August 27th, 2006, 08:19 AM
There can be significant consequences to FI's if they contravene pension acts. You won't find many FI's these days not keeping up with the rules. For example, under BC, Alberta and Manitoba jurisdictions, the financial institution must provide an equivalent pension if it pays out the locked in portion contrary to the regulations. All an Investment Advisor need to do is pick up the telephone and phone their registered plan centre to check on any rule, new or old. IA's aren't expected to know every last rule associated with locked in accounts, but would be expected to know where to find out the specifics for each individual case.
By the way, BC, Alberta and Quebec have always allowed for breakage for those non resident more than 2 years. I don't know if the other provinces have caught up to that rule yet.
There can be significant consequences to FI's if they contravene pension acts. You won't find many FI's these days not keeping up with the rules. For example, under BC, Alberta and Manitoba jurisdictions, the financial institution must provide an equivalent pension if it pays out the locked in portion contrary to the regulations. All an Investment Advisor need to do is pick up the telephone and phone their registered plan centre to check on any rule, new or old. IA's aren't expected to know every last rule associated with locked in accounts, but would be expected to know where to find out the specifics for each individual case.
By the way, BC, Alberta and Quebec have always allowed for breakage for those non resident more than 2 years. I don't know if the other provinces have caught up to that rule yet.
Newbie
Posts: 30 
Location: Philippines
Location: Philippines
August 29th, 2006, 03:32 PM
Quoting
New Brunswick and Ontario also allow for this, and Saskatchewan is open to everyone unlocking, while Manitoba would allow a 50% unlocking. As to every FI being up to date check BMO Investorline website. They show Saskatchewan (updated 2006) as NOT being able to unlock and that law was passed in 2002.
There can be significant consequences to FI's if they contravene pension acts. You won't find many FI's these days not keeping up with the rules. For example, under BC, Alberta and Manitoba jurisdictions, the financial institution must provide an equivalent pension if it pays out the locked in portion contrary to the regulations. All an Investment Advisor need to do is pick up the telephone and phone their registered plan centre to check on any rule, new or old. IA's aren't expected to know every last rule associated with locked in accounts, but would be expected to know where to find out the specifics for each individual case.
By the way, BC, Alberta and Quebec have always allowed for breakage for those non resident more than 2 years. I don't know if the other provinces have caught up to that rule yet.
By the way, BC, Alberta and Quebec have always allowed for breakage for those non resident more than 2 years. I don't know if the other provinces have caught up to that rule yet.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
August 29th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Pensions should be difficult to open and that's the intent of related legislation where it exists. If you're going to transfer funds to your own management or an investment's firm's supervision you'd better hope they're geniuses. In Ontario I know teachers who elected to move their funds to private management in the stock euphoria preceding 2000. They got scorched. Only consider unlocking a pension under extraordinary conditions. If your plan is defined benefit you've got it made.
Pensions should be difficult to open and that's the intent of related legislation where it exists. If you're going to transfer funds to your own management or an investment's firm's supervision you'd better hope they're geniuses. In Ontario I know teachers who elected to move their funds to private management in the stock euphoria preceding 2000. They got scorched. Only consider unlocking a pension under extraordinary conditions. If your plan is defined benefit you've got it made.
Newbie
Posts: 30
Location: Philippines
Location: Philippines
September 1st, 2006, 03:47 AM
Ontario has a new website : www.fsco.gov.on.ca
There is no mention of being able to unlock for non-residents.
A "World" Banking Institution I have an account with is demanding I fly to another Island to one of their Branches so they can verify my identity. I think it is easier to mail a Form 2033 and transfer to another Institution.
Quoting
Institutions, with the big bucks, have a hard time keeping up. Check what TD's breakdown by Province shows (last updated mid 2003, but doesn't show Sask. 2002 change), and none of the changes made since. http://www.tdcommercialbanking.com/t...ativeguide.doc
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see the Ontario listed but read up on Manitoba. One needs to be careful with it as can be one-time up to 50%. If a person wanted to reduce the tax burden and withdraw 25% this year and 25% next year they would be SOL next year.
Ontario has a new website : www.fsco.gov.on.ca
There is no mention of being able to unlock for non-residents.
A "World" Banking Institution I have an account with is demanding I fly to another Island to one of their Branches so they can verify my identity. I think it is easier to mail a Form 2033 and transfer to another Institution.
September 1st, 2006, 07:42 AM
If someone was turning 55 but still working (another job, perhaps part time) and wanted to fully retire at age 60 and get more than the LIRA maximum from age 60-65 (an example age) they have another option (if they are in a restricted plan). At age 55 they could convert the LIRA to a LIF and transfer the difference between the minimum and maximum amounts, tax sheltered, to their regular RSP. At age 60 they can withdraw any of the transferred amount plus increase the LIF to the maximum withdrawal.
It's one way to manage the cashflow if immediately at age 55 the maximum amount is not required for income and one would prefer the withdrawal of larger than regular sums at a later date.
If someone was turning 55 but still working (another job, perhaps part time) and wanted to fully retire at age 60 and get more than the LIRA maximum from age 60-65 (an example age) they have another option (if they are in a restricted plan). At age 55 they could convert the LIRA to a LIF and transfer the difference between the minimum and maximum amounts, tax sheltered, to their regular RSP. At age 60 they can withdraw any of the transferred amount plus increase the LIF to the maximum withdrawal.
It's one way to manage the cashflow if immediately at age 55 the maximum amount is not required for income and one would prefer the withdrawal of larger than regular sums at a later date.
Newbie
Posts: 6
September 11th, 2006, 02:49 PM
I have two RRSP accounts - one from making contributions on my own, the other I got saddled with when I left a federal job. I live in Ontario. It is a major hassle having to manage two different accounts. If I had all the money in one RRSP account I would have a lot more investment flexibility. The whole idea of locked in RRSPs is just plain dumb. As has been said here, I could just as easily run it into the ground by bad investment decisions as I could with an unlocked one. This is just another example of big motherism on the part of the government.
I have two RRSP accounts - one from making contributions on my own, the other I got saddled with when I left a federal job. I live in Ontario. It is a major hassle having to manage two different accounts. If I had all the money in one RRSP account I would have a lot more investment flexibility. The whole idea of locked in RRSPs is just plain dumb. As has been said here, I could just as easily run it into the ground by bad investment decisions as I could with an unlocked one. This is just another example of big motherism on the part of the government.
Member
Posts: 73
Location: Atikokan Ontario
Location: Atikokan Ontario
September 30th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Hi I am just letting everybody know that is interested that Constituency week is Nov 6 to 10 . There is still time for more signatures on the Online Petition . I will be sending it in on the 15th of October then shortly after will be releasing a press release to some of the papers with some excerpts from the Online Petition.
Take Care Bill C.
Hi I am just letting everybody know that is interested that Constituency week is Nov 6 to 10 . There is still time for more signatures on the Online Petition . I will be sending it in on the 15th of October then shortly after will be releasing a press release to some of the papers with some excerpts from the Online Petition.
Take Care Bill C.
Newbie
Posts: 30
Location: Philippines
Location: Philippines
October 5th, 2006, 09:46 PM
It is almost two months since I was advised by OSFI that I could unlock my Locked-in RRSPs since I am a non-resident. One of the Major Banking Institutions, that has my account, is insisting I am covered by Ontario Rules and not Federal. I advised them that all railways are under Federal, as are banks, airlines, military, and hundreds of other companies and I even had to send them OSFI's website showing every company that is covered by Federal. The railway I worked for sent me a copy of the email they received from the 'Bank" asking what jurisdiction the railway falls under and how they should do it.
Another fellow non-resident is having a similar problem with London Life, who tells them he can unlock but since they don't have provisions for a non-resident to unlock then he CAN NOT.
So much for FIs keeping up. It is all the more reason there should be one set of rules right across Canada.
To qualify under the new non-residency rule you:
-Must have been out of the country for at least two years
-Must no longer be working for that Company
Quoting Kreskin
Kreskin,
There can be significant consequences to FI's if they contravene pension acts. You won't find many FI's these days not keeping up with the rules. For example, under BC, Alberta and Manitoba jurisdictions, the financial institution must provide an equivalent pension if it pays out the locked in portion contrary to the regulations. All an Investment Advisor need to do is pick up the telephone and phone their registered plan centre to check on any rule, new or old. IA's aren't expected to know every last rule associated with locked in accounts, but would be expected to know where to find out the specifics for each individual case.
By the way, BC, Alberta and Quebec have always allowed for breakage for those non resident more than 2 years. I don't know if the other provinces have caught up to that rule yet.
By the way, BC, Alberta and Quebec have always allowed for breakage for those non resident more than 2 years. I don't know if the other provinces have caught up to that rule yet.
It is almost two months since I was advised by OSFI that I could unlock my Locked-in RRSPs since I am a non-resident. One of the Major Banking Institutions, that has my account, is insisting I am covered by Ontario Rules and not Federal. I advised them that all railways are under Federal, as are banks, airlines, military, and hundreds of other companies and I even had to send them OSFI's website showing every company that is covered by Federal. The railway I worked for sent me a copy of the email they received from the 'Bank" asking what jurisdiction the railway falls under and how they should do it.
Another fellow non-resident is having a similar problem with London Life, who tells them he can unlock but since they don't have provisions for a non-resident to unlock then he CAN NOT.
So much for FIs keeping up. It is all the more reason there should be one set of rules right across Canada.
To qualify under the new non-residency rule you:
-Must have been out of the country for at least two years
-Must no longer be working for that Company
October 5th, 2006, 10:48 PM
I can appreciate the frustration. Unfortunately alot of institutions don't have the most experienced staff working the phones, and not all seem to have the best service operations in place to handle everything. Getting past Suzie or Ned isn't always easy. I have transferred many pensions for clients. The most frustrating experience I've had is with one of the mid-size big 5 whose lock-in agreement differed from the pension act and they simply wouldn''t budge. I tried telling them they were governed by the act but they insisted otherwise.
Life shouldn't be so complicated.
Quoting Explorer
They probably completed the wrong lock-in addendum when the pension was transferred.
Kreskin,
It is almost two months since I was advised by OSFI that I could unlock my Locked-in RRSPs since I am a non-resident. One of the Major Banking Institutions, that has my account, is insisting I am covered by Ontario Rules and not Federal. I advised them that all railways are under Federal, as are banks, airlines, military, and hundreds of other companies and I even had to send them OSFI's website showing every company that is covered by Federal. The railway I worked for sent me a copy of the email they received from the 'Bank" asking what jurisdiction the railway falls under and how they should do it.
Another fellow non-resident is having a similar problem with London Life, who tells them he can unlock but since they don't have provisions for a non-resident to unlock then he CAN NOT.
So much for FIs keeping up. It is all the more reason there should be one set of rules right across Canada.
To qualify under the new non-residency rule you:
-Must have been out of the country for at least two years
-Must no longer be working for that Company
It is almost two months since I was advised by OSFI that I could unlock my Locked-in RRSPs since I am a non-resident. One of the Major Banking Institutions, that has my account, is insisting I am covered by Ontario Rules and not Federal. I advised them that all railways are under Federal, as are banks, airlines, military, and hundreds of other companies and I even had to send them OSFI's website showing every company that is covered by Federal. The railway I worked for sent me a copy of the email they received from the 'Bank" asking what jurisdiction the railway falls under and how they should do it.
Another fellow non-resident is having a similar problem with London Life, who tells them he can unlock but since they don't have provisions for a non-resident to unlock then he CAN NOT.
So much for FIs keeping up. It is all the more reason there should be one set of rules right across Canada.
To qualify under the new non-residency rule you:
-Must have been out of the country for at least two years
-Must no longer be working for that Company
I can appreciate the frustration. Unfortunately alot of institutions don't have the most experienced staff working the phones, and not all seem to have the best service operations in place to handle everything. Getting past Suzie or Ned isn't always easy. I have transferred many pensions for clients. The most frustrating experience I've had is with one of the mid-size big 5 whose lock-in agreement differed from the pension act and they simply wouldn''t budge. I tried telling them they were governed by the act but they insisted otherwise.
Life shouldn't be so complicated.
Newbie
Posts: 30
Location: Philippines
Location: Philippines
October 6th, 2006, 01:29 AM
It should be a lot easier for everyone. It is fine that OSFI handles the Pension Part but once unlocked the rules COULD/SHOULD be the same across Canada.
Quoting Kreskin
You have got that right. Don't need anymore complications in life. I was in the Mutual Fund business myself and have transfered pensions and locked-in agreements. A lot of people, I found, didn't worry about the details just the sale. In my present case they didn't/don't even want to listen. Now that I have sent the various websites and which parts to read I will hopefully get results.
They probably completed the wrong lock-in addendum when the pension was transferred.
I can appreciate the frustration. Unfortunately alot of institutions don't have the most experienced staff working the phones, and not all seem to have the best service operations in place to handle everything. Getting past Suzie or Ned isn't always easy. I have transferred many pensions for clients. The most frustrating experience I've had is with one of the mid-size big 5 whose lock-in agreement differed from the pension act and they simply wouldn''t budge. I tried telling them they were governed by the act but they insisted otherwise.
Life shouldn't be so complicated.
I can appreciate the frustration. Unfortunately alot of institutions don't have the most experienced staff working the phones, and not all seem to have the best service operations in place to handle everything. Getting past Suzie or Ned isn't always easy. I have transferred many pensions for clients. The most frustrating experience I've had is with one of the mid-size big 5 whose lock-in agreement differed from the pension act and they simply wouldn''t budge. I tried telling them they were governed by the act but they insisted otherwise.
Life shouldn't be so complicated.
It should be a lot easier for everyone. It is fine that OSFI handles the Pension Part but once unlocked the rules COULD/SHOULD be the same across Canada.
Newbie
Posts: 1
Location: Texas, USA
Location: Texas, USA
November 12th, 2006, 07:21 PM
Thanks
Quoting Explorer
Bravo Explorer.......good for you. I'm in the same situation with my LIRA, living in the USA for the past 8 years. Would you please send any information on your approach with the OFSI. I was (8 years ago) employed by a company who came under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. My Pension fund was transfered to an investment firm of my choosing.
To add to the confusion some Provinces allow those with Locked-in RRSPs or LIRAs to start withdrawing using a LRIF or a LIF, Federal only allows you to use a LIF, meaning you MUST take out an annuity at 80 and lock in your return at whatever the current rate is then.
Some people that are affected will be required to lock in their's this year. Would you like to have to lock-in at today's rates? I doubt it. Will you wait until it is too late to do something?
Now I understand Alberta has just changed their Rules to allow Albertans to withdraw 50%, effective Aug., 2006. Do you want 50% or 100%? I want 100%. Sign the Petitions or let us help you start one for your Province.
Some people that are affected will be required to lock in their's this year. Would you like to have to lock-in at today's rates? I doubt it. Will you wait until it is too late to do something?
Now I understand Alberta has just changed their Rules to allow Albertans to withdraw 50%, effective Aug., 2006. Do you want 50% or 100%? I want 100%. Sign the Petitions or let us help you start one for your Province.
Thanks
Newbie
Posts: 30
Location: Philippines
Location: Philippines
November 13th, 2006, 05:29 AM
I finally wrote the whole thing up and sent it to OSFI and asked them to straighten it out.
If you are a non-resident of Canada and have been out of the country for at least two years you can totally unlock your Federally controlled LIRA. Just contact the Institution your LIRA is with and tell them that OSFI changed the rules this past spring.
Quoting Guy Of All Trades
Guy of All Trades. The Institution I am dealing with (now almost 3 months) still insists I am covered by Ontario Rules. I was transfering my other one to them but can't as they wrongfully say mine is Ontario's and the other is rightfully Federal.
Bravo Explorer.......good for you. I'm in the same situation with my LIRA, living in the USA for the past 8 years. Would you please send any information on your approach with the OFSI. I was (8 years ago) employed by a company who came under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. My Pension fund was transfered to an investment firm of my choosing.
Thanks
Thanks
I finally wrote the whole thing up and sent it to OSFI and asked them to straighten it out.
If you are a non-resident of Canada and have been out of the country for at least two years you can totally unlock your Federally controlled LIRA. Just contact the Institution your LIRA is with and tell them that OSFI changed the rules this past spring.
Member
Posts: 73
Location: Atikokan Ontario
Location: Atikokan Ontario
December 8th, 2006, 03:35 PM
This is a press release that Andrea Horwath MPP Hamilton East office sent to me to inform the many people that have been working in Ontario . Signing the Online petition and writing letters to the McGuinty government to Unlock Locked in Pensions ( LIF ) ( LIRA) ( LRIF ) for Seniors of the age of 55 years plus.
The Private Members Bill to Unlock Locked in Pension's will be presented At the start of Question Period on December 13 th. There will be a press conference at 1 p.m. in the Queen's Park Media Studio.
ATIKOKAN MAN INSPIRES BILL TO UNLOCK SENIORS’ PENSIONS
The idea behind an Atikokan man’s petition to unlock people’s locked-in pensions like they do in other provinces has found support at Queen’s Park.
Bill Costello’s mission to drive Ontario the way of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and allow regular folks the same access to locked-in pensions that MPPs themselves have is realized in a private members bill about to be introduced by NDP member Andrea Horwath (MPP, Hamilton East).
Costello’s online petition calls for the government to relax restrictions on people’s access to their pension savings.
"I should be free to choose how to manage my pension investments and control my life savings any way I see fit," Costello argues. "After all, it’s my money."
"The fact that the Saskatchewan Government respects the wishes of their citizens and has opened the locked in pensions 100% makes a person wonder what motive the McGuinty Liberal Government has for keeping these pensions locked in," Costello said.
Saskatchewan has unlocked 100 per cent. The MPP's of Ontario had their pensions unlocked 100 per cent. Manitoba unlocked 50 per cent and are being lobbied to unlock the remaining 50 per cent and Alberta unlocked 50 per cent on November 1," Costello said.
"Why does the McGuinty Government in Ontario insist on restricting the amount seniors can withdraw from their funds? Why does the Liberal Government of Ontario want to continue to treat their seniors as second class citizens and say that they are too stupid to look after their own money?"
Horwath will be introducing her bill next week.
The online petition site is http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html
It is also to be mentioned that Bill Nafziger of Milverton , Carl Hansen of Keewatin , Grant Fleury of Sudbury and many other citizens of Ontario have been vigerously lobbying the Ontario Government for this change.
The Private Members Bill to Unlock Locked in Pension's will be presented At the start of Question Period on December 13 th. There will be a press conference at 1 p.m. in the Queen's Park Media Studio.
ATIKOKAN MAN INSPIRES BILL TO UNLOCK SENIORS’ PENSIONS
The idea behind an Atikokan man’s petition to unlock people’s locked-in pensions like they do in other provinces has found support at Queen’s Park.
Bill Costello’s mission to drive Ontario the way of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and allow regular folks the same access to locked-in pensions that MPPs themselves have is realized in a private members bill about to be introduced by NDP member Andrea Horwath (MPP, Hamilton East).
Costello’s online petition calls for the government to relax restrictions on people’s access to their pension savings.
"I should be free to choose how to manage my pension investments and control my life savings any way I see fit," Costello argues. "After all, it’s my money."
"The fact that the Saskatchewan Government respects the wishes of their citizens and has opened the locked in pensions 100% makes a person wonder what motive the McGuinty Liberal Government has for keeping these pensions locked in," Costello said.
Saskatchewan has unlocked 100 per cent. The MPP's of Ontario had their pensions unlocked 100 per cent. Manitoba unlocked 50 per cent and are being lobbied to unlock the remaining 50 per cent and Alberta unlocked 50 per cent on November 1," Costello said.
"Why does the McGuinty Government in Ontario insist on restricting the amount seniors can withdraw from their funds? Why does the Liberal Government of Ontario want to continue to treat their seniors as second class citizens and say that they are too stupid to look after their own money?"
Horwath will be introducing her bill next week.
The online petition site is http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html
It is also to be mentioned that Bill Nafziger of Milverton , Carl Hansen of Keewatin , Grant Fleury of Sudbury and many other citizens of Ontario have been vigerously lobbying the Ontario Government for this change.
Member
Posts: 73
Location: Atikokan Ontario
Location: Atikokan Ontario
December 11th, 2006, 07:59 AM
It is a mater of principle . A person should have the ability to regulate the amount of money they wish to take out. Just as the citizens of Sask. Man. and Alberta have.
As I have said a thousand times if people were smart enough to save money for a healthy retirement .
I am sure they are smart enough to regulate their funds so they do not run out.
Also A person may want to take their money out of a government regulated portfolio and invest it elsewhere.
Also we were told that if we invested in these funds we would be able to take the money out at a lower tax rate when we ceased to work. This is not the case because they regulate the amount you take out so that when you & your spouse pass away they will have a big tax grab when your last tax bill comes due.
Oldman
Quoting Kreskin
Kreskin. It is not a Question of need all of the time. My fund is building faster then I am allowed to take the money out. I would be still regulating my fund so as the money doesn't run out.
I can appreciate everyone wanting their pensions unlocked. My question is, if everyone needs all of their money now what do they intend to do next year and perhaps the next 25 years when their LIRA accounts are nil?
It is a mater of principle . A person should have the ability to regulate the amount of money they wish to take out. Just as the citizens of Sask. Man. and Alberta have.
As I have said a thousand times if people were smart enough to save money for a healthy retirement .
I am sure they are smart enough to regulate their funds so they do not run out.
Also A person may want to take their money out of a government regulated portfolio and invest it elsewhere.
Also we were told that if we invested in these funds we would be able to take the money out at a lower tax rate when we ceased to work. This is not the case because they regulate the amount you take out so that when you & your spouse pass away they will have a big tax grab when your last tax bill comes due.
Oldman
December 11th, 2006, 10:36 AM
Every year the maximum limit increases. If one is in his mid 70's and 80's and is outperforming the existing maximum limits he's doing a heck of a job investing it. Don't count on exceeding those limits forever.
Quoting oldman
I'm all for increasing limits and think a person should try to de-register as much as they can without impacting other sources of income.
Kreskin. It is not a Question of need all of the time. My fund is building faster then I am allowed to take the money out. I would be still regulating my fund so as the money doesn't run out.
It is a mater of principle . A person should have the ability to regulate the amount of money they wish to take out. Just as the citizens of Sask. Man. and Alberta have.
As I have said a thousand times if people were smart enough to save money for a healthy retirement .
I am sure they are smart enough to regulate their funds so they do not run out.
Also A person may want to take their money out of a government regulated portfolio and invest it elsewhere.
Also we were told that if we invested in these funds we would be able to take the money out at a lower tax rate when we ceased to work. This is not the case because they regulate the amount you take out so that when you & your spouse pass away they will have a big tax grab when your last tax bill comes due.
Oldman
It is a mater of principle . A person should have the ability to regulate the amount of money they wish to take out. Just as the citizens of Sask. Man. and Alberta have.
As I have said a thousand times if people were smart enough to save money for a healthy retirement .
I am sure they are smart enough to regulate their funds so they do not run out.
Also A person may want to take their money out of a government regulated portfolio and invest it elsewhere.
Also we were told that if we invested in these funds we would be able to take the money out at a lower tax rate when we ceased to work. This is not the case because they regulate the amount you take out so that when you & your spouse pass away they will have a big tax grab when your last tax bill comes due.
Oldman
Every year the maximum limit increases. If one is in his mid 70's and 80's and is outperforming the existing maximum limits he's doing a heck of a job investing it. Don't count on exceeding those limits forever.
Newbie
Posts: 30
Location: Philippines
Location: Philippines
December 11th, 2006, 07:11 PM
Kreskin,
I guess we'll just have to learn to budget, just like when we were working. Is it fair to only be allowed to remove 6 or so % a year even if you are getting a 30 or 40% return? Is it fair that we have to borrow to buy a car when we can pay cash for it? Is it fair that we leave it in so it can grow and the Government will get more in taxes when we die? I would rather pay the tax now and not pay any more, but then I am a non-resident.
Kreskin,
I guess we'll just have to learn to budget, just like when we were working. Is it fair to only be allowed to remove 6 or so % a year even if you are getting a 30 or 40% return? Is it fair that we have to borrow to buy a car when we can pay cash for it? Is it fair that we leave it in so it can grow and the Government will get more in taxes when we die? I would rather pay the tax now and not pay any more, but then I am a non-resident.
