Deaf Ears

Hi Everybody;

Well here is another letter sent out to a government that doesn't really care what the people of Ontario want.

Apparently all they want to do is line their pockets. After voting them selves a 35% raise just before Christmas , they are lining their pockets again with another raise. They are the highest paid MPP's in Canada.

Maybe that is why they refuse to unlock our money. They need that money when each senior passes away and they tax their estate at the highest rate so that they will be able to keep their pockets full of money.

Hon Dalton McGuinty; ???????

Dear Dalton ;

As you may have noticed . The Federal Government is now going to allow the unlocking of 50% of Federal Locked-in pensions in Canada.This means that well over 50% of the Citizens of Canada will have a privilege that is being denied to the Citizens of Ontario.

Federal 50% , Alberta 50% , Saskatchewan 100% , Manitoba 50% ,((( Ontario 25% )))I have heard that British Columbia is also considering unlocking 50%.

Your past Finance Minister Greg Sorbara during a interview concerning locked-in pensions in answer to the Question " Do senior citizens really need protection from unscrupulous investors?"

On a CBC Radio interview Stated .

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

Your Now Current Finance Minister Dwight Duncan now States .

" the Ontario government is concerned that full unlocking of locked-in accounts could put retirement income at risk. The rational is simple , these funds are important in ensuring that seniors are provided with a regular income stream throughout retirement despite the uncertainty of an individuals life expectancy , future investment ,returns and inflation."

It appears that your Finance Ministers answers depend on is if there is a election or not.

Before a election Your government isn't concerned if a Senior is capable of looking after their own funds . ((( I would like to remind you this is our own funds )))

Now that the election is over Your government is saying in a nice way that only the Seniors in Ontario are to Stupid to look after their ((( OWN FUNDS ))) Not government money !!!

We were smart enough to save money for retirement. We are also smart enough to use it and invest it wisely.

PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT UNLOCKING LOCKED IN PENSIONS 100% .

Jack M. Mintz Professor Of Business Economics ,Rotman School of Management ,

Malcolm Hamilton,Actuary ,Mercer Human Resource Consulting Toronto ,

Gordon Pape , Renowned Financial Expert ,

One Thousand Eight Hundred Signatures on the online Petition that has requested that the Government of Ontario Unlock LIRF , LIRA , LIF 100%

CD Howe Institute , Canadian Economic And Social Policy Think Tank,

CARP , National Advocacy Organization For The 50 Plus , 250,000 members in Ontario ,

The Common Front For Retirement Security , 2 Million Members across Canada .

The Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-in Fund Holders ,

Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens Organizations.

My Question Is why does the Liberal Government of Ontario Refuse to unlock Locked-in Pensions 100 %.

Especially when A good Number of Current Liberal MPP'S will enjoy this Privilege at the age of 55 or when they retire.

Bill Costello

Live Poor Die Rich

2008-03-25T08:18:00.000-07:00

Hi Everybody;Here is a article that Grant has sent out to a number of papers .

Locked-In Pensions: Live Poor Die RichMarch 17, 2008

Many retirees today living with locked-in pensions are barely getting by and are increasingly becoming poorer with each round of rate hikes of their most basic needs. Some are often faced with no other choice but to give up the home they’ve worked for all their lives in order to obtain additional money just to survive.

The real costs facing seniors, especially in the current economic climate, are escalating uncontrollably due in large part to the rising price of energy to heat their homes, gasoline for their cars, water and sewer charges, endless property tax hikes and the rising costs for food.

If you are one of these people depending on your Ontario regulated LIF or LRIF pension to see you through these tough times, the money in your locked-in pension will outlive 99.9% of you.

That’s right, according to Statistics Canada, less than one half of one percent of our seniors will ever reach 90 years of age, which is the age that you would get the final 50% of the balance of the money in your locked-in pension.

Therefore, 99.9% of you with LIF’s or LRIF’s will certainly die with at least 50% of your pension money left behind to your successor all the while living out your golden years staring into your pension fund without ever getting to actually use the bulk of it.

Even at the average life expectancy of 78 for a male and 82 for a female, the government still only allows a paltry 11 to 12% annual access to your locked-in pension at those ages.

This is why you will certainly live poor and die rich when it comes to your locked-in pension.

The Ontario government, which regulates access to your locked-in pensions, is out of touch with the 6% annual access it grants seniors to their own pension money. They appear oblivious to the plight of these pensioners and provide no practical means to increase the rate of access to those with locked-in pensions to meet the ever-increasing real cost of living.

While other provinces and the Federal government allow from 50% to 100% access to their regulated locked-in pensions, the Ontario government continues to remain far behind with a one-time access of only 25%.

They continue to ignore and refuse to listen to the will of its seniors who are seeking 100% access to their locked-in pensions instead of remaining shackled with this out-dated indifferent legislation.

This is completely unacceptable and cruel to those seniors who would normally be able to afford to keep up with the rising cost of living if greater or full access to their locked-in pensions would be made available to them as was done for 61 Ontario MPP’s back in 1999 when they passed legislation that unlocked their own locked-in pensions.

The Liberal government today, continues to support the double standard that it’s current leader hypocritically and eloquently denounced back in 1999 when legislation was passed to exclusively unlock MPP’s pensions 100% while ignoring all other Ontarians with similar pensions.

Further, the Ontario government is clearly inconsistent with its own economic strategies when on one hand it allows providers of essential services to set their own pricing based on the free market model of supply and demand, and on the other hand, through discriminatory and archaic legislation, prevents it’s senior population from keeping up to these market driven rising costs by fixing a limited amount of access to their private locked-in pensions.

How can this paradox be allowed to continue when those with locked-in pensions aren’t allowed the same freedom of access to their pensions to keep up with the market’s unrestricted freedom to set pricing of goods, services, taxes and other basic necessities.

The current policies and philosophy regarding locked-in pensions were developed back in the day when the day-to-day costs of these basic necessities rarely rose at all.

Those days are long gone, but the outdated legislation governing Ontario’s locked-in pensions are not.

Tight government interference with seniors’ private locked-in pensions simply must be eliminated in order to allow these folks a fighting chance to keep up with the ever increasing real cost of living, especially when they don’t often have any other means to increase their income other than through their LIF or LRIF pensions.

The Ontario government’s insistence on limiting its seniors ability to manage these burgeoning costs with its paternalism over their own pension money is bordering on white collar elder abuse and is outright shameful.

This government is completely out of touch with its senior population and continues to ignore private members bills, lobbying by private citizens, prominent financial experts such as Jack Mintz, Malcolm Hamilton, Gordon Pape etc., petitions with thousands of signatures, CARP and the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders.

It’s time for the Ontario government to do as Saskatchewan did in 2002 and eliminate locked-in pensions altogether thereby allowing 100% access to Ontario seniors’ private pensions and thus the opportunity to keep up with the spiralling personal cost of living by managing the money in their own LIF and LRIF pensions as they see fit.

Ultimately, if the Ontario government does not abolish these archaic "out of touch" regulations and end the control over its seniors’ LIF’s and LRIF’s, 99.9% of Ontarians with locked-in pensions will surely continue to live poorly and die rich, leaving the majority of their money behind that could have been used to provide them with the quality of life they’ve earned for themselves while alive.

Grant Fleury, Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF HoldersSudbury

2008-02-29T06:58:00.000-08:00

Federal Pension LIF 50% Unlocking -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi All;

I am just updating you on what is happening in case you haven't seen this.

It is time to get after the Ontario Liberals again as now the Federal government has allowed 50% unlocking of Federal locked in pensions.

This is a letter I just received from Bill Gleberzon of CARP.

The 2008 Federal Budget has a number of good improvements for LIF-holders. The following paragraph is from our analysis of the budget: "Choices for federally regulated Locked-In Fund (LIF) - holders, such as, for those 55 years or older, conversion of up to $22,450 into to a tax deferred saving vehicle as well as an one time conversion of up to 50% of the principal into a tax deferred savings vehicle with no maximum withdrawal limits – also the option to unlock up to $22,450 for those with financial hardship." This is not only good for federally regulated LIF holders but for our campaign in Ontario as an enhancement that the Ontario Government should adopt -- from unlocking $25% to unlocking 50% as well as increasing the amount that can be unlocked to $22,450.

Key in to the Federal Department of Finance and go to The Federal Budget Index under LIfe Income Funds.

Regards Bill Costello

25% Pension Unlocking Reminder and Information

2008-01-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

25% Pension Unlocking Reminder

Hi All ;

I am just reminding everyone who is going to be transferring the 25% out of their locked in fund into a RRIF or RRSP.

If You draw a income from your locked in fund during the year . Make sure that you transfer your yearly allowed income out of your locked in fund and put it aside in a account so that you can use it for income through out the year.

Do this((( BEFORE))) You transfer into a new LIF fund in order to draw your 25%.

If you do not do this you will not be able to draw from the NEW LIF until the next calendar year and would then have to withdraw from your 25% instead.

DO NOT just leave this up to your financial institution as we have found the advisers are not always fully informed of change..

Also Remember once you have transferred into a new LIF (((( You have only 60 days to make your 25% withdrawal . After that you have lost the opportunity. ))))

There have been new rules added to the FSCO web site since the New Year.To check them out go here.

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/pensions/locked-inaccountchanges.asp#how25

Q: Is the maximum annual income payment amount in the first year of a New LIF calculated based on the original amount transferred into the New LIF, or is it calculated using the adjusted amount after a 25% unlocking withdrawal has been made?

For example, a New LIF is purchased with $100,000 deposited into it from a LIRA on the date of purchase. Fifty days later, the owner withdraws 25%, which leaves $75,000 in the New LIF. Is the first year maximum annual income payment amount based on $100,000 or $75,000?

A: The maximum annual income payment for the first year is based on the balance of the New LIF at the start of the New LIF’s fiscal year, regardless of any amount subsequently withdrawn. In this example, the maximum would be based on $100,000.

(((((((Note, however, that if the money deposited into the New LIF came from an Old LIF, LRIF or another New LIF, the maximum annual income payment amount for the New LIF for that fiscal year would be zero.)))))))

WE are still going after 100% unlocking in Ontario as Saskatchewan did for their citizens in 2002.

If you are outraged how the Ontario government restricts the Retire's from (((Their Own Pension Money.))

((( This is Not Government Money.))) Please write to your Premier , Finance Minister , Minister Responsible for Seniors , And Your MPP and tell them you want these pensions unlocked 100%.

You All Take Care Bill Costello

Locked in Pension Survey

2007-12-11T10:40:00.000-08:00

Locked in Pension Survey

Hi All;This is a survey I would recommend filling out. It is being done in British Columbia and recomended by CARP.

Every province that unlocks pensions helps us accomplish it in Ontario and Federal.

It does not matter what Province your pension is in or if it is Federal.

Everybody can fill this out if they wish.

Please also send this on to anybody you know that has a locked in pension.

Regards Bill Costello

You're invited to participate in a survey about retirement planning and private pension plans.

Will your pension be there for you?

• Do you have a private pension•

Have you ever needed ‘instant access’ to your locked-in private pension funds? • Would you like to have the option to ‘instant access’? If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above questions then we want to hear from you!! Please find below a link to a survey about retirement planning and private pension plans.

Survey results will be used by Simon Fraser University researchers to generate policy alternatives with respect to the locking-in of private pension benefits.

CARP is happy to help with the research and urges former private pension members to complete the survey as thoroughly as possible. This survey is voluntary and you can withdraw at anytime. Your responses are confidential and will not be distributed to third parties. In clicking on the below link you are consenting to participate in this study:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=1DGgy793z6lQC0QFeX40_2fA_3d_3d

We thank-you in advance for your contribution to this important research.

Christmas Letter to Dalton

2007-12-10T06:28:00.000-08:00

Hi Folks:

This is a Christmas Letter sent to Dalton.

Maybe You would also like to send one and ask Dalton to think of the Seniors in the New Year instead of acting like Mister Scrooge.

Merry Christmas And a Prosperous New Year Regards Bill Costello.

Hon Dalton McGuinty dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org Premier

Hon Dwight Duncan dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org Minister of Finance

Hon Aileen Carroll carrollaileen@yahoo.ca Minister Responsible for Seniors

Good morning Mr. McGuinty,

Once again it is Christmas time and once again it is time to remind you of the plight of seniors who hold Locked-In pensions.

The Legislative Hansard reveals that on December 15, 1999 you asked the following question of then Finance Minister Ernie Eves.

"My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, with reference to Bill 27, we have discovered deep down inside a delightful Christmas gift that you intend to give to a select group of MPPs in this Legislature.

I want to make it perfectly clear in this House today that I and my party will have none of it. Your special provision says that MPPs are going to have special access to their pension funds.

You're going to give a right to MPPs that none of the other 11 million Ontarians are going to be able to enjoy.

Your new bill will allow some of our MPPs to have instant access to their pension plan at age 55 when you're going to give no other Ontarian that said same right.

Minister, how can you possibly justify this double standard?" Bill 27 to which you referred was called An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act. It received Royal Assent on December 22, 1999.Despite you personally having voted against Bill 27, as did other members of your Liberal party, your words of December 15th 1999, ...

"I and my party will have none of it" ... have proven to be totally false.In fact, just the opposite has turned out to be the REAL truth.

There were members from your own Liberal party who received extraordinary financial gain with respect to their pensions, despite having voted against Bill 27.

Further, the person who received the most financial gain was none other than your former Liberal colleague, Mr. Sean Conway.

Mr. Conway's own words from the Legislative Hansard for December 13, 1999 were ... "Make no mistake about it: Some of us, with names like Conway, Harris, Eves, Sterling, Runciman, are very substantially advantaged by a portion of this bill, and it is wrong that we should be so advantaged. ........... What we have here today, I say to my friends, in one particular respect is another sweetheart deal for a few members of this Legislature named Harris, Eves, Conway, among others. I want to make it plain. No one benefits more from this change than I do. It's a wrong thing for me to support. I would go even further and say it's immoral."

Today, Mr. Conway has unfettered access to over $1 million of pension money that had previously been designated as Locked-In pension money.

Yet he said such exclusive privilege was both wrong and immoral.

Now, let us fast forward to Christmas 2006.As reported in the CTV article of December 21, 2006, you Mr. McGuinty, were initially opposed to the magnanimous pay raise that was being proposed for MPPs.

However upon the final vote being taken, you ended up being a major recipient of this magnanimous pay raise.

Once again, MPPs, including yourself, received extraordinary financial gain just before Christmas.

Once again too, you have profited from gains achieved, in some measure, on the backs of seniors who hold Locked-In pensions.

Where certain special MPPs in 1999 received unfettered access to their pension monies at age 55, monies that had been accrued entirely from within a defined benefit plan called the infamous MPPs gold-plated pension plan, you now have had the audacity to allow seniors unfettered access to only 25% of their pension money, with the full access being delayed until age 90. As you well know, most seniors will not be alive at age 90 and as such will forfeit much of their hard-earned pension monies to the government in the form of estate taxes.

Yet your fellow Liberal colleagues such as Jim Bradley, Sean Conway, Elinor Caplan and Tony Ruprecht, and the list goes on, who also may not be alive at age 90, get 100% unfettered pension access at age 55 and thus are able to enjoy their pension monies while still living.

It is these forfeited pension monies that are paying a portion of your magnanimous pay raise.Also, the CTV article below makes reference to the fact the MPPs no longer have a pension plan.

Such information from MPPs is flat-out deception of the public through semantics. Each MPP does have a pension plan. It is called an RRSP plan to which they now have unfettered access.

What each MPP no longer has though, is membership in the former MPPs gold-plated defined benefit pension plan.

Under relentless pressure from the public because of the inordinate pension benefits that politicians had bestowed upon themselves over the years, this plan was dissolved in 1995.

The 10 per-cent of earnings that is now being contributed to each MPP's RRSP plan is in part coming from seniors who own Locked-In pensions.

These are the same people Mr. McGuinty, to whom you refuse to extend unfettered pension access privileges.

Mr. McGuinty, as you attend the Christmas recital at the school where your wife teaches, look around the room and see the number of grandparents that are there proudly supporting their grandchildren's efforts.

Some of these grandparents own Locked-In pensions and as such are unable to enjoy the quality of life during their golden years that they deserve.

Why? The answer is quite simple. You are denying them unfettered access to their own hard-earned pension monies while they are living. Yet at the same time you demand that they pay for your magnanimous pay raises and your rich pension buyouts of 1999.

Your recent announcement of a national holiday in February is nothing but another example of a cruel shell game perpetrated in part against seniors.

Everything costs, including your new holiday announcement and for sure it will be seniors with Locked-In pensions who will once again be asked to dig a little deeper.

Why is a lock on one's financial assets, especially seniors, only acceptable for ordinary Ontarians but not acceptable for you Mr. McGuinty?

As we await your Christmas message and hope upon hope that you don't find another way to award yourself another delightful Christmas gift, will you answer your own question as it relates to Locked-In pensions ... that is the question you asked of Mr. Eves back in 1999 that is still waiting for an honest answer today?"

How can you possibly justify this double standard?

I, along with hundreds of thousands of other seniors, await your answer.

Kenneth Elliott

Letter to Government

2007-12-01T12:26:00.000-08:00

Hi All ;

This is a letter I just recently sent to Government. We are still working towards unlocking LIF's 100% in Ontario Regards Bill C

Dear Dalton and Members of Provincial Parliament ;

Congratulations on achieving a second majority victory.

I am writing you again to request that you take a serious look at the locked-in pension issue.

There is no logical reason that these pensions should be kept locked in.

The statement your past Finance Minister gave on the Unlocking issue was ,

Quote " I don't think that this has any thing to do with protecting senior citizens from investors whether unscrupulous or not. It's about simply honoring the agreement the trust relationship between the employer and the employee at the time those funds were put in. "

I have talked with a few employers about the last statement about " honoring the agreement " .Their response to that was , the agreement to provide , was a negotiation between the employer and the employed to provide a Pension for retirement. They did not feel that this pension should be locked in at retirement.

Many People were caught in this locked in Pension Scam .

I was one of them!

I also have received hundreds of letters ,as I am sure You have ,that there are many people that were misinformed about these locked in pensions.

This is what happened to me.

When I was asked to join this pension plan in the 70's I was told that the employer would contribute 4% of my wage to a pension fund if I contributed 4% ( It was voluntary , some people did not join) I was told I could contribute more if I wished as it would help to give me more money at retirement. I moved my contribution up to 10% thinking that this was a great way to save for retirement (( I was sure wrong on that thought ! ))

I faithfully put money into the plan believing how good things would be when I reached Retirement .

In the early 80's a financial planer from Standard Life ( The institution that looked after our fund ) told us about RRSP's and how they weren't locked in and how we would have complete control of them at retirement.

I then spoke up and said that we had best get out of our locked in fund then and invest in RRSP's (( everybody in our group agreed on doing this ))

The Planner then said " You don't have to make any change , If you quit before your normal retirement date . You will be able to transfer your funds into a RRSP

"The one important thing he didn't tell us was that it would be a Locked-in RRSP.

None of us therefore invested in a Unlocked RRSP.

Years later in 1999 a fellow worker decided to retire at 60. He left his job and applied for his retirement funds .He then got the shocking news that he would be only able to basically withdraw $ 8000.00 for every $100000.00 that he had in his pension fund. (( His plan was still Locked-in )) Needless to say he had to go back to work.

When we seen what happened we immediately went to the employer and told him we wanted out of the locked in plan. The Employer agreed saying that he also did not realize that the plan did not become unlocked at retirement.

We then started up a RRSP plan and the employer still put in their share of the money and we put in ours. The only thing that changes was the plan was not Locked in.

Changing the plan did not help many of us as some were already nearer retirement and I became disabled and was no longer able to do my Job.

Thank God I had invested in a RRSP for my wife and we were able to withdraw her funds as needed for the last 8 years or I would have lost everything that I had worked so hard for .

There are many people that I receive letters from that saved believing that they would be able to use these funds in their retirement as they wished.

They were misinformed by the financial advisers and led to believe that they would have full access to their funds. (( It Should be noted !! This is their Own Money and they took the Risks in investment ))

Will You Please tell me why your government will not unlock these funds for the seniors of Ontario!!

As I am sure You know that Saskatchewan has unlocked these funds 100% in 2002 for their Retired Seniors. Manitoba has also unlocked 50% and is being asked to unlock the remaining 50%. Alberta unlocked 50% and Now British Columbia is going to follow Alberta by unlocking 50% in it's Province.

Organizations such as Canada's Association For The 50 Plus , The Common Front For Retirement Security with 2 Million members across Canada , The Ontario Coalition of Senior Organizations ,The Ontario Coalition of Independent Lif Holders. All back unlocking LIF's 100% at 55 years of age in Ontario.

Prominent People such as Professor Jack Mintz , Actuary Malcolm Hamilton , Financial Writer Gordon Pape .All agree that Ontario should unlock LIF's 100% as Saskatchewan did for their Senior retiree's.

Please tell me what logical reason why the Government of Ontario feels that they should only unlock 25% instead of the full 100% of the Citizens own Money.

Bill Costello ,

25% Unlocking Information

2007-11-01T08:04:00.000-07:00

Hi All; Here is some information on the Unlocking of your 25% in January. We Will still be going after the 100%. We are just letting the party's reorganize after the election. Keep encouraging people to sign the online petition ( I will be mailing it in again ) and also Please keep mailing the Premier and MPP's and our soon to be new Finance Minister.

Take Care , Regards Bill C Changes

To The Rules For Ontario Locked-In Accounts On July 27, 2007, O. Reg. 416/07 under the Pension Benefits Act was filed.

The Regulation makes numerous important changes to the rules governing locked-in accounts. The following are answers to some of the questions that are likely to arise as a result of these changes.

For ease of reference, the questions are grouped under the following headings: Overview of changes

Q: What are the key changes to the locked-in account rules?

A: The key changes are: A new Life Income Fund (the "New LIF") is introduced effective January 1, 2008. It will provide more flexible payments and allow owners a one-time opportunity to withdraw up to 25% of the amount in the New LIF.

An option to directly transfer money from a locked-in account to an unlocked vehicle, a registered retirement savings plan ("RRSP") or a registered retirement income fund ("RRIF") is provided in certain situations.

Effective January 1, 2008, owners of locked-in accounts who are non-residents of Canada, as determined by the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") for the purposes of the federal Income Tax Act, may apply two years after departure from Canada to withdraw the money in their accounts.

The current Life Income Fund (the "Old LIF") and the Locked-In Retirement Income Fund ("LRIF") will not be available for purchase after December 31, 2008.

Q: Which changes come into effect as of July 27, 2007?

A: Owners of Old LIFs are no longer required to purchase an annuity by the end of the year in which they reach 80 years of age.

Owners of Old LIFs will be able to continue their LIF after they reach 80 years of age. Owners of Locked-In Retirement Accounts ("LIRAs") can now keep the money in their LIRA until the end of the year in which they reach the age of 71 rather than the end of year in which they reach the age of 69.

This reflects a change made to the federal Income Tax Act.

Owners of Old LIFs and LRIFs can transfer the money in their accounts to a LIRA prior to the end of the year in which they reach the age of 71.

Changes that affect the Old LIF

Q: I currently own an Old LIF. Do I have to make any changes to it to comply with the new rules?

A: There is no need to make any immediate changes to your LIF as a result of the new rules. However, since an annuity purchase is no longer required, you can continue your LIF past age 80 and you can transfer the money to a LIRA until the end of the year in which you reach age 71.

Q: Can I still buy an annuity with money in my Old LIF?

A: Yes, at any age.

Q: Will there be any effect on the amount of the annual income payment from the Old LIF in 2007?

A: No. The minimum and maximum amounts for the annual income payment for 2007 were established as of January 1, 2007 and will not change.

Q: Will the new rules change the formula for determining the minimum and maximum amount of the annual income payment for the 2008 year?

A: No. The minimum and maximum for 2008 will be calculated using the same formula as in 2007.

Q: If I want to transfer money out of my Old LIF, to which vehicles can I make the transfer?

A: You can transfer money in an Old LIF to a LIRA until the year in which you reach age 71, to another Old LIF or to an LRIF before December 31, 2008, or for the purchase of an annuity.

After January 1, 2008, you will be able to transfer the money to a New LIF as soon as financial institutions make the New LIF available.

Q: What are the differences between the Old LIF and the New LIF?

A: The New LIF will have another option for determining the maximum annual income payments and you will have a time limited option to withdraw or transfer to an RRSP or RRIF 25% of the value of the funds transferred into a New LIF.

Q: Can I withdraw or transfer 25% of the funds from my Old LIF?

A: No. The 25% withdrawal or transfer option is only available under the New LIF.

Q: What happens if I die while I still have my Old LIF?

A: Your surviving spouse is entitled to the full amount in your Old LIF in an unlocked lump sum as of the date of death.

If you do not have a surviving spouse on the date of your death, your named beneficiary, or if there is none, your estate, is entitled to receive the amount in your Old LIF.

Effective January 1, 2008, your spouse will have the option of transferring the full amount to his or her own RRSP or RRIF where permitted by the federal Income Tax Act.

Changes that affect the Locked-In Retirement Income Fund (LRIF)

Q: I currently own an LRIF. Do I have to make any changes to it to comply with the new rules? What happens if I do nothing?

A: There is no need to make any changes to your LRIF as a result of the new rules.

Q: Will there be any effect on the amount of the annual income payment from the LRIF in 2007?

A: No. The minimum and maximum amounts for the LRIF in 2007 were based on the amount earned by the LRIF in the previous fiscal year and will not change.

Q: Will the new rules change the formula for determining the minimum and maximum amount of the annual income payment for 2008?

A: The minimum and maximum for 2008 will be calculated using the same formula as in 2007.

Q: If I want to transfer money out of my LRIF, to which vehicles can I make the transfer?

A: You can transfer money in an LRIF to a LIRA until the end of the year in which you reach age 71, to an Old LIF or another LRIF before December 31, 2008, or for the purchase of an annuity.

After January 1, 2008, you will be able to transfer the money to a New LIF as soon as financial institutions make the new LIF available.

Q: What are the differences between the LRIF and the New LIF?

A: You will be able to withdraw or transfer to an RRSP or RRIF 25% of the value of the funds transferred into a New LIF and one of the methods by which to determine the maximum annual income payment (the cumulative investment earnings since the inception of the LRIF) will be replaced by the maximum amount under the LIF formula.

If you transfer from an LRIF to a New LIF, you will no longer be able to carry forward the unused portion of your LRIF.

If you do not use up the unused portion of your annual income payment in a fiscal year before your LRIF becomes a New LIF, you will no longer be able to add the unused portion to the maximum amount you can withdraw in future years.

Q: What happens if I die while I still have my LRIF?

A: Your surviving spouse is entitled to the full amount in your LRIF in an unlocked lump sum as of the date of death.

If you do not have a surviving spouse on the date of your death, your named beneficiary, or if there is none, your estate, is entitled to receive the amount in your LRIF.

Effective January 1, 2008, your spouse will have the option of transferring the full amount to his or her own RRSP or RRIF where permitted by the federal Income Tax Act. The New LIF

Q: When will the New LIF be available?

A: The regulation allowing for the New LIF will come into effect on January 1, 2008. After that date, financial institutions will be able to make the New LIF available to consumers once they get approval for their New LIF contract from the Canada Revenue Agency.

Q: Who will be able to purchase the New LIF?

A: An owner of an Old LIF, an LRIF, a LIRA, or a member of a registered pension plan who has terminated employment and is entitled to an immediate pension, or the member's former spouse, may transfer their commuted value to a new LIF.

Q: What are the significant features of the New LIF?

A: First, you will be able to keep the New LIF past age 80.

If you took the maximum income payment each year, your New LIF would be exhausted by age 90, but if there are assets remaining in the New LIF at age 90, you may continue to keep it and withdraw income from it in subsequent years.

Second, the maximum annual income payment will be the greater of the amount you could be paid under the formula in the New LIF (which is the same as the formula in the Old LIF) or the amount of investment earnings of the New LIF in the previous year.

Third, you will be able to withdraw or transfer to an RRSP or RRIF up to 25% of the amount transferred into the New LIF.

Q: How will the 25% withdrawal work?

A: Owners of a New LIF will have the one-time option of withdrawing or transferring to an RRSP or RRIF an amount up to 25% of the total market value of the assets transferred into the New LIF.

The transfer to a New LIF may be from an Old LIF, an LRIF, a LIRA, or from a registered pension plan when an individual who is entitled to an immediate pension terminates employment and is entitled to a transfer of his or her commuted value.

However, the 25% withdrawal will not apply when assets are transferred from one New LIF to another New LIF.

Q: When will I be able to make a 25% withdrawal? How do I apply, and to whom?

A: The owner of the New LIF will be able to apply to the financial institution that issued the New LIF within 60 days from the date the assets were transferred to the New LIF. Application must be made on a form that is issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The form will be available in January 2008.

Q: What would happen if I failed to make the 25% withdrawal within 60 days? Is there another opportunity to make the 25% withdrawal?

A: If you do not apply to make the 25% withdrawal within 60 days of a transfer of funds into a New LIF, there will not be another opportunity to take advantage of this provision

Commision Study

2007-10-18T08:03:00.000-07:00

Hi All;

Below is a article many of you may have seen in the paper.

I just wanted to let you all know information I have received about the Commision Concerning the Study.

Pension law to be revamped

Finance Minister Greg Sorbara says Ontario's pension law is out of date and needs a facelift. He says the province is looking at revamping its pension law and has asked the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions to hold hearings over the next few months. Sorbara says Ontario's pension law was a leader when it was enacted in 1986 but has lost pace with other regions. The commission will take written and oral submissions from pensioners, employees, plan administrators and other interested people. Hearings are set for Kingston, Ottawa, Sudbury, Toronto, Windsor and Hamilton. The study is the first review of pension law in 20 years.

Information I have received.

The last time we contacted the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions, they told us that unlocking of pensions was not included in the study.

Bill Gleberzon of CARP is submitting a large brief to try and change their minds and have them include unlocking pensions.

Many Members of The Coalition of independent holders have sent in e-mail submissions.

I encourage all people to still write their Premier and MPP's to unlock locked-in pensions.

We have not given up on this issue.

Regards Bill C

The Dalton Love In Hour

2007-10-10T08:07:00.000-07:00

DALTON MCGUINTY'S TIME ON AIR YESTERDAY

I know it is too late to change peoples minds about the people we are voting for , To Me it just shows how much disrespect the Liberal Government has for the people of this Province.

Below are a couple of letters sent out in disgust of what happened at a radio show that was to take call's to ask questions of the Premier.

Good morning Eileen,

Yesterday afternoon, Michael Coren admitted on air that Mr. McGuinty had not, as had earlier been promised to CFRB listeners, opened the phone lines to the Ontario electorate.

Not only did we witness another brazen example of this man's contempt for Ontarians, but CFRB went on to support such deceit by announcing that there would be a repeat broadcast later in the evening.

Your unwillingness to expose this man for what he is ... one who refuses to have open and honest dialogue with Ontarians ... a glaring example being his recent brush-off of the Ottawa cancer patient ... has left me wondering if there is even one member of the media (CFRB included) who values truth and moral decency any longer.

Taylor Parnaby, during his news broadcast on Friday, October 05, 2007, was musing over the proliferation of "spin" . half-truths, quarter-truths and outright lies ... that is handed to Ontarians daily and how difficult it is, even for him, to get honest answers to direct questions. He went on to say that one person from one of the political parties who has been regularly sending him "spin", will no longer be welcome in his office, once the election is over.

Why didn't CFRB immediately take Mr. McGuinty off the air when it realized there would be no open phone lines for listeners? After all, listeners were being encouraged by CFRB, right up to the last minute before the programme aired, to call in if they wanted to speak directly to the Premier.

Just disgusted ... this blatant manipulation of Ontarians by our politicians has to stop ... otherwise our vote is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Kenneth Elliott

To: eileen@cfrb.com
Subject: The dalton love in hour
What a disgusting piece of tripe I heard on CFRB yesterday. I could not believe what went on. Back slapping Buddies IE: Sorbara, Bradley, and the hand picking of the easy questions, ( and very few for that matter ), did it for for me. A real leader would not be afraid of the real questions, nor the real answers, but he just dodged every political issue that was important to your listeners. I speed dialed your show for the whole hour.This will have an effect on how much I listen to CFRB in the future. What a disgusting display of partisanship, back slapping hip hip Gee what a great guy I am Dalton Show. I could not believe a station like yours would allow such deceit , and the side stepping of the real important issues and questions in this election, that your listeners would have liked to put forth. A fed up listener. Philip James

2007-10-09T08:21:00.000-07:00

CARP’s campaign to unlock locked-in funds in Ontario

Article By: Bill Gleberzon, CARP co-director of Government Relations

CARP campaigns to unlock locked-in funds 100 per cent for 450,000 Ontarians.

The primary objective of CARP’s campaign in conjunction with the Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-In Fund Holders is to prompt the government elected on October 10th to unlock LIFs by 100% in Ontario as Saskatchewan did in 2002.

Our proposal is to allow LIF holders to unlock 50% at age 55 and the balance (or total) at 65.

Locked-In Funds are the best kept pension secret in Canada - and the most misunderstood.

Therefore, the second purpose in our campaign is to make the estimated over 450,000 Ontario LIF-holders, the general public and the media aware of what a LIF is, how it works and the obstacles that currently await Ontario LIF-holders when they want to access their pension money.

To achieve this objective a media conference was held at CARP’s National Office on September 26, 2007. CARP’s position was supported at the media conference by: - Canada’s preeminent tax expert Professor Jack Mintz, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto (“… I don’t see why [unlocking LIFs] should be any less than 100 percent …from a public policy perspective.”)

- Actuary Malcolm Hamilton, World Wide Partner Mercer (“… we can conclude with great confidence that these [locked-in] rules aren’t doing anything constructive any more.”)

- With a message from financial author and publisher Gordon Pape (“I wish to strongly support CARP’s initiative to encourage the Government of Ontario to implement 100% unlocking of the assets held in LIRAs, LIFs and other types of locked-in plans.”)

- Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-In Fund Holders members Philip James and Bill Nafziger provided personal testimony on the adverse impact of not giving LIF-holder access to their own money

- Bill Gleberzon, CARP’s Director of Government Relations, presented CARP’s case. Their speeches and supporting documentation, including a letter of endorsement from Ontario Society (Coalition) of Senior Citizens’ Organizations and CARP’s unofficial list of 61 MPPs who accessed their Locked-In Funds 100%, are available on the LIF web page at www.carp.ca.

A precedent for unlocking LIFs 100% was set in Ontario in 1999 when 61 Ontario MPPs were enabled by legislation to unlock their Legislative pension by 100%.

Some of these 61 MPP's are running in the current campaign, including Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. James Bradley, Mr. Hampton and Mr. Runciman -- the later two have admitted publicly that they were among the recipients of this privilege.

CARP does not begrudge these 61 MPP's the right to unlock their LIFs 100 per cent.

But the Association does greatly begrudge them denying that right to all other Ontarians.

As a non-partisan association, CARP focuses on issues, not parties or personalities. However, at this point in the current election campaign:

- the Conservatives have promised to unlock them 100%

- the NDP introduced a Private Members Bill in December, 2006 to unlock them 100% -- although the Party has not yet followed up by including that proposal in their platform

- the Liberal’s new policy to unlock LIFs by 25 per cent will take effect in January 2008. CARP’s recommends that:

- if the Conservatives win the election, they must live up to their commitment to unlock LIFs by 100 per cent soon after forming the government.

- if the NDP are elected, we trust that they will implement the Private Members’ Bill introduced last December within a short period of coming to power.

- and, if the Liberals are re-elected, we urge them to do the democratic thing and unlock LIFs by 100 per cent. Or, at the very least, they should hold extensive public consultations across the province on their new policy of unlocking LIFs by 25 per cent to determine if that is what Ontarians want done—rather than establishing their new policy by paternalistic fiat.

To sign a petition on unlocking Ontario LIFs 100 percent, go

to:www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

Why will the Liberals Not unlock Our pensions

2007-10-08T10:30:00.000-07:00

Hi All This is a note to a question I was asked. ( Why wont the Liberals unlock our personal pensions? )

My Reply

It Just doesn't make sense and I cant understand their thoughts because of these things.

A person that has a LIRF can invest their money and lose it all . ( they have no problem with that )

They allow the pension to be unlocked fully and transferred in to a RRIF If the pension holder dies and it goes to the spouse. ( I have no problem unlocking for the spouse)

The Part I cant understand is if they can do that for one. Why cant they do it for two ? ( to me this doesn't make seance as the Plan Holder more the likely has more knowledge of the workings of the funds.

People like Jack & Malcolm & Gordon & CARP & Senior organizations endorse unlocking these pensions 100%.

Financle institutions say it would be better for them. ( Less paper work )

It would be better for the economy of Ontario.

Saskatchewan did it 5 years ago and Other provinces are following.

The people have been Asking for this to be done.

Greg Sorbara The Ontario Finance Minister Said "it is not to protect the people".

Greg Sorbara said "it was to protect the contract with the Employer "

( This Contract is no longer a contract when the plan is moved to a LIRF or RRSP ( The employer is no longer involved )

Is it that McGuinty and Company want to have power over the people of this province.

If there really a logical reason that they want to keep these pensions locked in. I cant under stand it.

It would be sure nice if we could sit down face to face with the Liberals and let them logically explain why they refuse to unlock these pensions.

Regard Bill C

This Part of The fight is just about over

2007-10-08T09:45:00.000-07:00

Hi All; This part of the fight is just about over, the story will be told on Wednesday.

If the Liberals get in We will have a hard fight to try and have these pensions unlocked 100%

Anybody that wants these pensions unlocked had best get out and Vote for either the PC or NDP party because if not. Who Knows!!

Here is a letter I sent out to some papers in NW Ontario recently and some of my thoughts below itRegards Bill Costello

Unlock pensions

Bill CostelloWednesday, October 3, 2007

Dear editor:

An open letter to local Liberal candidate Mike Wood.

Why is it, when asked the question to all members if they would unlock locked-in pensions at the all-candidates’ debate on Kenora TV, that you immediately attacked Howard Hampton and his wife for having their pensions unlocked 100 percent when they retire at the age of 55 or their earlier retirement date.

Why didn’t you also state that 20 of your own party members also had their pensions unlocked—and many of them for a lot more money than Howard and his wife will receive when they retire.

We don’t begrudge the MPP's for having their pensions unlocked. This is the sensible thing to do.

We do, however, begrudge the fact that even though the Liberal leader spoke out in the legislature against it being done for the 61 special MPP's (including himself), that it was not fair because it was not done for the rest of the citizens in Ontario.

He now refuses to do it for the working people and seniors of Ontario.

Why is it that the Liberal party now only offers to unlock these pensions 25 percent and the remainder at 90 years of age? An age when most of the people already will have died!

Why is it that the Liberal party refuses to unlock 100 percent when the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives, plus C.A.R.P. (the organization for 50-plus) and experts in the field of pensions, such as Gordon Pape, Jack Mintz, and Malcolm Hamilton, all agree that these pensions should be unlocked 100 percent for the citizens of Ontario at their retirement age, as it was done for the citizens of Saskatchewan in 2002.

Why is it the Liberal party refuses to do the right thing?

Especially considering that it would not cost the taxpayer one cent and also would improve the economy.

Why is it the Liberal party refuses, after being lobbied for two years, to do the honourable thing and unlock these pensions.

(Signed),

Bill CostelloAtikokan, Ont.

Editor’s note: Bill Costello is with the Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-in Fund Holders

A Letter to Mr. Kwinter

2007-10-06T13:44:00.000-07:00

Hi All ; This is a letter Ken sent to a Liberal MPP.

Good morning Mr. Kwinter,Like your Liberal colleagues, both past and present ... Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Michael Bryant, Mr. Sean Conway, Ms Caroline DiCocco, Mr. Bruce Crozier, Mr. John Gerretsen, Mr. Dalton McGuinty, and the list goes on ... you clearly understood the incongruity of Bill 27.

Your words from the Hansard for Thursday, December 9, 1999 are ... " I haven't quite come to terms as to why there is a special provision for MPPs. What is the intent?

I don't understand that.......... Why are we now singling out MPPs, and not only MPPs but a very small number who could have access to this provision?In fact on that same day you went to great lengths to tell the Legislature that as a former Minister of Financial Institutions in 1986, you had introduced Bill 170, an Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act.

You said concerning Bill 170 ... "I would caution the members on the opposite side and the minister and the people in the ministry to make sure they have a coherent, clear rationale for why this is being done, particularly when you take a look at Bill 170, the bill I introduced on December 9, 1986, where there was absolutely no mention of MPPs, no mention of any particular group other than pensioners.

It was totally universal across the whole field of pensions.

"I have been asking you for some time ... are you a man of integrity . are you going to tell Ontarians the REAL and WHOLE truth behind Bill 27 . given that Mr. Bradley, Mr. Conway and 18 others from your Liberal party received totally unfettered, unlocked pensions ... pensions that had been previously locked-in ... and ... despite many members of your own party, including yourself, speaking strongly against such exclusive privilege . they accepted their unlocked pensions anyway.

As you are well aware, this same extraordinary financial privilege has never been extended to any other Ontarian.

Your recent offering of a one-time, 25% unlocking privilege of principal . full unlocking being available at age 90 ... is a cruel and vicious joke against Ontarians ... when compared to what Mr. Bradley and Mr. Conway received!

Does the word HONOURABLE before your name compel you to tell ALL the truth ALL of the time ... or does it simply mean an enhanced pay cheque ... a pay cheque that is paid in part by seniors who own locked-in pensions and who must submit to the vulgar restrictions imposed on their pensions by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.?

Are you or are you not going to tell the WHOLE truth?

You have been in power since 2003 and as such, have had ample opportunity to do so!

I again await your answer,

Kenneth Elliot

A Great Article

2007-10-03T17:08:00.000-07:00

Hi This is a Great article that Linda Leatherdale wrote.

http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale/2007/09/28/4533775-sun.html

Any wise politician knows this:

Don't tick off the blue-rinse crowd.

Well, this powerful voter group is ticked off. Skyrocketing property taxes have them seeing red. So do gouging electricity bills that Queen's Park hit with a debt retirement tax, plus GST. And they're angry about a clampdown on their precious income trusts, thanks to the feds.

But here's an issue that really has them riled. Not allowing them access to their locked-in pension money.

Their anger hits meltdown when they recall how MPPs were allowed total access to their pension money in 1999, when some $54 million was withdrawn from the old pension scheme, then topped up with $55 million from general revenues, for a total of $109 million funnelled into MPP RRSP accounts.

"It's disgusting how elected officials have this ongoing trend of continually taking care of themselves, while totally ignoring the rest of the electorate," writes Eva Cherwinski, one of thousands who've signed a petition demanding access to locked-in funds.

Here's how Ontario's pension laws work.

Let's say you're 48, and you get the boot out the corporate door. Any money accrued in your company pension plan would be moved into a Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA), and you're not allowed to touch the money until you're 55.

Problem is access is very limited, like only 6.7%. The older you get, the more money you can get at -- but not until age 90 can you take all your money.

James Law accuses Queen's Park of being "cruel." He wrote that five years ago his mother was diagnosed with cancer and his father, then 68, had a sizable amount of money in a locked-in pension. His parents wanted to travel and enjoy the money while they could, but his father was denied access to the funds. His mother died two years later, and now his dad is gone, too."

We, his children, did not want their money," Law said.

Recent changes to pension laws allow people facing financial hardships to get at the money. Also, you're allowed access if a doctor certifies you have less than two years to live. In the past, regulators voiced concern if people had access they could blow the money and become dependent on low-income government programs. Others worried benefits, like the GST credit and old age credits, could be jeopardized, plus investors would miss out on extra value in vested pensions.

But Malcolm Hamilton, a pension expert with Mercer Consulting, says their worries are misguided. "Personally, I don't see (why) the protection is needed," he said, pointing out investors have access to their RRSP money and there is no evidence of irresponsibility.

CONVERT OR CASH OUT

RRSP funds grow tax free up to age 71, when you must either convert to a RRIF or an annuity, or cash out.

Cash out early and you pay tax at your income tax rate.

The bottom line is Saskatchewan already allows 100% access to those 55 or older, Manitoba is soon to do the same, Alberta allows 50% at age 50, and New Brunswick 25%.

It's estimated one million Canadians have locked-in pension money, with 450,000 of them in Ontario.

"Why begrudge Ontarians the same right?" asks Bill Gleberzon, director of government relations with Canada's Association for the 50 Plus (CARP).

With only 12 days to the Oct. 10 Ontario election, the CARP, along with the Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-In Fund Holders, is making this a political hot potato.

This week, they went to Queen's Park to demand changes that would see those aged 55 be allowed to access 50% of locked-in funds, and at 65, 100%.

CARP has Conservative leader John Tory's support. He promises 100% access.NDP leader Howard Hampton is also committed.

In December 2006, NDP MPP Andrea Horwath tabled a private's members bill that would unlock funds.

With the heat on, Fiberal leader Dalton McGuinty was forced to introduce legislation to take effect in January 2008, that would allow people to transfer their current locked-in fund into a new locked-in fund, and be able to access 25% of the money within 60 days.

"Miss the 60 days, and you're out of luck," said CARP's Gleberzon.

Wanna fight back?

Go to www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html.

As Patricia Reeves argues, "It's our money, not yours!"

A Concerned Citizen

2007-10-02T15:53:00.000-07:00

Hi All;

I received this letter from a concerned Citizen who would like to encourage all people to read Linda Leatherdales Article of which I will post next.

Regards Bill C

From: John Hoell To: torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:32

PMSubject: Re-Retirees want their money

In regards to Linda leatherdale's column Friday Sept.28-Retirees want their money,I urge all Ontarians to read and understand her story.

I signed that petition 6 months ago after doing some serious investigating and was almost sick to my stomach.

In my opinion this trash that calls themselves the liberal party of Ontario must be voted out of office on October 10 and preferably into jail where most of them belong.

They are treating our seniors with complete disrespect and just plain arrogance.

If every taxpayer knew the facts (as this situation of these controversial locked-in pensions could very well apply to them and endanger their financial well being when they retire)

I am sure without doubt that they would vote these bums out come Oct.10.

This is disgusting the way our seniors who worked hard during their lives to be treated this way.

I personally have sent numerous emails to the liberals to explain themselves and what they intend to do to fix this mess but I did not receive one reply,which I figured anyways.

I know one thing absolutely for sure and that is on Oct.10 my vote will not be for these incompetent liberals and I urge everyone to go out and exercise their right to vote.

J.Hoell Barrie

A Free Vote

2007-10-01T18:39:00.000-07:00

Hi All;

This is a letter I just received.

Regards Bill C

There has been a lot of discussion in the media and by the other political parties about bringing faith-based schools into the public education system. The John Tory campaign wanted to make sure you were aware of additional details John Tory provided today on this issue as part of his speech to the Economic Club of Toronto.

In John’s own words,“If I have the privilege of serving as Premier, I will strike a commission, consult with the public, create pilot projects, and place a bill before the [Ontario] Legislature. But that bill will only proceed with the support of the people, through their elected representatives. MPPs will be allowed a free vote, so they are at liberty to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents. In this significant way, the public can be more involved in the decision making.”

To be clear:

John Tory is allowing all of his MPPs to have a free vote in the Legislature on this issue when it comes before them in two – three years. This means that they will all be able to vote based on their own conscience and the wishes of their constituents. In the meantime, over the next year or so, a commission to study the issue will be conducted. Then, appropriate pilot projects will be conducted. Then, a committee of the Legislature will review and study the work of the commission. And, after that two – three year process, members of the Legislature will have a free vote so they can reflect the wishes of their constituents. John Tory will vote for it, but, PC MPPs will be free to vote as they see fit.

John Tory has been open and honest about his views and the motivation behind them. He has been clear today, before the election, that there will be a free vote for MPPs and he has always had the same position in public as he has had in private on this issue.

John Tory continues to be the only provincial party leader offering real leadership for Ontario. Through strengthening and modernizing health care, getting rid of ‘catch and release’ justice, providing real assistance for our farmers, eliminating Dalton McGuinty’s regressive health tax, and helping our most vulnerable citizens, only John Tory has a vision and plan for a strong, inclusive and economically prosperous Ontario.

Media Conference Summary

2007-09-30T15:55:00.000-07:00

Good afternoon,

Wednesday, September the 26th in Toronto at the CARP headquarters, a media conference took place that included notable financial economics experts Jack Mintz and Malcolm Hamilton, Bill Gleberzon of CARP,members of our Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders, reporters from various media organizations and other interested parties.

Bill Gleberzon of CARP, head of CARP's campaign to unlock pensions,hosted the event and presented a comprehensive summary of the locked-in pensions, the 61 MPP's with full 100% access, the invited speakers and the current status of the political parties position.

A number of items relating to the unlocking of pensions in our provinceand various rationale for unlocking locked-in pensions was discussed at length by the participants.

A message of support for unlocking locked-in pensions, written by renowned financial expert Gordon Pape (although unable to attend), was read on his behalf.

Our two attending Coalition members, Bill Nafziger and Philip James,gave examples of the hardships and limitations affecting them as a direct result of holding one of these restrictive locked-in pensions as well as a number of other stories of hardships being encountered by Ontario residents that are currently in possession of locked-inpensions.

They were very well received and as a direct result, one of their stories is featured in today's TheStar.com. The article can be accessedon the internet at;http://www.thestar.com/News/article/260918

Another article has also been written today in the Financial Post byJonathan Chevreau under the banner "The Wealthy Boomer" based on an interview with Malcolm Hamilton and can be accessed at;http://communities.canada.com/financ...-pensions.aspx

Philip James read our Coalition statement that I wrote on behalf of the members of our Coalition.

It can be found on the internet using google and searching for "Coalition of Independent LIF Holders".

We are encouraging every Ontarian who is currently in possession of a LIRA, LIF or LRIF, (essentially a form of a locked-in pension) to lobby your MPP and the candidates in your local riding to unlock all"locked-in" pensions 100% thus allowing you to decide for your self how to manage your own pension money.

Remember this is not government money- it's yours - 100% of it.

You must demand to have the same right to manage it as you see fit, as was created for 61 MPP's by MPP's in 1999.

Yes, they already have 100% access to their former "wound-up"pension through an amendment to provincial legislation they exclusively created for themselves in December of 1999.

All other Ontarians do not have this privilege!

We are also encouraging every Ontarian who is currently receiving some form of pension benefit from your employer to take heed of the future limitations you will face if you are forced to have your company pension benefit transferred to a "locked-in" retirement account due to layoff, termination, company closure or similar event that creates such an occurrence.

Although this may not be on the minds of the younger workforce since retirement is far into the future, changing the legislation to have these "locked-in" retirement accounts (LIRA's) unlocked at age 55 is as equally important for the younger workforce as it is for those who are currently at the qualified retirement age (usually 55), since they too will one day be in a similar position once they reach retirement age.

The campaign to have these pensions unlocked for those now with LIF's and LRIF's (created from the afore mentioned LIRA's) today is extremely important as it greatly affects the quality of retirement they will have if access to their locked-in pension is increased to 100% as 61MPP's in 1999 did for themselves.

Yes, there are 61 elite Ontarians amongst us that enjoy a benefit that is not available to you!

The Liberals have introduced a one time 25% unlock option in January of 2008 in an attempt to appease the holders of locked-in pensions.

We believe this to be a hypocritical insult to all Ontarians while twenty of Premiere McGuinty's Liberals, past and present, continue to enjoy100% access for themselves!

They continue to support this hypocrisy by allowing two acts to exist, with dramatically different access provisions, governing the exact same type of pension derived assets.

One act (MPP Pension Benefits Act) governing and granting themselves 100% access and the other act (Ontario Pension Benefits Act) governing the rest of all other Ontarians allowing a paltry 6.5% yearly access!

The NDP, although as of today quiet on this issue in their campaign , had introduced a bill (Bill 175) in December of 2006 to unlock pensions 100% as well.

The PC's are the only party to date that have publicly committed to 100% unlocking since their July 5th public announcement and continue to highlight this in their campaign, if elected.

Saskatchewan, in 2002, became a leader in respecting the rights of their residents to manage their own pension money and unlocked all locked-in pensions for ALL their residents, not just their provincial politicians.

Ontario stubbornly continues on with their repressive,regressive and discriminatory policies pertaining to locked-in pensions for all Ontarians, with the exception of the 61 MPP's of 1999.

We encourage you to exercise your rights and let your voice be heard in the upcoming provincial election and vote for the party that will unlock locked-in pensions 100% as was done for the 61 MPP's in 1999.

Our Coalition will accept nothing less than 100% unlocking, as was done in Saskatchewan, and parity with our own 61 MPP's of 1999!

Thank you , Grant Fleury

Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

Cheap Shot

2007-09-30T09:11:00.000-07:00

Hi All;

Rick Bartolucci took a cheep shot in the Sudbury Debate and this is a comment to Mr. Bartolucci.

Mr. Bartolucci in his shameful attempt to discredit his inexperienced opposition, cites the fact that Mr. Hampton, while disrespectfully referring to him as "Howie Hampton", received a $550, 000 pension buyout, hypocritically fails to include the 20 members of his own Liberal party who also received amounts far in excess of the $550, 000 collected by Mr. Hampton.

That's right! Twenty members of his own party, including McGuinty, Sorbara, Conway, Bradley, Ramsey etc... all received the same or similar amounts!

With that shot Mr. Bartolucci, you have reached the all-time zenith of hypocrisy.It's too bad your opponents didn't know anything about it, otherwise I'm sure you would have kept your little secret to yourself as you've done now for the last eight years.

What a shameful cheap shot!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.Mr. Bartolucci, besides being pompous in his attitude towards his opponents and his constituents, in his usual style fails to "tell the truth - the whole truth..." and include his own party members as recipients of this gross amount of taxpayers money.

Yes taxpayers money as well, because in order for all of them to get their pension buyouts, including his own Liberal brethren, the taxpayers of Ontario had to pay the 10 to 20 million dollar shortfall for the buyout to be completed.

Further he also fails to inform you all that this special unprecedented buyout was only created by the government for 61 MPP's while all other Ontarians were left out of this special little privilege.

That's right, the Liberals, including Mr. Bartolucci, so very eloquent in opposition to this financial largesse, have done nothing to include the rest of all Ontarians in this exclusive unfettered benefit.

That's right again, 61 MPP's amongst us are walking around quietly with full access to their pensions while the million other Ontarians with the same types of pension assets are struggling year after year with a mere 6.5% access!

So yes, Rick, why don't you you tell the public the truth - the whole truth and then maybe you won't be so smug when the audience and the public hears how much of a hypocrite you are.

Regards,Grant Fleury, Sudbury Ontario

Coalition of Independent LIF Holderslocked_pensions_gf@yaho o.ca

Statement from Conference

2007-09-28T19:05:00.000-07:00

Hi All;

This is a statement from our conference. It was quite a success.

As i get caught up with everything that has been happening I will try and post some of it. We are definitely gaining momentum.Regards Bill C

Good Morning and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak to you today.

The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders is composed of a number of private citizens assembled from various regions in Ontario who's sole purpose is to lobby the government to unlock all "locked-in" pensions in our province.

We are primarily arguing two issues within one campaign.The primary issue is that of fairness and equality under one law for all Ontario citizens regardless of vocation and void of political favouritism.

The secondary issue is that of the unjust government control of Ontarians access to their own personal locked-in pension assets. Assets that were generally derived from former employers "wound-up" defined benefit plans and employers defined contribution plans.

Regarding the primary issue, the current rules and regulations set out in the Pension Benefits Act are discriminatory, as theyre not equally applied to all Ontarians.

The MPPs pension assets, derived from their former wound-up pension plan in 1995, fall under the jurisdiction of the MPPs Pension Act, thus the discrimination. Two separate Acts for the same type of locked-in pensions.

Discrimination?

YES, there are currently 61 MPP's, both former and present, that through a deceitful amendment to the MPP Pensions Act, cloaked within Bill 27 in 1999, exempted themselves from the highly restrictive and paternalistic legislation that governs all other Ontarians LIRA's, LIF's and LRIF's.

Regarding the secondary issue, the yearly maximum withdrawal limits for those who meet the minimum age requirement (usually 55) for access to their locked-in LIF and LRIF pensions is approximately 6.5%, increasing slightly year after year, until either age 80 if it's a LIF or age 90 if it's an LRIF.

The aforementioned 61 MPP's have 100% access! The zenith of discrimination!YES, 100% unrestricted access to the same type of pension-derived locked-in assets as compared to the rest of all other Ontarians 6.5%!

Outright inequality and double standard. Two separate laws for the same type of pension. One for 61 MPP's and one for an estimated million plus other Ontarians.

Our Coalition is dead set against such inequality and blatant discrimination. Discrimination and silence since 1999 that continues to percolate within the ruling Liberal party.

We are demanding fair and equal treatment and insist on being included in this exclusive group of 61 privileged Ontarians by receiving the same 100% access to our locked-in pensions.

According to our research, there were Sixty-one (61) MPPs, across all three parties that benefited from this immorally and selfishly conceived piece of legislation consisting of 22 PCs, 19 NDP and 20 Liberals.

The names of these 61 MPPs are known to the Coalition as they were derived, with reasonable assurance, from the Ontario Legislature Hansard.This legislation, quietly kept from the public and cleverly tucked away within Bill 27, only unlocked their locked-in pensions, while leaving all other Ontarians behind.

For the past four years, Premiere Dalton McGuinty, Finance minister Greg Sorbara and Seniors minister Jim Bradley have continued to ignore the pleas of Ontarians begging for full access to their locked-in pensions, while specific members within their party, hypocritically, continue to have full 100% access to their own former locked-in pensions.

In the recent Liberal budget back in March, Greg Sorbara introduced a one time 25% unlocking option to hopefully appease the holders of locked-in pensions.

This was an insult to all Ontarians and continues to fly in the face of democracy, and equality under one law for all.

In 2002, Saskatchewan listened to the will of their people and eliminated these restrictions, granting full 100% access to all locked-in pensions through legislation that applied to ALL their residents, and not just their provincial politicians. Their belief was that their residents know best how and when to use their own private pension assets.

In December of 2006, Andrea Horwath of the NDP, introduced Bill 175 to unlock all locked-in pensions in Ontario receiving verbal support in the legislature from Bob Runciman of the PCs.

Predictably and true to their ignorance towards seniors locked-in pensions, the Liberal party ignored this bill and instead went on to introduce and pass a bill for themselves that essentially granted all MPPs a 35% pay raise.

During the current campaign in a press release and public appearance in July, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Tory committed to unlocking all locked-in pensions 100% if elected, citing that "Ontarians know best how to look after their money, not government".

Our goal here today is to create an awareness of these two issues within the general public. A public who for the most part, have no idea about the restrictions they will face when they qualify to withdraw their hard earned locked-in pension assets and who further and more importantly have no idea of the hypocritically conceived legislation that was created by politicians, for politicians, leaving the rest of Ontario shackled and begging for equal access to their own pension money.

We encourage you to support the parties in the upcoming election that will unlock pensions 100% for ALL Ontarians and not just a select few as was done in 1999.

Thank you for your time and allowing us the opportunity to speak to you about this extremely important issue affecting the quality and standard of living for the estimated million plus locked-in pension holders in the province of Ontario.

Sincerely,Grant FleuryOntario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

The Principals in the Coalition contact information is listed below;

Bill Costello: banjo6@baytel.net Bill Nafziger: nafjbg@perth.netKen Elliott: kenneth.elliott@sympatico.ca Philip James: philipajames@rogers.comAnna Pollock: beachers2@yahoo.com Bill Foan: wfoan@storm.caGrant Fleury: gjfleury@sympatico.ca

2007-09-25T19:35:00.000-07:00

Hi All; I just found this it was posted today.

NEWS RELEASE

JOSH PRINGLEPC CANDIDATESAULT STE. MARIE************************

A John Tory government will protect seniorsPC Leader John Tory said a PC government will give Ontarians 100 percent access to their locked-in pension income. This would mean seniors and retirees would have access to 50 percent of their pension at age 55 and the remaining 50 percent at age 65. In Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario, pensions are locked-in by the government as late as age 90 and the most any senior can hope to access from their pension savings is one out of every four dollars.

Tory indicated that when the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions reports back in the summer of 2008, he will move quickly to implement its recommendations.

“We can, and must, do more for our senior citizens,” Mr. Tory concluded. “This means adopting policies that put fairness for seniors first. Our seniors have done so much to make Ontario what it is today. In order to repay that debt, leadership matters.”

John Tory has cited comments made in March 2007 by Dr. Jack Mintz of the University of Toronto calling for Ontario to unlock the chains put on pension savings of employees who change jobs or retire.

According to Mintz, unlocking locked-in pensions would help contribute to labour mobility, better retirement plans and ultimately, a stronger economy. “Seniors and retirees built the foundation for the strong community and Ontario we know today. They deserve to have control over their hard-earned retirement savings,” said Pringle.

“We believe that Ontarians know best how to look after their money– not government.” “Our plan will allow seniors and retirees to have control over their own money and better plan for retirement based on their own needs,” said Pringle.

“Ontario’s pension regulations present unnecessary challenges for seniors and retirees looking to transform a lifetime of hard work into financial freedom.” Pringle added:

“This is a simple change to Ontario’s pension rules with no cost to the taxpayer. Unlike Dalton McGuinty, who is only willing to provide seniors and retirees with partial access to their locked in pension funds, a John Tory PC government will respect the wishes of these individuals to manage their money as they see fit.”

In the 2007 budget, Dalton McGuinty responded to seniors and retirees concerns about this issue by proposing a plan that would give Ontarians access to 25 percent of locked-in accounts at the earliest retirement date of the pension plan from which the money was transferred and 100 percent access at age 90.

To date, no regulations or legislation have been brought forward to enact these proposed changes.

“Leadership is about listening to seniors and retirees," said Pringle.

"If we are going to remove the barriers and give the people of our community the fairness and peace of mind they deserve, then leadership matters.

"Ontario PC Leader John Tory also today detailed the Progressive Conservative plan to protect senior citizens and other vulnerable homeowners struggling with rising property assessments and unduly restrictive pension structures.

“Today, many seniors are struggling to make ends meet. They are penalized by a property assessment system that punishes people on fixed incomes most of all,” John Tory said.

“Dalton McGuinty has failed to show real leadership on Ontario’s assessment crisis. Too many seniors are on the verge of being forced out of their own homes.”

John Tory said his government will take aim at the current municipal property tax assessment system, which is facing a “crisis of credibility” according to the Ontario Ombudsman. The average assessed home in Ontario recently rose from $179,151 in the 2003 taxation year to $232,883 in the 2006 taxation year. Some assessment increases have been as high as 150 percent, and homeowners are receiving assessments that contain incorrect information about their properties.

A John Tory government will provide stability to homeowners by:- Establishing a five percent annual cap on property assessment increases for as long as a person owns his or her home (including if the property is transferred to a spouse).-

Implementing a new reverse onus appeal system so the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) will have to justify an assessment increase.- Ensuring MPAC fully implements the recommendations of the Ombudsman, and if the serious problems he identified are not addressed, shutting down MPAC and building a better system. -

Addressing rural assessment inequities which currently penalize farmers who have been encouraged to have value-added production services.

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.

The Liberals offered a insulting 25% unlocking in their 2007 budget.

Invitation

2007-09-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

MEDIA ADVISORY/INVITATION

CARP FIGHTS FOR COMPLETE ACCESS TO LOCKED-IN-FUNDS

FOR ALL ONTARIANS BY AGE 65

Proposed policy will enhance equity and quality of life for LIF holdersToronto, Ontario,

September 19, 2007

– On Wednesday, September 26, at 10:30 a.m., Canada’s Association for the 50 Plus (CARP) will hold a press conference to urge the Ontario government to unlock LIFs for all Ontario LIF holders.

CARP, in conjunction with the Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-in-Fund Holders (OCILFH), proposes that 50 per cent of the principal in a LIF should be unlocked at age 55, with an additional 50 per cent unlocked at age 65.

450,000 Ontario LIF holders are seeking equity with the 61 Ontario MPPs who were allowed to unlock their LIFs; CARP urges the government to follow the example of Saskatchewan which has unlocked LIFs 100 per cent.

When: Wednesday September 26, 2007 @ 10:30am

Where: CARP’S National office, 27 Queen Street East, Suite 1307, Toronto, corner Victoria.

Who: Speakers will include preeminent tax expert, Professor Jack Mintz, leading actuary Malcolm Hamilton, Dr. W. Gleberzon, CARP’s Director of Government Relations, with a message from financial author and publisher, Gordon Pape.

Personal testimony by LIF holders will also be presented.

Contact: Michelle Taylor at 416-363-8748 ext. 236 or at m.taylor@50plus.com

A Response to a Article in the Star.com

2007-09-24T16:52:00.000-07:00

Hi All; This letter is in response to a article that was read in thestar.com

Ontario Election , Drawing the line on campaign attack ads.

Good evening to all Liberals who seem to think it is honourable to tell less than the whole truth. Your collective silence as Liberal Party members on the issue of locked-in pensions is despicable!!!!!!!!!!

In the article below, Ben Chin, Liberal campaign spokesperson is once again only telling part of the truth, while hiding the whole truth as it relates to the Ontario Liberal Party.
(See the 4th and 5th last paragraph of this article.)

As you are well aware Mr. Brown, Mr. Kwinter, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Ruprecht, Mr. Patten, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Sorbara, there were 20 Liberals in all who received the same financial opportunity that Howard Hampton and Shelley Martel received courtesy of Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act.

Each of you received the same privilege as did Hampton and Martel.

In fact your former colleague, Sean Conway (also a recipienet of the same privilege as Hampton and Martel) said in the House (see Hansard for Monday December 13, 1999) about Bill 27 ... " I want to make it plain. No one benefits more from this change than I do. It's a wrong thing for me to support. I would go even further and say it's immoral."

As for you Mr. Bradley, Minister Responsible for Seniors, your complete silence on this issue, while hundreds of thousands of your constituency (seniors holding locked-in pensions) suffer under the disgusting confines imposed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, is abhorrent. I don't know how you can live with yourself!

Is there even one Liberal party member with the guts to stand up and tell the honest truth about Bill 27, even as it relates to the Liberal Party.

So far there hasn't been one individual with that integrity.

STUDENTS SPEAK OUT

Kerry Gillespie Queen's Park Bureau
Like most teenagers, Xing Chiu watches television.
What's unusual is that she's particularly interested in the political ads and in reading what the various leaders have to say about their plans for Ontario.
But in an era of negative campaigning, she's often disappointed. Instead of learning about what each party will do, more often than not, she finds out just how much they dislike what the others are up to.
"Recently, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory accused Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty of being `the worst promise breaker of modern times.' At what point, or is there a point, where we draw the line between actually campaigning (on policies) and plain accusing and humiliating opponents?" asked Chiu, a 17-year-old student North Toronto Collegiate.
"You do draw the line ... you don't engage in nasty name calling," Tory said when the Star asked Chiu's question.
"To say someone is the greatest promise breaker in modern times, there's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek aspect to that ... but I'm trying to make a serious point," Tory said.
"The nature of some of the broken promises is unprecedented and it's a huge issue in this election if you believe as I do that you have to have credibility and trust in order to govern and lead effectively.
"But I will admit ... finding that balance between discussing your opponent's record and putting forward your own is a difficult challenge. But I really try."
There's a reason parties resort to bashing their opponents in the media and in paid negative ads, said Nelson Wiseman, University of Toronto political science professor.
"Some work, some blow up in your face, but for the most part (negative ads) do work and that's why parties use them," Wiseman said.
Last week, the NDP launched its first television ad. But rather than tell about its policies, all it does is bash McGuinty and his policies.
Often, it's not the party leader throwing the dirtiest mud.
Yesterday, within minutes of NDP Leader Howard Hampton promising to roll back the 25 per cent pay hike MPPs gave themselves last year, McGuinty's staff had sent reporters an email titled: "Troubling questions on Howard Hampton's rich rhetoric."
"When Mike Harris eliminated the MPP pension plan, Howard Hampton and his wife, Shelley Martel, were handed a near $1 million payout. Pretty easy to talk about pay cuts when you're sitting on a million-dollar nest egg, isn't it?" Liberal campaign spokesperson Ben Chin wrote.
Chiu, senior vice-president on her school's student council, knows a little about election campaigning.
"Campaigning means selling yourself, not degrading your opponents," Chiu said.
"I guess it's unavoidable in a provincial-level election to point out your opponents' flaws to boost your own popularity, but when opponent-bashing is the basis of one's campaign ... both parties lose credibility," she said.

Radio Interview

2007-09-17T16:54:00.000-07:00

Good Morning All,

As some of you may or may not be aware as yet, Philip James has secured a one hour time slot on the Bill Kelly Talk Show at radio station CHML Hamilton 900 on the AM band at 11am on Wednesday Sept. 19th. The broadcast will be streamed live and can be heard on the Internet at http://www.900chml.com .

Philip & Ken Elliott will be participating together as Billy Kelly's guests.
Over the last few days, we've been working together gathering material and discussing topics and various strategies in preparation for the program.
The topics will be around the various locked-in pensions issue and hopefully they will be able to provide the listeners with a clear realization of what a locked-in pension is, if any of the listeners in fact do have one that don't yet even realize that they do, the consequences and limitations of locked-in pensions, the current political parties position regarding unlocking these pensions, the hypocritical position and silence from the current Liberal government and of the real truth and discrimination behind Bill 27 and the select 61 MPP's who cleverly and deceitfully created legislation to bypass the very rules they continue to impose on Ontarians today.
Hopefully as time permits, they will be able to get most of this material out to the listeners and create enough of a buzz among the voters who can then decide how important an issue locked-in pensions really are for themselves and how they detrimentally affect not only the current holders of LIF's and LRIF's but also the continually growing number of employees with LIRA's resulting from their employers DC type pension plans.

I will make every attempt to record the interview and create a copy of the program in an audio file and distribute it to those who want a copy, subject to the radio station's permission.

Please feel free to pass this on to all of your own set of contacts within your respective areas. The more listeners, the better chance to get the message out.

Regards,
Grant Fleury
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

New Locked in Fund Site

2007-09-13T11:23:00.000-07:00

Locked in Funds Site
Hi ; There is a new site on locked in funds at the CARP web site.

http://www2.carp.ca/display.cfm?cabi...&libraryID=102

Regards Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

A Letter to John Tory

2007-09-13T11:04:00.000-07:00

A Letter to John Tory

Mr. John Tory, MPP Leader - Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario September 7th, 2007

Dear Sir,

I am writing you in response to your announcement in July regarding your commitment to fairness for all Ontarians concerning locked-inpensions.

Although we haven’t met, you may be aware of me through your Economic Policy Advisor, David Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin and I worked together, the day before, to the extent where I provided the details and facts for your information backgrounder and your subsequent announcement for unlocking pension income the following day.

I thank you for addressing the needs and the quality of life for the many retiring and retired Ontarians by committing to unlock all Ontario locked-in pensions 100%. I’m certain all people in Ontario with locked-in pensions will undoubtedly thank you as well.

As you are aware, there has been a significant lobbying campaign in the province by a large number of private citizens, the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders and CARP.

I believe listening to the voices and stories from people such as these has led to your decision to right the wrong of your predecessor that occurred within Bill 27 in 1999.

Fairness, such as this will no doubt give more people a chance to contribute to the province’s prosperity and the ultimate right to manage pension money that is rightfully theirs.

Although I would have preferred your intention to be 100% unlocking at the qualified age or 55, whichever came first as was done for 61 MPP’s in 1999, the 50% split at 55 and the remainder at 65 is certainly and without a doubt a huge step in the right direction to ending government interference in the personal and private financial matters of all Ontarians.

As I’m sure your research will confirm, there is in excess of an estimated one million LIF and LRIF holders in our province. That number grows steadily as a number of people continue to be forced to commute their DB (defined benefit) pension plans and convert their assets into LIRA's (Locked-In Retirement Accounts) and eventual subsequent LIF's and LRIF's due to plant closures and permanent layoffs.

Obviously this is a very large number of affected people, some of whom are unaware, as yet, of the severely limited access they will have to their locked-in pension once qualified.

However, additionally, there is much more to the real and total number of affected people than those currently qualified holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s.

The actual much larger unrealized quantity exists in the eventual and future holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s.That is, in addition to the growing number of unfortunate commuted DB pension plan recipients and the current holders of LIF's and LRIF's, there are millions of other Ontarians working for companies that are currently in possession of DC (defined contribution) type pension plans.

These DC plans accrue deferred pension plan assets that are also in the form of a locked-in component of the plan member’s overall pension plan. The actual percentage and amount is determined by each individuals plan arrangement with their employer. That component provided by the employer’s contributions will also be regulated, one day, by the Ontario Pension Benefits Act in the form of a locked-in fund.

In the early years of building these pension assets, little attention is paid to these monies since the age of 55 is often far away and thus generally out of the minds of these younger workers.

As the number of holders of DC type pension plans increase, so does the importance of passing legislation, as you’ve announced, to deal with that eventuality in terms of sufficiency and predictable pension planning.

It is my belief that you consider recognizing this “other” growing body of future “LIF” and “LRIF” holders throughout your campaign when speaking about your commitment to unlock Ontario’s pensions and that you include this “lesser known”, much "larger quantity" of individuals.One day they too will be affected by your intended positive changes to the pension legislation pertaining to locked-in pensions as governed by the Ontario PBA.

This significantly large pool of people, once educated to the future liability of the DC pension, will no doubt be thankful, appreciative and responsive to a government that intends to ensure that their future years, as well, are not shackled by paternalistic and restrictive legislation preventing them from full control over their future retirement funds.

In closing, and as every vote counts, I believe it is an important strategy to inform and educate not only the current holders of LIF’s or LRIF’s in Ontario of your intention to unlock their pension assets, but the huge number of future holders of locked-in pensions as well.

Getting this message out to all affected people is paramount since the component of a DC type locked-in pension plan and future unfortunate recipients of commuted DB plans, affects far more additional people than those current holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s.

Informing these two groups of people affected by locked-in pensions,both present and future, is a very significant opportunity for you and your party to recognize and harness the necessary support in order to carry out your intention to unlock pensions in your bid to become the ruling party in this great province of ours.

A province founded and built under laws of fairness, equality, and freedom of lifestyle choice not only during our working years, but as well, during those all too often relatively precious few retirement years.

Thank You.Sincerely,Grant Fleury

Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

A Message for the Ontario Liberal Party

2007-09-04T17:00:00.000-07:00

A Message for the Ontario Liberal Party:

Please note that we are gathering support throughout Ontario to unlock 100% of locked in pensions at retirement for Ontarians. This growing ground swell of voters are well aware of the reluctance of the Ontario Liberals to unlock 100% of locked in pensions.

Prominent individuals that are supporting unlocking 100% of locked in pensions at retirement include:
(i) Professor Jack Mintz, an renowned economist with Rotman School of Management, U of Toronto
(ii) Malcolm Hamilton, an eminent actuary and principle of William Mercer, Toronto
(iii) Gordon Pape, a well known financial commentator

A copy of Jack Mintz’s article regarding “locked in pensions in Ontario” published in the Financial Post is copied below:

Unlock LIRAs:

Workers who change jobs get hobbled with inflexible locked-in accounts. It's time to end this nanny-state paternalism

Jack Mintz, Financial Post

Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Compared with the United States, with its bewildering and complex array of retirement savings plans, Canada has a proud record of levelling the playing field between pension plans and Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs):

We ensure that similar rules apply to them and we make them transferable. Given the evolving labour markets, with people quitting jobs frequently throughout their career, and given our ageing population, our federal and provincial politicians deserve credit for reducing tax barriers to labour mobility and savings.

Yet, one important form of discrimination remains: the locked-in RRSP. It puts millions of pensioned employees at a severe disadvantage compared with RRSP holders who change jobs. Ontario's recent budget takes an initial step to correct this discrimination, but does not go far enough, especially when compared with some provinces that have done much more to remove this discrimination.

When a pensioned employee quits, a choice is made to keep money invested in the pension plan or to take out the money and invest it in a locked-in RRSP (either called Locked-in Funds or Locked-in Retirement Accounts, LIRAs).

The money cannot be accessed until a certain age, such as at retirement (this depends on federal and provincial pension legislation) and these funds must then be invested in a life annuity or Life Income Fund.

With the Life Income Fund, the investor draws out money subject to mandated maximum and minimum percentages of assets held in the plan. At the age of 80, remaining investments must be converted to an annuity (with 60% spousal benefit) or transferred to a Life Retirement Income Fund that allows the holders to manage their own money (but still subject to mandated withdrawal rules).

Unlike pensions, owners of employer and employee-funded RRSPs are far less shackled by their previous employer contract when they change jobs. The RRSPs can be cashed in any year without penalty, although the principal and accumulated income will be fully taxed, similar to pensions.

At the age of 69 (71 when the recent federal budget is implemented), the RRSP must be cashed out (and taxed), turned into an annuity or put into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF), of which withdrawals are taxed.

Compared with the Life Income Fund owner, who must hold an annuity or a Life Retirement Income Fund, the RRIF owner can take out as much as he wants, subject to a minimum percentage of assets.

Given these stringent rules, employees have a good reason to prefer RRSPs over pensions.

Defined-benefit pension arrangements have been used by employers to keep their workers on staff, since employer contributions are geared more toward the end of the employee's career, a policy that is becoming inflexible in a world where workers frequently change jobs.

Further, with employer responsibilities for liabilities and employee claims to surpluses upon wind-up of defined benefit plans, many companies have shifted to defined-contributions plans.

These operate like RRSPs in that the employee receives pension benefits based on the performance of invested funds provided by the employee or employer.

Nonetheless, with the locked-in rules for pension transfers, why even bother with a defined-contribution plan since employees could have the same risk and return, but much greater flexibility, with an employer-provided RRSP when changing jobs?

The usual argument against repealing lock-in provisions is a paternalistic one: Workers don't know what is best for them and will cash out their pension savings before retirement. This nanny-state view has been a basis for policy in some other countries, notably the United States, which has imposed penalties on early withdrawals from retirement savings plans.

Canada, however, has smartly avoided this trap by enabling individuals to have full access to their RRSPs without extra penalty for withdrawals before retirement.

Not only does this give greater flexibility for individuals, but also provides a significant incentive to invest in retirement funds, since individuals need not fear that their money is effectively locked up when facing unexpected contingencies.

Locked-in RRSPs are therefore particularly unfair to pensioned workers since they do not have the same rights to access their retirement funds.

With the recent budget, Ontario is proposing to allow individuals to unlock 25% of their funds no earlier than the early retirement date (usually 55 years of age), beginning in 2008, after consultations.

At this time, individuals can only access their own money if they show special need, once they follow a costly bureaucratic procedure.

According to the Canadian Association for Retired Persons, during the period of April, 2003, to March, 2006, almost 30,000 pensioners applied for relief, filling out a 23-page document costing anywhere from$200 to$600 when the application succeeded.

Only 52 were rejected outright, leading to wonder as to whether this bureaucratic process is necessary.

While the Ontario budget is a baby step in the right direction, NDP MPP Andrea Horwath proposed in a private bill, supported by Conservative Bob Runciman, to allow 100% access to locked-in funds.

This would provide similar treatment to that available to many MLAs, who are given access to their occupational pension savings.

Some provinces have gone much further than Ontario to relieve pensioners from onerous rules after leaving their employer.

Saskatchewan has been the most progressive province, providing for the full transfer of pension funds to RRSPs or RRIFs.

Alberta and Manitoba allow pensioned workers to access 50% of their LIF funds, although Manitoba will soon be moving to full access.

The only federal initiative so far in this regard is to unlock funds for federal employees at the age of 90 (we should all live that long!).

It is time to unlock the chains put on pension savings of employees who change jobs or retire. Doing so will help contribute to labour mobility, better retirement plans and, ultimately, a stronger economy.
- - -
- Jack M. Mintz is Professor of Business Economics, J. L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, and Visiting Professor, New York University Law School.
© National Post 2007

Please consider unlocking 100% of locked in pensions at retirement for all Ontarians at retirement.

After all, it is their money. It is not government money.

Best regards,
Bill Nafziger

11 Whaley Ave.,
Box 94, Milverton
Ontario, N0K 1M0

Member:
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders
Common Front for Retirement Security (with over 2 million members in member organizations)
CARP, working together to unlock 100% of locked in pensions at retirement (with over 250,000 members in Ontario)

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.The Liberals offered a insulting 25% unlocking in their 2007 budget.

Response To Dalton

2007-08-30T19:00:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-28T17:17:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-27T20:47:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-19T17:20:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-18T17:45:00.000-07:00

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

(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

A Letter to Michael Brown ( Algoma-Manitoulin)

2007-07-27T06:55:00.000-07:00

This is a letter that has been sent out to Mr. Brown

Good morning Mr. Brown,

Attached for your perusal, is an e-mail that I've sent to one of your colleagues, John Gerretsen.

I am also forwarding to you an e-mail sent to Caroline Di Cocco.

Mr. Brown ... all of these e-mails (and there will be more) highlight the fact that members of your Liberal Party spoke very eloquently against the hypocrisy of Bill 27 ... but at the same time ... upon Bill 27 receiving Royal Assent on December 22, 1999 ... accepted unlocked pensions anyway.

Several months back I received a letter from Finance Minister Sorbara, in reply to some serious questions I had raised concerning Bill 27.

Most of his words were of the superfluous nature ... answering none of my concerns.

However the following paragraph definitely grabbed my attention.Mr. Sorbara said on October 27, 2006 ...

"With respect to your comments about Bill 27, I would note only that the legislation was passed despite the objections of Liberal MPPs."

Mr. Sorbara conveniently omitted the rest of the story ... the fact that Bradley, Caplan, Conway, Ruprecht and others from your Liberal party accepted unlocked pensions anyway.Mr. Sorbara failed to mention too that Sean Conway even said it was "wrong and immoral" ... but subsequently accepted his unlocked pension, despite his own words of indignation.

Mr.Brown ... saying one thing but quietly, while no know is watching supposedly, doing just the opposite ... especially when it means there will be personal gain .......... has our Legislature degenerated to the point that this has become the modus operandi for all MPPs ...

or is such behaviour just confined to the Liberal Party?

As Speaker of the House Mr. Brown, the parameters under which you rule the House go far beyond decorum and propriety. You do have the power to evict and suspend members from the House, should there even be the hint of slander.

How is it then, that this same level of decency, integrity, and sound moral principle have not been a requirement in the treatment of ordinary Ontarians, who hold locked-in pensions, as it relates to Bill 27?

Bill 27 should never have seen the light of day. The subsequent behaviour of all three parties as it relates to the EXCLUSIVE, EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE AFFORDED TO JUST 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) courtesy of Bill 27, represents absolute contempt for the Ontario electorate!

Mr. Brown ... as Speaker of the House ... why has this atrocious legislation and equally atrocious behaviour of MPPs never been challenged?

I await your answer.

Kenneth Elliott

I would like to add to this letter that at the present time both the Progressive Conservative party and The New Democratic Party now agree that all Ontarions should be allowed to have their pensions unlocked 100% when they retire. They do not see it reasonable to keep the money from the people that saved it for their retirement.

Apparently the only party that feels that the seniors of Ontario are not competent enough to look after their OWN MONEY are the McGuinty Liberals.

Bill Costello

Is this Compassion or Government Greed

2007-07-23T15:05:00.000-07:00

Hi All I just sent this letter out to news papers and below

Dalton McGuinty , Greg Sorbara :

I have just been reading some correspondence that was sent to a friend by some Liberal Riding presidents.

I then started to think is this compassion for the seniors of Ontario or is it GOVERNMENT GREED.

If it is Compassion and the Liberal party feels that they have to protect Ontario locked in fund holders from them selves because they might spend their hard saved money that they saved for retirement.

It leaves me to wonder why then would the province of Saskatchewan , Alberta and Manitoba unlock !100% to 50% of the funds for their citizens.Are these provinces not compassionate about their senior citizens?

I would belive they are. I would also belive that these provinces understand that Seniors are quite competent and are able to look after their OWN MONEY.

It also leaves me to wonder Why The Conservative Party and The NDP Party realize that The seniors Locked in Pensions Should be Unlocked 100%..

((They realize that people that have unlocked RRSP's don't run out and blow all their money , so why would people that had their locked in funds unlocked do that.))

Are these people not Compassionate. I belive they are. I also belive that the two above party's respect the wishes of their senior Locked In Fund Holders.

Another thing that really bothers me is that 61 MPP's of all party's had their pensions unlocked.
Why would they do that if unlocking these pensions were not a reasonable thing to do ?

Please don't tell me that Your party didn't vote for the unlocking as you have been doing in the past!!!

YOU and The OTHER LIBERAL MPP's Of which we Know all the Names ,new full well that you were going to benefit from the unlocking even though you voted against Bill 27.
If unlocking these pensions is so unreasonable. Why did all Liberal MPP's not leave all their funds in a locked in format. I am sure nobody would have stopped you!!!

I have come to a conclusion that seeing that the other party,s agree that the locked in pensions in Ontario should be unlocked for the people at age 55 or retirement 100% .I would assume the MPP's of those party's who received their pensions unlocked also agree that the locked in pensions should be unlocked for the seniors.

I have also come to the conclusion that the reason the Liberal Party does not want to unlock these pensions is not Compassion , It is Liberal Government Greed.

A government that wants a large TAX GRAB from DEAD PEOPLES ESTATES.

For this I really belive that it is time for all the LIF Holders in Ontario to know full the story about our so called government for the people . The ones that say one thing in opposition and yet when they are in power do very little to correct this unjustness.

Bill Costello Box 56 Atikokan Ontario

Commending the Ontario Concervative Party

2007-07-12T07:29:00.000-07:00

Press Release Regarding the Ontario Progressive Party Locked-in Pension Policy Announcement today, July 5, 2007

I wish to commend the John Tory and the Conservative Party for their progressive policy position allowing Ontarians to unlock their locked-in pension funds 100% at ages 55 and 65.

This policy change will enhance the quality of life and fairness for Ontario Seniors.

Retiring after 37 years and contributing money into a defined contribution pension plan in Ontario, I was shocked to discover that I did not have access to my pension money.Isn’t this my money?The maximum yearly withdrawal restriction on my Life Income Fund (LIF) enforced by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) ensured that two thirds of my pension money would be locked-in until death (average Ontario male @ 79 and female @ 84).

Is this fair?

At the moment of death, the remaining two thirds of the pension money goes to my spouse unlocked.

Is this logical?

Upon my spouse’s death five years later, Revenue Canada assesses the remaining pension money as income in one year usually at a higher tax bracket.Isn’t this a tax grab?

However if you are terminally ill or in a financial crisis, you can get down on your bended knees with a fee of $200 to $600 of money you don’t have to ask FSCO for the money you do have.

Does this make sense?

Over a three year period, FSCO collected between $5 million and $15 million in fees from over 26,000 financial hardship applicants desperate to access their own pension money and only rejected 52 applicants.

Isn’t this bureaucracy at its worst?

Ontarians who have spent their working life building a pension are financially competent and do not require paternalistic government control of their pension money in their retirement years.

Bill NafzigerOntario LIF holder

Good News for Ontarians

2007-07-06T18:59:00.000-07:00

Good News for Ontarians

Enlightened policy promises to unlock Life Income Funds 100%.

CARP and the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders applaud PC leader John Tory’s announcement today that, if elected, a PC government will allow Ontarians to unlock 100% of their Life Income Funds (LIFs)

– half at age 55 and the full amount at age 65.

We fully support this progressive policy that will bring Ontario into the 21st century.

The PC Party heard us and its decision represents another milestone in our alliance’s campaign to have LIFs unlocked 100% in Ontario.

Mr. Tory’s pledge propels the momentum to unshackle LIF-holders that began with NDP MPP Andrea Horwath‘s Bill to unlock LIFs 100% which was introduced in the Ontario Legislature in December 2006, in conjunction with CARP and the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders.

When individuals retire/leave a job which has a registered corporate or occupational pension, the terms of the pension plan may allow them to transfer their portion of the pension into a Locked In Retirement Account (LIRA) and subsequently a LIF. However access to the principal in the LIF is denied to the LIF holders as it is locked-in for life or to age 90.
Like savings in any registered pensions, LIFs or LIRAs are the individual’s money, made up of their contributions plus those of the company or occupation as deferred salary. It is not government money.

A LIF has a mandated maximum yearly withdrawal limit unlike a RRIF which has none. This ensures that the average Ontario male cannot access about two thirds of his LIF until death (average male 79 and female 84) at which moment the LIF is completely unlocked for their spouse. It also means that most of us may not live to 90 at which age all of our LIF can be unlocked.

However, 100% unlimited access to the retirees’ LIF money in Ontario may be available by submitting a lengthy request form to the Financial Service Commission of Ontario (FSCO). This bureaucratic agency requires a payment of $200 to $600 from successful applicants in order to access their own money. Their appeal may be granted only if the applicant can prove dire health or financial circumstances.

The precedent to unlock LIFs was established in Ontario in 1999 when 61 MPPs were given the right to unlock their occupational pension 100%. Not only did they give themselves a privilege which they denied to all other Ontarians with LIFs, but their action cost Ontario taxpayers $10 million because they miscalculated the amount they could put into their individual RRSPs.
CARP and its allies have been engaged in a campaign to have direct access to 100% of the principal in a LIF without paternalistic government control. The goal of the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders is to persuade the Ontario government to unlock LIFs 100%.

For more information, please contact:

For CARP, Canada’s Association For the Fifty-Plus:

Bill Gleberzon, Director of Government Relations - 416-363-8748 ext. 230 or 1-800-363-9736 ext. 230 e-mail: w.gleberzon@50plus.com

For The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders:

Bill Nafziger, spokesperson - 519-595-8161 e:mail:nafjbg@perth.net

Grant Fleury, spokesperson - 705-566-6924 e:mail: gjfleury@sympatico.ca

To sign a petition to the Ontario government on unlocking LIFs 100%, click on the link below.

Posted July 5, 2007

http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

Backgrounder

2007-07-06T18:53:00.000-07:00

Fairness for You and Your Family -

Unlocking Locked-in PensionsFairness is a basic value for Ontarians - one that has many dimensions.

Fairness means an Ontario that rewards hard work, entrepreneurship and innovation, respecting taxpayers and giving everyone a chance to participate in the province’s prosperity.

Fairness also means giving Ontarians control over their hard-earned retirement savings.

John Tory believes individuals know how to manage their own money better than the government.

That’s why a John Tory PC Government will give Ontario’s retirees 100 per cent access to their locked-in pension income - 50 per cent at age 55 and the remaining 50 per cent at age 65 - which under current rules are locked-in by the government until age 90.

What is a Locked-in Pension?

· When individuals leave a company that provides a defined benefit or defined contribution pension plan, they may have the option of leaving their portion of the pension in the company plan or rolling it into a Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA).

· At age 55 or the normal retirement date of the commuted pension plan (whichever is earlier) individuals may transfer their LIRA into a Life Income Fund (LIF) or Locked-in Retirement Income Fund (LRIF).·

LIRAs, LIFs and LRIFs are regulated independently by each province and territory and the federal government for federally regulated industries.

Locking-in Rules in Ontario

· Locking-in rules prevent individuals from increasing their retirement income in any one year beyond the annual withdrawal limits for LIFs and LRIFs.

LIRAs do not allow any withdrawals.·

LIF/LIRA/LRIF-holders cannot access additional principal in their locked-in accounts unless they can demonstrate to the Government that they are in dire financial or health circumstances.·

By age 71, LIRAs must be transferred into a LIF or LRIF, or used to purchase a life annuity. ·

By age 80, LIFs must be transferred into an LRIF or used to purchase a life annuity. ·

At age 90, individuals are finally able to withdraw the remaining principal in their LRIF.

The Liberal Response

· Dalton McGuinty inadequately responded to Ontarians’ concerns in the 2007 Budget by proposing access to 25 per cent of locked-in accounts at the earliest retirement date of the pension plan from which the money was transferred and 100 per cent access at age 90.·

These changes have not yet been made to the appropriate regulations or legislation.

Unlocking in Other Jurisdictions

· Alberta (50% at age 50), Saskatchewan (100% at age 55), Manitoba (50% at age 55) and New Brunswick (25% at any age) have already changed their laws to enable older adults to access some, or all, of their locked-in pension

Ontario PC'S Promis to unlock locked in pensions

2007-07-06T18:44:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release
July 5, 2007

TORY SAYS ONTARIO SENIORS DESERVE PENSION FAIRNESS

PC plan will increase fairness, give seniors full access to locked-in pensions(London, ON) –

Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory today said a PC Government will unlock pensions for seniors and retirees so they can access and manage their own money as they see fit.

“Ontario’s seniors and retirees built the foundation for the strong Ontario we know today. They deserve to have control over their hard-earned retirement savings,” said Tory.

“I’ve heard from seniors and retirees across the province that the rules are too restrictive. We believe that Ontarians know best how to look after their money– not government.”

Tory met with and listened to the concerns of local seniors today in Southwestern Ontario. As part of the PC ‘Leadership Matters’ plan to provide fairness to Ontarians,

Tory said a PC Government will give Ontarians 100 per cent access to their locked-in pension income. This would mean seniors and retirees would have access to 50 per cent of their pension at age 55 and the remaining 50 per cent at age 65.

In Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario,

pensions are locked-in by the government as late as age 90 and the most any senior can hope to access from their pension savings is one out of every four dollars.

“Our plan will allow Ontario seniors and retirees to have control over their own money and better plan for retirement based on their own needs,” said Tory.

“Ontario’s pension regulations present unnecessary challenges for seniors and retirees looking to transform a lifetime of hard work into financial freedom.” Tory added,

“This is a simple change to Ontario’s pension rules with no cost to the taxpayer.

Unlike Dalton McGuinty, who is only willing to provide seniors and retirees with partial access to their locked in pension funds,

a John Tory PC Government will respect the wishes of these individuals to manage their money as they see fit.”

In the 2007 Budget, Dalton McGuinty responded to seniors and retirees concerns about this issue by proposing a plan that would give Ontarians access to 25 per cent of locked-in accounts at the earliest retirement date of the pension plan from which the money was transferred and 100 per cent access at age 90.

To date, no regulations or legislation have been brought forward to enact these proposed changes.

During his remarks, Tory cited comments made in March 2007 by Dr. Jack Mintz of the University of Toronto calling for Ontario to unlock the chains put on pension savings of employees who change jobs or retire.

According to Mintz, unlocking locked-in pensions would help contribute to labour mobility, better retirement plans and ultimately, a stronger economy.“Leadership is about listening to seniors and retirees.

If we are going to remove the barriers and give Ontarians the fairness and peace of mind they deserve, then leadership matters,” said Tory.

For more information: Michelle Pennell(416) 325-9109

CARP encourages Ontarians

2007-07-06T18:39:00.000-07:00

CARP encourages Ontarians to petition for unlocking pension plans

CARP supports the following petition to Premier Dalton McGuinty:

(dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org)

The Seniors of Ontario request the Liberal Government to Unlock Locked in Pension Plans LIRA, LIF, LRIF.

This is unjust legislation having these funds locked in. These funds were unlocked for the MPPs of Ontario - but not for the seniors . Seniors want the option of transferring their funds into an unlocked RRIF and not have a restrictive upper limit placed on these funds. They should be regulated the same as a RRSP.

Saskatchewan Unlocked these funds for their seniors.

Manitoba Unlocked 50% of the funds for their seniors.

Ontario forcing Seniors to leave their funds locked in so that the government of Ontario can have a big tax grab when the funds pass to children or the estate is not in the best interest of the Seniors of Ontario

Therefore we request that the Ontario Government follow the Saskatchewan legislation in unlocking these funds.

To add your name to the petition, click on the link below.

http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

LIFS are NOT Government Money

2007-07-06T18:33:00.000-07:00

LIFS are not government money!"

Article By: Bill Gleberzon and Judy Cutler, co-directors of Government Relations

CARP campaigns to unlock Locked-In Funds (LIF) in Ontario 100 per cent.

CARP, the Ontario Society (Coalition) of Senior Citizens’ Organizations and the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders have joined forces in a campaign to persuade the Ontario Government to unlocked Locked-In Funds (LIFs) 100 per cent. In the 2007 Ontario Budget the Government proposed to unlock them 25 per cent.

What is a LIF?
Joe leaves his job which has a corporate or occupational pension. The terms of the pension fund allow him to roll over his portion of the pension into a LIF – a form of pension in which the principle can only be accessed under certain conditions.
In some cases, the regulations force him to roll over only some of his pension into a LIF with the balance taken in cash which is assessed as part of Joe’s annual income and is taxable at the rate commensurate with the amount. In other words, a pension that may have taken him many years to accumulate is treated for tax purposes as one year’s salary!

Unfair? To say the least.

Or, Joe is told that if he elects to transfer his portion of the pension fund into a LIF, it is “suggested that you keep these funds separate from any other RRSP monies,” in the words of one corporate pension form. If Joe chooses this course, he eventually discovers what his pension officer didn’t tell him – he has no choice in the matter. Locked-in funds are locked-in – that is, they must be separate from any other RRSP monies since the principal cannot be directly accessed unless Joe can meet designated specifications. For example, if the total amount is below a certain amount (currently $17,480), Joe can withdraw all of it.

Or, if he can prove dire health or financial distress to a bureaucratic agency of the Ontario Government called the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) he may be able to withdraw some or all of the principal – in the latter case especially if he can prove that his life expectancy is limited to two years. (As far as we know, the bureaucratic rules do not specify what happens to that money if the successful applicant lives beyond that designated time period!) However, if a LIF-holder’s total annual income is over $29,131, s/he cannot withdraw any funds on the grounds of financial hardship.

If he is successful in his quest, he must pay the Commission 2 per cent of the amount withdrawn (between $200 and $600) in order to offset the administrative costs which enabled him to get his money. CARP estimates that between 2003 and 2006 FSCO may have realized as much as $15.8 million for allowing applicants to have access to their own money.
Raising income from seniors who are certified by FSCO as vulnerable is despicable!
Moreover, as one of Canada’s leading tax experts, Professor Jack Mintz, pointed out, this bureaucratic procedure has proven unnecessary because only 52 of the 30,000 applicants to the FSCO between 2003 and 2006 were denied access, while 26,300 were successful. The others withdrew their application. (1)

Another option is that at age 71 Joe must withdraw a certain percentage of his LIF as mandated by the income tax act.

Joe’s most drastic option is to die.

If his/her spouse or common law partner is still alive, the latter can access 100 per cent of the balance in the LIF without having to pay any tax. Other heirs would be taxed.
On the other hand, if Joe is still alive at 90, he can access 100 per cent of his LIF.
Unlocking LIFs 100 per cent is not without precedent in Ontario. In 1999 sixty-one MPPs were given that right in regard to their Legislative pension. Some of these MPPs still sit in the Legislature.

In 2007 NDP MPP Andrea Horwath introduced a private members bill to unlock LIFs 100 per cent. Her Bill was supported in the Legislature by PC MPP Hon. Bob Runciman who was one of the fortunate 61 MPPs. He argued that it was only fair that all Ontarians should enjoy the same privilege that he does. CARP also endorsed Ms. Horwath’s initiative.

CARP and its allies do not begrudge those sixty-one MPPs for having this right. However, we do begrudge the fact that this right is not available to all Ontarians with LIFs.

Moreover, CARP proposes that the unlocked funds should be rolled into a RRIF in order to reduce the excessive income tax that was paid for by the Ontario taxpayers -- to the tune of $20 million - when the sixty-one MPPs had their LIFs unlocked 100 per cent.

The opposition to allowing if LIF-holders access to 100 per cent of their principal is mainly based on the belief that they will squander the money and become wards of the state. But no supporting evidence is given for this supposition. Such a concern was not raised in regard to the special sixty-one MPPs. Nor was it raised in Saskatchewan when that province unlocked LIFs 100 per cent -- and after five years there is no evidence to support this fear. Nor is it raised in regard to RRSPs or RRIFs. Indeed, paying additional income tax on withdrawn funds will naturally deter people from making excessive withdrawals.

In fact, unlocking LIFs 100 per cent will generate more income for Queen’s Park through income and sales taxes derived from withdrawals and expenditures. Moreover, it may also generate more funds through fees for financial institutions since ex-LIF holders could take more interest in growing their accessible retirement savings – as they do in regard to their RRSPs. It will also drastically reduce the paper work generated for financial institutions when they deal with LIFs.

Professor Mintz estimated that there may be as many as one million Canadians who have this sort of pension. If this estimate is right, then about 450,000 of them could live in Ontario since Ontario accounts for 45 per cent of our country’s population. However the actual number of LIF holders is unknown so there could be – and likely are – many more than these estimates suggest.

Unlocking LIFs 100 per cent will enhance the well-being, quality of life, dignity, security and independence of Ontarians who will no longer be in thrall to paternalistic, outmoded and unneeded policies and procedures because they will be in full control of their own retirement income—and destiny.

What can you do to help CARP win this battle?

Join with Malcolm Hamilton, one of Canada’s leading actuaries, and with Gordon Pape, one of our country’s most prominent financial writers (and a contributor to CARP’s magazine, CARP for the Fifty-Plus), to publicly support this campaign.

E-mail your local MPP, Premier McGuinty, Finance Minister Sobara and the Minister Responsible for Seniors Bradley as well as John Tory and Howard Hampton to express your endorsement. You can reach them all through CARP’s E-voice on this website. And ask your friends and family to do so too.

To sign a petition on Unlocking Locked-In Funds 100% that will be sent to the Ontario Government, please click on the link below.

Our Response to the Star Article

2007-06-24T06:11:00.000-07:00

Dear Rita Trichur,

My name is Grant Fleury.
I am with the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders, a
non-partisan group representing the interests of the estimated hundreds
of thousands of LIF Holders in Ontario. Our goal is to inform these
individuals of the current rules and regulations pertaining to their
locked-in funds and to thus lobby the government and political parties
to amend the current Ontario Pension legislation to allow 100% access
to locked-in pension funds at the earlier of either the normal
retirement date or age 55 and beyond as has been done in Saskatchewan
and to lesser and differing extents in other provinces in Canada.

I read your article with great interest as it certainly brings to light
the alarming reality of the incorrect perception of many
Canadians(Ontarians) of the belief they will have enough money to
comfortably retire on.

As you have duly noted from the report of the Canadian Institute of
Actuaries that there, in fact, is not enough money being set aside by
two-thirds of Canadians for their retirement years, there remains
another less written about subject that further compounds the dismal
financial reality of these future retirees.

Many of the people that were surveyed, no doubt, are in possession of
one or more forms of a locked-in fund known as either a LIRA, LIF or
LRIF, depending at what stage those monies are at in their transition
towards actual available dollars to the pensioner. Working to or past
65 will be, for most, the only option available in order to achieve
retirement independence if any of these type of locked-in funds are in
their retirement portfolio.

The reason I say this is simply due to the fact that although a
significant amount of people are in possession of these locked-in
accounts known as LIRA's, LIF's or LRIF's, most are unaware of the
highly restrictive rules and regulations they will face when they
expect to begin withdrawing from these accounts to supplement or
primarily fund their retirement years.

The message by institute president Normand Gendron "The message for
most Canadians in their early to mid-forties is they will need to save
more if they expect to enjoy an independent retirement," could and
should be amended to include or address the locked-in type of
retirement savings as a principle reason for having to work longer or
begin to save earlier and that those people who have LIRA's, LIF's or
LRIF's should be aware that they will be limited to a yearly access of
approx. 6.5% for LIF's or the market growth for LRIF's and thus had
better include this extreme limitation in their overall calculations to
toward their ultimate goal of financial independence upon retirement.

This information, or lack thereof, regarding LIRA's, LIF's or LRIF's is
grossly lacking in the general public and quite often is also not fully
understood by financial consultants or institutions' agents. Thus
owners of these type of locked-in accounts, more often than not, think
that when they reach fifty-five (55), they will have full unrestricted
access to their locked-in pension funds. They are shocked and outraged
when informed of these limitations as nothing could be further from
their perception than the archaic limits imposed by the regulators of
locked-in funds in Ontario.

Hence the statement "There is a gap between what Canadians are thinking
and what they are actually planning and saving." is in fact much larger
than the report suggests if some of these pension funds are of the
locked-in variety.

The statement "The problem is that boomers have neglected to save", is
not entirely the fault of the boomer. The real underlying problem is
the lack of disclosure by the large corporations and financial
institutions who have laid these people off over the last thirty or so
years, and failed to accurately inform them of the fallacy that the
settlements they receive in the form of locked-in funds are not as
useful as they are portrayed to be. Yes, they may seem large at the
time, but they are legislated to be doled out, at a non-linear rate,
over a period from 55 to 90 years of age where in fact the majority of
this money will never be fully accessible to the fund owner as less
than 1/2 of 1 percent of us will live to 90 anyway! The remaining
money, upon death, is immediately taxed at the beneficiary's taxation
rate since it is added to their taxable income for the year and heavily
taxed at a much higher rate. This more often than not repeated scenario
essentially results in a "worthless bag of cash" to the pensioner since
they will likely never see the bulk of their own money while alive and
a large and immediate tax grab for the government..

Unless the existing pension legislation is changed in Ontario, and
Canada for that matter, Canada's public pension system will be relied
on even further to supplement the shortfall of future retirees with
locked-in pension funds as a result of their paltry access.

"The government will provide you with a base support system that will
keep you just above the poverty line – but that's all," said Robert
Brown, an actuarial science professor at the University of Waterloo,
who worked on the study.

This is precisely one of the principle reasons why we, the Ontario
Coalition of Independent LIF Holders, are advocating the abolition of
the restrictions regarding the limits to access of these locked-in
funds and thus allow the owners full 100% access to their funds upon
reaching the qualified age. In conjunction with CARP, and a number of
other well known and highly regarded and respected individuals in the
field of economics, we are currently and vigourously pursuing the
political parties, including the current Liberal party, to remove these
restrictive limits and provide full access as was done for all
residents in Saskatchewan a few years ago and was also done exclusively
for 61 MPP's in Ontario in 1999 via a special discriminatory amendment
for sitting members of the legislature contained in Bill 27(1999). We,
the remaining Ontarians, are insisting on equal and fair treatment as
was afforded the 61 MPP's in 1999 when they exclusively legislated
themselves a 100% unlocking privilege when their pension plans were
also previously wound up and they too were subsequently left with
similar locked-in pension plans.

All of the findings that you have pointed out in your article are in
fact worse than they appear to be on the surface if some of the pension
ear-marked money is of the locked-in variety.

As I've stated earlier, most people surveyed by our group, are unaware
of the restrictions to access they will face when they begin to
withdraw and are shocked when they are referred to the FSCO and the PBA
in Ontario to determine these extremely low percentages for withdrawal
rates and restrictions that they are being limited to.

The statement, "According to Statistics Canada, about 9.4 million
households had some form of pension assets in 2005." again is important
to note that depending on which type of pension fund or account that an
individual owns will largely change the number of years each person
will have to either start to save earlier or work later to in order to
achieve that comfortable level of retirement that most of us are saving
for.

Defined contribution type pension plans are a way for companies to not
only slash costs but to put the onus on the individual to manage their
own retirement with the companies defined monthly contribution to their
employees pension regardless of the strength or performance of that
employee's respective company.

In addition to the statement, "The study also recommended that Ottawa
consider making interest paid on residential mortgages tax deductible,
as it is in the U.S., given the high percentage of Canadians who may
need some portion of their home's equity to provide adequate retirement
income.", there should also be a recommendation to eliminate the locks
on all locked-in pensions upon the qualified retirement date and thus
provide the entire population a greater access to their own retirement
money thereby allowing them the flexibility to greater managerial
control over their entire pension strategy and subsequent level of
financial independence.

Sincerely,

Grant Fleury,
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

Article in the Toronto Star

2007-06-24T06:01:00.000-07:00

Millions face old-age poverty

http://www.thestar.com/article/225446

Jun 14, 2007 12:52

PM RITA TRICHUR; BUSINESS REPORTER

Two out of three Canadians expecting to retire in 2030 are failing to save enough money to cover basic household expenses in their golden years, says a new study released today by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.

The report, “Planning For Retirement: Are Canadians Saving Enough?,” warns the greying baby boomer generation to either scramble to sharply increase their annual savings or plan to work past age 65 to avoid financial hardship.

"The message for most Canadians in their early to mid-40s is they will need to save more if they expect to enjoy an independent retirement," said the Institute's president, Normand Gendron.

"Governments need to provide Canadians with more education about the role that different savings vehicles can play in generating retirement income, and provide tools and incentives that encourage more households to save."

Canada’s public pension system is not intended to provide all the income needed for an independent retirement, the study said, noting it is only geared to replace about 40 per cent of gross income for households earning the average industrial wage, which was about $40,000 in 2005.

Canadians must act fast to build on this income through some combination of workplace pension plans, registered retirement savings plans, home equity and personal savings, it added.
In fact, actuaries determined a 40-year-old single person earning about $40,000 would need to save as much as 20 per cent, or $8,000, of his or her gross income every year for the next 25 years to cover necessary expenses in retirement. The study found that only a third of Canadian households are currently on track.

The study's findings stand in sharp contrast to a recent opinion poll by Pollara Inc. that found 55 per cent of Canadians aged 40 or older feel some level of confidence that they will have the financial resources to retire comfortably.

Those with retirement savings feel more confident, as do those with a workplace pension plan. Three out of four people surveyed said they plan to retire at or before age 65.

A Letter to the Leader of the Ontario PC Party

2007-04-26T17:38:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Tory,

My name is Grant Fleury. I am a resident of Sudbury.
I sent you a personal email back on Jan 17, 2007 and have not received
a reply or acknowledgement.

As indicated in that previous email, I have been lobbying the
provincial government to eliminate the locks from locked-in pensions
since 2004 when I discovered the limits to access of my own pension
money when I qualified to retire. I have since written articles in
local newspapers in Ontario and have been recently interviewed on the
CBC in the past few months regarding the unrealistic limits of the
current regulations of the PBA and of the discrimination of Bill 27 in
1999. Others in Ontario have also been working diligently to inform the
public of the truth and senseless arbitrary bureaucracy surrounding the
administration of locked-in pensions.

The recent announcement regarding amendments to the Pension Benefits
Act of Ontario by the Liberal government including a 25% unlocking
option, although positive steps in the right direction, do not go near
far enough to address the inequity of the two distinct classes of
citizens that were essentially created by the former Progressive
Conservative party.
As you are very well aware, Bill 27 (1999) and it's infamous
amendments, including the creation of a special exclusive group of 61
MPP's allowing a full transfer of the commuted value of their former
terminated "gold plated" pension plan to a group RRSP format bypassing
all the rules, regulations and limitations, continue to plague every
other ordinary Ontarian. Restrictions and limitations that continue to
restrict their ability to choose the level and style of retirement as
often dictated by conditions other than the "six conditions of
desperate hardship" amendments added in 2002 by the former ruling PC
party.

I agree that all pension ear-marked money should be off-limits until
the normal retirement age or 55 is reached, since it is intended for
retirement.

I agree that there may be a large number of people in the province that
do not have the financial knowledge to deal with their designated
pension assets. We have financial advisors for that purpose, just as we
have plumbers for plumbing and builders for building.

However, rather than assuming we are all inept in that area, unlike the
belief your previous PC party and the current Liberal party have of
themselves, you should adopt a positive approach of providing an
education for those that may stray instead of painting all Ontarians as
financially irresponsible. Maintaining such an attitude as this is
again shear arrogance on any level in any government.

I disagree, as supported by Statistics Canada, with the unrealistic age
of 90 used in calculating the yearly payment for these locked-in
pensions. The facts are simple - less than 1/2 of 1% live till 90. Life
expectancy is 77.2 years, not 90! Pick up any newspaper and read the
obituaries if there is any doubt.

I agree with the Saskatchewan government's lead to 100% unlock all
locked-in pensions for their residents in April of 2002 providing
retirees with more flexibility in managing their own financial affairs.
Your former PC party was ahead of their time in 1999 and had already
positively accomplished this with the grave exception that it was done
selfishly, exclusively and quietly, for all "members only" of the
legislature.

Moreover and more importantly, regardless of any of the above, and as a
direct result of the deceit and inequity of Bill 27, the basic
principle of equality for all Ontarians was broken!
This is why I, and all the other groups and organizations in Ontario,
such as CARP, are insisting on 100% equality and nothing less. If it's
good for 61, it's good for the estimated million others in Ontario who
have locked-in pensions in one form or another.
Every life is as important as the next, as is every law equally applied
for every citizen. The foundation of any true democracy is equality for
all members in it's society.
If that special deceitful exclusive provision for MPP's hadn't been
born in Bill 27, we would now be debating the merits of unlocking and
not the injustice of a misapplication of democracy, which would
probably lead us into other areas of discussing the pros and cons of
the unlocking issue.

But the reality is that "democracy" or lack thereof in this case, has
been broken and you, as party leader, and your members have inherited
this injustice.
It's now up to you to lead by example and show true leadership and
honour toward the people that you govern and re-apply that basic
principle of "EQUALITY' in our democratic society for which Ontario,
and Canada for that matter, were founded upon!

The 25% unlock amount, recently introduced, should be and could easily
be 100%. You and your party must come to terms with the simple and
missing notion of equality for all in a basic democracy where
discrimination amongst a people is totally unacceptable in every aspect
of it's application.
Condoning and upholding a paternalistic and arrogant attitude, with the
unwarranted belief that only 61 MPP's are capable of making sound
financial decisions and being the only ones to have that unique right
to manage their finances as they see fit, is an extremely disrespectful
position for you to assume to defend if you choose that route.

We, as parents and role models, are trying to teach our children about
equality and model that behaviour in our own daily lives within our
family unit. Previous generations, who worked much harder physically
with their hands, than we do today, had a much simpler way of life than
those of us experience today. I can't pick up a paper today without
finding some form of corruptive behaviour or deceit within one or more
levels of the people who govern us. Bill 27 was another stellar example
which was done purposely with intent to exclude and favour a select
few.
Seniors and retirees are astonished and outraged as they learn of this
deceitful act by the former PC party. Our forefathers escaped such
types corruption and severe arrogant control in their homeland to come
to Canada to start over with a clean slate and founded a great nation
based on the simple fundamentals of fairness and equality for all
citizens, regardless of origin.
Mr. Tory, you, being in and around my generation, no doubt were raised
with similar values as those used to create this great province and
nation.
You must do the right thing and make Ontario equal again.
I am fairly certain that you would never allow yourself to run your own
family in an undemocratic style where some would be privileged 0%, some
25% and some 100%. The honour and principles displayed in a family
should be the same type of honour and principles applied by governments
toward all it's constituents.

Bill 27 is a disgraceful slap in the face and an affront to basic
democracy in any society. You know it and so do I, along with every
Ontarian that has learned about this grave injustice created by the
previous Conservative government. The Liberal party with it's recent
budget announcement is continuing, albeit now at 75%, to insult and
disrespect the public by maintaining a paternalistic control of Ontario
retirees personal pension money.
Don't take my word for it, be honest and truthful and ask those around
you that know of Bill 27, what they think of this inequality and
injustice where two sets of rules govern certain individuals in our
province in extremely different ways regarding their same or similarly
commuted pensions.

You cannot, nor should not, ignore this inequity that was created by
your predecessors.
There cannot be any such thing as 25% or 50% or 75% more equal. Equal
is exactly what it means - 100% the same for everyone regardless of who
you are or your chosen vocation.

The former ruling Conservative party recognized the restrictive and
unrealistic paternalism of the PBA in 1999 and rightly so! As amazing
as this may sound, they in fact did the right thing to get as far away
from those regulations as they could as they all realized how
restrictive, insulting, and demeaning they were. The only HUGE mistake
they made was that they should have amended the act to include ALL
Ontarians thus upholding the basic principal of equality in our
province.

Mr. Runciman was more than well justified and showed true democratic
representation by standing up in support of Ms. Horwath's Bill 175 to
fully unlock locked-in pensions allowing all Ontarians the same 100%
unlock privilege that was afforded him and the other 60 members of the
legislature in 1999! This man truly realized the error of his previous
government and had the courage to come forward and admit a mistake.
This is an unbelievable accomplishment in light of the endless "blame
the other party" that more often than not pervades the legislature
during question period.

You sir have the unprecedented opportunity to correct the former
Conservative mistake and proudly own that accomplishment for yourself!

You will have the support of every locked-in pension holder in Ontario
at the upcoming election if you announce your guaranteed intention to
fully unlock and transfer locked-in pensions to an RRSP format at age
55 or the normal retirement date.
I assure you, as I continue my campaign to inform Ontarians of the
deceit and inequity of Bill 27 and the unrealistic and archaic
restrictions of the current rules and regulations of the PBA, there
will be hundreds of thousands of voters anxiously awaiting your
intentions regarding the locked-in issue by the time the election takes
place. The quality of retirement, and for those already living on the
edge, in their remaining years, are largely in your hands.

You and your Conservative party must now, in true and honourable
democratic fashion, insist on extending the privilege of those that
have benefited from the previous Conservative party's Bill 27 to
include the rest of all Ontarians in the application of that same 100%
unlock privilege that was afforded to those 61 MPP's of all
affiliations in 1999.

For our youth and children's sake, show them by example, how a true,
fair and equally applied democracy works.

Seniors and Retirees of Ontario, who were the builders of this great
province deserve the respect they've earned from this current
generation and all others to follow.
They deserve to live out the remaining years of their lives in a
dignified manner with the fruits of their labours in a manner of their
choosing and not that of a faceless beurarcracy.

They are watching and they are listening.

Mr. Tory, you have an enormous opportunity to show the people in
Ontario the true power of democracy by correcting a horrible selfish
act made by the former Conservative government by issuing a simple
unequivocal statement of full support. All without costing the taxpayer
a single dime!

Now that's a powerful gift sitting in the palm of your hand.

People Inform People
Time Tells All
Knowledge is Power

Sincerely,

Grant Fleury
Sudbury

Article in the Kitchener Waterloo Record

2007-04-23T18:34:00.000-07:00

PENSION PREDICAMENT
Locked-in pensions can block investors from accessing their own nest eggs
ROSE SIMONE

(Apr 21, 2007)
By the time Bill Nafziger retired after 37 years at Krug Inc. in Kitchener, he had a nice nest egg built up in his pension plan.

But three years later, at age 64, Nafziger, is fighting for the right to do what he wants with his own money.

The Milverton resident has joined CARP, also known as the Canada's Association for the 50-Plus, in lobbying the provincial government to give pensioners the right to withdraw money in what are commonly known as "locked-in" funds.

Locked-in pension funds are like regular RRSPs, but they are much more restrictive because they have maximums on how much money a person can withdraw.

With the principal in his defined contribution pension plan "locked in," Nafziger says he probably will die without being able to access the bulk of the pension money he worked for.

He adds that after he and his wife both die, whatever is left in the fund will to their estate and get taxed as revenue in one year, so the "tax man" will get a bigger bite of it.

"It's completely illogical," he says. "There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to unlock that money, and use it for yourself and your wife while you are living," Nafziger says.

No one knows how many people in Canada have money in locked-in accounts. The Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which is responsible for regulating pensions in this province, says it doesn't keep track of how many there are.

Jack Mintz, a University of Toronto business economics professor who himself has pension money in a locked-in fund from when he left Queens University, says it affects millions of people in Canada.

It includes people like Mintz who took their money out of a group pension plan when they went to work for another employer, as well as people like Nafziger who have individual pension plans rather than employer-administered group plans in which cheques are cut each month for retirees.

Under the financial services commission rules, if pension money isn't being managed by an employer pension fund, or by an insurance company that pays out a monthly income from a life annuity, it has to go into a "locked-in" account to provide a regular income over the years of retirement.

The amount a person can take out in each year after retirement is capped at a small percentage of what is in the fund. For example, at age 62, a person can take seven per cent of what's in the fund. That goes up gradually, to 11.9 per cent at age 79.

Nafziger says this means if he dies at around the age of 79, which is the age when the average Canadian man dies, two-thirds of his money would still be in the locked in fund.

As an industrial engineering manager at Krug, Nafziger tucked away more than $150,000 in his pension fund through personal and employer contributions over the years.

He knows he has to pay taxes on the money he takes out each year so he has no intention of withdrawing his entire retirement fund in one year.

But he says he should be able to enjoy more of the benefits of that money now that he is in a lower income tax bracket compared to when he worked for the office furniture manufacturer.
If the bulk of the money is left to his estate, governments will take a larger share of the funds in taxes, he says.

"If I die at the age of the average man in Ontario, there would still be about $100,000 left in that estate when it is unlocked," he says. "If I could take it out over the next 20 or 30 years in small amounts, I could realize a savings in income tax because I am taking it out at a lower income. But you are not allowed to take significant amounts all the way along."

CARP agrees with him. It is lobbying Ontario to follow the lead of Saskatchewan, which allows people to transfer all of their locked-in funds to registered retirement income funds that don't have maximum payout rules.

In its most recent budget, Ontario announced a provision, to take effect next year, that will allow for a "one time unlocking" of 25 per cent of the money in a locked-in fund.

Scott Blodgett, a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Finance, says the government is trying to "balance the twin goals" of giving seniors more flexibility while still ensuring that there is a steady stream of income through retirement.

In doing that, Ontario will become one of four provinces that allows partial unlocking of funds, he says.

But Bill Gleberzon, a director of government relations for CARP, says that's not good enough.

"Our position is that this is an insult," he says.

The government's rationale for not allowing full unlocking appears to be based on the fear that pensioners will be irresponsible and spend all the money in one year, he says.

But Gleberzon says there is no evidence people would do that, and there is a huge tax penalty if they do.

"This is just outmoded paternalism that should not exist in the 21st century," he says.
Retirees can apply to the financial services commission to unlock their money for health reasons or financial hardship. But people who have more than $17,480 in locked-in accounts also have to pay the commission a fee of $200 to $600 if they succeed.

"So they have to pay to access their own money," Gleberzon says.

About 30,000 people applied to unlock their money between 2003 and 2006, and only 52 were turned down, says Gleberzon. If almost everyone who applies is allowed to unlock anyway, why should people have to go through this costly bureaucratic process in the first place, he says.

Gleberzon says CARP will continue to lobby the provincial government and make locked in pensions an election issue if necessary.

He says it is particularly galling to pensioners who are lobbying for unlocking that in 1999, the Mike Harris-led provincial government passed legislation that allowed 61 MPPs to unlock their pensions early and roll their money into RRSPs.

Gleberzon stresses that it is a matter of giving people access to their own money.

Nafziger agrees. "It's our money. It should be our decision what to do with it, not the government's decision."

rsimone@therecord.com

((((There needs to be a correction where it states)))) " But people who have (((more))) than $17,480 in locked-in accounts "It should read.Retirees can apply to the financial services commission to unlock their money for health reasons or financial hardship. But people who have (((less))) than $17,480. or do not have a income of more then $29,133. in locked-in accounts also have to pay the commission a fee of $200 to $600 if they succeed

John Tory, Leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party

2007-04-16T08:12:00.000-07:00

Hi John:

I just received this plus 10 other E-Mails on this subject. with a awful lot of articles about what the Conservative Party has done in the past.

I havent had a chance to read them all yet but I just skimmed through them and It is'nt nice.

I realize that You personally didn't have anything to do with this scandal but many of your current MPP's did.

Bill Costello

When is a pension not a pension? The Ontario Conservatives reformed the MPP's' pension plan, violating federal tax laws. The Conservatives had opinions from legal and accounting firms that the reform would violate federal tax laws. They violated the federal tax laws anyway. Revenue Canada requires large amounts of money be removed from the pension plan and is demanding that the 300 current and past MPP's pay taxes on the amounts as part of normal income.
Using the rational that:
"the government of Ontario has determined that it has a legal obligation arising from the errors that were made by its consultants"The Conservative government, that is, the taxpayers, will pay this tax. But the payment of the tax will also be considered income and it too will give rise to a tax liability. Presumably, the taxpayers pay these repeated increasingly smaller taxes levied on the MPPs by Revenue Canada giving rise to yet another demand by Revenue Canada ad infinitum.
Thee and me must pay tax on money removed from our pension plans. Mikey & Co. get it out free. MPPs can use this money in any way they like. Mikey, the guy who approved the scheme reaps the benefit. He gets his hands on a fat bankroll, estimated at $864,000 (tax free) just in time for his retirement. Eves got $810,000. Bob Rae, Floyd Laughren, Sean Conway and Jim Bradley got $1 million or more, each. Because of Ernie's fat benefit, which was his creation, the Liberals claim he had a conflict of interest and wants an investigation by the public accounts committee.
Eves claims that this is all trickery by the federal government. A more cynical take is that Mikey & Co. planned this. You would like a large tax-free lump rather than taking it out over an extended period and paying tax on it. Its only common sense

A Letter To the Leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party

2007-04-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

John Tory, Leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party

Hi John:

I am Just dropping a line to see if you have made a decision on the issue of unlocking pensions. I receive a stack of E-Mail just about every day from people asking if a party has come forward to unlock these pensions .

Many of us in the defined contribution part of the pensions are beginning to wonder if there wasn't some kind of conspiracy with government and financial institutions to mislead the people of Ontario about these pensions.

So many of us were encouraged to invest extra money in these plans so as we would be able to have a comfortable retirement when we were retired. We were led to believe that these plans would become unlocked when we retire.
I received a letter yesterday from a gentleman in British Columbia and he said that he has a group of about a thousand people and they are going to start getting the word out in their province to start lobbying their government to unlock these pensions.
Before the Internet it was easy to keep people in the dark about how their pensions didn't unlock at retirement . Now it is very easy to get the word out and it is spreading right across Canada.

It will be very easy to encourage people to vote for the party that unlocks pensions 100% in Ontario . Pretty well insuring a victory for the party that stops this discrimination and cruelty to many people.

Isent it time to have a government in Ontario that respects the peoples whishes.

Below is a statement in 1997 from a MPP in the Ontario Legislature . It is now 10 years later and this unjustness continues.

Please Do the Right Thing and Unlock these Pensions Bill Costello

Excerpt from the HANSARD in 1997 (a MPP discussing locked-in pensions)

Let’s say Harry Smith worked 28 years for ABC company. Harry is a member of a defined pension plan. ABC company said, “Harry, you will be getting $1000 a month if you work for 25 years.” Harry’s got his 28 years in. Every month he get 5% taken off his paycheque. The company matches the 5% Harry Smith puts in, and that 10% of what he makes becomes a defined plan. Over 25 years it will generate so much money and he will get so much pension if he’s age 55, 58, 60.

There’s a real Harry Smith. He can be any one of us. He’s a person in my riding who worked for Noranda Mines for 32 years, was commuted got a little more than his $130,000 or $140,000 I was talking about. The person is in his late 50s, he has cancer. It’s a true story. He and his wife wish to go to Europe to see the place of his birth. He is pension-poor. Because of the locked in provision, he can only take 7.55% out each year and when he get to be 80, he has to buy an annuity. The insurance company is telling Harry, “But the money will be around.” And Harry is telling the insurance company “Yes, but I won’t be.” It’s his money. Yet we have someone else who has another self-directed RRSP, the same as Harry has, but his is not locked in. So they’re both subject to a minimum, but the locked-in one , because of the LIF, the life income fund only allows you to take so much out. You’re capped and it goes to the insurance company. It’s automatic. In the other plan you have a minimum through a RIF but you have no maximum. And the government are saying “We want the taxes”? Is this fair”

This is a growing monster. More and more people are being commuted, are being bought out, because companies do not wish to assume the liabilities and responsibilities of future pension plans. They don’t have the same flexibility they once had because of scrutiny about the surplus fund, so they’re under the gun and rightly so. What they choose to do as an alternative – and I’m not impugning motive. It’s not for me to say whether it’s right or wrong. A buck is a buck here. But excuse me, something has to be done. This is self serving. It is not right to deprive people of their money when it is rightly theirs. It is not consistent with other RRSPs, it is not consistent with your life savings, it is not consistent with your worldly possessions, ie., house, car, etc; only in this monopoly, in this cartel that represents an attitude of yesteryear.

Thankfully some provinces are beginning to exercise some flexibility. They see the light. There is a human dimension. It’s a good case. It’s a true story.

We are asking our constituent to write a letter, to the carrier explaining his dire need, accompanied by a certificate from the MD and the specialist to back his case so he can have access to the fruits of over 30 yers of service.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever. No one wishes to be unjust, but what are we supposed to tell Harry? “Tell you what Harry, go to the broker or go to whoever is carrying the plan and tell them that you want to transfer to an RRSP.” Don’t even mention the lock-in. Do it two or three times and then some clerk on a busy day in February, before the end of RRSP season, will be too busy and you’ll become legit. You can’t ask Harry to cheat. It’s not done. What about the consequences? Peiople get imaginative. You can’t ask Harry to take his money and run. He wants to pay his taxes. That’s one example of the need to address this legislation.

You say, “What would you do?” One proposal would be to treat it the same way as an RRSP and if you need some money – you might not wish to take everthing out of it. Unless you need it, it would be stupid, because the tax burden would be so high. Both Revenue Canada and Revenue Ontario would take their share, would take their cut. You may wish to take a little more, but providing you take the minimum – and now I understand and I don’t disagree with age 69 in lieu of age 71 – a little painful for some; not much of a window. It might go to 65, I don’t know. Mr Martin professes no ulterior motives. But again, with those people, sometimes they wish to access whatever pool of money.

1740

That’s not as troublesome as the locked-in provision, the straitjacket provision. My friend Harry Smith is locked in. They’ve locked him in. With a pension, they should have issued him a set of handcuffs: “Here, Harry. Welcome to retirement”

We’ll be on our feet again to talk about the pension proposals. I understand that some consultations are taking place. It say right here that consultation will take place with the pension community.

I’ll tell you what: I was outside the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it is right downtown. All you have to do is look up. I see all those towers. I see Canada Life. I see the banks; the business community is well represented. I hope that when we talk about the pension community – to me, the pension community is the person who feeds the engine, feeds the locomotive.

Yes, Harry Smith, that’s the pension community. It is his earned money; nothing else matters. It’s much easier, I suppose, to return the phone call from a person of consequence, a person whose name is recognized so easily, a person with money, a person in a high position. They take a cut. They’re not on the take; they take a cut. It’s fee for service. I don’t mind. Give Harry Smith the opportunity and the flexibility access a small dream, the lifestyle that they both worked for for so many years, decades, to enjoy. After all, it is their money. They’ve made the contribution in good faith. They too believed that one day it would be possible. Yet the present system does not allow that.

Anna's Letter in the Post

2007-03-31T15:54:00.000-07:00

Truly shackled

Financial PostPublished: Saturday, March 31, 2007

Re: Unlock LIRAs, Jack Mintz, March 27

Those having locked-in funds are truly shackled. At age 58, I can access merely 6% of my LIF fund. Those having RRSPs or group RRSPs can access their funds as life and need dictate. We take the risk in investing and should be able to access the proceeds, unfettered as in an RRSP.
Pension legislation, both provincially and particularly federally with regard to locked-in funds, must be radically changed. The 25% unlocking in the recent Ontario budget is totally unacceptable.

Ontarians should have their funds fully unlocked, 100%, as the MPPs in 1999 via Bill 27 generously unlocked theirs, to the exclusion of every other Ontario resident.
We are perfectly capable of managing our retirement income and don't need the nanny state to protect nor dictate to us. Pension legislation overall is outmoded, outdated and in need of a major overhaul.

Anna Pollock, Oakville, Ont.

Press Release

2007-03-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

Hi:This is the press release that has just been sent out to papers across Ontario.. We also need Your support please sign the petition and write your MPP'S and the leaders etc. that are listed in the document below.We have to let the Government know that we wont stand for the slap in the face that the government did to every Ontario Citizen by insulting us with a 25% unlock while the Government of Saskatchewan unlocked 100% for their citizens. Thank You for any support Bill Costello

a Concerned citizen.

For Immediate Release

CARP’s 100% SOLUTION UNLOCKING LOCKED-IN FUNDS IN ONTARIO FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Toronto, Ontario March 23, 2007 – Ontario’s 2007 budget opened the door to unlocking Locked-In Funds (LIFs) by giving Ontarians the right of a one-time unlocking of up to 25% of locked-in funds no earlier than age 55 – but much more can and must be done. The many hundreds of thousands of Ontario LIF holders will accept no less!

CARP proposes that 50% of the principal in a LIF should be unlockable starting at age 55. With an additional 50% unlockable at age 65 – for a total of 100% for all Ontario LIF holders. The unlocked funds would be transferred into a RRIF.

Unlocking LIFs 100% is consistent with what was done in Saskatchewan five years ago and with what has been advanced in NDP MPP Andrea Horwath’s private member’s Bill 175.

A precedent was set in Ontario in 1999 by Bill 27 which allowed 61 MPPs to unlock 100% of their LIFs. It is absolutely unjust that this select group should enjoy a privilege that is denied to the multitude of other Ontario citizens with LIFs – and will continue to be denied if the Government’s discriminatory proposal is adopted. In fact, PC MPP Bob Runciman publicly endorsed Bill 175 because, as one of the select 61, he believes that all Ontarians with LIFs should have the same rights as he has.

In a recent article in the National Post, one of Canada’s leading tax experts, University of Toronto Professor Jack Mintz, stated, "workers who change jobs [or retire] get hobbled with inflexible locked-in accounts. It’s time to end this nanny-state paternalism."

Not only is the Government’s paternalism outdated, but so is its bureaucratic procedure whereby people have to fill out a 23-page application form to beg for access to their LIF principal and only if they can satisfactorily prove dire health or financial crises. If successful, they pay $200 to $600 to the Government for the favour.

Indeed, unlocking LIFs 100% will not cost the Ontario Government a single penny since LIFs are not government money. Rather it will save the government money by eliminating the need for bureaucrats to judge the LIF application forms – although this may be slightly offset by the loss of its bonus from successful applicants. However, it will raise more funds for the government through increased taxes from withdrawals as well as from sales taxes through increased consumption which, in turn, will stimulate Ontario’s economy. And, of course, CARP’s proposed policy will go a long way in enhancing the quality of life, well-being and self-respect of Ontario LIF holders.

LIF holders should express their support for CARP’s 100% solution to Premier McGuinty, Minister of Finance Greg Sobara, their local MPP and Opposition Leaders John Tory and Howard Hampton by going to www.carp.ca to use the
e-voice email system or by phone or mail.

CARP is Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus. A non-profit, non-partisan national organization with 400,000 members across the country, CARP’s mandate is to promote and protect the rights and quality of life for older Canadians. Its mission is to develop practical recommendations for the issues raised. CARP for the 50Plus Magazine is read by close to 1 million Canadians. The CARP websites receive 250,000 unique visits per month.

Contact:
Michelle Taylor
416 363-8748 ext. 236
m.taylor@50plus.com
www.carp.ca

NOTES:
The exact wording of the sentence in the 2007 Ontario Budget is: " the right to an optional one-time unlocking of up to 25% of locked-in funds no earlier than the early-retirement date under the pension plan from which the money was transferred (in most cases, this is age 55)."

In Ontario, when a pension plan is terminated or a person leaves a pension plan, the assets that the person has accumulated in the plan must be transferred to Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA). The funds in a LIRA cannot be removed. However, once the qualifying age is reached, being either the earlier of the normal retirement date from which the funds originated or 55, those funds can then be transferred to a Locked-In Fund/Life Income Fund (LIF) or a Locked-In Retirement Income Fund [LRIF]) from which funds can be withdrawn annually in percentages mandated by provincial regulations for a LIF and for a LRIF.

Locked In Funds are also called Life Income Funds.

Letter to Liberal members and opposition leaders and critics

2007-03-29T07:49:00.000-07:00

I dont think I can put the audio file on here. Anybody that would like to receive it . Contact me at l6oldman@yahoo.ca and I will send it. Bill PS it is a clip from CBC Radio 2 Sudbury.

Dear Member of Parliament,

We are sending you this audio clip of two recent interviews that were
conducted on a CBC radio station regarding locked-in pensions in the
province of Ontario. You may have already heard them, however if you
haven't, we feel it would be prudent that you take the time to listen
to what is beginning to happen across the province regarding the
embarrassing and outrageous truth of Bill 27 and of the groundswell of
support of the people in Ontario to unlock their pensions as was done
for privileged Ontario MPP's in 1999, and residents of other provinces
in our country.

This is also to let you know that many of us will not be sitting back
after the slap in the face that has been given to seniors of Ontario
with the 25% unlocking in the Ontario budget.

With CARP and the Ontario Coalition of Seniors, as well as
Newspaper articles, commentary on Radio and Television and an on-line
petition, and in addition to the over 25,000 viewers that Bill
Costello has easily had so far on the internet in Ontario, the support
is rapidly growing and the message is steadily getting out.

As we near the upcoming election, and if the growing public interest
received thus far is any indication, it is only a matter of time before
other major seniors' organizations join the campaign to free their
members from the financial bondage of a paternalistic government. A
government who continues to rule with an unwarranted need to control
the personal retirement savings of their residents to the extent of
essentially creating "wards of the state" with outstretched hands for
their own money, under full government control, until they either die
or reach the age of 90.

We will continue to inform the public that the Government of Ontario
and many privileged MPP's in Ontario think it is okay to have a pension
that is 100% unlocked for themselves at 55 years of age, if they wish,
but not okay for the rest of the other people of Ontario. Four other
provinces in Canada have already rationalized the need to unlock these
restrictive locks for their citizens, as well as the infamous group of
61 MPP's in 1999 courtesy of Bill 27. With these precedents already
set, the time to level the playing field for all people, regardless of
vocation or province, is long overdue.

We assure you, our ever expanding group of advocats will be encouraging
support of the party who has a sincere intention and definitive plan to
end the injustice and double standard that plagues this great province
of ours and who will equally provide an full 100% unlock option at the
earlier of your normal retirement date or age 55 and thereafter for all
currently locked-in pension plan holders.

Thank You

Sincerely,
Bill Costello &
Grant Fleury

Artical in the Beacon Herald

2007-03-28T16:33:00.000-07:00

Disgruntled pensioners seek full access
By Laura Cudworth Staff reporter
Feature
Disgruntled pensioners seek full access

Seniors with locked-in pensions aren’t satisfied with changes announced in last week’s provincial budget that would release 25 per cent of the funds.
“It’s an insult. It’s my own money. I’m not sure why they don’t grant 100 per cent,” said Bill Nafziger from his Milverton home this morning.
Mr. Nafziger has been leading the charge locally to get locked-in pensions unlocked.
Last year, Mr. Nafziger was able to access just 7.1 per cent of his Krug Furniture pension.
The idea is that the pension is supposed to last for the rest of the retiree’s life, so small amounts are distributed over the years. Seniors say the system is paternalistic and they should be able to access the money or reinvest it.
A representative from CARP (Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus) said seniors are disappointed with the proposed release of 25 per cent and will continue to lobby for the full 100 per cent.
The organization is proposing 50 per cent be released when the pensioner turns 55 and the rest be released when the pensioner turns 65, said Bill Gleberzon, director of government relations.
When pensioners turn 90 the rest of the money is unlocked. However, if the pensioner dies, the money is unlocked immediately and goes to the spouse. The spouse is then taxed on the money as though it were income.
Once the provincial budget passes, seniors will able to access up to 25 per cent of the funds which brings Ontario up to the same rate as New Brunswick. Saskatchewan has unlocked pensions 100 per cent while Alberta and Manitoba have unlocked pensions 50 per cent upon retirement.
“The government has gone for the lowest unlocked amount, the same as in New Brunswick.“We’re going for what Saskatchewan has done,” Mr. Gleberzon said.
He added there could be more than a million seniors with locked-in pensions in the country and hundreds of thousands in Ontario.Last December, Hamilton East New Democrat MPP Andrea Horwath introduced a private member’s bill proposing seniors be able to access 100 per cent of their locked-in pensions.
Perth-Middlesex MPP John Wilkinson said at the time he wouldn’t support the bill but did believe there should be some changes including an easier process for seniors with financial hardships or health concerns to access more of the funds.
What has added insult to injury for many seniors with locked-in pensions was legislation in 1999 that gave MPPs a one-time opportunity to unlock their own pensions. There were 61 MPPs from all three parties who took advantage of the legislation