Unlocking Locked in Pension's ( LIF, LIRF, LIRA )

[Bill C]

Bill 116 Second reading date has been changed .

There has been a sudden change announced by the Speaker’s Office. Ted’s Private Member’s Business day has been moved up one week. Therefore, Bill 116 will be debated on May 14th instead of May 7th. It seems there was some sort of scheduling error.

Ted has received a good number of petitions and these will be read in the legislature starting Thursday and periodicly leading up to the second reading of Bill 116

Take Care Bill C

[Bill C]

Hi Everybody ;

Feel free to pass on to your news papers and contacts .

Regards Bill C

For immediate release

Chudleigh Reads Locked-In Pension Petitions at Queen’s Park

Seniors Seek Independence and Respect through Halton MPP’s Private Members Bill

(Queen’s Park - April 27, 2009)

Today in the Ontario Legislature, PC MPP Ted Chudleigh (Halton) read into the record some of the first of hundreds of signatures which call on the Ontario government to allow retirees one hundred percent access to their locked-in pension accounts.

The McGuinty Liberals recently raised the allowed withdrawal of locked-in funds to fifty percent but Chudleigh says that doesn't go far enough.

“For too long, the government has controlled the hard-earned pension money of Ontarians, rationing out pension income like parents giving allowance to their children,” said Chudleigh. “During these trying economic times, seniors need financial flexibility not financial shackles.”

The petition calls for all-party support for Bill 116, Chudleigh’s Private Member’s Bill which would allow retirees to transfer accrued pension assets out of locked-in funds at the time of retirement, as early as age 55.

“Unlocking pensions means respect for seniors, a boost for the economy and a step towards fairness for Ontario and all its citizens,” said Chudleigh. “It is an optimistic idea that places faith in the individual above the heavy hand of government.”

Chudleigh said that the current system assumes that seniors are not responsible enough to manage their own retirement finances.

“Considering that retirees have generally shown fiscal wisdom and prudence throughout their lives, through the sound management of accounts and investments, as owners of houses and automobiles, as parents and grandparents, through community involvement, and as valued employees and employers, it is not right that they are treated with such disrespect,” said Chudleigh. “It’s time we start treating seniors like adults.”

Bill 116 will be debated in the Legislative Assembly on May 14th, 2009. Chudleigh plans to read the petition regularly before that date.

To view a copy of the petition, please visit:

http://www.tedchudleigh.com/files/symlink/...onspetition.PDF

For information contact:

Ben Ellis @ 416-325-5747

[Bill C]

Hi Everybody,

Second reading of Ted Chudleigh's Bill 116 .

Ted’s Bill 116 is second (of three) private members bills being debated today. At 1pm, the House does Routine Proceedings which can take very little time or upwards of an hour and a half. Following that, each private members bill is debated for one hour.

It looks like today’s Routine Proceedings will be fairly short. So I imagine the first PMB will begin at about 1:30pm and Bill 116 will go at about 2:30pm.

Regards Bill C

[benny]

I think that pursuing a single issue on a forum is very ill-advised unless this issue is about renewing democracy altogether all together.

Edited May 14, 2009 by benny

[Bill C]

Hi All ,

The turn out for support was disappointing .

The names of the supporters were .

Ted Chudleigh PC , Ted Arnott PC , Ernie Hardeman PC , Jerry Ouelette PC , Peter Shurman PC , Cheri DiNovo NDP , Leeanna Pendergast , Liberal .

I have sent the above a thank you for their support . If any of you would like to send them a thank you ,feel free to do so .

I will list the 26 against unlocking our own money tomorrow.

Take Care Bill C

Liberals Vote Against Ontario Seniors

Government rejects Halton MPP’s campaign for respect and independence

(Queen’s Park – May 14, 2009)

Today Liberal MPPs voted against a Bill that would have given Ontario retirees more control over their own pensions.

Bill 116 was introduced by Halton MPP Ted Chudleigh and would have changed the law so that seniors could access 100% of their locked-in pension money. Currently, retirees are only able to access half of their accrued assets.

“For too long, the government has rationed out locked-in pension money to seniors like parents giving allowance to their children,” said Chudleigh.“My Bill would have ended this disrespectful practice and given seniors the independence they have earned.”

The reason why Liberals don’t want seniors to have full access is because they think that retirees are not wise enough to manage their finances in the long-term, explained Chudleigh.

“What do you have to do to escape the McGuinty nanny-state?” asked Chudleigh.“Our seniors have proven themselves through lives that embodied responsibility and wisdom. But the McGuinty Liberals think they’ll blow all their cash and become wards of the State. That’s just insulting.”

Chudleigh pointed to successful legislation in Saskatchewan passed in 2002 that allows retirees 100% access to locked-in pensions.

“I haven’t heard of any wild and uncontrolled spending sprees by Saskatchewan seniors,” said Chudleigh.“They’re proof that the current legislation is out-of-touch with reality. Sadly, today the Liberals voted based on ideology and ignored the real concerns of their senior constituents.”

The vote on second reading on Bill 116 was lost by a count of 7-26. All votes against were from Liberal MPPs while the Bill received support from all present PC and NDP Members. MPP Leeanna Pendergast was the sole Liberal supporter of the Bill.

-30-

For further information contact:

Ben Ellis

416-325-5747

[benny]

“For too long, the government has rationed out locked-in pension money to seniors like parents giving allowance to their children,” said Chudleigh.“My Bill would have ended this disrespectful practice and given seniors the independence they have earned.”

The reason why Liberals don’t want seniors to have full access is because they think that retirees are not wise enough to manage their finances in the long-term, explained Chudleigh.

“What do you have to do to escape the McGuinty nanny-state?” asked Chudleigh.“Our seniors have proven themselves through lives that embodied responsibility and wisdom. But the McGuinty Liberals think they’ll blow all their cash and become wards of the State. That’s just insulting.”

Irrational exuberance (animal spirits) is a plague that transmits rapidly from the youngest day financial market traders to seniors.

[Bill C]

Here are the MPP,s that voted against unlocking locked in pensions 100% for the Retiree,s and Seniors of Ontario .

These people , I assume feel that the seniors in the province of Ontario are not as Competent as the Seniors and Retiree,s in Saskatchewan.

They feel I assume that the Seniors and Retiree.s in Ontario need them , The Liberal Government to babysit them and dole out their OWN MONEY to them as if they are children in need of supervision .

It should be noted that every vote against Bill 116 , the Bill to unlock pensions 100% for the Citizens of Ontario was a Liberal Vote.

Just one more reason this province needs a change of government.

The Nay Voters Were .

Sophia Aggelonitis , Laura Albanese , Wayne Arthures , Bas Balkissoon , Lorenzo Berardinetti , Margarett Best , Laurel C Broten , Jim Brownell , Mike Colle , Bob Delaney , Joe Dickson , Daniel Kevin Flynn , Linda Jeffrey , Kuldip Kular , Marc Jean Lalonde , Dave Levac , Reza Moridi , Gerry Phillips , Shafiq Qaadri , Khalil Ramal . Tony Ruprecht , Liz Sandals , Mario Sergio , Harinder S Takhar , Kathleen O Wynne , David Zimmer , .

The Ayes Vote Was .

Ted Arnott , PC , Ted Chudleigh , PC , Cheri DiNovo , NDP , Ernie Hardeman , PC , Jerry J. Ouellette , PC , Leeanna Pendergast , Lib. , Peter Shurman , PC .

I would also like to mention . The NDP support was very poor also as only 1 NDP member voted for Bill 116 (( Cheri DiNovo )) .

This is also disturbing as before the last election Andrea presented a Bill to unlock pensions 100% and I was assured by the Leader at that time ( Howard Hampton ) that the NDP fully supported Andrea's Bill .

It makes one realize why nobody trusts Politicians !!! (( Now they have Flip Flopped to 50% from what I have heard ))

Sound Familiar (( McGuinty on Promises ))

Other NDP members were present for a prior Bill and were in the house that day but did not see it fit to take the time support Bill 116 .

They were Andrea Horwath , Howard Hampton , Rosario Marchese , Frances Gelinas , Paul Miller , Peter Kormos (((( Which I find very disturbing considering Peter's and Howards locked in pension's are fully unlocked 100% , curtesey of Bill 27 in 1999 )))

The PC Party has said that they support unlocking the pensions 100% , and they did have it in their platform the last election.

I am told by some that it will be on the agenda of the 2011 election.

I guess we will just have to wait and see as the turn out of the PC Party was also very disappointing for the Vote for Ted's Bill 116

[benny]

They feel I assume that the Seniors and Retiree.s in Ontario need them , The Liberal Government to babysit them and dole out their OWN MONEY to them as if they are children in need of supervision .

It is not your own money just like it is not your own discussion forum: the Canadian dollar is an instrument of public policy much like a discussion forum.

[Mike L]

Why is the new budget unlocking effective next year?

Replying to Bill C's earlier post saying under the 2009 budget the added "25% unlocking comes into effect January 2010"

I'm concerned with that time frame and wonder if others are too? Given the economy, this access really should be effective this year, not next. In our own case, my wife and I are in our late 50's and hoping to re-enter the housing market, but won't be able to pull together the required down payment if our LIRA remains 75% locked til next year. (We both work and have other separate pension plans that of course are also locked.)

Any suggestions how to best try to move that date forward to this year ? I plan to email Dwight Duncan but added support would be helpful.

PS I also confirmed on the budget website that the posted statement there also said 2010 and not 2009.

Mike L

[benny]

Why is the new budget unlocking effective next year?

Replying to Bill C's earlier post saying under the 2009 budget the added "25% unlocking comes into effect January 2010"

I'm concerned with that time frame and wonder if others are too? Given the economy, this access really should be effective this year, not next. In our own case, my wife and I are in our late 50's and hoping to re-enter the housing market, but won't be able to pull together the required down payment if our LIRA remains 75% locked til next year. (We both work and have other separate pension plans that of course are also locked.)

Any suggestions how to best try to move that date forward to this year ? I plan to email Dwight Duncan but added support would be helpful.

PS I also confirmed on the budget website that the posted statement there also said 2010 and not 2009.

Mike L

Given the state of the economic relatively to the poor state of our environment, it is much better to restart the economy by investing in R&D to find innovative ways to make our houses greener than by directly allowing consumers to buy houses.

Edited May 23, 2009 by benny

[Mike L]

Based on your posts Benny, I assume that you've chosen your web name name based on your favorite choice of recreational medication.

[benny]

Based on your posts Benny, I assume that you've chosen your web name name based on your favorite choice of recreational medication.

no

[Bill C]

Hi All .

It has been pretty quiet lately as we are waiting until the next election draws closer.

In the meantime I thought I would post one of the letters sent out to let you all know we are still here .

Good evening Liz Sandals, Liberal MPP, Guelph

Here is a small test for you. The subjects tested will be math and history.

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

Part (A) - Math

1.) 100% = 50% [TRUE or FALSE]

2.) 55 = 90 [TRUE or FALSE]

3.) $0 = $millions [TRUE or FALSE]

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

Sorry Liz Sandals, you failed part (A).

By voting NO to Bill 116 (Pension Benefits Amendment Act (Unlocking Pension Funds)) on May 14th, 2009, you told Ontarians that each of the above equations is TRUE.

By your vote you said ...........

(i) 100% access to locked-in retirement accounts for 20 Liberal MPPs is equal to 50% access to locked-in retirement accounts for all other Ontarians

(ii) 100% access at age 55 (and retired from the Legislature) for 20 Liberal MPPs is equal to 100% access at age 90 for all other Ontarians

(iii) $0 collected by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario from 20 Liberal MPPs who are allowed 100% access at age 55 is equal to $millions collected by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario from all other Ontarians who are forced to beg for additional access to their locked-in retirements, given they are denied 100% access until age 90

Liz Sandals, the numerical values in these equations are not equal.

Let's see how you do on part (.

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

Part ( - History (Quotes)

1.) "I want to make it perfectly clear in this House today that I and my party will have none of it." [ACCURATE QUOTE or MISQUOTE]

2.) "Let me repeat again: It is wrong and it is immoral." [ ACCURATE QUOTE or MISQUOTE]

3.) "There's absolutely no reason in the world why members of Parliament should get access to a retirement benefit that is not available to everybody else in this province should they be in a position to have a retirement benefit."

[ACCURATE QUOTE or MISQUOTE]

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

Sorry again Liz Sandals, you failed Part ( also.

By voting NO to Bill 116 on May 14th, 2009 you said the statements above were all misquotes. They are not.

They are accurate quotes of what Dalton McGuinty, Sean Conway and Michael Gravelle respectively told Ontarians in 1999 prior to the passage of Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs' Pension Act).

These quotes are straight from the Hansard.

In 1999, 61 MPPs including 20 Liberals, courtesy of Bill 27, were allowed full unlocking of their own locked-in retirement accounts. No other Ontarians were, or ever have been, allowed this same privilege.

In 1999, your party called such privilege for MPPs only ...... totally unusual, totally outrageous, totally beyond belief, inequitable, hypocritical, wrong, immoral, offensive, a double standard etc. (See attached quotes from the Hansard .... spoken on the days indicated)

In 2003 when your party became the government, instead of honouring your words from 1999 and revoking Bill 27 just as fast as you invoked the new health tax, you chose just to keep silent about the incredible unlocking privileges given in 1999 to 20 Liberal MPPs including Jim Bradley (former Minister Responsible for Seniors), Michael Brown, Sean Conway, Bruce Crozier, Monte Kwinter, Dalton McGuinty, Lyn McLeod, Gerry Phillips and the list goes on.

Today these 20 Liberal MPPs still have their fully unlocked locked-in retirement accounts despite Dalton McGuinty having told Ontarians on December 15th, 1999 .......... "I want to make it perfectly clear in this House today that I and my party will have none of it."

Having observed you in action for many years, first as a school trustee, then as a Board Chair and finally as President of the Ontario School Boards' Association I never thought you capable of voting down legislation (Bill 116) that would guarantee equality for all, in this case equality for pensioners who own locked-in retirement accounts.

Even more disturbing is your silence since 2003 as elderly couples under the age of 90 have repeatedly been refused full access to their locked-in retirement accounts by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). Sadly, after the spouses who owned these accounts have passed away though, FSCO immediately unlocks them for the surviving spouses.

Wow! By your silence you deem it proper that only a widow or widower be allowed full access to a locked-in retirement account, not full access for the elderly couple while both spouses are still living.

Such treatment of seniors is cruel beyond measure given 20 Liberal MPPs including Jim Bradley, the former Minister Responsible for Seniors are still allowed 100% access to their own locked-in retirement accounts at age 55 (and retired from the Legislature) even though your party voted NO to such privilege and your party called such privilege ...... totally unusual, totally outrageous, totally beyond belief, inequitable, hypocritical, wrong, immoral, offensive, a double standard etc.

Your colleague in both politics and education, Kitchener-Conestoga Liberal MPP, Leeanna Pendergast saw through all this hypocrisy. She voted FOR Bill 116. The question is ... why didn't you?

If you choose not to reply, be assured many times before the next election you will be asked publicly why you support a double standard regarding locked-in retirement accounts.

"There's absolutely no reason in the world why members of Parliament should get access to a retirement benefit that is not available to everybody else in this province should they be in a position to have a retirement benefit." Liberal MPP, Michael Gravelle ... December 14, 1999

K. Elliott

[benny]

Hi All .

It has been pretty quiet lately as we are waiting until the next election draws closer.

But time is not on the side of pensioners.

[Bill C]

Copied below is the 2010 Pre-Budget Submission submitted to the Ontario Standing Committee on Finance, by the Coalition of Independent LIF Holders.

This Submission has also been included in a newsletter, that is sent to each of the 107 MPPs in Ontario every six weeks, making the MPPs aware of the fallacies of Locked-In Pensions.

Best regards,

Bill Nafziger

Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

2010 PRE-BUDGET SUBMISSION

FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

ALLOW ONTARIO RETIREES FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY BY ELIMINATING NEEDLESS LOCKED IN PENSION LEGISLATION (and at no cost)

Suppose you just retired with a sufficient amount of RRSPs ensuring a comfortable retirement and then discover:

- you only have access to a minuscule amount of these RRSPS each year (example 6.9% at 61 years of age?)

- to access more of your own RRSP money, requires pleading to a Financial Hardship bureaucrat working at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario

- pleading financial hardship to access your own RRSP money, requires a fee of $200 to $600 per application (directly or indirectly via taxes)

- about two thirds of your own RRSP money remains inaccessible until you die, at which time these RRSPs become unlocked?

The above restrictions do not apply to Ontarians with RRSPs, but do apply to Ontarians with a Defined Contribution Pension Plan (also includes Ontarians with commuted defined benefit pensions), because archaic locked in pension legislation, continues to bar access to an Ontario Retiree’s own pension money in 2010.

This locked in pension legislation, enacted in the nineteen seventies/eighties, was initially well intentioned, as a means to prevent Ontarians from becoming a ward of the state, reliant on social programs, etc. Past perception thought that retirees would “blow their pensions” at retirement, if they had 100% access to their pensions.

Paternalistic locked in pension legislation has outlived its past perceived need, as demonstrated by the current financial prudence of retirees, who have had 100% access to their retirement funds/pensions, such as:

- Ontario retirees with their retirement funds in RRSPs and RRIFs

- Saskatchewan retirees who have had 100% access to their locked in pensions, since 2002

- 61 Ontario MPPs, who gained access to their own locked in pensions, during a precedent setting moment in 2000

Locked in pension legislation, clearly does not benefit a retired Ontario Retiree with a Defined Contribution Pension Plan, who remains financially shackled during retirement until death but does benefit:

- Revenue Canada, who consider the remaining locked in funds in an estate, as taxable income in one year,

- Financial Institutions (banks and insurance companies, etc.) clinging to/profiting from locked in pensions funds until the last moment of death?

- the jobs of bureaucrats managing locked in pensions, at the Financial Service Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and which ironically, is the identical job, that Ontario retirees with RRSPs/RRIFs, currently do for nothing?

( Note: over a three year period FSCO rejected only 52 of over 26,000 financial hardship applicants, collecting between $5-15 million dollars in application fees, as discovered by Andrea Horwath’s research assistant).

Jack Mintz (currently the Palmer Chair for Public Policy at the University of Calgary and former chair of the CD Howe Institute) says “Its time to do away with this Nanny Cat Paternalism).

Malcolm Hamilton, an actuary with William Mercer in Toronto agrees as does:

- Gordon Pape, a well known financial columnist.

- the Canadian Association of Retired People (CARP)

- the more than 450,000 Ontarians with Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Each Ontario retiree has a unique need, which may differ personally, physically and financially; which can only be answered with financial flexibility and not with a set of bureaucratic rules.

The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders urge that the 2010 budget include elimination of locked in pension legislation, thereby giving Ontario retirees 100% access to their pension funds at retirement, which would allow them to do their own financial planning.

Eliminating locked in pension legislation would cost nothing and actually reduce costs for the Ontario government (bureaucratic salaries at FSCO) and financial institutions (administrative costs required to enforce bureaucratic locked in regulations).

[Jean]

I agree completely with Bill ..  my husbands pension , is locked into a lira , at least until he’s 65 . Now , they did offer another option ? He could divide this 2nd pension up and have it added to his regular pension , monthly .
 

His decision , correct ..  but half is his money ? He is retired ? But this certain ( overtime pension ) is separate from his other one ..  I do have a question ? Someone keeps typing in “ well you don’t have to invest it as a lira?” Can someone let me know what they’re talking about ?  We have our other investments in Gics rrsps and mutual funds .. but I was told that you have to keep it in a lira ? I don’t understand why government would care if we switched it over to something else ? Still being locked in until he’s 65 ? Maybe I’m missing something here .

 

thank you