[lakeside]

Hi;
I have been reading my online petition as I do every few days. Just to remind me why we need these funds unlocked.

NOBODY should have to go through this.

This is a article in my petition that helps me keep going after government to change this unjust legislation.

[Quote]" Why is this government so cruel. They act like dictators. My mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer 5 years ago. My father and my mother wanted to go and travel as long as they could together and my father had a sizeable amount of money in a locked in pension and was already 68 years old The government would not allow him to take the money out . My mother then passed away two years later and had not been able to enjoy some of the things that they had saved the money for because of a unfeeling government. Now my father has passed away in the past year He also had no enjoyment from their savings . We his children did not want their money . We wanted them to be able to enjoy themselves. I am sure that thought never entered the governments mind . They would gladely take any money from my parents when they passed on. PlEASE people get rid of this uncaring government that is in power. The ones that have just unlocked the pensions a measly 23\% instead of letting the seniors have their money so they can live their retirement in the fashion they want Please vote for whichever government will unlock these pensions for your mother and fathers." [Quote]

[lakeside]

Here is another reason for locked-in pensions to be unlocked. It was taken from my online petition.

I returned to work at age 40 after raising our family in the hopes of having a pension fund available. Now at 67 we are struggling to hang on to our home. It is very frustrating to know that you have funds that you can not access, but I guess the government thinks that we are not capable of handling our own money.

I am still looking for more signatures at

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

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.

The latest word I have heard is that they wont go any further.

We have to tell them and the other party's that there is a need to go further. This is not their money or government money it is OUR MONEY

When a person considers that Saskatchewan unlocked 100% for their people.

Also in 1999 61 MPP,S also had all of their funds unlocked with a MAJORITY VOTE in Parliament.

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
[email protected] rg

Hon. Greg Sorbara
[email protected]

Howard Hampton
[email protected]

John Tory
[email protected]

Robert W Runciman
[email protected]

Thank You Bill Costello

[lakeside]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thestar.com/article/225446



Jun 14, 2007 12:52 PM
RITA TRICHUR
BUSINESS REPORTER

Two out of three Canadians expecting to retire in 2030 are failing to save enough money to cover basic household expenses in their golden years, says a new study released today by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.

The report, “Planning For Retirement: Are Canadians Saving Enough?,” warns the greying baby boomer generation to either scramble to sharply increase their annual savings or plan to work past age 65 to avoid financial hardship.

"The message for most Canadians in their early to mid-40s is they will need to save more if they expect to enjoy an independent retirement," said the Institute's president, Normand Gendron.

"Governments need to provide Canadians with more education about the role that different savings vehicles can play in generating retirement income, and provide tools and incentives that encourage more households to save."

Canada’s public pension system is not intended to provide all the income needed for an independent retirement, the study said, noting it is only geared to replace about 40 per cent of gross income for households earning the average industrial wage, which was about $40,000 in 2005.

Canadians must act fast to build on this income through some combination of workplace pension plans, registered retirement savings plans, home equity and personal savings, it added.

In fact, actuaries determined a 40-year-old single person earning about $40,000 would need to save as much as 20 per cent, or $8,000, of his or her gross income every year for the next 25 years to cover necessary expenses in retirement. The study found that only a third of Canadian households are currently on track.

The study's findings stand in sharp contrast to a recent opinion poll by Pollara Inc. that found 55 per cent of Canadians aged 40 or older feel some level of confidence that they will have the financial resources to retire comfortably.

Those with retirement savings feel more confident, as do those with a workplace pension plan. Three out of four people surveyed said they plan to retire at or before age 65.

[lakeside]

Dear Rita Trichur,

My name is Grant Fleury.
I am with the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders, a
non-partisan group representing the interests of the estimated hundreds
of thousands of LIF Holders in Ontario. Our goal is to inform these
individuals of the current rules and regulations pertaining to their
locked-in funds and to thus lobby the government and political parties
to amend the current Ontario Pension legislation to allow 100% access
to locked-in pension funds at the earlier of either the normal
retirement date or age 55 and beyond as has been done in Saskatchewan
and to lesser and differing extents in other provinces in Canada.

I read your article with great interest as it certainly brings to light
the alarming reality of the incorrect perception of many
Canadians(Ontarians) of the belief they will have enough money to
comfortably retire on.

As you have duly noted from the report of the Canadian Institute of
Actuaries that there, in fact, is not enough money being set aside by
two-thirds of Canadians for their retirement years, there remains
another less written about subject that further compounds the dismal
financial reality of these future retirees.

Many of the people that were surveyed, no doubt, are in possession of
one or more forms of a locked-in fund known as either a LIRA, LIF or
LRIF, depending at what stage those monies are at in their transition
towards actual available dollars to the pensioner. Working to or past
65 will be, for most, the only option available in order to achieve
retirement independence if any of these type of locked-in funds are in
their retirement portfolio.

The reason I say this is simply due to the fact that although a
significant amount of people are in possession of these locked-in
accounts known as LIRA's, LIF's or LRIF's, most are unaware of the
highly restrictive rules and regulations they will face when they
expect to begin withdrawing from these accounts to supplement or
primarily fund their retirement years.

The message by institute president Normand Gendron "The message for
most Canadians in their early to mid-forties is they will need to save
more if they expect to enjoy an independent retirement," could and
should be amended to include or address the locked-in type of
retirement savings as a principle reason for having to work longer or
begin to save earlier and that those people who have LIRA's, LIF's or
LRIF's should be aware that they will be limited to a yearly access of
approx. 6.5% for LIF's or the market growth for LRIF's and thus had
better include this extreme limitation in their overall calculations to
toward their ultimate goal of financial independence upon retirement.

This information, or lack thereof, regarding LIRA's, LIF's or LRIF's is
grossly lacking in the general public and quite often is also not fully
understood by financial consultants or institutions' agents. Thus
owners of these type of locked-in accounts, more often than not, think
that when they reach fifty-five (55), they will have full unrestricted
access to their locked-in pension funds. They are shocked and outraged
when informed of these limitations as nothing could be further from
their perception than the archaic limits imposed by the regulators of
locked-in funds in Ontario.

Hence the statement "There is a gap between what Canadians are thinking
and what they are actually planning and saving." is in fact much larger
than the report suggests if some of these pension funds are of the
locked-in variety.

The statement "The problem is that boomers have neglected to save", is
not entirely the fault of the boomer. The real underlying problem is
the lack of disclosure by the large corporations and financial
institutions who have laid these people off over the last thirty or so
years, and failed to accurately inform them of the fallacy that the
settlements they receive in the form of locked-in funds are not as
useful as they are portrayed to be. Yes, they may seem large at the
time, but they are legislated to be doled out, at a non-linear rate,
over a period from 55 to 90 years of age where in fact the majority of
this money will never be fully accessible to the fund owner as less
than 1/2 of 1 percent of us will live to 90 anyway! The remaining
money, upon death, is immediately taxed at the beneficiary's taxation
rate since it is added to their taxable income for the year and heavily
taxed at a much higher rate. This more often than not repeated scenario
essentially results in a "worthless bag of cash" to the pensioner since
they will likely never see the bulk of their own money while alive and
a large and immediate tax grab for the government..

Unless the existing pension legislation is changed in Ontario, and
Canada for that matter, Canada's public pension system will be relied
on even further to supplement the shortfall of future retirees with
locked-in pension funds as a result of their paltry access.

"The government will provide you with a base support system that will
keep you just above the poverty line – but that's all," said Robert
Brown, an actuarial science professor at the University of Waterloo,
who worked on the study.

This is precisely one of the principle reasons why we, the Ontario
Coalition of Independent LIF Holders, are advocating the abolition of
the restrictions regarding the limits to access of these locked-in
funds and thus allow the owners full 100% access to their funds upon
reaching the qualified age. In conjunction with CARP, and a number of
other well known and highly regarded and respected individuals in the
field of economics, we are currently and vigourously pursuing the
political parties, including the current Liberal party, to remove these
restrictive limits and provide full access as was done for all
residents in Saskatchewan a few years ago and was also done exclusively
for 61 MPP's in Ontario in 1999 via a special discriminatory amendment
for sitting members of the legislature contained in Bill 27(1999). We,
the remaining Ontarians, are insisting on equal and fair treatment as
was afforded the 61 MPP's in 1999 when they exclusively legislated
themselves a 100% unlocking privilege when their pension plans were
also previously wound up and they too were subsequently left with
similar locked-in pension plans.

All of the findings that you have pointed out in your article are in
fact worse than they appear to be on the surface if some of the pension
ear-marked money is of the locked-in variety.

As I've stated earlier, most people surveyed by our group, are unaware
of the restrictions to access they will face when they begin to
withdraw and are shocked when they are referred to the FSCO and the PBA
in Ontario to determine these extremely low percentages for withdrawal
rates and restrictions that they are being limited to.

The statement, "According to Statistics Canada, about 9.4 million
households had some form of pension assets in 2005." again is important
to note that depending on which type of pension fund or account that an
individual owns will largely change the number of years each person
will have to either start to save earlier or work later to in order to
achieve that comfortable level of retirement that most of us are saving
for.

Defined contribution type pension plans are a way for companies to not
only slash costs but to put the onus on the individual to manage their
own retirement with the companies defined monthly contribution to their
employees pension regardless of the strength or performance of that
employee's respective company.

In addition to the statement, "The study also recommended that Ottawa
consider making interest paid on residential mortgages tax deductible,
as it is in the U.S., given the high percentage of Canadians who may
need some portion of their home's equity to provide adequate retirement
income.", there should also be a recommendation to eliminate the locks
on all locked-in pensions upon the qualified retirement date and thus
provide the entire population a greater access to their own retirement
money thereby allowing them the flexibility to greater managerial
control over their entire pension strategy and subsequent level of
financial independence.

Sincerely,

Grant Fleury,
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

[lakeside]

Hi All; This may be interesting to many of you.

Bill Costello The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders.


For Immediate Release

July 5, 2007

TORY SAYS ONTARIO SENIORS DESERVE PENSION FAIRNESS

PC plan will increase fairness, give seniors full access to locked-in pensions
(London, ON) – Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory today said a PC Government will unlock pensions for seniors and retirees so they can access and manage their own money as they see fit.

“Ontario’s seniors and retirees built the foundation for the strong Ontario we know today. They deserve to have control over their hard-earned retirement savings,” said Tory. “I’ve heard from seniors and retirees across the province that the rules are too restrictive. We believe that Ontarians know best how to look after their money– not government.”

Tory met with and listened to the concerns of local seniors today in Southwestern Ontario. As part of the PC ‘Leadership Matters’ plan to provide fairness to Ontarians, Tory said a PC Government will give Ontarians 100 per cent access to their locked-in pension income. This would mean seniors and retirees would have access to 50 per cent of their pension at age 55 and the remaining 50 per cent at age 65. In Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario, pensions are locked-in by the government as late as age 90 and the most any senior can hope to access from their pension savings is one out of every four dollars.

“Our plan will allow Ontario seniors and retirees to have control over their own money and better plan for retirement based on their own needs,” said Tory. “Ontario’s pension regulations present unnecessary challenges for seniors and retirees looking to transform a lifetime of hard work into financial freedom.”

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

In the 2007 Budget, Dalton McGuinty responded to seniors and retirees concerns about this issue by proposing a plan that would give Ontarians access to 25 per cent of locked-in accounts at the earliest retirement date of the pension plan from which the money was transferred and 100 per cent access at age 90. To date, no regulations or legislation have been brought forward to enact these proposed changes.

During his remarks, Tory cited comments made in March 2007 by Dr. Jack Mintz of the University of Toronto calling for Ontario to unlock the chains put on pension savings of employees who change jobs or retire. According to Mintz, unlocking locked-in pensions would help contribute to labour mobility, better retirement plans and ultimately, a stronger economy.

“Leadership is about listening to seniors and retirees. If we are going to remove the barriers and give Ontarians the fairness and peace of mind they deserve, then leadership matters,” said Tory.
For more information:
Michelle Pennell
(416) 325-9109

[lakeside]

Backgrounder - Fairness for You and Your Family - Unlocking Locked-in Pensions

Fairness is a basic value for Ontarians - one that has many dimensions.

Fairness means an Ontario that rewards hard work, entrepreneurship and innovation, respecting taxpayers and giving everyone a chance to participate in the province’s prosperity.

Fairness also means giving Ontarians control over their hard-earned retirement savings.

John Tory believes individuals know how to manage their own money better than the government.

That’s why a John Tory PC Government will give Ontario’s retirees 100 per cent access to their locked-in pension income - 50 per cent at age 55 and the remaining 50 per cent at age 65 - which under current rules are locked-in by the government until age 90.

What is a Locked-in Pension?

· When individuals leave a company that provides a defined benefit or defined contribution pension plan, they may have the option of leaving their portion of the pension in the company plan or rolling it into a Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA).

· At age 55 or the normal retirement date of the commuted pension plan (whichever is earlier) individuals may transfer their LIRA into a Life Income Fund (LIF) or Locked-in Retirement Income Fund (LRIF).

· LIRAs, LIFs and LRIFs are regulated independently by each province and territory and the federal government for federally regulated industries.

Locking-in Rules in Ontario

· Locking-in rules prevent individuals from increasing their retirement income in any one year beyond the annual withdrawal limits for LIFs and LRIFs. LIRAs do not allow any withdrawals.

· LIF/LIRA/LRIF-holders cannot access additional principal in their locked-in accounts unless they can demonstrate to the Government that they are in dire financial or health circumstances.

· By age 71, LIRAs must be transferred into a LIF or LRIF, or used to purchase a life annuity.
· By age 80, LIFs must be transferred into an LRIF or used to purchase a life annuity.
· At age 90, individuals are finally able to withdraw the remaining principal in their LRIF.

The Liberal Response

· Dalton McGuinty inadequately responded to Ontarians’ concerns in the 2007 Budget by proposing access to 25 per cent of locked-in accounts at the earliest retirement date of the pension plan from which the money was transferred and 100 per cent access at age 90.

· These changes have not yet been made to the appropriate regulations or legislation.

Unlocking in Other Jurisdictions

· Alberta (50% at age 50), Saskatchewan (100% at age 55), Manitoba (50% at age 55) and New Brunswick (25% at any age) have already changed their laws to enable older adults to access some, or all, of their locked-in pension.

[lakeside]

Press Release from CARP & The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

Good News for Ontarians:
Enlightened policy promises to unlock Life Income Funds 100%.

Toronto, July 5, 2007 – CARP and the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders applaud PC leader John Tory’s announcement today that, if elected, a PC government will allow Ontarians to unlock 100% of their Life Income Funds (LIFs) – half at age 55 and the full amount at age 65. We fully support this progressive policy that will bring Ontario into the 21st century. The PC Party heard us and its decision represents another milestone in our alliance’s campaign to have LIFs unlocked 100% in Ontario. Mr. Tory’s pledge propels the momentum to unshackle LIF-holders begun with NDP MPP Andrea Horwath‘s Bill to unlock LIFs 100% which was introduced in the Ontario Legislature in December 2006, in conjunction with CARP and the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders.

When individuals retire/leave a job which has a registered corporate or occupational pension, the terms of the pension plan may allow them to transfer their portion of the pension into a Locked In Retirement Account (LIRA) and subsequently a LIF. However 100% unlimited access to the principal in the LIF is denied to the LIF holders as it is locked-in for life or to age 90.

Like savings in any registered pensions, LIFs or LIRAs are the individual’s money, made up of their contributions plus those of the company or occupation as deferred salary. It is not government money.

A LIF has a mandated maximum yearly withdrawal limit unlike a RRIF which has none. This ensures that the average Ontario male cannot access about two thirds of his LIF until death (average male 79 and female 84) at which moment the LIF is completely unlocked for their spouse. It also means that most of us will not live to 90 at which age all of our LIF can be unlocked.
However, additional access to the retirees’ LIF money in Ontario may be available by submitting a lengthy request form to the Financial Service Commission of Ontario (FSCO). This bureaucratic agency requires a payment of $200 to $600 from successful applicants in order to access their own money. Their appeal may be granted only if the applicant can prove dire health or financial circumstances.
The precedent to unlock LIFs was established in Ontario in 1999 when 61 MPPs were given the right to unlock their occupational pension 100%. Not only did they give themselves a privilege which they denied to all other Ontarians with LIFs but their action cost Ontario taxpayers $10 million because they miscalculated the amount they could put into their individual RRSPs.
- 2 -

For more information on LIFs, the campaign by CARP and its allies to have direct access to 100% of the principal in a LIF without paternalistic government control – go to www.carp.ca.
To sign a petition to the Ontario government on unlocking LIFs 100%, go to http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html
A non-partisan organization, CARP is Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus with 250,000 members in Ontario and 400,000 members across the country. Our mandate is to protect the rights and quality of life for older Canadians. Our mission is to provide practical recommendations for the issues we raise.
The goal of the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders is to influence the Ontario government to unlock LIFs 100%.

- 30 -

For more information and interviews, please contact:
For CARP, Canada’s Association For the Fifty-Plus:

Bill Gleberzon - Director of Government Relations, 416-363-8748 ext. 230/ 1-800-363-9736 ext. 230 e-mail: [email protected]

For The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF-Holders:

Bill Nafziger - spokesperson, 519-595-8161 e:mail:[email protected]
Grant Fleury - spokesperson, 705-566-6924e:mail: [email protected]

[lakeside]

Press Release Regarding the Ontario Progressive Party Locked-in Pension Policy Announcement today, July 5, 2007


I wish to commend the John Tory and the Conservative Party for their progressive policy position allowing Ontarians to unlock their locked-in pension funds 100% at ages 55 and 65.
This policy change will enhance the quality of life and fairness for Ontario Seniors.

Retiring after 37 years and contributing money into a defined contribution pension plan in Ontario, I was shocked to discover that I did not have access to my pension money.
Isn't this my money?

The maximum yearly withdrawal restriction on my Life Income Fund (LIF) enforced by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) ensured that two thirds of my pension money would be locked-in until death (average Ontario male @ 79 and female @ 84).
Is this fair?

At the moment of death, the remaining two thirds of the pension money goes to my spouse unlocked.
Is this logical?

Upon my spouse's death five years later, Revenue Canada assesses the remaining pension money as income in one year usually at a higher tax bracket.
Isn't this a tax grab?

However if you are terminally ill or in a financial crisis, you can get down on your bended knees with a fee of $200 to $600 of money you don't have to ask FSCO for the money you do have.
Does this make sense?

Over a three year period, FSCO collected between $5 million and $15 million in fees from over 26,000 financial hardship applicants desperate to access their own pension money and only rejected 52 applicants.
Isn't this bureaucracy at its worst?

Ontarians who have spent their working life building a pension are financially competent and do not require paternalistic government control of their pension money in their retirement years.

Bill Nafziger
Ontario LIF holder

[lakeside]

Hi All'

This some information one of our members found while reading some of the Ontario Legislator records and I wanted to share it with you.

Let us remember we are talking about some of the very people that are now refusing to unlock pensions 100% for All the Citizens of Ontario at the Age of 55.
Something that the Saskatchewan Government did for their citizens in 2002.

I have taken the persons name out that is being talked about for now as all 61 Mpp's received this benefit in 1999.

Some of these people that received that benefit are now working to try and give the same privilege to the rest of the Citizens,
However there are some in power that feel that we should not receive 100% unlocking even though they received that privilege for them selves.

I would also like to mention that if our pensions were to be unlocked there would be no tax taken off until removed from your RRIF and then it would be taxed at it's normal rate.

The politicians had their money put in a RRSP . Something that they were advised not do do
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
ARTICLE


(( I'm sending you two quotes that make reference to the opinions of actuaries ... the first taken from the Hansard . L026B - Thu 9 Dec 1999 ... page 1930 (2nd reading prior to the passage of Bill 27).))

(( The words immediately below were spoken by John O'Toole (PC MPP for Durham East) ... as he towed the party line and spoke in favour of Bill 27. ))

"When we wrapped up the pension in 1995, there were those who, under the previous rules, were entitled to in excess of $1 million. I have a couple of friends who are actuaries, and we looked at the pension reform issues. I talked to one on a personal level and on a professional level, and I could, for the record, name the person. He's very much involved with the actuaries of Ontario. He showed me actuarially that a person like Joe MPP , at 51 getting $1.3 million, would actually actuarially collect about $3 million, and by settling for one point something million, the taxpayers of Ontario were actually getting off the hook, because what they were doing was buying an income fund for that person."

If Joe MPP had not been given a totally unlocked pension courtesy of Bill 27, ...yes ... quite conceivably ... the Ontario taxpayer would have been, over the years, on the hook for $ 3 million.

However, if Joe MPP had not been given an unlocked pension, he too would have been limited to a maximum annual withdrawal percentage, as regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario on locked-in pensions ... something in the range of 6% ... on a $3 million account balance ... and an annual withdrawal of $180,000.00.

Even though that figure is staggering in and of itself, Joe MPP would still not have been able to access the principal. Like all other Ontarians holding locked-in pension accounts, his $3 million pension account would have be subjected to exorbitant taxation on death too.

The government would have in the future, been able to collect far more tax revenue from Joe MPP and the other 60 MPP's, if they all had been forced to adhere to the abhorrent restrictions pertaining to locked-in pensions ... leaving the majority of their pension accounts untouched until death.

Again, it wasn't the taxpayer who created the gold-plated MPP pension plan in the first place. It was self-serving politicians. It was also self-serving politicians who devised a scheme to wrap up the gold-plated plan in a manner that provided only themselves ... with maximum reward ... in the opinion of another actuary.

David Brown, a managing partner in the actuarial firm Eckler Partners Limited, chaired a five member consulting panel as the government moved forward with Bill 27. He said ... "The reason it is more costly is that they are crystallizing everybody as of (June 1995, which is the most expensive value you could put on those benefits. If you froze the entitlements at that point and paid them out only when they actually retired or left the legislature, then they would be worth less money than the way they're doing it."

(( As I've mentioned earlier, all documentation that I've seen to date infers that it cost taxpayers $109 million to wrap up the gold-plated pension plan ... plus ... an additional ... $10 million to $20 million ... to cover the tax liabilities for the 61 MPP's ... as they moved their entire pension accounts to an unlocked status. ))

(( Again ... for sake of argument (which we know is not the case) ... even if each of the 61 MPP's had received a $1 million pension buyout . that only comes to $61 million. That is a far cry from the $119 million to $129 million the Ontario taxpayer actually shelled out for an extraordinary financial privilege that was extended to just 61 long-serving politicians. ))

(( David Brown, also an actuary, suggested the wrap-up could have been done in a manner that was significantly less expensive for the taxpayer. ))



((I can't help but think such work would again highlight this whole debacle for what it really was ... a deceitful action of a few ... to manipulate the legislative process for their own financial gain. ))

Again Sign the Online Petition, and write the Leaders of all party's & Finance Minister and your local MPP and tell them that you want these pensions unlocked ((LIF , LIRF , LIRA.))

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

[lakeside]

Hi All I just sent this letter out to news papers and below

Dalton McGuinty , Greg Sorbara :

I have just been reading some correspondence that was sent to a friend by some Liberal Riding presidents.

I then started to think is this compassion for the seniors of Ontario or is it GOVERNMENT GREED.

If it is Compassion and the Liberal party feels that they have to protect Ontario locked in fund holders from them selves because they might spend their hard saved money that they saved for retirement.

It leaves me to wonder why then would the province of Saskatchewan , Alberta and Manitoba unlock !100% to 50% of the funds for their citizens.
Are these provinces not compassionate about their senior citizens?

I would belive they are. I would also belive that these provinces understand that Seniors are quite competent and are able to look after their OWN MONEY.

It also leaves me to wonder Why The Conservative Party and The NDP Party realize that The seniors Locked in Pensions Should be Unlocked 100%..
((They realize that people that have unlocked RRSP's don't run out and blow all their money , so why would people that had their locked in funds unlocked do that.))

Are these people not Compassionate. I belive they are. I also belive that the two above party's respect the wishes of their senior Locked In Fund Holders.

Another thing that really bothers me is that 61 MPP's of all party's had their pensions unlocked.

Why would they do that if unlocking these pensions were not a reasonable thing to do ?

Please don't tell me that Your party didn't vote for the unlocking as you have been doing in the past!!!

YOU and The OTHER LIBERAL MPP's Of which we Know all the Names ,new full well that you were going to benefit from the unlocking even though you voted against Bill 27.

If unlocking these pensions is so unreasonable. Why did all Liberal MPP's not leave all their funds in a locked in format. I am sure nobody would have stopped you!!!

I have come to a conclusion that seeing that the other party,s agree that the locked in pensions in Ontario should be unlocked for the people at age 55 or retirement 100% .
I would assume the MPP's of those party's who received their pensions unlocked also agree that the locked in pensions should be unlocked for the seniors.

I have also come to the conclusion that the reason the Liberal Party does not want to unlock these pensions is not Compassion , It is Liberal Government Greed.

A government that wants a large TAX GRAB from DEAD PEOPLES ESTATES.

For this I really belive that it is time for all the LIF Holders in Ontario to know full the story about our so called government for the people . The ones that say one thing in opposition and yet when they are in power do very little to correct this unjustness.

Bill Costello Box 56 Atikokan Ontario

[lakeside]

A Letter to Michael Brown ( Algoma-Manitoulin )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a letter that has been sent out to Mr. Brown

Good morning Mr. Brown,

Attached for your perusal, is an e-mail that I've sent to one of your colleagues, John Gerretsen.

I am also forwarding to you an e-mail sent to Caroline Di Cocco.

Mr. Brown ... all of these e-mails (and there will be more) highlight the fact that members of your Liberal Party spoke very eloquently against the hypocrisy of Bill 27 ... but at the same time ... upon Bill 27 receiving Royal Assent on December 22, 1999 ... accepted unlocked pensions anyway.

Several months back I received a letter from Finance Minister Sorbara, in reply to some serious questions I had raised concerning Bill 27. Most of his words were of the superfluous nature ... answering none of my concerns. However the following paragraph definitely grabbed my attention.

Mr. Sorbara said on October 27, 2006 ... "With respect to your comments about Bill 27, I would note only that the legislation was passed despite the objections of Liberal MPPs."

Mr. Sorbara conveniently omitted the rest of the story ... the fact that Bradley, Caplan, Conway, Ruprecht and others from your Liberal party accepted unlocked pensions anyway.

Mr. Sorbara failed to mention too that Sean Conway even said it was "wrong and immoral" ... but subsequently accepted his unlocked pension, despite his own words of indignation.

Mr.Brown ... saying one thing but quietly, while no know is watching supposedly, doing just the opposite ... especially when it means there will be personal gain .......... has our Legislature degenerated to the point that this has become the modus operandi for all MPPs ... or is such behaviour just confined to the Liberal Party?

As Speaker of the House Mr. Brown, the parameters under which you rule the House go far beyond decorum and propriety. You do have the power to evict and suspend members from the House, should there even be the hint of slander.

How is it then, that this same level of decency, integrity, and sound moral principle have not been a requirement in the treatment of ordinary Ontarians, who hold locked-in pensions, as it relates to Bill 27?

Bill 27 should never have seen the light of day. The subsequent behaviour of all three parties as it relates to the EXCLUSIVE, EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE AFFORDED TO JUST 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) courtesy of Bill 27, represents absolute contempt for the Ontario electorate!

Mr. Brown ... as Speaker of the House ... why has this atrocious legislation and equally atrocious behaviour of MPPs never been challenged?

I await your answer.

Kenneth Elliott

I would like to add to this letter that at the present time both the Progressive Conservative party and The New Democratic Party now agree that all Ontarions should be allowed to have their pensions unlocked 100% when they retire. They do not see it reasonable to keep the money from the people that saved it for their retirement.

Apparently the only party that feels that the seniors of Ontario are not competent enough to look after their OWN MONEY are the McGuinty Liberals

Bill Costello

[lakeside]

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

The full interview can be heard at the Ontario today Web site, Under Archive and then Pension Fight.

http://www.cbc.ca/ontariotoday/

Mr Sorbara;

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you know about a bargain ?

The bargain was that the Company would contribute X number of Dollars to the fund or the Employees would go on strike and cease working.
The Employers did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts.

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

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

As far as Bargains You and 60 other MPP's broke their bargain and had their pensions unlocked. The Provinces of Saskatchewan , Alberta , Manitoba and New Brunswick Broke their bargains.

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

Quote " I think down the road many employers will say well you know what we are not interested in providing a pension plan anymore for our employees :

If they did their company would have no workers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have no problem then Unlock The Locked in Pensions.

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

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

When we came to realize that these funds would not become unlocked at retirement. We went to our employer and just plain said that we wanted our pension changed to a regular RRSP because of those unjust rules. The result was. The Locked in fund was shut down and then the company and ourselves started investing in a RRSP.

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

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

A much more compassionate and responsible thing to do would be to unlock these funds.
It would be better for the people of Ontario and better for the economies of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

My response to You is!! The Conservatives have come to realize that this is the Just and Fair thing to do.

To give the Seniors Care and Control of their OWN MONEY.

We COMMEND John Tory for his compassionate decision.

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

You Responded " No No I don't "

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

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

YOU CAN NOT go to the bank and say that you have so much in locked in funds and that you would like to borrow $ 20,000. or $ 30,000. The Bank will tell you that looked in funds CAN NOT BE USED TO BACK UP A LOAN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Costello

[lakeside]

A Open Letter to all Financial Institutions and Planers

Suppose you and your husband were left a sizeable amount of money on the death of a close relative. There was one condition. You must use the money to purchase a particular dream home that you and your husband had for years, always admired from a distance.

With the estate wind-up complete and your inheritance in hand, you purchased the dream house and sold your previous home all in one day.

Shortly thereafter you proceeded to move in to your new home. On moving day though, a building inspector arrived to inform you that there were certain by-laws in place preventing you from ever living in your new home. Your local municipality still wanted you to feel welcome in their neighbourhood though, so they offered you alternate accommodations across town. Upon inspection, you quickly realized these alternate accommodations were terribly sparse . almost pathetic when compared with your new home.

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

Here are the answers/rationale he gave you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the inheritance represents the commuted value of a previous pension before it was transferred into a Locked-In pension
( the dream home represents a Locked-In pension
© the alternate accommodations represent FSCO's 6% annual withdrawal limit on Locked-In accounts
(d) the building inspector represents financial planners
(e) the municipality represents the Financial Services Commission of Ontario
(f) the rules and regulations quoted by the building inspector represent FSCO's rules governing Locked-In pensions

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

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

8.) One final question .... who are all these new neighbours that have moved in beside our dream home? They all ... are apparently living in their new homes! Why are they allowed to live in their new homes and we can't?

Again, you are correct. Others are allowed privilege that you cannot have. Why? They are special people. Their names are Bradley, Conway, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Kormos, Laughren, McGuinty, Rae, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Wildman etc.

Each day your industry makes financial decisions that ultimately come under Mr.Sorbara's jurisdiction, as does the Pension Benefits Act. At the same time, your industry witnesses daily, the plight of Locked-In pensioners.

Why is there not a sustained fight from within your industry to expose the discrimination behind Locked-In pensions? Why are you not prepared to fight to the bitter end to quash this discrimination against Locked-In pensioners? Are Locked-In pensioners really of such little value to the financial service industry that all you can muster is ... "I hear your frustration"? After all, your industry collects MERs, commissions and administration fees from Locked-In accounts too.

Or is that the answer in a nutshell? Your industry makes money from Locked-In accounts in exactly the same manner as it does with Unlocked accounts . so it is just easier to look the other way ... because the whole issue really does not affect any financial service company's bottom line ... its corporate balance sheet?


When government(s) pass legislation as abhorrent as Bill 27, such passage does not also, automatically mandate silence from the people. People must be prepared to speak out against such atrocity, wherever and whenever it might arise! To do otherwise, is to stifle the only check and balance available against self-serving politicians.

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


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

By Ken Elliott

[lakeside]

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

Good evening Mr. McGuinty,

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

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

This is extremely disconcerting when one considers the following:

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

(b) you were quoted in the Toronto Star on February 27, 2002 Wednesday Ontario Edition as having said about Bill 27 ... "What we need here is an independent public inquiry that could be presided over by the provincial auditor or a judge ... This nothing short of a scandal"

(c) Michael Bryant spoke the following words about Bill 27 in the Legislature on Mon 13 Dec 1999 ... quote taken from the Legislative Hansard ... " a bill that blatantly gives opportunities to members of provincial Parliament that do not exist for the rest of the population. That is the height of the appearance of inequity, the height of the appearance of injustice and the height of hypocrisy.......... obviously we cannot support an act which treats MPPs in a favourable manner with respect to their remuneration from pension benefits, in a more beneficial way than the rest of the public.......... Are we going to sit in opposition and vote in favour of an act which contains provisions that are repugnant? No."

Mr. McGuinty ... both you and Mr. Bryant spoke the above words while your Party was in opposition. However, given that you have now been in power since 2003, your proposed 25% unlocking option to Ontarians holding locked-in pension plans, offered up just before the October 2007, election is highly suspect.

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Kenneth Elliott

[lakeside]

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 to
Ontarians.


Our government recognizes that Ontario's seniors have made and continue
to make invaluable contributions to our province's strength and
prosperity. Communities across Ontario are reaping the benefits of the
wisdom, knowledge and expertise of seniors. 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.


That is why to help provide security for seniors, we announced in our
2007 Ontario Budget that we are proposing to give seniors enhanced
access to their locked-in accounts, which originate with funds
transferred from pension plans.


As your comments would also be of interest to the Honourable Greg
Sorbara, Minister of Finance, I have passed on a copy of your
correspondence to him for his information.

Thanks again for contacting me. Your input is always welcome. My
colleagues and I look forward to our continued journey with you and your
fellow Ontarians to build a healthier, more prosperous Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty
Premier of Ontario

c: The Honourable Greg Sorbara