LONDON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1997
CONTENTS
Wednesday 3 December 1997
Election of Vice-Chair
Appointment of subcommittee
London Community Foundation Act, Bill Pr91, Mr Bob Wood
Mr Bob Wood
Mrs Tammie Ashton
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1010 in committee room 1.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. We have two general orders of business, the first one being organization, the second one being Bill Pr91.
With respect to organization, we have a task as a committee of electing a Vice-Chair. Honourable members, may I have names for the election of a Vice-Chair. I wish to receive nominations.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Mr Chair, I would like to nominate Mr Boushy, the member for Sarnia.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations?
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Do we have his platform and his speech?
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): What about Ernie Eves?
The Chair: The nominations have to be from committee members. I have a motion that nominations are closed. If there are no further nominations, I declare nominations closed and also declare that MPP Dave Boushy has been elected Vice-Chair. In keeping with tradition, we may ask our new Vice-Chair to begin work immediately.
APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I move that a subcommittee on committee business be appointed to meet from time to time and, at the call of the Chair or at the request of any member thereof, to consider and report to the committee on the business of the committee; that the presence of all members of the subcommittee is necessary to constitute a meeting and the subcommittee be composed of the following members: Mr Barrett, Mr Caplan, Mr Hardeman and Mr Martin; that any member may designate a substitute member on the subcommittee who is of the same recognized party.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on this motion? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare that motion carried.
I declare that order of business closed and I declare the order of business with respect to organization closed.
LONDON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr91, An Act respecting The London Community Foundation.
The Chair: I will ask the sponsors and applicants of Bill Pr91 to approach the witness table. This bill is sponsored by MPP Bob Wood, London South. Mr Wood, I will ask you for some brief opening remarks, and if you could also introduce or have the applicants introduce themselves to the committee.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I am joined this morning by Tammie Ashton, who is the lawyer for the foundation. This is a housekeeping bill to bring the foundation's legislation up to date to currently desired practices. I understand there are no objections from the two applicable ministries, namely, the Attorney General and municipal affairs.
Either Mrs Ashton or I would be pleased to explain the provisions in more detail or to answer any questions. I commend the bill to the committee, and as the foundation is a charity we are asking that the committee remit the application and printing fees. I understand this is a practice that is sometimes done in respect to charitable organizations and we'd ask the committee to consider recommending that to the House.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. Mrs Ashton, do you have any comments to the committee?
Mrs Tammie Ashton: I have nothing to add. If anyone has any questions, though, I'd be happy to answer them.
The Chair: I see no interested parties to speak to this bill. At this point I would ask the parliamentary assistant, Ernie Hardeman, for any comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As Mr Wood explained, the bill was circulated to the public trustee and the two ministries and there were some minor changes made at the recommendation of the Attorney General's office. With those changes being made, the government would have no objection and no comment to the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. We will throw this out to questions.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a question. I understand that there have been no objections filed with the committee, although there were some inquiries as to what the purpose of the bill was. Is that correct? Thank you.
The Chair: I will go to Mr Boushy.
Mr Boushy: I move that the committee recommend that the fees and actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr91, An Act respecting The London Community Foundation.
The Chair: I know there are some other questions. Should I put that motion on hold until we complete questions? Let's put that to a vote, this motion to waive fees.
Mr Shea: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Wouldn't that premise an approval if you waived the fees? Wouldn't it be better to simply wait until any questions may be asked and then deal with it?
The Chair: That is what I would prefer to do. Okay, at this point I am limiting it to questions. Mr Shea, did you have a question?
Mr Shea: I simply want to pick up on a question raised by Mrs Boyd, and this is a question I would direct to Mr Wood, because I assume that the London Community Foundation is not a new foundation.
Mr Bob Wood: No, it was created in the mid-1950s. It was dormant until around 1990 and has become active in the last few years.
Mr Shea: So this really is a bill which is enhancing the terms and functions of the board of directors.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes, there were some changes, I think, in 1993 or in that time period, and these are further time changes to bring the legislation up to date with current desired practices.
Mr Shea: And this is consistent with the wishes of the membership?
Mr Bob Wood: I understand that it is, yes.
Mr Shea: Can I just point out that Mrs Boyd also is nodding her head, so it gives me great comfort that the members from London are all concurring. That's fine, Chairman. My questions are answered and I am delighted to give support to this bill.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Can you enlighten me as to what the objects of the foundation are and who comprises the membership?
Mrs Ashton: The members are simply the board of directors. They compose the entire foundation. The objects are to take in endowments and pay out the income for grants to enhance the London community. They've now paid out over $4 million in grants, approximately $500,000 this year, to enhance the London community through other charities, for example, Memorial Boys' and Girls' Club and some other London charities.
Mr Sheehan: These people sound like they are very enlightened, or does this board, this nominating committee which is the board, elect itself?
Mrs Ashton: The nominating committee elects the board, and there is a grants committee which decides where the grants will go. People apply for a grant and the grants committee decides which applications are accepted and how much the grant will be.
Mr Sheehan: If Mr Shea wanted to be on that board, how would he do that?
Mrs Ashton: The elections are every year.
Mr Sheehan: It's one third, I noticed that.
Mrs Ashton: Yes, one-third rotation, so there are five openings now each year for the non-board members. The board recommends a certain number of people so Mr Shea would give word to the board that he was interested and then those names go to the nominating committee and the nominating committee decides who is elected.
Mr Sheehan: I realize the questions I have been asking have nothing to do with the bill but I was fascinated. How do you go about soliciting funds?
Mrs Ashton: One of the biggest parts this year is just working up the knowledge of the London community and surrounding community of the foundation. In the past you had certain people who have given large funds and certain people who know of the foundation and there have been recurring donations from a smaller pod of people, so they are trying to really market the foundation. Starting this year, that was one of their main objectives, to solicit more funds from the full community.
1020
Mrs Boyd: Given the composition of the nominating committee, it's unlikely that Mr Shea would be nominated because obviously it is the London Community Foundation, and when you look at the nominating committee, quite clearly the purpose is to have these people who are knowledgeable and who have contributed a great deal to the city of London.
I have one question. I understand entirely why the foundation would want to cease the practice of publishing its audited accounts in the newspaper, given the cost of that and given that there is indeed a wide circulation of the printed annual report. My reservation is that, at a time when the foundation is trying to get many more contributions from the general public within London, those two things may be counterproductive. I'm not objecting to it, because I really understand that the cost factor is a major issue and all charities are trying to keep their administrative costs to a minimum. I just worry that it may be counterproductive to the marketing situation.
Mrs Ashton: They think it's a better marketing tool to put it out in their annual report, which they send out to thousands of people in the London and surrounding community. That explains a lot more about the foundation as opposed to just the financial statements being in the newspaper.
Mr Shea: My question was for Ms Boyd, but Mr Wood may want to add to it as well, and that's because it was an insightful question. I understand the nature of it, given my own professional life. A question for them is whether the London Free Press, for example, has been asked to print these kinds of reports in some kind of distilled fashion free of charge.
Mr Wood, for example, has requested and Mr Boushy has placed before the committee a request that the Parliament of Ontario waive the fees of what's involved here, and I will probably support that. I will be asking the clerk to tell us how much that represents in terms of cost, but assuming it is not in the millions, I will be giving my complete support to that.
It strikes me that there may be an interesting spot here to begin to think, how do our charities that are required to or at least should be reporting out able to report out in a cost-effective fashion publicly? My encouragement to the press would be to make an appropriate donation in kind by allowing for free printing. I don't know if they've been approached to do that. Perhaps Ms Boyd or Mr Wood could respond, or Tammie.
Ms Ashton: I know for our advertising for this bill, they do have a reduced charity fee for their advertising, but it was still almost $1,000 to run four ads.
Mr Shea: You make my point. A reduced fee is not something that still causes me to be exhilarated because what often happens is, out of the public purse, through donations, grants, from any level of government or from the charity of the community, individually and corporately, that part of the community is still being enhanced in terms of its own coffers. I'm not opposed to the free marketplace, but this is one area that I think deserves some kind of consideration.
Mrs Boyd: I think the possibility of that would have been much higher even a year ago, at which point our local press was owned by the Blackburn family, which itself has the Blackburn Foundation and which contributed and continues to contribute quite heavily to our community. The Free Press has been purchased by the Sun Corp and I suspect that that is less possible, just given that it's not a local, family-owned newspaper any more, than it might have been in the past.
Mr Shea: Just before Mr Wood responds, I want to make it very clear, I am indifferent to who owns the papers, whether it's in London, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa or anywhere else. It is a matter of our, individually and as elected representatives, finding ways to encourage all local media to recognize that a contribution they can make to the volunteer community, to the charitable communities, is perhaps a modest -- and I emphasize the word "modest" -- but a helpful means of providing annual reports. I'm not looking for full-page ads or even quarter-page ads, but something that would at least address the question raised by Ms Boyd. Whoever owns, I'm indifferent to.
I'm sorry, I cut off Mr Wood. He wanted to respond as well.
Mr Bob Wood: I was simply going to add that I think any entity like the London Free Press has to have a consistent policy on this matter, which it is my understanding they do. They give a reduced charitable rate. It becomes a little problematic when they start picking and choosing between which charity they help and which they don't. That's their business, of course, but I think there's some logic behind their position.
Mr Shea: Chairman, I understand and respect that rejoinder. Having been a member of local councils, where I've had to make decisions to pick and choose, I know it's not always easy. It's resolved by simply saying a maximum or a certain amount of size. But I'm not here to write a policy for the London Free Press or the Toronto Sun or anybody else, just to say it would be appropriate if the law requires a reporting out, and I emphasize that part. If the law requires a reporting out once a year, the best way to do that is in a public vehicle like a local newspaper. It's certainly better paying a reduced fee. I applaud all the papers for that. If they don't do it, I don't applaud them at all. If they do it, good on them.
All I'm suggesting is it may be a place for the local members to have a quiet lunch with the local publisher to see if they would be prepared to even go another step. But having said that to Mr Wood, I have to say that to myself as well, so I will now listen very carefully to what I just said.
Mr Bob Wood: I think the suggestion's a good one.
Mrs Boyd: As I read the bill, there's nothing that would preclude the kind of action you're suggesting or preclude the publishing of those reports if that should be an agreement. I think in terms of considering the bill, we're removing the obligation to do so but not the ability to do so.
Mr Shea: I agree.
Mr Hardeman: To legal counsel, in the bill where it talks about the term of office for the directors of the foundation, that they cannot be reappointed, and then the next section goes on to say that if the board considers it in the best interests of the board, a member could be reappointed after their first term, I was wondering, in your interpretation of that, who would make the decision in the best interests of the board?
Obviously, in the nominating process, the nominating committee comes forward with a slate to replace the slate that presently is there. Would they make the decision whether it was in the best interests of the board to have a member reappointed or would the board make a recommendation to the nominating committee telling them not to nominate someone else but to renominate the existing member?
Going on with that, I would have some concern, if that's the approach, that we could have a foundation making recommendations to a nominating committee not to bring any new people in but to renominate all the outgoing members.
Mrs Ashton: The general rule is a three-year term without reappointment. My understanding is the board makes the recommendations to the nominating committee of a number of people. The nominating committee then picks the board. They've never used the reappointment clause. It has been in the act in the past and they've never actually used it, but it leaves them an opening in case it's required. The only time they've had a board member is where you go through the avenue of becoming vice-chair, chair and past chair. That takes more than the three-year term. But generally everyone else is just in there for the three-year term.
Mr Shea: I'm delighted to support the bill. I have one question of Mr Prins, and that is, picking up on Mr Boushy's amendment, about the cost. What is the cost?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): The filing fee is $150 and the printing cost is based on the size of the bill. For a bill this size the ballpark figure would be about $400.
Mr Shea: Thank you very kindly. I think that's a modest and appropriate contribution.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Boushy: I am ready to make a motion.
The Chair: What I would like to do, Mr Boushy, is go through and vote on the various sections of this bill and then at the end I'd like to entertain your motion.
Mr Boushy: We could do the whole thing, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: What do you mean "do the whole thing"?
Mr Boushy: The bill.
The Chair: Are the members ready to vote on the bill? I'd like to proceed with the vote.
Mr Boushy: I move that Bill --
The Chair: Mr Boushy, at that point, as we vote on the bill, I would like to entertain your motion, but not before we vote on the bill.
Mr Boushy: Yes, I'm making a motion on the bill itself right now, to approve the bill.
The Chair: What I would like to do now would be to ask the committee, are you ready to vote on the bill? We are voting on Bill Pr91, An Act respecting the London Community Foundation, sponsored by Mr Wood, MPP for London South. In keeping with tradition, I would ask if we could collapse several sections of the bill.
Shall sections 1 through 6 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
At this point, I would now entertain a motion. Please read the motion again at this point.
Mr Boushy: I move that the committee recommend that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr91, An Act respecting the London Community Foundation.
The Chair: You have heard this motion. All in favour of this motion? Opposed? I declare that motion passed. I declare this order of business carried.
Mr Bob Wood: As we depart, Mr Chair, I wonder if I might, on behalf of the foundation and myself, thank the committee for its consideration.
The Chair: Yes, I wish to thank you and Mrs Ashton for your attention. We now adjourn at the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1032.