WELCOME

I was surfing the Internet one day and I noticed that Saskatchewan had unlocked their citizens locked in pensions 100% when they were transferred from a locked in retirement account ((L.I.R.A.)) into a Fund where they would be able to start collecting from . (( we will call the unlocked fund a registered retirement income fund R.R.I.F. )) The name varies a little bit Province to Province. I was surfing a bit more and I found that Manitoba had Unlocked 50% of the locked in funds in their province for their people. (( They are currently being lobbied to unlock the remaining 50% )) I then begin to think (( and that is hard to do sometimes )) Ontario being a progressive Province. Why is Ontario not unlocking these funds for their people. Considering that this is very unjust and cruel legislation keeping these funds Locked in when a person reaches Retirement age. Many of us were lead to belive when we contributed to the Defined Contribution Fund and reached the age of retirement that we could draw on our funds at will. Not be controlled by the Government and only allowed to remove basically the interest on the funds from 2.5% to 11% depending how good the fund was doing. This our OWN MONEY not Government Money. It is not OAS or CPP.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

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.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Invitation


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


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.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Radio Interview

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007

New Locked in Fund Site

Locked in Funds Site
Hi ; There is a new site on locked in funds at the CARP web site.
Regards Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

A Letter to John Tory

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

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

A Message for the Ontario Liberal Party

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.