Unlocking a locked-in Pension (RRSP)

December 28th, 2006, 09:25 PM

Hi; To anybody that is interested in unlocking locked in pensions . The Ontario Minister of Finance is asking for input from the public for the 2007 Budget .

This is a good time to send in submissions requesting that the Government unlock LIF's , LIRF's & LIRA's
These funds are our own money they are not government run programs Yet the Ontario government is still trying to keep the control of these funds from their rightful owners.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/consultations/prebud07/calendar.html

The Ontario government unlocked these funds for themselves .

Just as they gave themselves a 31% raise . Yet they have no interest in unlocking the money for the rest of Ontario people.

Saskatchewan . Manitoba Alberta & New Brunswick have unlocked the funds for their people.

It just may be that the Ontario government uses the money from these funds to pay for their raise as when Seniors pass away and then the money is passed to the person's estate it becomes unlocked immediately and then is taxed by the Ontario government at the highest rate.


The only other way these funds become unlocked is if one spouse passes away then they become unlocked for the other spouse.
Or you reach the age of 90. How many of us will reach that age as the average lifespan of a man is around 77 & a women a few years past that.

I was talking to a senior yesterday and she said " Why are You working so hard to unlock these funds .You will be 65 next year and then they will be unlocked"

THIS IS NOT SO. These funds will not come unlocked automatically.

I would advise everybody that has a locked in pension plan to have a serious look at it or else you will be in for a sad surprise when you retire.

Now is the time to lobby the government as more and more people and organizations are getting behind the movement to unlock these funds and every letter that is mailed into your MPP, Premier & Finance Minister helps.

Regards Bill Costello

January 6th, 2007, 04:06 PM

To the people that are interested Andrea Horwath NDP presented the private members bill to unlock locked in pensions.

This is the statement she gave in the legislature.


Excerpt from hansard
Official Record of the Ontario Legislature

MEMBER’S STATEMENT
Wednesday, December 20, 2006

It’s time the McGuinty government allowed Ontario’s 1.7 million seniors to unlock their locked-in pensions. Bill 175, my private members bill, would allow seniors to withdraw up to 100 per cent of their locked-in pension funds. This one measure would instantly add to our seniors’ financial independence and quality of life at no cost to the taxpayer.

CARP, Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus, supports my bill “100 per cent”.

Bill 175 would unlock the vault of pension savings that McGuinty Liberal MPPs are withholding from locked-in pensioners while they themselves care for themselves and their own life savings plans.

I’m sure many people would be surprised to learn that once pensions are locked-in, it is virtually impossible for Ontario seniors to access their money. Only at age 90 can seniors withdraw their funds completely. Until then, they are limited to scant withdrawals of 2.5 to 6.2 per cent of the principal.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick and the federal government have already changed their laws to enable seniors to access some, or all, of their locked-in pensions. But in Ontario, only 61 MPPs have the freedom to unlock their pensions. For everyone else, these pensions are locked tight, cannot be withdrawn except in dire financial circumstances and only with government approval.

Why should our seniors have to put up their hand and ask permission to access their own money, which they saved up over a lifetime of hard work?

Unlike the McGuinty Liberals, I trust seniors to manage their own money. Let’s unlock pensions in Ontario for our seniors. They have worked hard all their lives and deserve to reap the fruits of their contributions. Seniors deserve the right to access and control their locked-in pensions and the McGuinty government should respect that right.

March 2nd, 2007, 04:43 PM

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

March 4th, 2007, 07:38 PM

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

March 12th, 2007, 09:54 AM

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.

March 13th, 2007, 02:11 PM

What if I split my locked in RRSPs across different financial institutions so that each instuition holds less than $8,740.
That way according to the "Unlocking Provisions of the Employment Pension Plans Act" Page 2, I should be able to withdraw as cash.
Is that possible? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Please advise. I only have $11,000 worth or locked in RRSPs that I can really use towards my ever growing debt.

Thanks in advance..

March 19th, 2007, 10:46 AM

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

March 19th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Are you adware if you are a hardworking individual who invested into your retirement and fall on bad times, you are forced In Ontario to Cash in your RRSPS before collecting social Assistance?

I feel that is very wrong!

March 28th, 2007, 10:13 AM

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

March 28th, 2007, 10:39 AM

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

March 29th, 2007, 02:28 PM

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

March 29th, 2007, 05:56 PM

I quit my company (federal)and transfered the funds to a LIF, the investment company paid me the Provincial amounts for 4 years, this year I got a big surprise when I opened my statement in January and found that the amount I had been receiving was wrong.
After contacting the investment compant I was told they made a mistake.
I have now started to research the PBSA 1985.

There are provisions in the regulations to unlock your funds

Shortened Life PBSA regs 20.2 (3)

Non Resident 183 Day Rule PBSA Regs. 28.4 & PBSA Update 26 item 8

for more information on my findings go to grundie.com/lif

April 1st, 2007, 06:53 PM

If your plan is under the Federal PBSA 1985 You can unlock if you are a non resident, see my site at grundie . com / lif

April 1st, 2007, 07:08 PM

You can unlock your Federal Funds if your Pension is under PBSA 1985 Non Resident see my site at grundie.com/lif I have done a lot of researck on this issue

April 1st, 2007, 08:36 PM

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.

April 10th, 2007, 10:32 AM

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

April 22nd, 2007, 10:37 AM

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

April 28th, 2007, 10:13 AM

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