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.

Monday, September 24, 2007

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.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Response To Dalton

Response to Dalton
Mr. McGuinty,Your response below is an affront of magnanimous proportions to all seniors in this province who hold Locked-In pension accounts.
I just flat out ... don't believe you, Mr. McGuinty ... "My colleagues and I believe that all our seniors deserve to enjoy the best possible quality of life and to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.
"Let the facts speak for themselves. Locked-In pensioners are denied but a measly pittance of their own pension monies (per annum) while living ... but
on death the same funds that were denied during life are now suddenly UNLOCKED for one purpose only ... so that you can RAPE and PILLAGE those untouched pension monies through exorbitant estate taxation!
Locked-In pensions are INDEFENSIBLE, except that all MPPs have their pensions in a similar format They are further INDEFENSIBLE, given the extraordinary, exclusive financial privilege of Bill 27 given to 61 special MPPs (of all party affiliations).
Why don't you, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Bradley (MInister Responsible for Seniors) immediately surrender all your accrued pension benefits (paid for in part by Locked-In pensioners) to a Locked-In status ... that would be the HONOURABLE thing to do.
Then you might just appreciate the financial discrimination you so strongly advocate for all other Ontarians who own Locked-In pensions. Instead ... you offer Locked-In pensioners a one-time 25% unlocking privilege with total unlocking being available at age 90 ...
when most pensioners of course will already be dead.
That is a far cry from what Jim Bradley got as a result of Bill 27. ... and you have him looking out for the interests of seniors ...
Mr. Bradley's continued silence on this issue means one thing only ... when it comes to pension benefits, Mr. Bradley firsts looks out for himself!
Your former colleague Sean Conway, called Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act) "wrong and immoral".
He took his unlocked pension anyway.
Michael Bryant called Bill 27 "repugnant" ...but since becoming Attorney General has become quite accustomed to such repugnancy ... given that the exclusivity of Bill 27 has been allowed to continue under his watch as Attorney General.
About Bill 27 Mr. McGuinty ... these are your words from the Toronto Star,December 16, 1999 ... "The Progressive Conservative government is changing pension laws to give a select group of MPPs, including Premier Mike Harris and Finance Minister Ernie Eves, access to pension funds worth about $850,000 each,
Liberal Party Dalton McGuinty says."You are, and have been all along, aware of the exclusivity pact of Bill 27 that gave 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) 100% unfettered access to their pension monies. Some of those 61 were Liberals ... some of them are still serving as elected MPPs today in your party.
Your party's words of eloquence against Bill 27 were nothing more than a hollow sham ...MPPs who have integrity do not treat seniors (those holding Locked-Inpensions) in the manner in which your government has done since 2003.
Why do the 61 MPPs get 100% unfettered access at age 55 ... yet all other Ontarians who hold Locked-In pensions will very soon, be entitled to only25% unlocking ... with total unlocking coming a age 90?
What "means" test, Mr. McGuinty, was ever administered that justified only 61 individuals, who owned Locked-In pensions, worthy of having their pension monies totally unlocked?
The "REAL" stench behind this whole deceit was and is the fact that ... the 61 worthy individuals who just happened to have their pensions totally unlocked ... all were MPPs (of all party affiliations) ... and the hundreds of thousands of other Ontarians who also owned Locked-In pensions have, in effect have been told they are too stupid to mange their own pension accounts ... and thus must be treated like total imbeciles by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario
(your regulatory agency, Mr. McGuinty) as it doles back to them measly dribs and drabs of their own monies Your actions tell seniors they don't deserve ANY quality of life ... except on death when they can contribute to your scandals such as the COLLE-GATE affair ...
who is it that can't manage their money Mr. McGuinty??????
Any other names on the list of 61 come to mind Mr. McGuinty?
K. Elliott
PLEASE NOTE:
John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65.
The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds.
Bill Costello

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Daltons Response

This is Daltons Response
Thanks for your online message regarding locked-in retirement pensions.I'm always interested in hearing about the things that matter most toOntarians.
Our government recognizes that Ontario's seniors have made and continueto make invaluable contributions to our province's strength andprosperity.
Communities across Ontario are reaping the benefits of thewisdom, knowledge and expertise of seniors. My colleagues and I believethat all our seniors deserve to enjoy the best possible quality of lifeand to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.
That is why to help provide security for seniors, we announced in our2007 Ontario Budget that we are proposing to give seniors enhancedaccess to their locked-in accounts, which originate with fundstransferred from pension plans.
As your comments would also be of interest to the Honourable GregSorbara, Minister of Finance, I have passed on a copy of yourcorrespondence to him for his information.Thanks again for contacting me. Your input is always welcome.
Mycolleagues and I look forward to our continued journey with you and yourfellow Ontarians to build a healthier, more prosperous Ontario.Dalton McGuintyPremier of Ontarioc: The Honourable Greg Sorbara