Bill C

Hi Ilovemycat; It's good to hear from you. Yes You are being snowed. It looks like the Liberals are up to their usual tricks Lying to the People. Promising them things that they have no intentions of keeping. Do this date The Liberals have refused requests from all the Organizations to unlock pensions more then 25%. I am sure if there was any suggestion of that at all they would notify us in order to get us off their back. Sorry Ilovemycat , just another politician trying to get a vote. Regards Bill Costello

Hi All ; This is a letter Ken sent to a Liberal MPP. Good morning Mr. Kwinter, Like your Liberal colleagues, both past and present ... Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Michael Bryant, Mr. Sean Conway, Ms Caroline DiCocco, Mr. Bruce Crozier, Mr. John Gerretsen, Mr. Dalton McGuinty, and the list goes on ... you clearly understood the incongruity of Bill 27. Your words from the Hansard for Thursday, December 9, 1999 are ... " I haven't quite come to terms as to why there is a special provision for MPPs. What is the intent? I don't understand that.......... Why are we now singling out MPPs, and not only MPPs but a very small number who could have access to this provision? In fact on that same day you went to great lengths to tell the Legislature that as a former Minister of Financial Institutions in 1986, you had introduced Bill 170, an Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act. You said concerning Bill 170 ... "I would caution the members on the opposite side and the minister and the people in the ministry to make sure they have a coherent, clear rationale for why this is being done, particularly when you take a look at Bill 170, the bill I introduced on December 9, 1986, where there was absolutely no mention of MPPs, no mention of any particular group other than pensioners. It was totally universal across the whole field of pensions." I have been asking you for some time ... are you a man of integrity . are you going to tell Ontarians the REAL and WHOLE truth behind Bill 27 . given that Mr. Bradley, Mr. Conway and 18 others from your Liberal party received totally unfettered, unlocked pensions ... pensions that had been previously locked-in ... and ... despite many members of your own party, including yourself, speaking strongly against such exclusive privilege . they accepted their unlocked pensions anyway. As you are well aware, this same extraordinary financial privilege has never been extended to any other Ontarian. Your recent offering of a one-time, 25% unlocking privilege of principal . full unlocking being available at age 90 ... is a cruel and vicious joke against Ontarians ... when compared to what Mr. Bradley and Mr. Conway received! Does the word HONOURABLE before your name compel you to tell ALL the truth ALL of the time ... or does it simply mean an enhanced pay cheque ... a pay cheque that is paid in part by seniors who own locked-in pensions and who must submit to the vulgar restrictions imposed on their pensions by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.? Are you or are you not going to tell the WHOLE truth? You have been in power since 2003 and as such, have had ample opportunity to do so! I again await your answer, Kenneth Elliot

Hi This is a Great article that Linda Leatherdale wrote. http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherda...533775-sun.html Any wise politician knows this: Don't tick off the blue-rinse crowd. Well, this powerful voter group is ticked off. Skyrocketing property taxes have them seeing red. So do gouging electricity bills that Queen's Park hit with a debt retirement tax, plus GST. And they're angry about a clampdown on their precious income trusts, thanks to the feds. But here's an issue that really has them riled. Not allowing them access to their locked-in pension money. Their anger hits meltdown when they recall how MPPs were allowed total access to their pension money in 1999, when some $54 million was withdrawn from the old pension scheme, then topped up with $55 million from general revenues, for a total of $109 million funnelled into MPP RRSP accounts. "It's disgusting how elected officials have this ongoing trend of continually taking care of themselves, while totally ignoring the rest of the electorate," writes Eva Cherwinski, one of thousands who've signed a petition demanding access to locked-in funds. Here's how Ontario's pension laws work. Let's say you're 48, and you get the boot out the corporate door. Any money accrued in your company pension plan would be moved into a Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA), and you're not allowed to touch the money until you're 55. Problem is access is very limited, like only 6.7%. The older you get, the more money you can get at -- but not until age 90 can you take all your money. James Law accuses Queen's Park of being "cruel." He wrote that five years ago his mother was diagnosed with cancer and his father, then 68, had a sizable amount of money in a locked-in pension. His parents wanted to travel and enjoy the money while they could, but his father was denied access to the funds. His mother died two years later, and now his dad is gone, too. "We, his children, did not want their money," Law said. Recent changes to pension laws allow people facing financial hardships to get at the money. Also, you're allowed access if a doctor certifies you have less than two years to live. In the past, regulators voiced concern if people had access they could blow the money and become dependent on low-income government programs. Others worried benefits, like the GST credit and old age credits, could be jeopardized, plus investors would miss out on extra value in vested pensions. But Malcolm Hamilton, a pension expert with Mercer Consulting, says their worries are misguided. "Personally, I don't see (why) the protection is needed," he said, pointing out investors have access to their RRSP money and there is no evidence of irresponsibility. CONVERT OR CASH OUT RRSP funds grow tax free up to age 71, when you must either convert to a RRIF or an annuity, or cash out. Cash out early and you pay tax at your income tax rate. The bottom line is Saskatchewan already allows 100% access to those 55 or older, Manitoba is soon to do the same, Alberta allows 50% at age 50, and New Brunswick 25%. It's estimated one million Canadians have locked-in pension money, with 450,000 of them in Ontario. "Why begrudge Ontarians the same right?" asks Bill Gleberzon, director of government relations with Canada's Association for the 50 Plus (CARP). With only 12 days to the Oct. 10 Ontario election, the CARP, along with the Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-In Fund Holders, is making this a political hot potato. This week, they went to Queen's Park to demand changes that would see those aged 55 be allowed to access 50% of locked-in funds, and at 65, 100%. CARP has Conservative leader John Tory's support. He promises 100% access. NDP leader Howard Hampton is also committed. In December 2006, NDP MPP Andrea Horwath tabled a private's members bill that would unlock funds. With the heat on, Fiberal leader Dalton McGuinty was forced to introduce legislation to take effect in January 2008, that would allow people to transfer their current locked-in fund into a new locked-in fund, and be able to access 25% of the money within 60 days. "Miss the 60 days, and you're out of luck," said CARP's Gleberzon. Wanna fight back? Go to www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html. As Patricia Reeves argues, "It's our money, not yours!"

Hi All I received this letter from a concerned Citizen who would like to encourage all people to read Linda Leatherdales Article of which I will post next Regards Bill C From: John Hoell To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:32 PM Subject: Re-Retirees want their money In regards to Linda leatherdale's column Friday Sept.28-Retirees want their money,I urge all Ontarians to read and understand her story.I signed that petition 6 months ago after doing some serious investigating and was almost sick to my stomach.In my opinion this trash that calls themselves the liberal party of Ontario must be voted out of office on October 10 and preferably into jail where most of them belong.They are treating our seniors with complete disrespect and just plain arrogance.If every taxpayer knew the facts (as this situation of these controversial locked-in pensions could very well apply to them and endanger their financial well being when they retire) I am sure without doubt that they would vote these bums out come Oct.10.This is disgusting the way our seniors who worked hard during their lives to be treated this way.I personally have sent numerous emails to the liberals to explain themselves and what they intend to do to fix this mess but I did not receive one reply,which I figured anyways.I know one thing absolutely for sure and that is on Oct.10 my vote will not be for these incompetent liberals and I urge everyone to go out and exercise their right to vote. J.Hoell Barrie

Hi Jennie; Yes it is to bad. It seems that he cant get any of his other policy's across because of this one issue. It seems to me all through this campaign. All the Liberals do is Attack everything the Conservatives and NDP have done for the last 12 years . As far as I am Concerned The Liberals have lied about more things then any other government in history. And It seems that all they have to offer is more promises that they more then likely will break. If we are to get these pensions unlocked . The only chance we have is John Tory and Howard Hampton. The Liberals refuse to budge on their 25% unlocking even though many large organizations for the people say that unlocking 100% is the way to go. The Sickening part of this is Dalton McGuinty, Greg Sorbara, James Bradley , Minister responsible for Seniors and 17 other high profile Liberal MPP;s are exempt from any pension rules that the rest of the citizens have to follow. (( This information was received From the Ontario Auditor Generals office by way of e-mail to day to our group)) Their Pensions are unlocked 100% at the age of 55 or when they retire. These crooks have to be voted out of power because as you see they forgot that they work for the people and instead think that we should work for them to pay for their 35 % raise :angry: :angry: :angry: Bill Costello The Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-in Fund Holders.

A FREE VOTE Hi All; This is a letter I just received. Regards Bill C There has been a lot of discussion in the media and by the other political parties about bringing faith-based schools into the public education system. The John Tory campaign wanted to make sure you were aware of additional details John Tory provided today on this issue as part of his speech to the Economic Club of Toronto. In John’s own words,“If I have the privilege of serving as Premier, I will strike a commission, consult with the public, create pilot projects, and place a bill before the [Ontario] Legislature. But that bill will only proceed with the support of the people, through their elected representatives. MPPs will be allowed a free vote, so they are at liberty to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents. In this significant way, the public can be more involved in the decision making.” To be clear: John Tory is allowing all of his MPPs to have a free vote in the Legislature on this issue when it comes before them in two – three years. This means that they will all be able to vote based on their own conscience and the wishes of their constituents. In the meantime, over the next year or so, a commission to study the issue will be conducted. Then, appropriate pilot projects will be conducted. Then, a committee of the Legislature will review and study the work of the commission. And, after that two – three year process, members of the Legislature will have a free vote so they can reflect the wishes of their constituents. John Tory will vote for it, but, PC MPPs will be free to vote as they see fit. John Tory has been open and honest about his views and the motivation behind them. He has been clear today, before the election, that there will be a free vote for MPPs and he has always had the same position in public as he has had in private on this issue. John Tory continues to be the only provincial party leader offering real leadership for Ontario. Through strengthening and modernizing health care, getting rid of ‘catch and release’ justice, providing real assistance for our farmers, eliminating Dalton McGuinty’s regressive health tax, and helping our most vulnerable citizens, only John Tory has a vision and plan for a strong, inclusive and economically prosperous Ontario.

Media Conference Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good afternoon, Wednesday, September the 26th in Toronto at the CARP headquarters, a media conference took place that included notable financial economics experts Jack Mintz and Malcolm Hamilton, Bill Gleberzon of CARP, members of our Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders, reporters from various media organizations and other interested parties. Bill Gleberzon of CARP, head of CARP's campaign to unlock pensions, hosted the event and presented a comprehensive summary of the locked-in pensions, the 61 MPP's with full 100% access, the invited speakers and the current status of the political parties position. A number of items relating to the unlocking of pensions in our province and various rationale for unlocking locked-in pensions was discussed at length by the participants. A message of support for unlocking locked-in pensions, written by renowned financial expert Gordon Pape (although unable to attend), was read on his behalf. Our two attending Coalition members, Bill Nafziger and Philip James, gave examples of the hardships and limitations affecting them as a direct result of holding one of these restrictive locked-in pensions as well as a number of other stories of hardships being encountered by Ontario residents that are currently in possession of locked-in pensions. They were very well received and as a direct result, one of their stories is featured in today's TheStar.com. The article can be accessed on the internet at; http://www.thestar.com/News/article/260918 Another article has also been written today in the Financial Post by Jonathan Chevreau under the banner "The Wealthy Boomer" based on an interview with Malcolm Hamilton and can be accessed at; http://communities.canada.com/financ...-pensions.aspx Philip James read our Coalition statement that I wrote on behalf of the members of our Coalition. It can be found on the internet using google and searching for "Coalition of Independent LIF Holders". We are encouraging every Ontarian who is currently in possession of a LIRA, LIF or LRIF, (essentially a form of a locked-in pension) to lobby your MPP and the candidates in your local riding to unlock all "locked-in" pensions 100% thus allowing you to decide for yourself how to manage your own pension money. Remember this is not government money - it's yours - 100% of it. You must demand to have the same right to manage it as you see fit, as was created for 61 MPP's by MPP's in 1999. Yes, they already have 100% access to their former "wound-up" pension through an amendment to provincial legislation they exclusively created for themselves in December of 1999. All other Ontarians do not have this privilege! We are also encouraging every Ontarian who is currently receiving some form of pension benefit from your employer to take heed of the future limitations you will face if you are forced to have your company pension benefit transferred to a "locked-in" retirement account due to layoff, termination, company closure or similar event that creates such an occurrence. Although this may not be on the minds of the younger workforce since retirement is far into the future, changing the legislation to have these "locked-in" retirement accounts (LIRA's) unlocked at age 55 is as equally important for the younger workforce as it is for those who are currently at the qualified retirement age (usually 55), since they too will one day be in a similar position once they reach retirement age. The campaign to have these pensions unlocked for those now with LIF's and LRIF's (created from the aforementioned LIRA's) today is extremely important as it greatly affects the quality of retirement they will have if access to their locked-in pension is increased to 100% as 61 MPP's in 1999 did for themselves. Yes, there are 61 elite Ontarians amongst us that enjoy a benefit that is not available to you! The Liberals have introduced a one time 25% unlock option in January of 2008 in an attempt to appease the holders of locked-in pensions. We believe this to be a hypocritical insult to all Ontarians while twenty of Premiere McGuinty's Liberals, past and present, continue to enjoy 100% access for themselves! They continue to support this hypocrisy by allowing two acts to exist, with dramatically different access provisions, governing the exact same type of pension derived assets. One act (MPP Pension Benefits Act) governing and granting themselves 100% access and the other act (Ontario Pension Benefits Act) governing the rest of all other Ontarians allowing a paltry 6.5% yearly access! The NDP, although as of today quiet on this issue in their campaign, had introduced a bill (Bill 175) in December of 2006 to unlock pensions 100% as well. The PC's are the only party to date that have publicly committed to 100% unlocking since their July 5th public announcement and continue to highlight this in their campaign, if elected. Saskatchewan, in 2002, became a leader in respecting the rights of their residents to manage their own pension money and unlocked all locked-in pensions for ALL their residents, not just their provincial politicians. Ontario stubbornly continues on with their repressive, regressive and discriminatory policies pertaining to locked-in pensions for all Ontarians, with the exception of the 61 MPP's of 1999. We encourage you to exercise your rights and let your voice be heard in the upcoming provincial election and vote for the party that will unlock locked-in pensions 100% as was done for the 61 MPP's in 1999. Our Coalition will accept nothing less than 100% unlocking, as was done in Saskatchewan, and parity with our own 61 MPP's of 1999! Thank you, Grant Fleury Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

Hi All; Rick Bartolucci took a cheep shot in the Sudbury Debate and this is a comment to Mr. Bartolucci. Mr. Bartolucci in his shameful attempt to discredit his inexperienced opposition, cites the fact that Mr. Hampton, while disrespectfully referring to him as "Howie Hampton", received a $550, 000 pension buyout, hypocritically fails to include the 20 members of his own Liberal party who also received amounts far in excess of the $550, 000 collected by Mr. Hampton. That's right! Twenty members of his own party, including McGuinty, Sorbara, Conway, Bradley, Ramsey etc... all received the same or similar amounts! With that shot Mr. Bartolucci, you have reached the all-time zenith of hypocrisy. It's too bad your opponents didn't know anything about it, otherwise I'm sure you would have kept your little secret to yourself as you've done now for the last eight years.What a shameful cheap shot! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. Bartolucci, besides being pompous in his attitude towards his opponents and his constituents, in his usual style fails to "tell the truth - the whole truth..." and include his own party members as recipients of this gross amount of taxpayers money. Yes taxpayers money as well, because in order for all of them to get their pension buyouts, including his own Liberal brethren, the taxpayers of Ontario had to pay the 10 to 20 million dollar shortfall for the buyout to be completed. Further he also fails to inform you all that this special unprecedented buyout was only created by the government for 61 MPP's while all other Ontarians were left out of this special little privilege. That's right, the Liberals, including Mr. Bartolucci, so very eloquent in opposition to this financial largesse, have done nothing to include the rest of all Ontarians in this exclusive unfettered benefit. That's right again, 61 MPP's amongst us are walking around quietly with full access to their pensions while the million other Ontarians with the same types of pension assets are struggling year after year with a mere 6.5% access! So yes, Rick, why don't you you tell the public the truth - the whole truth and then maybe you won't be so smug when the audience and the public hears how much of a hypocrite you are. Regards,Grant Fleury, SudburyOntario Coalition of Independent LIF Holderslocked_pensions_gf@yaho o.ca

Statement from Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi All; This is a statement from our conference. It was quite a success. As i get caught up with everything that has been happening I will try and post some of it. We are definitely gaining momentum. Regards Bill C Good Morning and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak to you today. The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders is composed of a number of private citizens assembled from various regions in Ontario who's sole purpose is to lobby the government to unlock all "locked-in" pensions in our province. We are primarily arguing two issues within one campaign. The primary issue is that of fairness and equality under one law for all Ontario citizens regardless of vocation and void of political favouritism. The secondary issue is that of the unjust government control of Ontarians access to their own personal locked-in pension assets. Assets that were generally derived from former employers "wound-up" defined benefit plans and employers defined contribution plans. Regarding the primary issue, the current rules and regulations set out in the Pension Benefits Act are discriminatory, as theyre not equally applied to all Ontarians. The MPPs pension assets, derived from their former wound-up pension plan in 1995, fall under the jurisdiction of the MPPs Pension Act, thus the discrimination. Two separate Acts for the same type of locked-in pensions. Discrimination? YES, there are currently 61 MPP's, both former and present, that through a deceitful amendment to the MPP Pensions Act, cloaked within Bill 27 in 1999, exempted themselves from the highly restrictive and paternalistic legislation that governs all other Ontarians LIRA's, LIF's and LRIF's. Regarding the secondary issue, the yearly maximum withdrawal limits for those who meet the minimum age requirement (usually 55) for access to their locked-in LIF and LRIF pensions is approximately 6.5%, increasing slightly year after year, until either age 80 if it's a LIF or age 90 if it's an LRIF. The aforementioned 61 MPP's have 100% access! The zenith of discrimination! YES, 100% unrestricted access to the same type of pension-derived locked-in assets as compared to the rest of all other Ontarians 6.5%! Outright inequality and double standard. Two separate laws for the same type of pension. One for 61 MPP's and one for an estimated million plus other Ontarians. Our Coalition is dead set against such inequality and blatant discrimination. Discrimination and silence since 1999 that continues to percolate within the ruling Liberal party. We are demanding fair and equal treatment and insist on being included in this exclusive group of 61 privileged Ontarians by receiving the same 100% access to our locked-in pensions. According to our research, there were Sixty-one (61) MPPs, across all three parties that benefited from this immorally and selfishly conceived piece of legislation consisting of 22 PCs, 19 NDP and 20 Liberals. The names of these 61 MPPs are known to the Coalition as they were derived, with reasonable assurance, from the Ontario Legislature Hansard. This legislation, quietly kept from the public and cleverly tucked away within Bill 27, only unlocked their locked-in pensions, while leaving all other Ontarians behind. For the past four years, Premiere Dalton McGuinty, Finance minister Greg Sorbara and Seniors minister Jim Bradley have continued to ignore the pleas of Ontarians begging for full access to their locked-in pensions, while specific members within their party, hypocritically, continue to have full 100% access to their own former locked-in pensions. In the recent Liberal budget back in March, Greg Sorbara introduced a one time 25% unlocking option to hopefully appease the holders of locked-in pensions. This was an insult to all Ontarians and continues to fly in the face of democracy, and equality under one law for all. In 2002, Saskatchewan listened to the will of their people and eliminated these restrictions, granting full 100% access to all locked-in pensions through legislation that applied to ALL their residents, and not just their provincial politicians. Their belief was that their residents know best how and when to use their own private pension assets. In December of 2006, Andrea Horwath of the NDP, introduced Bill 175 to unlock all locked-in pensions in Ontario receiving verbal support in the legislature from Bob Runciman of the PCs. Predictably and true to their ignorance towards seniors locked-in pensions, the Liberal party ignored this bill and instead went on to introduce and pass a bill for themselves that essentially granted all MPPs a 35% pay raise. During the current campaign in a press release and public appearance in July, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Tory committed to unlocking all locked-in pensions 100% if elected, citing that "Ontarians know best how to look after their money, not government". Our goal here today is to create an awareness of these two issues within the general public. A public who for the most part, have no idea about the restrictions they will face when they qualify to withdraw their hard earned locked-in pension assets and who further and more importantly have no idea of the hypocritically conceived legislation that was created by politicians, for politicians, leaving the rest of Ontario shackled and begging for equal access to their own pension money. We encourage you to support the parties in the upcoming election that will unlock pensions 100% for ALL Ontarians and not just a select few as was done in 1999. Thank you for your time and allowing us the opportunity to speak to you about this extremely important issue affecting the quality and standard of living for the estimated million plus locked-in pension holders in the province of Ontario. Sincerely, Grant Fleury Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders The Principals in the Coalition contact information is listed below; Bill Costello: [email protected] Bill Nafziger: [email protected] Ken Elliott: [email protected] Philip James: [email protected] Anna Pollock: [email protected] Bill Foan: [email protected] Grant Fleury: [email protected]

Hi All; I just found this it was posted today. NEWS RELEASE JOSH PRINGLE PC CANDIDATE SAULT STE. MARIE ************************ A John Tory government will protect seniors PC Leader John Tory said a PC government will give Ontarians 100 percent access to their locked-in pension income. This would mean seniors and retirees would have access to 50 percent of their pension at age 55 and the remaining 50 percent 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. Tory indicated that when the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions reports back in the summer of 2008, he will move quickly to implement its recommendations. “We can, and must, do more for our senior citizens,” Mr. Tory concluded. “This means adopting policies that put fairness for seniors first. Our seniors have done so much to make Ontario what it is today. In order to repay that debt, leadership matters.” John Tory has 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. “Seniors and retirees built the foundation for the strong community and Ontario we know today. They deserve to have control over their hard-earned retirement savings,” said Pringle. “We believe that Ontarians know best how to look after their money– not government.” “Our plan will allow seniors and retirees to have control over their own money and better plan for retirement based on their own needs,” said Pringle. “Ontario’s pension regulations present unnecessary challenges for seniors and retirees looking to transform a lifetime of hard work into financial freedom.” Pringle 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 percent of locked-in accounts at the earliest retirement date of the pension plan from which the money was transferred and 100 percent access at age 90. To date, no regulations or legislation have been brought forward to enact these proposed changes. “Leadership is about listening to seniors and retirees," said Pringle. "If we are going to remove the barriers and give the people of our community the fairness and peace of mind they deserve, then leadership matters." Ontario PC Leader John Tory also today detailed the Progressive Conservative plan to protect senior citizens and other vulnerable homeowners struggling with rising property assessments and unduly restrictive pension structures. “Today, many seniors are struggling to make ends meet. They are penalized by a property assessment system that punishes people on fixed incomes most of all,” John Tory said. “Dalton McGuinty has failed to show real leadership on Ontario’s assessment crisis. Too many seniors are on the verge of being forced out of their own homes.” John Tory said his government will take aim at the current municipal property tax assessment system, which is facing a “crisis of credibility” according to the Ontario Ombudsman. The average assessed home in Ontario recently rose from $179,151 in the 2003 taxation year to $232,883 in the 2006 taxation year. Some assessment increases have been as high as 150 percent, and homeowners are receiving assessments that contain incorrect information about their properties. A John Tory government will provide stability to homeowners by: - Establishing a five percent annual cap on property assessment increases for as long as a person owns his or her home (including if the property is transferred to a spouse). - Implementing a new reverse onus appeal system so the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) will have to justify an assessment increase. - Ensuring MPAC fully implements the recommendations of the Ombudsman, and if the serious problems he identified are not addressed, shutting down MPAC and building a better system. - Addressing rural assessment inequities which currently penalize farmers who have been encouraged to have value-added production services. PLEASE NOTE: John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65. The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds. The Liberals offered a insulting 25% unlocking in their 2007 budget.

Hi All; This letter is in response to a article that was read in thestar.com Ontario Election , Drawing the line on campaign attack ads. Good evening to all Liberals who seem to think it is honourable to tell less than the whole truth. Your collective silence as Liberal Party members on the issue of locked-in pensions is despicable!!!!!!!!!! In the article below, Ben Chin, Liberal campaign spokesperson is once again only telling part of the truth, while hiding the whole truth as it relates to the Ontario Liberal Party. (See the 4th and 5th last paragraph of this article.) As you are well aware Mr. Brown, Mr. Kwinter, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Ruprecht, Mr. Patten, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Sorbara, there were 20 Liberals in all who received the same financial opportunity that Howard Hampton and Shelley Martel received courtesy of Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act. Each of you received the same privilege as did Hampton and Martel. In fact your former colleague, Sean Conway (also a recipienet of the same privilege as Hampton and Martel) said in the House (see Hansard for Monday December 13, 1999) about Bill 27 ... " I want to make it plain. No one benefits more from this change than I do. It's a wrong thing for me to support. I would go even further and say it's immoral." As for you Mr. Bradley, Minister Responsible for Seniors, your complete silence on this issue, while hundreds of thousands of your constituency (seniors holding locked-in pensions) suffer under the disgusting confines imposed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, is abhorrent. I don't know how you can live with yourself! Is there even one Liberal party member with the guts to stand up and tell the honest truth about Bill 27, even as it relates to the Liberal Party. So far there hasn't been one individual with that integrity. STUDENTS SPEAK OUT Kerry Gillespie Queen's Park Bureau Like most teenagers, Xing Chiu watches television. What's unusual is that she's particularly interested in the political ads and in reading what the various leaders have to say about their plans for Ontario. But in an era of negative campaigning, she's often disappointed. Instead of learning about what each party will do, more often than not, she finds out just how much they dislike what the others are up to. "Recently, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory accused Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty of being `the worst promise breaker of modern times.' At what point, or is there a point, where we draw the line between actually campaigning (on policies) and plain accusing and humiliating opponents?" asked Chiu, a 17-year-old student North Toronto Collegiate. "You do draw the line ... you don't engage in nasty name calling," Tory said when the Star asked Chiu's question. "To say someone is the greatest promise breaker in modern times, there's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek aspect to that ... but I'm trying to make a serious point," Tory said. "The nature of some of the broken promises is unprecedented and it's a huge issue in this election if you believe as I do that you have to have credibility and trust in order to govern and lead effectively. "But I will admit ... finding that balance between discussing your opponent's record and putting forward your own is a difficult challenge. But I really try." There's a reason parties resort to bashing their opponents in the media and in paid negative ads, said Nelson Wiseman, University of Toronto political science professor. "Some work, some blow up in your face, but for the most part (negative ads) do work and that's why parties use them," Wiseman said. Last week, the NDP launched its first television ad. But rather than tell about its policies, all it does is bash McGuinty and his policies. Often, it's not the party leader throwing the dirtiest mud. Yesterday, within minutes of NDP Leader Howard Hampton promising to roll back the 25 per cent pay hike MPPs gave themselves last year, McGuinty's staff had sent reporters an email titled: "Troubling questions on Howard Hampton's rich rhetoric." "When Mike Harris eliminated the MPP pension plan, Howard Hampton and his wife, Shelley Martel, were handed a near $1 million payout. Pretty easy to talk about pay cuts when you're sitting on a million-dollar nest egg, isn't it?" Liberal campaign spokesperson Ben Chin wrote. Chiu, senior vice-president on her school's student council, knows a little about election campaigning. "Campaigning means selling yourself, not degrading your opponents," Chiu said. "I guess it's unavoidable in a provincial-level election to point out your opponents' flaws to boost your own popularity, but when opponent-bashing is the basis of one's campaign ... both parties lose credibility," she said. PLEASE NOTE: John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65. The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds. The Liberals offered a insulting 25% unlocking in their 2007 budget.

MEDIA ADVISORY/INVITATION CARP FIGHTS FOR COMPLETE ACCESS TO LOCKED-IN-FUNDS FOR ALL ONTARIANS BY AGE 65 Proposed policy will enhance equity and quality of life for LIF holders Toronto, Ontario, September 19, 2007 – On Wednesday, September 26, at 10:30 a.m., Canada’s Association for the 50 Plus (CARP) will hold a press conference to urge the Ontario government to unlock LIFs for all Ontario LIF holders. CARP, in conjunction with the Ontario Coalition of Independent Locked-in-Fund Holders (OCILFH), proposes that 50 per cent of the principal in a LIF should be unlocked at age 55, with an additional 50 per cent unlocked at age 65. 450,000 Ontario LIF holders are seeking equity with the 61 Ontario MPPs who were allowed to unlock their LIFs; CARP urges the government to follow the example of Saskatchewan which has unlocked LIFs 100 per cent. When: Wednesday September 26, 2007 @ 10:30am Where: CARP’S National office, 27 Queen Street East, Suite 1307, Toronto, corner Victoria. Who: Speakers will include preeminent tax expert, Professor Jack Mintz, leading actuary Malcolm Hamilton, Dr. W. Gleberzon, CARP’s Director of Government Relations, with a message from financial author and publisher, Gordon Pape. Personal testimony by LIF holders will also be presented. Contact: Michelle Taylor at 416-363-8748 ext. 236 or at [email protected]

Good Morning All, As some of you may or may not be aware as yet, Philip James has secured a one hour time slot on the Bill Kelly Talk Show at radio station CHML Hamilton 900 on the AM band at 11am on Wednesday Sept. 19th. The broadcast will be streamed live and can be heard on the Internet at http://www.900chml.com . Philip & Ken Elliott will be participating together as Billy Kelly's guests. Over the last few days, we've been working together gathering material and discussing topics and various strategies in preparation for the program. The topics will be around the various locked-in pensions issue and hopefully they will be able to provide the listeners with a clear realization of what a locked-in pension is, if any of the listeners in fact do have one that don't yet even realize that they do, the consequences and limitations of locked-in pensions, the current political parties position regarding unlocking these pensions, the hypocritical position and silence from the current Liberal government and of the real truth and discrimination behind Bill 27 and the select 61 MPP's who cleverly and deceitfully created legislation to bypass the very rules they continue to impose on Ontarians today. Hopefully as time permits, they will be able to get most of this material out to the listeners and create enough of a buzz among the voters who can then decide how important an issue locked-in pensions really are for themselves and how they detrimentally affect not only the current holders of LIF's and LRIF's but also the continually growing number of employees with LIRA's resulting from their employers DC type pension plans. I will make every attempt to record the interview and create a copy of the program in an audio file and distribute it to those who want a copy, subject to the radio station's permission. Please feel free to pass this on to all of your own set of contacts within your respective areas. The more listeners, the better chance to get the message out. Regards, Grant Fleury Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

Dear Bill, I am pleased to be writing this letter in support of unlocking the pensions of those Ontarians with LIF, LIRA, and LRIF pension holdings. My colleague Andrea Horwath, the NDP Pension Critic introduced a private members bill in the last legislature that would have allowed seniors to withdraw up to 100 per cent of their locked-in pension funds. I strongly believe that this is legislation that needs to be reintroduced and acted upon by the legislature as soon as possible after the October 10th election. Seniors want the right to access and control their own money, and deserve to have that option. People should not have to wait until age 90 to access the full amount of their pension funds, to limit access to 6.2 percent of principal, in an era when so much talk is being bandied about around choice for seniors, is simply ridiculous. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick and the federal government have already changed their laws to enable older adults to access some, or all, of their locked in pension, but in Ontario, only a select number of MPPs have the freedom to unlock their pensions. This is wrong. It isn’t fair, and is something I want to see changed. Some people may question if a 25 year old understands the importance of this issue, but with my own parents approaching retirement age, I understand this issue not only from a political perspective but also from the personal perspective of my own family. Allowing access to the principal in locked-in funds is the fair thing to do for Ontarians especially since a precedent was set in 1999 under the Conservative government with Bill 27 when 61 MPPs were permitted to do so.. For MPPs to give themselves the right to access that is denied to everyone else is wrong. I look forward to working in Queen’s Park to set it right. Sincerely, Stephen Maynard NDP candidate London-Fanshawe

Hi ; There is a new site on locked in funds at the CARP web site. http://www2.carp.ca/display.cfm?cabi...&libraryID=102 Regards Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

August; You havent studied the issue enough. We are not looking for a lump sum. Think about it. That would be pure stupid. The government would unlock in a second if everybody was going to do that. By the way you do not have to buy an annuity. I dident think you had studied the issue. Regards Bill

Hi Madmax; Thanks for the vote of confidence Take Care Bill C

Hi August1991 No We should not unlock Canada pension contribution. I dont think Teachers or Civil servants are too worried about their plans being unlocked. The only ones in that category would be ones that dident work long enough to qualify for a pension. Their money then I imagine would be transferred into a LIRA. if that happened then yes it should be unlocked on retirement. Tell Me August have you studied up on this issue yet Regards Bill

Hi Capricorn: I would imagine all of them will have to offer the unlocking feature. Don't forget if the Liberals get in ,you will only have 60 days to unlock after your money is transferred into the new lif. I am hoping the Liberals dont get in , then we will have 100% unlocking instead of that insulting 25%. To me that is just a slap in the face to every worker in Ontario. Seeing that MCGuinty , Sorbara and about 18 other of his Honorable members ???? such as Jim Bradley the Minister Responsible Seniors are allowed to unlock their pensions 100% at 55. The Rest of the public will be allowed to unlock a 90 :angry: Bill C

A Letter to John Tory -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. John Tory, MPP Leader - Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario September 7th, 2007 Dear Sir, I am writing you in response to your announcement in July regarding your commitment to fairness for all Ontarians concerning locked-in pensions. Although we haven’t met, you may be aware of me through your Economic Policy Advisor, David Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin and I worked together, the day before, to the extent where I provided the details and facts for your information backgrounder and your subsequent announcement for unlocking pension income the following day. I thank you for addressing the needs and the quality of life for the many retiring and retired Ontarians by committing to unlock all Ontario locked-in pensions 100%. I’m certain all people in Ontario with locked-in pensions will undoubtedly thank you as well. As you are aware, there has been a significant lobbying campaign in the province by a large number of private citizens, the Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders and CARP. I believe listening to the voices and stories from people such as these has led to your decision to right the wrong of your predecessor that occurred within Bill 27 in 1999. Fairness, such as this will no doubt give more people a chance to contribute to the province’s prosperity and the ultimate right to manage pension money that is rightfully theirs. Although I would have preferred your intention to be 100% unlocking at the qualified age or 55, whichever came first as was done for 61 MPP’s in 1999, the 50% split at 55 and the remainder at 65 is certainly and without a doubt a huge step in the right direction to ending government interference in the personal and private financial matters of all Ontarians. As I’m sure your research will confirm, there is in excess of an estimated one million LIF and LRIF holders in our province. That number grows steadily as a number of people continue to be forced to commute their DB (defined benefit) pension plans and convert their assets into LIRA's (Locked-In Retirement Accounts) and eventual subsequent LIF's and LRIF's due to plant closures and permanent layoffs. Obviously this is a very large number of affected people, some of whom are unaware, as yet, of the severely limited access they will have to their locked-in pension once qualified. However, additionally, there is much more to the real and total number of affected people than those currently qualified holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s. The actual much larger unrealized quantity exists in the eventual and future holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s. That is, in addition to the growing number of unfortunate commuted DB pension plan recipients and the current holders of LIF's and LRIF's, there are millions of other Ontarians working for companies that are currently in possession of DC (defined contribution) type pension plans. These DC plans accrue deferred pension plan assets that are also in the form of a locked-in component of the plan member’s overall pension plan. The actual percentage and amount is determined by each individuals plan arrangement with their employer. That component provided by the employer’s contributions will also be regulated, one day, by the Ontario Pension Benefits Act in the form of a locked-in fund. In the early years of building these pension assets, little attention is paid to these monies since the age of 55 is often far away and thus generally out of the minds of these younger workers. As the number of holders of DC type pension plans increase, so does the importance of passing legislation, as you’ve announced, to deal with that eventuality in terms of sufficiency and predictable pension planning. It is my belief that you consider recognizing this “other” growing body of future “LIF” and “LRIF” holders throughout your campaign when speaking about your commitment to unlock Ontario’s pensions and that you include this “lesser known”, much "larger quantity" of individuals. One day they too will be affected by your intended positive changes to the pension legislation pertaining to locked-in pensions as governed by the Ontario PBA. This significantly large pool of people, once educated to the future liability of the DC pension, will no doubt be thankful, appreciative and responsive to a government that intends to ensure that their future years, as well, are not shackled by paternalistic and restrictive legislation preventing them from full control over their future retirement funds. In closing, and as every vote counts, I believe it is an important strategy to inform and educate not only the current holders of LIF’s or LRIF’s in Ontario of your intention to unlock their pension assets, but the huge number of future holders of locked-in pensions as well. Getting this message out to all affected people is paramount since the component of a DC type locked-in pension plan and future unfortunate recipients of commuted DB plans, affects far more additional people than those current holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s. Informing these two groups of people affected by locked-in pensions, both present and future, is a very significant opportunity for you and your party to recognize and harness the necessary support in order to carry out your intention to unlock pensions in your bid to become the ruling party in this great province of ours. A province founded and built under laws of fairness, equality, and freedom of lifestyle choice not only during our working years, but as well, during those all too often relatively precious few retirement years. Thank You. Sincerely, Grant Fleury Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

A Message for the Ontario Liberal Party: Please note that we are gathering support throughout Ontario to unlock 100% of locked in pensions at retirement for Ontarians. This growing ground swell of voters are well aware of the reluctance of the Ontario Liberals to unlock 100% of locked in pensions. Prominent individuals that are supporting unlocking 100% of locked in pensions at retirement include: (i)Professor Jack Mintz, an renowned economist with Rotman School of Management, U of Toronto (ii)Malcolm Hamilton, an eminent actuary and principle of William Mercer, Toronto (iii)Gordon Pape, a well known financial commentator A copy of Jack Mintz’s article regarding “locked in pensions in Ontario” published in the Financial Post is copied below: Unlock LIRAs: Workers who change jobs get hobbled with inflexible locked-in accounts. It's time to end this nanny-state paternalism Jack Mintz, Financial Post Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Compared with the United States, with its bewildering and complex array of retirement savings plans, Canada has a proud record of levelling the playing field between pension plans and Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs): We ensure that similar rules apply to them and we make them transferable. Given the evolving labour markets, with people quitting jobs frequently throughout their career, and given our ageing population, our federal and provincial politicians deserve credit for reducing tax barriers to labour mobility and savings. Yet, one important form of discrimination remains: the locked-in RRSP. It puts millions of pensioned employees at a severe disadvantage compared with RRSP holders who change jobs. Ontario's recent budget takes an initial step to correct this discrimination, but does not go far enough, especially when compared with some provinces that have done much more to remove this discrimination. When a pensioned employee quits, a choice is made to keep money invested in the pension plan or to take out the money and invest it in a locked-in RRSP (either called Locked-in Funds or Locked-in Retirement Accounts, LIRAs). The money cannot be accessed until a certain age, such as at retirement (this depends on federal and provincial pension legislation) and these funds must then be invested in a life annuity or Life Income Fund. With the Life Income Fund, the investor draws out money subject to mandated maximum and minimum percentages of assets held in the plan. At the age of 80, remaining investments must be converted to an annuity (with 60% spousal benefit) or transferred to a Life Retirement Income Fund that allows the holders to manage their own money (but still subject to mandated withdrawal rules). Unlike pensions, owners of employer and employee-funded RRSPs are far less shackled by their previous employer contract when they change jobs. The RRSPs can be cashed in any year without penalty, although the principal and accumulated income will be fully taxed, similar to pensions. At the age of 69 (71 when the recent federal budget is implemented), the RRSP must be cashed out (and taxed), turned into an annuity or put into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF), of which withdrawals are taxed. Compared with the Life Income Fund owner, who must hold an annuity or a Life Retirement Income Fund, the RRIF owner can take out as much as he wants, subject to a minimum percentage of assets. Given these stringent rules, employees have a good reason to prefer RRSPs over pensions. Defined-benefit pension arrangements have been used by employers to keep their workers on staff, since employer contributions are geared more toward the end of the employee's career, a policy that is becoming inflexible in a world where workers frequently change jobs. Further, with employer responsibilities for liabilities and employee claims to surpluses upon wind-up of defined benefit plans, many companies have shifted to defined-contributions plans. These operate like RRSPs in that the employee receives pension benefits based on the performance of invested funds provided by the employee or employer. Nonetheless, with the locked-in rules for pension transfers, why even bother with a defined-contribution plan since employees could have the same risk and return, but much greater flexibility, with an employer-provided RRSP when changing jobs? The usual argument against repealing lock-in provisions is a paternalistic one: Workers don't know what is best for them and will cash out their pension savings before retirement. This nanny-state view has been a basis for policy in some other countries, notably the United States, which has imposed penalties on early withdrawals from retirement savings plans. Canada, however, has smartly avoided this trap by enabling individuals to have full access to their RRSPs without extra penalty for withdrawals before retirement. Not only does this give greater flexibility for individuals, but also provides a significant incentive to invest in retirement funds, since individuals need not fear that their money is effectively locked up when facing unexpected contingencies. Locked-in RRSPs are therefore particularly unfair to pensioned workers since they do not have the same rights to access their retirement funds. With the recent budget, Ontario is proposing to allow individuals to unlock 25% of their funds no earlier than the early retirement date (usually 55 years of age), beginning in 2008, after consultations. At this time, individuals can only access their own money if they show special need, once they follow a costly bureaucratic procedure. According to the Canadian Association for Retired Persons, during the period of April, 2003, to March, 2006, almost 30,000 pensioners applied for relief, filling out a 23-page document costing anywhere from$200 to$600 when the application succeeded. Only 52 were rejected outright, leading to wonder as to whether this bureaucratic process is necessary. While the Ontario budget is a baby step in the right direction, NDP MPP Andrea Horwath proposed in a private bill, supported by Conservative Bob Runciman, to allow 100% access to locked-in funds. This would provide similar treatment to that available to many MLAs, who are given access to their occupational pension savings. Some provinces have gone much further than Ontario to relieve pensioners from onerous rules after leaving their employer. Saskatchewan has been the most progressive province, providing for the full transfer of pension funds to RRSPs or RRIFs. Alberta and Manitoba allow pensioned workers to access 50% of their LIF funds, although Manitoba will soon be moving to full access. The only federal initiative so far in this regard is to unlock funds for federal employees at the age of 90 (we should all live that long!). It is time to unlock the chains put on pension savings of employees who change jobs or retire. Doing so will help contribute to labour mobility, better retirement plans and, ultimately, a stronger economy. - - - - Jack M. Mintz is Professor of Business Economics, J. L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, and Visiting Professor, New York University Law School. © National Post 2007 Please consider unlocking 100% of locked in pensions at retirement for all Ontarians at retirement. After all, it is their money. It is not government money. Best regards, Bill Nafziger 11 Whaley Ave., Box 94, Milverton Ontario, N0K 1M0 Member: Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders Common Front for Retirement Security (with over 2 million members in member organizations) CARP, working together to unlock 100% of locked in pensions at retirement (with over 250,000 members in Ontario) PLEASE NOTE: John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65. The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds. The Liberals offered a insulting 25% unlocking in their 2007 budget.

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

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

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 ( 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" © 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

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