classified ads
  Your local, Canadian Canadian Flag, community classifieds and forums
  London (Ontario) (change) Search
classified ad
nav bar:Classifieds | Community Directory | Your Account | About/Help | Home
classified ads and classifeds
New to PeopleField! Want a little info about this site? :: log in  
NEW ADDITION: Community Directory - click here to add your business, club or organization!

Forum Index > Provincial > Ontario Forum
Click to post a reply!
Petition to unlock locked in pensions (88 posts)
: <--back : Showing posts 21 to 40 : Next 20--> :
OR jump to page:  1  2  3  4  5 
tag thie thread for moderator reviewReport/Tag This Thread!

chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi This is a post Suffering Senior posted in another forum and I thought I would pass it on,

Suffering Senior;

"The cruelest lies are often told in silence." I believe this quote ... (Robert Louis Stevenson) ... is very applicable to our provincial politicians today ... relative to Bill 27 and the exclusive financial privilege extended to 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) ... and ... to the recent obscene pay increase (25%+) that MPPs gave themselves just before Christmas.
The following words are those of Mr. Dalton McGuinty (at that time ... Leader of the Opposition) ... as he was engaged in dialogue with then Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, Mr. Ernie Eves.

These words were spoken in the House on Wednesday, December 15, 1999.

"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 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 enjoy. Your new bill will allow some of our MPPs to have instant access to their pension plan at the age of 55 when you're going to give no other Ontarian that same said right. Minister, how can you possibly justify this double standard?" (Legislative Hansard, L029A Wed 15 Dec 1999, Page 1350)

After Mr. Eves responded, Mr. McGuinty then said the following:

"So that Ontarians who are paying very close attention to these proceedings here today, understand what we're talking about, everybody outside of this Legislature who's not part of the special group about to be the recipient of a special gift from this government has to be able to plead financial hardship. They've got to go before the superintendent of financial services and they've got to get down on bended knee and plead for immediate access to their locked-in pension fund. There is no such requirement to be placed on MPPs. What you are doing here is giving yourself a right, a benefit, a privilege which is not to be enjoyed by any other Ontarian.

Again, Minister, I ask you, how can you possibly justify this double standard? Why is it that MPPs, from your perspective, are entitled to a very special right and a special privilege nobody else is entitled to enjoy?" (Legislative Hansard, L029A Wed 15 Dec 1999, Page 1350)

After another response by Mr. Eves, Mr. McGuinty said the following:

"I must say that my heart bleeds for this Minister of Finance who, when this pension was changed, was left with the paltry payout of close to $1 million at the expense of taxpayers. That's what we're talking about here today. That's what this is all about." (Legislative Hansard, L029A Wed 15 Dec 1999, Page 1350)

After an interjection by the Speaker, Mr. McGuinty then said the following:

"Minister, your arrogance is showing. First your Premier doubles the size of his staff, then he awards them a 30% pay hike, then he works a three-,maybe sometimes a four-day workweek, and now we have a piece of legislation being rammed through this Legislature-there will be no public hearings-and it's going to give a select group of MPPs, yourself included, Minister, and also your Premier, a special entitlement to immediate access to a locked-in retirement account at the age of 55, a right to be enjoyed by no other Ontarian. I ask you again, Minister, how you can justify this double standard?" (Legislative Hansard, L029A Wed 15 Dec 1999, Page 1350)

To all seniors, especially those holding locked-in pensions, I say the following:

(i) Despite Mr. McGuinty's words of strong protest ... why is it that he and his party have done nothing towards giving all seniors the same privilege of unlocking their pensions as was given to 61 MPPs courtesy of Bill 27 ... even though Mr. McGuinty has been Premier since 2003?

Since members of all parties received this exclusive benefit, it is my contention that Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Tory and Mr. Hampton would all prefer to just not talk about it ... so much for protecting the interest of seniors ... that they were elected to serve ... not exploit. The cruelest lies are indeed told in silence!

Also, with reference to the first quote of Mr. McGuinty's ... "... we have discoverd deep down inside a delightful Christmas gift ... "

To all citizens of Ontario, including those seniors holding locked-in pensions ... Mr. McGuinty apparently had no reservations about giving all MPPs another delightful Christmas gift this past Christmas ... a 25% pay increase. At the same time though, it was quite acceptable that the Financial Services Commission of Ontario only raise the low income threshold from $28,066.67 to $29,133.33 ... a 3.8% increase ... (a locked-in pensioner can only apply for additional access to his or her pension if annual income, before taxes, is below this threshold).

Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Tory never mentioned this increase when talking about their own need ... for a 25%+ pay increase for MPPs.

Again, the cruelest lies are indeed told in silence.

Seniors ... keep the pressure on!!! This whole Bill 27 debacle ... is obscene ... given that the privilege 61 MPPs received of being able to have their pensions unlocked ... cost taxpayers in excess of 20 million dollars. (See the following article in the December 16, 1999 Globe and Mail, Metro edition, Headline: Pension bill to benefit MPP clique, Mc Gunity says, Byline: Richard Mackie, Queen's Park Bureau)

Keep going to your MPP offices ... keep writing letters and keep the pressure on!!!
quote / posted 17 January 2007 7:53 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi This is an article that Carole D wrote and had printed in the Toronto Globe & Mail.




Are you a Boomer that has changed jobs
over the years and ended up with pension plan that was moved to a Locked in
Retirement savings called a LIRA. Well before you retire you might want to
look at this very closely. The goverment of Ontario did not just lock it up
until you retire but has made it impossible for you to take this money out
and spend it. Although they did allow the MPP's to move their LIRA into
their RRSP, the rest of us were not given that privilege. I think if we are
such a large portion of today's population we had better make some noise or
we will be retiring with much less income than we think. Unfortunately our
goverment decided that they should decide for us, how much of OUR money we
could have at retirement. I knew that the company pension that I paid into
was moved into a LIRA when the company went Bankrupt but what I did not know
was that it is basically locked up forever and you cannot use this money
when you retire. You are only allowed to take out around 6% which is
basically the interest yearly. I paid my hard earned money for this pension
and think this is outright theft. I believe many people out there are in the
same predicament and just dont know it yet. Saskatchewan has allowed people
with a LIRA to move 100% of it to an RRSP and Manitoba has allowed people to
move 50% of it to an RRSP. I think all of us in Ontario need to get the
pressure on to get access to our retirement savings as well. If we make
enough noise we can make it happen. After all I think the next Provincial
Election is not that far away. There is a lot of information about these
LIRA's on the net. Check it out. And take some time to check if you have one
of these.You may have to re-think your retirement if you are depending on
this money to retire with.
quote / posted 19 January 2007 5:55 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi I received this letter from a friend and he said I could post it.

Hi all,

We appear to be gaining momentum across the province as per an article in the Toronto Sun.

MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill 175 to unlock locked in pensions just prior to Christmas which may/may not pass but will highlight this social injustice for Ontarians. Bill 175 is strongly supported by CARP (Canadian Association of Retired People) with over 200,000 members in Ontario alone.

Recently the Stratford Beacon Herald featured an article on locked in pension funds and a television interview on the A channel resulted in phone calls requesting further information and offers of assistance.

Please support Ontarians across the province lobbying to unlock locked in pensions by:

- accessing the petition on line (search for “petition to unlock locked in pensions”) on line and have interested people sign it on line including their comments which Andrea can present to the legislature on a continuous basis

- write/email a letter to the editor of your local newspaper requesting the Ontario Government to unlock your pension money

- visit, phone, email, write a letter to your MPP including their leaders urging them to unlock locked in pensions (search “MPP followed by your MPP's name to get their email address, etc.)

email : Dalton McGuinty dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Minister of Finance gsorbara.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Minister Responsible for Seniors jbradley.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

John Tory john.tory@pc.ola.org

Howard Hampton hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca



MPPs across Ontario are becoming aware of the locked in pension equity which was unlocked for MPPs using Bill 27 and which 61 MPPs of all parties took advantage, costing the Ontario taxpayers in excess of $20 million.

The current Minister Responsible For SENIORS in Ontario is Liberal MPP Jim Bradley who took advantage of Bill 27 at the public trough to unlock his locked in pension. MPP Bradley's silence on the unlocking your pension money reflects political integrity at its worst level. Are MPPs more competent that you are to handle your pension money?

The provincial election slotted for October 4 may make the MPPs receptive.

Best Regards,

Bill Nafziger
quote / posted 26 January 2007 6:27 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi This is a letter we received from CARP

Quote "I had my meeting yesterday with Mr. Sorbara's Special Policy Adviser who told me that ministry officials have already begun to look at LIFs because they have received a lot of correspondence on it. So, I suggest that you tell everyone you know to contact Mr. Sorbara about the subject. The Special Policy Adviser, whose name is Koddermann, said he'll get back to me when the bureaucrats are finished their review."

Besides contacting Mr. Sorbara gsorbara.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

You can also sign the online petition at

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

I send this to all of the members of the legislature a number of times

Thank You Bill Costello
quote / posted 29 January 2007 8:25 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		CARP'S POSITION ON UNLOCKING LIFE INCOME FUNDS/ LOCKED-IN FUNDS (LIFS)

January 16, 2007

CARP'S REQUEST:

The Liberal Government supports Bill 175 which would permit unlocking 100% of the principal in a LIF. The Bill was introduced in December 2006 by Andrea Horwath (NDP) and supported by Bob Runciman (Conservative).


THE ISSUE:


When Joe Smith retired from work he was able to roll his portion of the company pension into his personal RRSP as a LIF or Locked in Registered Fund (LIRF) or Locked-In Registered Account (LIRA) – different names in different provinces for the same financial instrument.

Because Joe lives in Ontario, he can access the principal in his LIF only if he can prove a dire financial or health crisis to a group of bureaucrats in the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FISCO). Joe will have to fill in a 23-page document to make his case for unlocking his LIF. If successful, he will have to pay a fee of $200 to $600. Between April 2003 and March 2006, 29, 821 Ontarians applied to FISCO for this purpose. Of them, 26, 296 were approved, 3,525 did not complete the process and 52 were denied access to their own money.


CARP'S RATIONALE:


Such a reform will not cost Ontario a penny! In fact, the Province will realize greater revenue from income and sales taxes when individuals are able to withdraw their LIF principal. This will increase their purchasing power which, in turn, will stimulate productivity and employment. As well, the quality of life for LIF holders will be greatly enhanced.


ONTARIO PRECEDENT FOR UNLOCKING LIFS:

In 1999, Bill 27 enabled 61 Ontario MPPs to access 100% of their occupational pension. Mr. Runciman was among them. These individuals came from all parties.


UNLOCKING LIFS IN OTHER PROVINCES:


In Saskatchewan, 100% can be withdrawn; in Alberta the amount is 50%; in Manitoba 50% with another 50% to come; in New Brunswick, 25%. Federal legislation allows those in federally regulated industries to withdraw 100% of principal at age 90.


DISPOSITION OF LIF PRINCIPAL AT DEATH


LIF principal can continue to grow during retirement. Upon death of a LIF- holder according to LIF-holder Bill Nafziger:

“[Mr. Nafziger estimates that] a LIF or an LRIF would allow me access to ¼ to 1/3 of my total pension fund during my lifetime.  The remaining [balance of the LIF principal] would go to my estate/spouse after my death completely unlocked.  Upon her death, the remaining [balance] would be considered income in one year and severely taxed by Revenue Canada.”


CONCERNS AND RESPONSES REGARDING UNLOCKING LIFS


In discussions on the issue of unlocking LIFs with some Ontario politicians and bureaucrats, the following concerns were raised. (It should be noted that some bureaucrats did not know what LIFs were.) As well, a recent article by Linda Leatherdale, Money Editor for The Toronto Sun, quoted retired financial columnist and financial adviser Bruce Cohen on some other concerns. Following each concern is CARP's response.


Concern: Squandering Pension


If Joe is given access to his LIF principal, he will squander his pension and eventually become “a ward of the state.”




CARP's Response


This is paternalistic attitude based on prejudice and stereotyping rather than a shred of evidence. When CARP asked the Ministries of Finance in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick whether they
had heard about individuals getting into financial hardships due to unlocking their Locked-In Funds, they stated that they had no information about this because they had not looked into it nor had heard anything about this sort of thing happening. Moreover, there are no similar objections to enabling individuals having access to the principal in their RRSPs or RRIFs.


Concern: Unfair to Others


One objection raised to unlocking LIFS, is that allowing access to principal would be unfair to those who opt to allow their pension to remain in their corporate or occupational pension.


CARP's Response


People should have the freedom to choose for themselves the course of action that they believe will best improve their independence and quality of life. In other words, they should be able to decide whether to maintain their portion of their corporate or occupation pension with the company or occupation or roll it over into their own RRSP.

If Joe rolls over his portion of a corporate or occupational pension into his RRSP as a LIF, he will assume the risk of growing this pension. Accordingly, he merits access to the fruits of their labours – that is, full access to the LIF principal that he has grown. At the same time, his decision to assume the risk absolves the corporation or occupational entity of any liability as well as reduces the entity's pension-related expenses.






Concern's: Break Contracts


Some opponents to unlocking Locked-In Funds argue that individuals accepted a contract that obliged them not to access LIF-principal.


CARP's Response


Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswsick and the Federal Government, as well the Province of Ontario in 1999, did not find this to be a barrier to unlocking LIFs for all or some of their citizens.

Furthermore, CARP has heard from LIF-holders such as Mr. Bill Nafziger that the advice on LIFs he received from the human resources specialist at the company where he worked as well as from financial advisers he consulted made no mention about not being about to access the principal in a LIF.


Concern: Impact on Defined Benefit Pensions


Unlocking LIFS will impact adversely on Defined Benefit Pensions


CARP's Response


Many Defined Benefit Pension do not permit the rolling over of pension funds into an individual's RRSP as a LIF.

Moreover, corporations are moving away from Defined Benefit Pensions (DBPs) to Defined Contribution Pensions (DCPs) which are akin to RRSPs. The objective of this shift in pension policy is to absolve the corporation or occupation of the responsibility and costs of ensuring payment of future defined pension income. This development has no relationship to LIFs.








Concern: Adverse impact on Low-Income Seniors


If low-income seniors retained their unlocked LIFs, they might not be eligible for federal and provincial benefits such as GIS, GST rebates because it could generate too much retirement income.


CARP's Response


When the insurance companies demutualized, the Federal Government passed special legislation to protect low-income seniors who might get a one-time payment as a result of this action from adverse impacts. Similar legislation could be passed in this instance.

Moreover, there is no evidence that this has happened in those provinces that have unlocked LIFs.


Concern: Creditors


If the LIFs are unlocked, the funds could be vulnerable to seizure by creditors.


Response


This assumes that the unlocked funds would be totally removed from the LIF. Rather, they will be transformed into Joe's RRSP, which is protected from creditors.
quote / posted 29 January 2007 6:09 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Senior seeks support for changes to legislation
regarding retirement savings

by Grant Fleury

… as printed in the Northern Life newspaper Wednesday January 24, 2007

I am writing this letter to inform the holders of LIRA, LIF or LRIF types of retirement accounts of the inadequate maximum limits you will face when you qualify to withdraw from these plans and of the injustice that you received from your provincial government regarding legislation it passed for it's MPP's contained in Bill 27 in 1999.
This Bill contained an exclusive provision which allowed all MPP's to fully transfer their former pension plan assets into their RRSP's, essentially bypassing the very rules and legislation they continue to impose on the rest of us.
LIRA stands for Locked In Retirement Account. LIF's and LRIF's are subsequently created from LIRA's when one reaches the qualified age (usually 55) and chooses to begin to withdraw from the money contained in the account.
There are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who are in possession of these locked-in retirement accounts. The number of these personal locked-in retirement accounts are growing steadily as more companies are getting out of providing defined benefit pension plans.
A large majority of LIRA accounts were primarily created as a result of former collapsed pension plans, pension plan wind-ups or employees leaving a company's pension plan where monies earned by each plan member were then transferred into a Locked-In Retirement Account as legislated by the provincial government.
Once you reach retirement age (or 55) and you want to withdraw some of this money, the LIRA account must then be converted to either a LIF or LRIF. These names stand for Life Income Fund (Locked-In Fund) or Locked-in Retirement Income Fund. There are marked differences between the two but they are both locked-in and full access is restricted.
The existing legislation, supported by the current Liberal government of Ontario, regulates and prescribes the maximum amount of money it's plan-holders can withdraw annually from these LIF or LRIF plans. The current formulas used to arrive at these upper limits are grossly insufficient to meet the needs for a decent standard of retirement living. The prescribed table for LIF's and formulas used for LRIF's can be found at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario website located at (www.fsco.gov.on.ca).
Most, if not all of the people I talk to about this exclusion have no knowledge of this special exemption from the legislation that was created for these MPP's. They also aren't aware of the prohibitively low limits to access of their own money that they will face when they qualify to retire and begin to withdraw from their nest egg.
I have written to every level of government in this province regarding this incredible injustice. All have essentially brushed me off. It's no wonder, since they've already taken care of themselves, why bother with the rest of us. The current ruling Liberal party, who's leader, back then, openly criticized the “double standard” in the Ontario Legislature, has remained silent and done nothing to correct and create a “single standard for all Ontarians”.
When their pension plans were eliminated and wound-up in 1999, a special provision in this Bill was created to allow themselves to fully transfer 100 percent of their contributions from their terminated gold plated pension plan over to their personal RRSP's. And as we all know, RRSP's have no locks or maximum withdrawal limits for future withdrawals. This was done ONLY for themselves and as quietly as possible so as not to attract media attention or public scrutiny.
The current legislation is even at odds with Stats Can's life expectancy of 77.2 years for a male as it uses 90 years in all their formulas to calculate the maximum withdrawal limits! Also, according to Stats Can, there is less than one-half of 1 percent of people alive at 90. Most of us will never live to 90 and thus never see the greater percentage of the remaining money in our locked-in plans!
This current legislation must change! On December 13th, 2006, a Private Members Bill 175 was introduced at the Ontario Legislature by Andrea Horwath, MPP for Hamilton East, who has decided that the government has it wrong.
This Bill is an act to amend the Pension Benefits Act to allow the transfer of 100% of locked-in pension funds to a RRIF(Registered Retirement Income Fund) thus eliminating the maximum limits to access of your retirement accounts currently imposed by the existing legislation.
This action was primarily initiated by Bill Costello (private citizen) and driven and fully supported by various people including myself, Bill Nafziger (private citizen), CARP (Canadian Association for the 50 Plus) with a membership of 400,000 and many others in Ontario interested in changing this outdated legislation. We are all demanding that all Ontarians have the same equal opportunity to fully unlock our LIRA's, LIF's and LRIF's as the MPP's did for themselves in 1999. On January 16th, CARP presented a LIF brief to the special assistant for Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance) requesting full unlock provisions for all Ontarians. This can be found on their website at www.carp.ca. Search for “LIFS” - identified as items 22 to 24.
As equally stated by CARP, holders of LIRA's, LIF's and LRIF's are urged to communicate with your MPP, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. McGuinty and the leaders of the Opposition parties to express your support for the passage of Bill 175 insisting that the locks be removed from your locked-in retirement money. Additionally, you can sign the on-line petition to unlock locked-in pension funds at (http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html).
Bill 175, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Act, is one of the most important Bills to come along for the seniors of Ontario in some time. It will dramatically affect the quality and level of retirement for every Ontarian, as it will return full financial control of your locked-in retirement savings over to you by removing the locks and allowing a full transfer into a RRIF (which is not locked and has no maximum limits for withdrawal). All without costing the taxpayer a single dollar!



Grant Fleury is a Sudbury man.
He can be reached at locked_pensions_gf@yahoo.ca
quote / posted 04 February 2007 8:04 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi I am just letting everybody know that is interested. I have sent in the online petition to the Premier and Finance minister of Ontario. I also sent the petition to every MPP in Ontario plus 60 newspapers across the province.

I am still looking for more signatures at http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

I will be sending it in again.

We have approximately 415 signatures. This is something I dont really understand. With a estimate of two million plus people with locked in pensions in Ontario you would think the petition would be at least four thousand.

Many companies are moving away from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans.
This means that the younger generation that is in the work force and is in or going to be in a company pension plan will eventually end up in a locked in pension .

There have been over twenty nine thousand people that have paid between $200 and $600 to have a small portion of their pension unlocked under the financial hardship provision in the last few years.

If they need more money in the next year because of hard ship they will have to pay another $200 to $600 to access their funds.

This is outright theft. Yet the government can get away with it. If we set up a scam like the locked in funds we would be put in jail.

The financial institutions and government did not properly inform the people that bought into these pension plans that they would not be unlocked when they retired and that they would only be allowed to draw of the interest NOT THE Principle.

This is Criminal. This is Your own money! this is not a government run program .

This is money that people saved for their retirement.

In that short time period also three thousand plus were turned down and not allowed to access any of the principle of their own money. As I said before This is criminal!

In 1999 61 MPP's had legislation passed to unlock these funds for them selves and transfer these funds into an ordinary RRSP of which all MPP's have now.

We contribute 10% of MPP's salries to their RRSP Yet these same MPP's did not unlock the funds for the rest of the people in Ontario.

We need to send them a clear message to unlock these funds and If the Ontario Liberals refuse we need to vote them out of power.

The NDP supports unlocking these funds 100% and the Conservatives are thinking about it.

Now is the time to make Ontario unlock these funds like Saskatchewan , Manitoba, Alberta and New Brunswick have done for their citizens.

There is going to be a meeting with CARP and a representative from the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the Ontario Senior Secretariat and Andrea Horwath and other people working to have these pensions unlocked .
This is to form a solid front on this issue.

The Online petition is good to keep this issue in the minds of the politicians.

Think about Your Future please sign the petition .

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

Thank You Bill Costello
quote / posted 28 February 2007 1:51 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi :

A friend asked me to put this in the forums
Anna can be reached through me at l6oldman@yahoo.ca
The first letter in my address is a small L

or can be reached directly by joining the group RRSP forum at Yahoo
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Locked-in_RRSP/

Any former Federal Civil Servants on the site?

Hi all
I'm a former Federal Civil Servant and former member of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada for 20+ years. I have a locked in pension. I
contacted the PSAC and have been given a contact name with whom I'll be
discussing potential political lobbying to unlock Federal pensions. If
you are interested in pursuing this with PSAC let me know. The more
complaints they get the better.
Thanks
Anna Pollock
quote / posted 02 March 2007 3:41 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		This is a letter that a friend sent to Mr.Ted Arnott one of the MPP's that voted to unlock MPP pensions in 1999. Yet does not feel that the people of Ontario should have the same privilege.

It seems that he does not want to answer the Question put to him.

It seems that some MPP's think they don't have to answer questions from people that are not in their constituency.

They are making the rules and regulations that all people of Ontario have to follow.
Therefor they should answer to all people of Ontario.

Truth Motivated bu Honesty , integrity ????????

Good morning Mr. Arnott,

Irrespective of your most evasive reply to me this past week, I am still waiting for your answer to the following question.

Would you be willing to immediately transfer all your MPP pension assets that are currently in RRSP format into a Pension in a Locked-In format?

Having now read your article on global warming (the March 2nd edition of the Wellington Advertiser) entitled "Inconvenient Truth", it is obvious both you and Al Gore have something in common.

Not to undermine the issue of global warming in any way, I found it very interesting that just days after Mr. Gore's recent visit to Toronto, the media was then reporting about Mr. Gore's own substantial home hydro bill ... Mr. Gore's own personal Inconvenient Truth". Not following what you preach certainly leaves one's credibility very much in question ... wouldn't you agree Mr. Arnott? The old adage surfaces again. Nothing is ever quite as it first appears.

Mr. Arnott ... Let's again discuss your own "Inconvenient Truth", to which you have kept noticeably silent. For you, your voting record shows you found it both ethically and morally acceptable that 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) be given the right to transfer all their Locked-In Pension assets to Pensions in RRSP formats, courtesy of Bill 27 (1999). The Toronto Star reported in 2002 that this magnanimous gift to your brethren cost taxpayers in excess of $20 million. In addition, the Pension reform of the day left you personally with an RRSP pension.

Why is it that the concept of excessive pension regulation by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario is so detestable to you and all other MPPs? At the same time though, you find such excessive pension regulation so OK for your constituents, both within your riding and across the province? Why is that?

As I said at the beginning . my question still awaits an answer from you. You can choose to answer it now or you can to choose to answer it often in public forum as the election nears.

Mr. Arnott ... I'm retired ... I have nothing but time and as such you have just become one of my personal projects leading up to election day.

You obviously have had great difficulty telling your neighbours about your "Inconvenient Truth". I may not live in your riding but for me, that is irrelevant. I have lived in Wellington County in the past and I have been around this region long before you were born. Further, as you are a graduate of Arthur District High School (the former Wellington County School Board), I feel I have a vested interest in ensuring that you find your way back ... to finding that ability ... to tell the truth ... rather than dance around it.

I suggest you think seriously about telling your "Inconvenient Truth" now! Remember the funeral scenario we discussed in your office on February 2nd?

We will surely be crossing paths,

Kenneth Elliott
quote / posted 04 March 2007 6:37 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		I received this in a E-Mail it is from the Archives of The Taxpayers Federation
It made my blood boil !

MPP Pension Fiasco: A $10 Million Taxpayer Mugging?
Imagine if you overpaid into your RRSP a few years back only to be notified by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) that you now owe big-time taxes - let's say $10 million - on this overpayment. But don't worry Ontario taxpayers will pick up the tab for your mistake. If you're one of approximately 300 current or former MPPs, this is precisely what is happening.

This is the side issue - albeit a $10 million side issue - that has popped up right in the middle of the Ontario PC leadership campaign and it doesn't look good for former Finance Minister Ernie Eves who is leading the race to succeed outgoing PC leader and Premier, Mike Harris. In Mr. Eves defense, his officials have suggested that the timing of this "news" is suspect is probably the work of mischief-making Liberals who are trying to sully his image. Fair enough, there is likely some validity in this suspicion.

Nonetheless, it appears as though Ontario really messed up in 1996 in the way it wound down the gold-plated MPP pension plan. Of course, the concept of abolishing the plan was the right thing to do as was converting paid up amounts for MPPs in RRSP contributions. At issue is the manner in which this concept was executed.

The problem was (and is) that the Ontario government contributed too much into these RRSPs in direct contravention of overwhelming expert advice. Instead it relied on one outside opinion that said what they were doing was legal and acceptable under the Income Tax Act and relevant pension and RRSP legislation.

Some $54 million was withdrawn from the old MPP pension scheme and topped up with another $55 million from general revenues. This $109 million was in turn funneled into RRSP accounts for current and former MPPs or survivors.

The payouts into the RRSP scheme were quite impressive. Former Premier Bob Rae along with NDP colleagues Bud Wildman, Floyd Laughren and Dave Cooke received payments of $1 million or more. And current MPPs like Grit Sean Conway also made out very well. As for Ernie Eves and Mike Harris, their payments were $810,000 and $864,000 respectively.

In setting up this conversion, officials from the provincial Ministry of Finance, a major accounting firm, a prominent Toronto law firm, and Ottawa (including then DM of Finance and now Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge) all warned Ontario against proceeding as it planned. But Ontario ignored this advice and counsel and marched ahead.

Now fast forward to 2002 and the 300 current and former MPPs have been asked to withdraw excessive contributions to their pension schemes, sometimes up to 50% and 60% of the original RRSP amount. But withdrawing this money counts as income which is subject to income tax. This is where the province (read: Taxpayers) will step in and pay out $10 million to cover the tax bills owing.

This boondoggle yields some fundamental questions. To start, it must be determined if Ontario actually received a 'ruling' from Ottawa. A ruling is a binding interpretation of tax implications (decided by CCRA and Justice) in advance of a financial transaction. If Ottawa gave a formal ruling, then Mr.Eves and crew did nothing wrong and the matter should be dropped.

However, if a formal ruling was not obtained, then other questions arise. Why wasn't a formal ruling sought? Was Mr. Eves was in a conflict of interest in pushing this scheme through when he stood to personally benefit? And is it fair that taxpayers absorb this entire $10 million hit or should former MPPs share in paying some of the taxes owing? At the very least, taxpayers deserve some answers to these $10 million questions.
quote / posted 12 March 2007 8:53 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		I received the Federation Of Labour article in my E-Mail and it made my
blood boil.

All MPP's of Ontario benefited the legislative change to the Gold
Plated pensions in 1999.

61 MPP's were allowed to unlock their pensions in 1999 and now all
MPP's have a unlocked RRSP of which the tax payers pay 10% of their
current salary.

With all this having happened Many MPP's still have the nerve after 8
years of discrimination against the people of Ontario .

They refuse to unlock the locked in pensions for the people of Ontario.

Please mail the Premier and Finance Minister of Ontario and tell them
this Discrimination has to stop

Also please sign the online petition at.

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

Thank You Bill Costello
quote / posted 12 March 2007 6:11 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi : This was a commentary on Owensound Radio.

Please write your MPP and the Leaders and tell them your story or just tell them you want these pensions unlocked the same as the other 4 provinces.

Hon.James J Bradley Minister Responsible for Seniors

jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

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

Hon Greg Sorbara Finance Minister
gsorbara.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Howard Hampton Leader of the NDP
hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca

John Tory Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
john.tory@pc.ola.org

And also please sign the online petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html


Take Care Bill Costello




Commentary can be heard on 560 CFOS Tuesdays & Thursdays at 7:08 am and 5:08 pm



Ross Kentner Commentary for Thursday, March 15th 2007:


People who heard my recent comment on Employment Insurance said they had never heard me so angry. Well, here's another government scam that has me steamed. This time it's the Ontario Government that is ripping us off. Now that I'm 65 and thinking of retiring in another five years, I'm looking at how I hope to fund my future.



It's not a surprise to find I could have started saving sooner or could have been a smarter investor over time. But it's a shock to learn that the instrument I thought was designed to furnish retirement income is not mine to use as I wish. And, while it may warehouse me when I can't get around anymore, it will pay me at under the poverty rate when I finally have a chance to pursue hobbies or travel. That's because, like many of you listening, my retirement account is locked-in.



You probably thought locked-in meant you can't access your retirement account until you qualify to retire. Actually, it means the government has usurped control of your money and will only give it back to you in dribs and drabs…from 2.5 to 6.3 per cent a year. Do the math…it's peanuts! You can't live in Ontario in 2007 on that and you sure as heck won't be able to live on it if you don't retire for another 15 or 20 years!



Why did I call this a scam? The formula the government uses assumes you'll live to 90. But according to Statistics Canada, less than one half of one per cent of us ever reach 90. If I die at 77, which is the average for Canadian men, I'll never see by far the greater percentage of the money that I and, at one time, my employer paid into my retirement fund.



Can I prove this is a government-sponsored scam? What better proof than this? In 1999 when pension plans for Members of the Legislature were eliminated, a special bill was passed enabling MPPs to transfer their pensions to their personal RRSPs. Our elected members have full control over their previous pension funds. In other words, as things stand now, there is a law for Members of the Provincial Parliament and another law for the rest of us.



In opposition, the Liberals criticized this double standard. In office, they have done nothing about it. Andrea Horwath, MPP for Hamilton East has moved a private member's bill to give all Ontario residents the option to transfer their locked-in pension funds to a RRIF. Bill 175 must be passed. There is no reason on earth for a government to control a taxpayer's access to their own money. There's even less when MPPs have unlocked their own pensions
quote / posted 19 March 2007 9:44 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi I would like to introduce Professor Jack M. Mintz.

He just wrote an article on why locked in pensions should be unlocked. It was posted in the Toronto National Post.

I will be posting following this.




Jack M. Mintz

Professor of Business Economics
Degrees

PhD, University of Essex
MA, Queen's University
BA, University of Alberta







Positions Held

Academic Positions
Current

Professor, Business Economics, Rotman School of Management
Current

Director, International Tax Program, Rotman School of Management
1999- 2006

President and CEO, C. D. Howe Institute
1993-1995

Associate Dean (Academic), Faculty of Management, University of Toronto
1984-1989

Associate Professor, Queen's University
1986

Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Carleton University
1981, 1985

Visiting Researcher, CORE, Belgium
1978-1984

Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Queen's University

Non-Academic Positions
1984-1985

Special Advisor to Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Tax Research, Department of Finance, Government of Canada
1974-1975, 1976

Consultant, Economic Council of Canada, Financial Markets Group
1971-1973

Budget Bureau and Fiscal Planning, Alberta Government
quote / posted 28 March 2007 9:09 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		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).

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 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
quote / posted 28 March 2007 9:36 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		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
quote / posted 29 March 2007 1:25 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Anna's Letter in the Post


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=c74d46e3-5115-4098-8720-e2de80f523cf

Truly shackled


Financial Post

Published: 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.
quote / posted 01 April 2007 7:33 PM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi:

I am just letting everybody know that is interested. I have sent in the online petition to the Premier and Finance minister of Ontario. I also sent the petition to every MPP in Ontario plus 60 newspapers across the province.

I am still looking for more signatures at http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

I will be sending it in again.

If you have a story to tell how the locking of these pensions affected you or you just want to send a message that you want these pensions unlocked.

You can put it in the online petition and I will make sure that every MPP & news paper Editor in Ontario See's it or You can mail it personally to the following people.

Ontario Liberals said it will unlock 25% in 2008 if they are still here.
We say that is not enough. When a person considers that Saskatchewan unlocked 100% for their people.

We need to let all party's know that we all want 100%. Nothing less.
This is all our own money . Not government money to keep themselves in perks.

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

Hon. Greg Sorbara
gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Howard Hampton
hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca

John Tory
john.tory@pc.ola.org

Robert W Runciman
bob.runciman@pc.ola.org

Thank You Bill Costello
quote / posted 10 April 2007 9:29 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi : This is a article printed in the Kitchener Waterloo Record .
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
quote / posted 22 April 2007 8:36 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hi This is a letter sent to John Tory

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 locked_pensions_gf@yahoo.ca
Sudbury
quote / posted 28 April 2007 8:13 AM
chub111
Active Member
Registered

Click for profile 		Hello All;
I just received this letter from Greg Sorbara in snail mail concerning the insulting 25% unlock.


Ministry of Finance Office of the Minister


April 27, 2007



Dear Mr. Costello:

Thank you for your correspondence forwarded by Premier Dalton McGuinty, regarding Ontario locked-in accounts.

In response to concerns and suggestions received from Ontarians regarding locked-in accounts, the government has committed in its 2007 Ontario Budget to introduce changes to the rules governing locked-in accounts, including the introduction of a new life income fund (LIF) that permits 25 per cent unlocking. The new, more flexible, LIF and other modifications to the rules for locked-in accounts would provide Ontario seniors enhanced access to their locked-in funds.

The new LIF would replace existing LIFs and locked-in retirement income funds (LRIFS) and introduce the right for LIF account holders to withdraw or transfer to a non-locked-in account up to 25 per cent of their locked-in funds. The new LIF would also eliminate existing mandatory annuity purchase requirements, permit withdrawal of the entire remaining account balance by age 90 and allow account holders to make LRIF-type withdrawals based on the investment earnings in the previous year where this amount exceeds the maximum income under the LIF schedule.

Additional changes to the rules governing locked-in accounts would permit unlocking for account holders who are non-residents of Canada for at least two years and direct transfers to non-locked-in accounts of small amounts unlocked in accordance with the existing provisions of the Pension Benefits Act.
In addition, consistent rules for the waiver of spousal entitlements to locked-in funds upon the death of the account holder would also be introduced.
Consultations with financial institutions and other key stakeholders on the 2007 Budget 1 proposals have been initiated to ensure that the introduction of new LIF and other changes to the rules for locked-in accounts may proceed smoothly.

Implantation of the 2007 Budget proposals is expected to begin in January of 2008

Thank you again for writing Yours sincerely Greg Sorbara Minister

c: The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
quote / posted 10 May 2007 7:42 AM

: <--back : Showing posts 21 to 40 : Next 20--> :
OR jump to page:  1  2  3  4  5 
Click to post a reply!


RECENT CLASSIFIEDS data entry jobs : : Data Entry Job : : Loan Offer Apply Now : : Data Entry Job!! : : Fashion & Print Models : : Houseboat & Backwater Holidays in Kerala in India : : ColdFusion (CFMX) by Adobe Experts :

#q_CityName.title# classifieds and forums, jobs housing rentals
with active, local and relevent London classified ads
Featured Classifieds (more)
London classifieds and forums, jobs housing rentals
#q_CityName.title# classifieds and forums, jobs housing rentals
NEWEST FEATURED AD:
Would you like to Earn Extra Income Helping People Get Well?

ColdFusion (CFMX) by Adobe Experts
Christmas Shopping Done in One Place
Halloween Costumes - 10% off
Holistic Health & Wellness Lifestyle Expos Across Canada
London classifieds and forums, jobs housing rentals

What does active and local mean?
Change City / Change Country
London Home Page
Have questions? Fill in a form and we'll email or phone you back!

Add a classified
Add a business/club/organization
Add a forum topic
Go to a random ad/listing






London, classified, classifieds, Canadian, barter, jobs, rent, buy, own, trade, people, field, peoplefield, fieldpeople, community, post, forums, houses, job, house, resumes, post, event, local, city, listings, personals, class, exchange

PeopleField.org is a free service! Click to join and post your services and used goods today!
top :: contact links :: built with Lopedia Portal :: Terms of Service :: Scam Prevention :: copyright 2001 - 2008
home / London :: LOG IN :: Change City / Change Country

London Ontario Classifieds / Canadian Classified Ads / PeopleField.org
London version. We are about Canadian classified ads. PeopleField has lots of classifieds. Use this site for barter. Used cars and vehicles are listed here. Search for London Ontario jobs. You can rent houses. Always buy our classified listings. This site allows you to own. We have few ad spots. PeopleField minimizes ads! Don't forget to sell. This site is good for trade.