COVID-19 Vaccine: Facts for employers
Marvin J. Schmidt speaks with Guy Miki and Suzanne Polkosnik of law firm Swainson Miki Peskett LLP, on the topic of Vaccine Mandates for Employees.
Melissa
We are off mute.
Mauricio Vizconde, Senior Wealth Consultant
Hello, hello, and good day. On behalf of the Schmidt Investment Group and CBC Private Wealth Management, it is my pleasure to welcome you to our webinar on vaccine mandates for employees. My name's is Mauricio Vizconde, senior wealth consultant at the Schmidt Investment Group and I will be your host for the next hour. You are in for a treat. We have a very special session prepared for you. A few quick things before we start. This webinar is being recorded. An email will follow after discussion so that you can have a link and watch the webinar again. There may also be time permitting, a little bit of time for additional questions that have come to mind at the end for our guest speakers. So let's get rolling here right away. It is my pleasure to introduce Marvin Schmidt. Marvin is our principal senior wealth strategist for the Smith Investment Group. And Marvin will lead us in introductions of our guest speakers. Marvin, great.
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
Thanks a lot, Mauricio.
And welcome everyone this afternoon. I know clients from across the country online here today with us. And this is a very timely session, especially here in Alberta with vaccine mandates and passports and all the restrictions coming back in. It's one thing if you're a large Corporation and you have a whole legal team behind you that can help you navigate through this. But we have increasingly been receiving requests and questions from business owners and clients, presidents, CEOs of different companies asking them what are their legal obligations, what are their rights when it comes to their employees. And although today we are not going to focus on or taking an opinion as to what is right or what is wrong.
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
Vaccinated or not vaccinated.
We’re really here just to really provide the legal advice as to what your obligations liabilities are to your employees, whether they are vaccinated or not. Just how best to navigate through that strictly from a legal perspective. And I've had the pleasure of knowing and working with a guy, Mickey and his firm, Swanson, Mickey and Peskett, for many years now. And they are really the legal experts in this space. And so we are really excited to be able to present this afternoon session for all of you. As our mission says it is to simplify your wealth and whether that be your liquid wealth from financial assets or whether it be your business wealth to protect it from potential lawsuits or liabilities. We're here to make sure that all of your wealth is properly protected and you know how best to navigate through that. And so with that guy, I will turn it over to you and Suzanne to lead us through many of these very timely questions that are being confronted by all of us today.
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
Guy and Suzanne.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
All right. Thank you, Marvin.
Marvin, it's actually not allowing us to advance our slides.
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
Alright, Melissa.
Melissa
Would you like to un share and then reshare again and in the meantime, I will just send your video line.
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
You want to un share your screen? Maybe. All right. There we go. There we go.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Excellent. Can you be back in business.
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
All good. We're ready to go.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Thank you very much. Sorry for the technical difficulty. My name is Dye Miki. I am a partner at Swainson Mickey Peskett LLP. As Marvin had said, we have had the pleasure of working together for many years. Our most recent generation in this firm is Wayne and Mickey Peskett at LLP is only a year or so old. We just celebrated our first anniversary this past August. The new firm has been created out of a desire by our client base to focus only on our business clients and look after our business clients interests. We have a number of people in our firm that have been together now for coming up on three decades. We've worked together very effectively for a long period of time. Our evolution into this room has been quite a natural and positive progression. Beside me is one of my colleagues, Suzanne Kozak. We have had the pleasure of working together before some years ago in another firm, and then Suzanne went on to gain expertise in other areas such as management, governance, and a great deal of her time and effort has been put into the employment and labor practice. Today. My pleasant role is to support Suzanne in the main body of the presentation where we are going to deal with the subject matter relating to vaccinations and employees.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
The way we have established our presentation is I will present some questions for Susan, will prompt her to respond to them, and we'll try to keep things going fairly efficiently over the course of the next 30 or 40 minutes. We have, as Mauricio mentioned, some time left at the end of the presentation for some questions, which Mauricio, I think will again then take control of the presentation so we can proceed. So without further Ado, I'm going to ask Suzanne to move us to the next frame and we'll get started.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Well, just before I let you grill me with a bunch of questions, guy, I just wanted to make some comments about the arena we're in right now. Just like covid 19 is an area of law that is evolving in real time and moving quickly. There is not a lot of jurisprudence that has decided the law in the area because of how quickly it's evolving. There is some case law out of Ontario that case law is really confined to health care and unionized environments. And it's not that it doesn't suggest certain things that will and won't be accepted by the courts, but it isn't definitive. And so this is real time stuff and exciting for lawyers and complicated and confusing for employers. So hopefully through the course of these questions, we can drill down on some of the things that you might be confronting and give you some practical advice and a good understanding of the legal landscape. So I am going to let Guy get started.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Okay, we're going to ease you into this. First question is, can I force my employees to get vaccinated?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Well, the answer is no. And the reason that the answer is no is you really can't force any employee to do anything in Canada because employees have choice. They have the choice of whether or not they wish to work for you. They have the choice of whether or not they're going to accept the terms and conditions of their employment that you impose upon them. So you can't force anyone to get Vaccinated. We don't have the ability to throw somebody in a man and take them to the doctor or to a clinic and have them Harpoon with a needle. So we can't do that. But that doesn't mean you can't make rules about how things are going to operate in your workplace. And it doesn't mean that you can set terms and conditions of employment that are reasonable and appropriate in the totality and circumstances. So can you force them? No, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things at your disposal.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Go on to the next question then. Can I, as an employer, implement a policy that meets Vaccination unemployment requirements?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
So the really simple answer to that is yes. But when I say it's a simple answer, I mean that sort of in the most superficial way, because, as I said, this has become a pretty complicated arena to navigate full of minefields and things that you need to understand. I would suggest as well that this has recently, in the province of Alberta, become even more complicated because of our most recent set of public health orders that have been implemented, the first of which is Order 42, which came into effect on September 16, and the second of which is Order 43, which came into effect yesterday. And so that makes the whole process a little more complicated. What I would say about policy in this area is it is an important consideration for all employers, which is not to say that each and every one of you need to adopt a policy, but I think you need to think carefully about whether you need and want to adopt a policy. There is no legislative framework in Alberta upon which you can rely that will give you independent authority to do this. From a legal perspective, you cannot point to a piece of legislation that says, I am obligated to require Vaccination.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Therefore, this is a legal compliance issue. This is very much a policy determination that every employer has to make. And when you make that decision, you're going to need to consider a whole realm of factors. Some of them are legal, and some of them are business factors. So when I think about what it is that would drive me to consider a policy in this space, I would think about some of my business considerations. What are the risks associated with business interruption? Because right now in the province of Alberta, if you have more than ten cases, you're considered an outbreak and you can be closed, what effect might imposing or not imposing the vaccine mandate have on your ability to recruit and retain employees? Because there will be issues going forward associated with employees thinking about the place they work and making decisions about what they are and aren't comfortable with. Thirdly, what do your customers expect and what do you need to do to ensure you're placed in the market? What are you going to do to protect your reputation, your brand reputation? So those are some of the business drivers. I alluded previously to these orders.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
One of the orders that has received a lot of attention and I think is a bit complicated is the order that allows businesses, some businesses to opt into the restriction exemption program. And that is the program that if a business that is eligible for participation can choose to implement, in which case it will require its customers to either show proof of vaccination or proof of a negative COVID test in the last 72 hours. So you'll need to think about if you are one of those businesses, what is the impact of having that requirement for your customers if you have different requirements for your staff? So I think that is another consideration that gets piled on. The other piece is where do you want to be in terms of your risk tolerance or potential legal issues associated with occupational health and safety? So I'm going to dive into that in some detail a little bit down the road here. But those are some of the things that I think warrant consideration as you contemplate the idea of a policy. So remember, there is no piece of legislation or regulation upon which you can hang your hat and say that you're doing this because it's a legal compliance issue.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
So it is something that you need to determine for yourself in your own circumstance. All policies should be reasonable, should be proportionate to the risk should take into consideration the very particular circumstances with your workforce and your business and your client base. And that's why this is not a situation where one policy fits all. They really do need to be quite specifically tailored. I've been doing a tremendous amount of work with a whole bunch of employers from a variety of industries and sectors, and I have yet to have two policies that are the same because they're really reacting to the circumstances in which those people are doing business. Finally, even if you have a policy that is reasonable and responsive to the situation, you need to keep in mind that this is changing quickly. The disease is mutating, the law is mutating. The mitigation factors available to us are changing, and that means your policy is not going to be static. It means it's something you're going to have to constantly reassess and potentially amend and think about so that it remains relevant and useful. And the last piece I would say about policy, and this is true of any employer policy.
The only thing worse than no policy is a policy you don't follow. So if you go down the road of deciding that you want to have a policy that addresses these issues, make sure you're prepared and committed to adhere to that policy because it can cause some serious legal problems for you that you don't need and are avoidable. So that is my very short answer to that very simple question.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
I'm going to interrupt the process just for a moment. One thing Marvin mentioned is some of our audience, maybe from other parts of the country. I just want to emphasize that we are located in Alberta. We're having this discussion primarily from the perspective of Alberta legislation and Albert circumstances. So those of you that are not inside our jurisdiction, please make sure that you adjust your perception of this and perhaps take independent legal advice for your own business if you're located in a different province or territory.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
And guy, thanks very much because this is very much an Alberta centric legal lens. There are many things that are universal across the country. There are some things that are very peculiar and specific to Alberta that I'm going to address. The other piece is the vast majority of what I'll be representing is best suited for non-unionized workplace where there are specific issues that are tremendously different. If you're working with a Union, I will address those, but there are some distinctions. So thank God for that. Okay.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
So our next question and here we go with Alberta legislation, does the Public Health Act of Alberta allow government to order people to be vaccinated?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Well, that is one of the things that is very peculiar to Alberta. You will have heard undoubtedly that Quebec is doing this in Manitoba is doing that, and DC is considering this. And the feds are demanding that, where are we in Alberta, and why might it be different? So every jurisdiction in Canada has a public health act. They have slightly different names, but they all have the same concepts. Every public health act in Canada contains a provision that allows the chief medical officer or the equivalent to mandate and order immunization under very particular circumstances in the case of a public health emergency. And so some of the things that are being done in other jurisdictions are being done under the authority of those provisions. For over 100 years, the Public Health Act of Alberta contained a similar provision. It is used very infrequently. It is a big club. It is one that is only used in the most extreme circumstances. But the authority to actually require people to be immunized has existed in this province for a very long time until the latter part of April of this year. So in the midst of the pandemic, that section of our Public Health Act was intentionally repealed.
So that was section 38, sub one. So see if the act and it now is gone. What that means is the government cannot, even if they wanted to, through an order in Council, require anyone to be immunized. So that was they intentionally took that authority away from themselves. What that means is if we were to get to a point and some would argue we're at that point where that kind of legislative hammer was required in Alberta, they would actually have to pass a whole new act, which makes us different than anyone else. And that, as you know, can be a very time consuming process. So the Cole's note here is it is highly unlikely in the province of Alberta that we will get to the place where there will be a legislated authority to require people to be immunized, regardless of the sector or type of work they're doing. And so that's a bit extraordinary and very specific to this environment. And I should have put up the answer no. So that's where we're at in Alberta. The Public Health Act does not any longer contain a provision that would allow that to be ordered.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Okay. So next I'm going to turn to a different piece of legislation. This is federal our mandatory employee vaccination policies contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C. (32:50)
Drumroll no. And this really doesn't have a whole lot to do with what is and isn't in the charter and what is the guaranteed freedom in Canada. What it has to do with is to which situations the charter actually applies. So people will invoke in conversation a right not to be vaccinated as something that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides. The charter only applies to acts of government. And as an employer, you are not acting as government. So regardless of what provisions may or may not come into play in the charter, if government were to pass a law, if a public health order were to come down that people took issue with as a breach of their charter rights, that is the only time that the charter will apply. But it will not apply to any policy that an employer passes because it is outside the jurisdiction of the charter. So the easy answer is no. The charter doesn't apply to anything you would do as an employer. All right.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
So let's talk about provincial legislation. Again, are mandatory employee vaccination policies contrary to the Human Rights Act in order to.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Well, I've said no, but the real answer is sometimes, maybe. And I'll explain why that is. So the Human Rights Act is another piece of legislation that people point to and say, you cannot require me, as a condition of my employment to be vaccinated because it's against my human rights. That is only true in very narrow circumstances. Those narrow circumstances apply to things which are specified as protected grounds in the act against which you cannot be discriminated against in your employment. So it does not include personal choice. It does not include political view. It does not include my body, my choice. Those feel as though perhaps those are human rights, but they are not human rights that are actually recognized as protected grounds under the legislation. So there are two and previously possibly arguably three grounds upon which someone can claim a human right protection relative to vaccination. And those are on the grounds of religious beliefs, disability, which is really medical condition, and finally, gender. And I'll explain each of those in turn. But if someone claims that they are prevented from being vaccinated on the basis of a ground protected under the human rights legislation, and they are able to provide adequate evidence and proof of that claim, then the employer is obligated to accommodate that need.
And it also means that that individual is protected against being terminated because of their need for an accommodation. So let's walk through those. I'm going to start with the one that is easiest to deal with. But most confusing off the bat, why gender? The reason that gender had been in play as a protected ground, and I think quite arguably is now a decided issue and is no longer a ground upon which someone can rely is because pregnancy is actually considered a gender issue, it's not considered a disability issue, and only women, barring Arnold Schwarzenegger, can get pregnant. And so it is a gender discrimination issue. Earlier on, when the vaccines were first introduced, there was some discourse and somewhat undecided medical opinion about whether or not vaccinations for COVID-19 and its variants were safe for pregnant women. And so there was some thought that pregnant women would be in a position to refuse vaccination as a protected ground. That subsequently has been quite definitively decided. And not only is the vaccine being recommended for pregnant women is actually particularly for the deltavarians being considered something that is incredibly important for pregnant women. So trying to claim gender as a ground upon which you are prevented from being vaccinated is likely off the table.
So that leaves religious belief and disability. Religious belief is really rooted in a sincerely held religious view that it is against the tenets of your religion to be vaccinated. And I think some of the confusion around any human rights issue is, are you obligated to accommodate someone because they merely state that they have a religious view, or they state they have a medical condition that prevents them from being vaccinated? The answer is no. You are entitled to ask for evidence of the veracity of that claim. And so in the case of a claim under religious protection, it would be reasonable for an employer to ask the employee to provide an indication from the leader of their religion to indicate that it is contrary to the tenets of their religion of which the individual is an active participant to become vaccinated. There are individuals who are in unorganized or less organized religions, and there is some case law from the Human Rights Commission here that in those cases, a sworn attestation of a sincerely held religious belief might spice. So you need to keep that in mind when you're asking for evidence. Medical condition. There are very few and I only play a doctor on TV, but there are very few medical conditions that have actually been recognized as preventing someone from safely being vaccinated.
It is extraordinarily narrow. Having said that, if an individual were to say that they have a medical condition that prevents them from being vaccinated, you can ask them to provide a note from their doctor that indicates they are unable to be vaccinated due to a medical condition. You're not entitled to know what that medical condition is, merely that their doctor says they cannot be vaccinated. This has gotten really muddied by the most recent orders from the provincial Health, the Chief medical officer and I've alluded to those previously. 42 and 43. 42 is the one that sets out all the restrictions that are now in play in Alberta, and they're reasonably restrictive. 43 is the order that says, if you are an eligible business, you may choose to enter into the restriction exemption program, which is called the Rep. And if you choose that, you can require your patrons, your clients, your customers, to show proof of double vaccination. In fact, there's a phase in period. It starts as a single vaccination, then after a period of time, excels to a double or, as I said previously, proof of a negative rapid antigen test taken in the last 72 hours.
That order specifically does not apply to employees. So even if you are an eligible business, even if you opt into the program, it does not apply to your employees. There is a specific provision that exempts application from employees, so you cannot use that as reason to require your employees to either be vaccinated or tested. But beyond that, it defines medical condition very broadly, far more broadly than the human rights legislation would contemplate from an employment perspective. So where patrons are concerned and where you're in that program, there is a list of medical condition exemptions that an individual could claim for saying, here's why I cannot be vaccinated, therefore I can't show you proof, therefore you need to let me in your business anyway. But that list is very different and much broader than what would be considered appropriate as an accommodation or an employee under the human rights legislation. It's important to keep those two separate and distinct, because there's quite a bit of reporting on all the ways you can get an exemption from the exemption program, but it actually doesn't apply to employees. So I just wanted to make sure that we were clear about that distinction.
The requirement for an employer to accommodate the legitimate protected grounds of its employees is not absolute. It's only to the point of undue hardship. And further, it is a bilateral obligation. So what does that mean? It means that the employee also has to participate in the accommodation. One of the ways in which an employee has to participate in the accommodation is by providing the proof I discussed. The other way is to accept alternatives which no longer infringe on their protected rights but may not be their preference. So, for instance, if you put in a mandatory vaccination policy, someone claims a legitimate need for accommodation, then you're going to have to accommodate that. But you might say, all right, the accommodation is you need to be tested daily before entering the premises, and the employee does not have the right to say, well, no, I don't care for that either, or I am not going to work with you to look at how my job duties and roles might be changed so that I no longer imposing a risk in the workplace. An employee is obligated to accept reasonable accommodations offered by the employer, and so that duty is not absolute.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
All right.
Now let's go a little bit more deeply into personal information. It is collecting information about employee vaccination status, a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act or of the Freedom of Information and Protection Act. Now, again, these are both in the upper account.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
And I know everyone is waiting for the drumroll here. Magic answer no. Again, this has been an arena where there has been a lot of confusion. There has been political discourse and discourse in the media about whether or not requiring people to show their vaccination status as a condition of entering a premises is an inappropriate collection of their personal information. I'm going to ask you to set those comments aside, because that's a different set of considerations depending on whether or not you are covered by Pippa or FOIP. And I'm going to guess this majority of you are likely private businesses, not part of a public body. You are almost certainly to be covered, at least in Alberta, by Tipa. Both pieces of legislation allow the employer to collect information from its employees that is reasonably necessary to manage the working relationship or to manage the workplace, which makes it quite different than what we're talking about with customers and clients. And so we collect all kinds of very sensitive information from our employees as employers. We collect their social insurance number. That's necessary because we have to do payroll. We collect their next of kin that's necessary for life insurance.
We collect emergency contact information in case something happens at work. We collect medical information from them all the time if they've been off sick, and we need to work on a return to work plan. Those are all legitimate collections of personal information in the workplace from an employee under the act. So if you have a policy where you are indicating that you need to ensure for the safety of your staff and that involves collecting information about your staff vaccination status, that is not a violation of personal information rights under either act. Good. Thank you.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
All right, so let's talk about the Health Information Act. Does that act in Alberta apply to information that an employer collects about employee vaccination status also?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
No. And this one is a little bit like the charter answer. And the reason is because largely the Health Information Act doesn't apply to normal employers. The Health Information Act really applies almost exclusively to healthcare providers, to health institutions, to health clinics, to clinics that are collecting health and health samples and diagnostic information and how that information is used and disclosed and shared largely within the health system, but also with other public bodies. And so the vast majority of employers would not intersect with the Health Information Act. Because I am not familiar with all of your businesses, I can't say that definitively for all of you, but that's the premise. But the other thing is, not all pieces of health related information that you collect as an employer actually fall under the Health Information Act in any case. So I just alluded to the fact that from time to time, you'll collect prognostic information about your employees about either their need to be off work or the limitations on their ability to return to work that is not covered by the Health Information Act. Also, I would recommend in any policy that you might consider with respect to Vaccinations, that you don't actually collect their health records.
In any case, my recommendation has been that employers, if they go down this road, require employees to show proof of Vaccination, and then what they keep on the employee file is a record that on such and such a date, Employee XYZ provided adequate evidence of double vaccination of a Vaccination approved in Canada for immunization against Code 19 or its variance to so and so done. And then you give them their records back. So you are not actually keeping their Vaccination records in any case. But any information you do collect. And this is less about the Health Information Act and more about your obligations under Pepa. You have obligations about how it is kept confidential, about how it is used and to whom it is disclosed. And you can only use it for certain purposes. So as an example, if you collect Vaccination information from your employees and you find out that Fred and Sally are Vaccinated, but Jenny and Sophia are not, you cannot tell employees who is and isn't vaccinated in the workplace. You can't post on a Billboard in your coffee room that you've got these people who are and these people who aren't.
You can't tell your clients that you've got these four people who are Vaccinated and these five people who aren't. Those are inappropriate disclosures but what you can do is you can disclose information that is aggregated and does not identify any individual. So as an example, if you were to say perhaps as a marketing position, perhaps as something you want to be able to tell your staff that you've gone through this process and you are pleased to announce that you are 100% vaccinated in terms of your employee force, because you're actually not giving specific information about specific individuals. You might instead be in a position where you say something like, we are largely vaccinated and those who aren't are being appropriately accommodated and risks appropriately mitigated. But you wouldn't be able to single out individuals. So those are just some cautions about the collection and use of information. Same is true of testing information. Again, I would not actually keep the antigen test result. I would merely be making the same kind of notation in employee files that on such and such a date, so and so provided adequate evidence of a negative test of an acceptable antigen tester that they were negative done, and then they get their test results back.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Now, just to reiterate a point that Suzanne, Alluded, to, and Marvin had mentioned it before, you may not be within our jurisdiction. In addition, you may be in a specific industry that has some very specific rules attached to it, like medical care or health care. So keep in mind, for those of you that are participating in this webinar, that there may be very specific things that you need to think about inside of your particular type of industry.
All right.
Okay. So now we're going to talk about occupational health and safety. Do employers and employees have rights and obligations relative to Cobalt 19 and vaccination under the Occupational Health and Safety Act?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Developer yes, lots of them. And this is really where I think employers need to focus their attention. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there are myriad regulations that deal with all kinds of risks in the workplace. When you need to be tethered what you need to do if you're working at heights, how you have to deal with noxious substances. But there is no regulation that deals with what do you do with a worldwide pandemic. But that doesn't mean that the act doesn't actually address this in a global way, because there is an omnibus requirement for all employers to provide for the health and safety of its employees in the workplace, and that is against knowing risks. And the employer is obligated to take reasonable steps to guard against those known risks. Employees have rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. They can refuse dangerous work. There are rules around how that kind of refusal needs to take place, but they do have that right. And then finally, and this isn't talked about a whole lot employees have obligations. And one of the employee obligations under the act is not to perform work in a way that endangers others.
And so those three things all come into play when you're talking about vaccination in the workplace, and those are obligations you need to think about. Many of you, at least if you're from Alberta, will recall we had a large outbreak at the outset of the pandemic at the Cargill meat packing plant, and in that case, an individual actually died of cold that was contracted at the workplace, and that is turning into a large occupational health and safety investigation and litigation. And it's yet to be determined where liability will lie. But in the end, the fact that Cargill was doing what the province required is not necessarily going to be a defense because it may be deemed that it wasn't reasonable under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, given the risks in that workplace. So you have to be cautious.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Now turning to our employment standards code. Does that legislation, the employment standards Code of Alberta, have any application to vaccinations?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Yes. The act was amended not too long ago to deal with coded 19 in that every employer is required to give employees up to 3 hours paid leave to get vaccinated. That's a legislative requirement and one that you cannot avoid.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Moving quickly along those implementing a mandatory vaccination policy that applies to current employees represent a unilateral change to a fundamental term and condition of the employment relationship.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
I'm sorry, I didn't see the answer come up there. So I'm just going to back us up. The answer is likely, and the reason is vaccines are seen as something that are reasonably intrusive. And because covid 19 didn't exist until quite recently, you likely didn't employ individuals at the time with the term and condition that required them to be vaccinated. And so now you're changing the rules on them. Does that mean you can't do it? No. It just means that if you do it, there are certain things that you need to take into account. The damages for what's called a constructive dismissal, which is a change in the terms and conditions that are important and fundamental, open you up to the same damages that you would incur if you were going to terminate without cost. So it might result in an action if an employee doesn't agree to that change. So, again, something that needs to be considered. All right.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Can I make proof of vaccination a condition of employment for my new employees?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Yes, you can, because you would be introducing it from the outset as a known risk and something that you're going to require in your workplace. And they have the ability to agree or disagree. The only caveat to this is people who have a human rights issue of the variety I've already described. And when you consider this, sometimes you can even make those a condition, even if they have a protected ground at the outset. If it's called a bona fide occupational requirement, which allows you to overcome the ability for someone to claim a discriminationary practice by the employer as part of the hiring process.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Now can I implement a policy that has different rules for different kinds of employees in the workplace?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
You can, because really this comes down to a risk analysis, and different employees work different ways. So you may have some people who are obligated to work in close proximity to one another. There's no way to get the work done. Otherwise, it's physical work. They cannot work from home. Perhaps they're dealing with vulnerable populations, but you might have administrative staff that don't have those same exposures, don't have those same risks. And you might decide that different types of employees need different rules. You would need to consider morale issues. You would need to consider communication issues if you were to take a disparate approach. But you certainly can do that.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Okay. So this is a bit of a sensitive question. Can I terminate an employee for a failure to get Vaccinated as required by a policy?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Yes. And that seems really straightforward. It's, of course, not quite that straightforward. The simple answer is the reason is yes, because you can terminate anyone at any time for any reason as long as they're not unionized, as long as you provide them with adequate notice or pay in lieu of notice of their termination. That is a without cause termination. Obviously, if they're unionized without cause termination is not an option. But for all other employees, yes. And is it a legitimate reason to terminate for a failure to comply with employer policy? Yes. Do you have to provide notice or pay? Probably, and I say probably because increasingly employers are getting quite bullish about saying that they will suspend without pay people who refuse to get Vaccinated and or they may terminate for cause. The city of Edmonton, in fact, just introduced a policy like that that is a pretty aggressive position. Only time will tell whether or not that gets challenged and whether those challenges can be upheld. But know that at a bare minimum, you can always terminate if an employee is not complying with this kind of policy, as long as they are given notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
All right.
Now do I have to give advance notice of the implementation of a mandatory Vaccination policy to my employees?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
The answer here is yes, and the reason is because you need to give employees an opportunity to comply. The problem is the way the Vaccination regime works in order to get your first and then your second dose and then have your 14 days it takes to achieve immunity, you need about two months, which is why you see all of these policies coming out saying they're effective November 1 or their effective November 15, depending on when people started. And so if you have an employee who is yet to be Vaccinated and has every intention of trying to comply with your policy, then they need that two month lead time in order to do it.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
Now, can I require my employees to be tested as an alternative to mandatory Vaccination?
Susan
Yes. And this goes to the question of accommodation. So let's say you have someone who provides legitimate evidence that they need to be accommodated because they cannot be Vaccinated. Can you require them as an alternative to be tested? Testing is seen as a far less intrusive risk mitigation strategy than Vaccination. It's not permanent. It does not change anyone's body chemistry. And so it is a reasonable approach. If an employee also refuses that accommodation, you very likely are in a position to terminate on a whip cause basis. So no notice and no pay in lieu of notice.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
All right, so let's turn to incentives. Can I offer limited time incentives to employees to encourage Vaccination as a part of the Vaccination policy?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Yes, you can. Again, this is barring, there being a collective agreement in place and a unionized environment. But you can and we've seen some of the incentives that are in place at a provincial level. But you may decide that you want to do something very specific to your workplace to encourage people to become compliant with your desire to have a Vaccinated workforce. My recommendation is if you do this, you make sure it applies to all employees who are Vaccinated, regardless of whether they did it voluntarily or only did it to comply with the policy, so that you don't run into issues of questions of fairness and inconsistency or morale, but also that you make it connected to the employment. So it's not some kind of grant that is given, and they can just walk out the door and go someplace else with your money or your gift card or your bonus. And then finally, you make sure that it doesn't encumber you and obligate you to continue to pay. So, for instance, it might be something like between now and the end of December, everyone who shows adequate proof of double Vaccination will be provided with an additional dollar per hour.
But that will cease at the end of this year. Or anyone who shows adequate proof will be provided with two additional vacation days that must be used no later than next March, so that it's not an ongoing obligation. But you've given some kind of employment connected incentive for them to do what you'd like them to do. You're not obligated to do it. It's just an option. Some things are carrots and some things are sticks.
Raymond Guy Miki, Q.C.
All right, Marvin and Mauricio, that brings us to a conclusion for our portion of the presentation. We will invite you to take control of the meeting again. And thank you again for allowing us to participate in this great thank you.
Mauricio Vizconde, Senior Wealth Consultant
Suzanne and Guy, for a very valuable and very timely discussion. You're right. This is an evolving landscape that continues to evolve in real time. Great discussion. I think around risk management for business owners. There may be a lot of specific situations, and I'd probably encourage people in the call to seek the advice that is for their own particular situation. I have just one quick question here, if you don't mind. Just a really quick question here that I think is also relevant as of recent days. The question will be, can my employees demand to work from home if they have school aged kids? And the province mandates online learning again, petting the availability for vaccines for children under twelve years old?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Well, thank you, Mauricio. This is something I know employers have struggled with. They want to do what they can to accommodate the real life needs of their employees, and that's admirable. And I would never dissuade an employer for trying to work with their employees so that they can manage their lives and their employment. But you're not obligated to do it. In fact, right now, under Order 42, there is a mandatory work from home order in place. It does not excuse that order from being in place for people who are vaccinated. But it has tremendous leeway in it because it allows the employer to determine whether physical presence in the office is required in order to effectively operate the workplace. So you can see that there would be all kinds of opportunity within that mandated work from home order to say, well, I'm sorry, at this workplace we require physical presence in order to effectively operate. And there is no provision that requires you to necessarily allow employees to work from home to care for their children. An employee might attempt to make a human rights argument on the basis of family status, but they would need to be able to establish that it is an impossibility for them to deal with their family situation otherwise.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
And then the accommodation you would have to provide does not necessarily mean they get exactly what they want. You could put other requirements in place.
Mauricio Vizconde, Senior Wealth Consultant
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense in terms of different requirements that you can put there as well. Just one last question on the same kind of theme. So what are the rules surrounding the mandatory work from home order that came into effect just recently here on September 16? If my employees are vaccinated, am I able to avoid that order?
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
So I sort of alluded to that a minute ago. There's nothing in the order that says that Provision 5.1 only applies to unvaccinated employees. It applies to all employers and all employees regardless of vaccination status. Having said that, it is worded in a way that allows tremendous leeway for employers, because if the employer makes his or her own determination that physical presence is required to effectively operate, they can require employees to be present in the office or at the workplace as opposed to working from home. So it is a mandated order that is worded in such a way that gives employers tons and tons of leeway not to have employees work from home.
Mauricio Vizconde, Senior Wealth Consultant
Yeah. And I think that's really when you were mentioning about having a little bit of flexibility in the policies is very, very important. So, yeah, I mean, there's definitely a lot of Gray areas here, but you have provided us with great information. Thank you both. Guy and Suzanne. Marvin, any last words from you?
Marvin J. Schmidt, Head of The Schmidt Investment Group
Yeah, no, I really appreciate Guy.
Suzanne, thank you so much.
What I really loved about a session like this is there's so much misinformation, there's so much opinions out there, and it's just really refreshing to hear the hardline facts of what the rights and obligations are for both employees and employers. And I think there's just so much misinformation through social media that exists that this, I think, can really help our business owners, President, CEOs, HR managers, and even employees to get a better sense as to how best to navigate versus just throwing opinions out at each other thinking that they're right.
So I really appreciate that.
Now this session will also be recorded.
It is recorded.
So for anyone that actually wants the recording link to pass off to their HR manager or to their employees or to their other colleagues as other business owners.
Just drop us a line.
An email and we'll certainly be able to get that out to you because I think this is one of the most refreshing pieces of information that I've heard in a really long time because it's just to the facts and not the opinion. So again, thank you so much, guy and Suzanne, and I'll turn it over to you again.
Mauricio, to wrap up here.
Mauricio Vizconde, Senior Wealth Consultant
Yeah, again, thank you, everyone for joining. I mean, these are certainly very uncertain times that we're experiencing. My team and I would be happy to provide you with a first 2nd opinion on your current arrangements and discuss your risk management practices as well. We'd be happy to do that. We will be sending a short survey at the end of the session today just to provide us with a little bit of feedback. We'd love to hear from you and if you'd like for us to reach out to you, my team and I would be happy to do so. It's been a pleasure. Thank you again, guy and Suzanne for joining us. We'll see you again on Thursday. Thank you. And have a wonderful rest of your afternoon.
Suzanne Polkosnik, Q.C.
Mauricio, I'd like to invite people if they do have situations in their workplaces where they think they would like some assistance in terms of tailoring a policy for their purposes, please do reach out. My contact information is there and guy and I will make sure that you're taken care of. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Mauricio Vizconde, Senior Wealth Consultant
Excellent. Thank you. Bye.
Managing your Charitable Gifts: session 1
Marvin J. Schmidt and Founder of Tapestry Philanthropy Partners Lauri Thompson, explore the challenging topics surrounding a philanthropic strategy.
[Marvin J. Schmidt, CIMA, CFP, TEP, B.Comm.,
Founder and Principal of The Schmidt Investment Group,
Senior Wealth Advisor, CIBC Private Wealth]
Good evening, everyone.
It is Marvin Schmidt calling here head of The Schmidt Investment group out here in Edmonton on a beautiful Thursday evening.
I know we have clients and guests from coast to coast here in Canada today. So out in Vancouver, welcome.
I know it's a just ending your workday there and out eastern Ontario and further, I guess I know it’s well into the evening for you already.
So, I'm really glad that you are able to join us for our session this evening on magnifying your charitable gifts.
Now, I'm really excited to be holding the session.
I know I've spoken, and our office has spoken with many of you over the last number of years and for some of you, we've been assisting you with your own private family foundations for many years.
Others, you know, it's been more looking at doing more one-off charitable planning or through your estate plans.
Others of you are looking at establishing foundations or we're in the middle of that or we're contemplating it and so, you know, this is a really relevant session.
I know for all of you this evening and especially as it relates to trying to integrate your family planning and how do you make sure that the next generation, grandchildren, children, are able to take advantage of, you know, not just the benefits of the great wealth that, you know, you have established, but also to make sure that we all have a purpose to make the world a better place and whatever those individual causes, that each of you may have that's near and dear to each of you.
This evening on this session, you'll find the top right-hand corner of your screen a Q & A area.
And so that is where you would type in your questions as we go directly on to the screen, and I will see those.
I very much encourage you to be engaged in this process as we truly do have a very special opportunity this evening to ask and get advice from one of the best philanthropic strategists and consultants in Canada and I’ll introduce her a little bit more in just a moment here.
But really, this is your chance to put forward questions on anything relating to or that would be helpful for you and your family to create the most effective and meaningful charitable impact that you wish for as a family or individually.
So, type in your questions, I'll see them and bring them forward into our session tonight to the extent possible.
So, with that at hand, let me take a moment here and just further introduce Lori, nice, wonderful partner of ours I had the pleasure of getting to know over the last few years.
And so, Lori Thompson you know she is the founder of Tapestry, Philanthropy Partners.
She's a resident of Vancouver, has over 13 years’ experience directing development programs both domestically and internationally.
She's worked in 35 countries and has managed individual programs of more than 70 staff and tens of millions of dollars of donor funds.
She’s lived in Kosovo, Mozambique, the UK, the U.S. and currently in a Vancouver with extensive network of both donor families and charities in North America and internationally.
Lori is uniquely able to match philanthropic values with high profile as well as lesser-known organizations for effective and monitored results.
She has her master’s in international development from the University of Manchester in the UK and a Bachelor of administration from Simon Fraser University in BC.
Through her philanthropic consulting company, Tapestry, there they started by helping individuals and families envision the type of philanthropic legacy that they want to leave.
She works through a process of identifying emotional connections and articulating important values to form the basis of client's personal philanthropy criteria.
Based on clients’ profile, she seeks out and research organizations that are best matched with client’s interests.
Tapestry’s extensive review and research will vet these organizations thoroughly and then once the relationship has been established, Tapestry will ensure clients receive regular information on the impact of their investment as outlined by the type and frequency of detail that clients prefer tapestry works with clients ranging from first-time donors to prominent Canadian philanthropist, to many of which I'm sure, you know, and can be engaged really at any stage of the philanthropic journey.
So, with that, let me pass it over to Lori our format this evening is going to be she will certainly take the lead on this, but we will be bantering back and forth quite a bit just given our background and our experience in this area as well.
But more importantly, knowing all of you that are on the line here this evening and some of the questions that you have had and thoughts and interests you’ve discussed things with us over the years, also really try to bring that forward as well, certainly, on an anonymous basis itself.
But use your Q & A as we go here and Lori over to you.
[Lori Thompson,
Founder,
Tapestry Philanthropy Partners]
[Lori]
Thank you, Marvin. Thanks for having me. Thanks for that nice introduction.
I'm really happy to be here tonight.
It's Thanksgiving in the U.S. I was thinking about that earlier and it's just it's really neat to see, you know, 30 some people showing up during their evening time to talk about giving and it's a really fun time of year for me.
I think it's a fun time of year for a lot of see the beautiful things that are happening in the world and that can be supported.
I do also want to say that not a ton of wealth management firms invite someone to come to really dig in on philanthropy because it's a bit counterproductive.
Their assets leave, they go out instead of coming in when they encourage people to give.
So that's especially encouraging because it's neat to see that we can care about lots of things for sure.
We can care about making money, but we can also care about doing really good things.
So, it's my absolute pleasure to be here with you tonight.
I'm going to start off with a quote, a Warren Buffett quote, he says giving money away is easy, giving money away well is fiendishly difficult.
So, I think there's a lot of truth to that and I think a lot of people dream of giving money away.
They make money partly with the dream of giving money away.
And then we get to the point of really starting to give away significant amounts and realize to this is tough.
It’s tough to do it well and it requires an understanding of a world that lots of people don't have a ton of experience in.
And so, my hope for today is that we can practically discuss the challenges of charitable giving and then also talk through some really practical tools for addressing those challenges toward what toward joyful giving and high impact giving, which is what it should be right, joyful and high impact.
And so, I look forward to this discussion tonight and as Marvin said, just feel free to chip in with your questions anytime.
Next slide, please Christine, thank you.
So, in today's session, we're going to cover the big picture of the state of giving in Canada.
And then we're going to drill down a bit on some specific what makes for a good charitable strategy?
What are some of the challenges around questions of overhead or how do I know who’s good or what about international programs?
That kind of thing.
So, we're going to do big picture, drill down and then we'll have some time at the end throughout for questions and at the end to discuss some more.
Next slide please.
So, we as Canadians like to think of ourselves as charitable and I think we are very charitable.
72% of Canadians feel a personal responsibility to make the world a better place and 82% of us say we actually claim to give.
In 2018, 10 billion dollars were given by Canadians. And that's only what shows up on our tax return, there's another 4-5 billionish dollars in there of money that we put into a donation plate at our place of worship, or a Go Fund me campaign or Facebook campaign.
So, there's a lot of extra money in there to that’s not being claimed from a charitable perspective.
Next slide.
Some people would say that the charitable system is broken, and I've heard from many donors over the course of the last 10 years doing this work, that it feels that way.
85,000 plus charities in Canada, declining donation revenues happening.
Donors can feel a bit like ATM machines.
You give a gift, or you go for coffee with a person from a charity, you give a just a gift to get a thank you note hopefully, and then 6 months or a year later, you get asked for another coffee.
So, it can feel a little like a little less fun sometimes than we hope that it would feel.
I think there's also the issue of information and the issue of you know, people are unsure if the money is being spent well, people are unsure who's good, who's doing the best work, and so, our hope is that we can provide some really specific ideas for figuring out some of the answers to these questions.
[Marvin]
Lori, question I guess for you is with 85,000 charities do, you know, in different industries and businesses, it seems to be, you know, consolidation, you know, the energy industry, the banking industry or whatever the industry might be.
Are you finding any trendlines whereby there is more consolidation happening so that you can split overhead costs maybe economies of scale, and, you know, there’s a day that you could see whereby, you know, you have more of these oligopolies, so to speak in certain causes of the sector versus, you know, 500 international development agencies and 500 homeless or thousands of homeless agencies and so forth, do you see the consolidation happening in the charitable sectors?
[Lori]
Yeah, it's a really good question and I do.
And I think mostly driven by funders and sometimes driven by the practicalities of charities knowing that it would help to consolidate.
Most of those 85 or 86,000 charities 80,000 charities 85 to 86,000 charities for teensy, teensy weensy responding to an issue off a side of someone's desk, volunteer based.
Most of them are not the big organizations that we see out there so I think there is a role for that and there's a role for people to for perhaps a donor to say will or a group of donors to say we have a 10-million-dollar fund here who's the best of the best in homelessness in southern Alberta and write a proposal to us and you each take your slice of the pie and tell us the really powerful things are going to, a mutual fund kind of concept, there's certainly ideas like that floating around.
In my experience, the beauty of those tiny little groups is that they just bust their butts on a shoestring and do it with volunteers.
And so, the professionalized work is good and important, but I think those little folks are just taking their thing that they've come across and so, they all do it differently.
So, I'm not so concerned about the duplication, because I don't think there's a lot of actual direct duplication.
I use an example once of a mergers and acquisitions, a friend of mine runs a mergers and acquisitions firm in BC, he’s a lawyer and we were talking through this and I said what if someone said to you get all the mergers acquisitions firms in Vancouver and you guys, we all go to, you know, be in the same office and have the same admin and it will be cheaper for everyone if you do that.
It's not the same it's obviously competitive business.
But this person has a flavor, and they have a certain type of client and they do it a certain way.
I think the same applies to the charitable sector, so, I want more coordination, but I also like all that little separate, beautiful organic stuff happening.
[Marvin]
Okay. Great. Great, Great.
[Lori]
Okay.
Next slide please.
So, one other note in terms of declining revenues for charities, if you look at this graph here, so the red bar, the downward bar, is percentage of tax filers donating to charity in Canada.
The Blue One is percentage of aggregate income donated to charity in Canada and then fundraising expenditure is going up.
So, this isn't to make this, this graph is only a delta of about 40 million dollars over 10 years.
So, it's not a super significant problem right now but going forward, it will be the needs are superseding the response for a variety of reasons.
So, imagine Canada tells us that by 2025, we'll have a 25-billion-dollar charitable deficit in Canada.
Government taxes and charities won't be able to cover the needs in a variety of areas.
So, when people like you, people like us can be really directive and excited and with your giving and feel great about it and make sure you meet your charitable goals every year, that's good for the system and so, as we improve the system, I think there's a lot of money left on the table.
One quick story that I’ll tell here is every time I meet a new donor, I say how much money would you like to be giving with this year and they say someone says $100,000, how much did you give away last year, $2000, who to, the hospital foundation.
And then I say what is that what's that about?
And they say we're building a house, we have a little kid, we’re running a business, we're exhausted, this isn't a world that we know very well.
So, I personally think when I think of the 25-billion-dollar deficit, I think there is a giant opportunity there and that there's a ton of money left on the table if people have more tools in their hands to make the process easier and more exciting and fun and meaningful and high impact, I think that 25-billion-dollar delta could be fixed very, very quickly.
[Marvin]
And what do you think, have you found any correlation in countries, so say much more socialist countries versus a much freer market, you know, countries say like the U.S., would you find that the charitable sector is less relevant in a more socialist government?
You know, very strong government funded country versus a more free market economy country?
Is that why we have some of the Delta?
You know, the more socialist you go, the less of a delta in in charitable giving or social, you know, community need that isn't being covered by taxes.
[Lori]
You know, I actually have a piece of paper about a foot away that talks about the difference between American and Canadian givers, but I just happened upon it today.
So, I actually I don't think I can speak to it adequately, I'd love to answer the question, but I'm not, I don’t think that I can do it well.
[Marvin]
Maybe for part two next week.
[Lori]
Yeah, part two, I’d love too.
Okay next slide, please. I think it's a poll.
[Marvin]
Yeah, so what we thought we would do is we have a few polling questions, just to get a bit of the temperature of everyone kind of coast to coast on the webinar here.
So, the first one do you find giving well, easy or challenging?
And we'll put this slide up here, this polling question for, you know, about a minute or so and then just wanted to get a sense as to what people’s view is around that.
So, if people can just on their computer just to type in, and what we need by giving well, you know, in your view, you know, a lot of people ask for donations and you just give money.
I'm not sure if you would, if you in your mind, you think that's giving well, that's giving strategically to your family values and family principles or if that's just giving because someone asked.
So, however, I guess you would define, you know, ultimately how you would want to have you're giving strategy, do you feel giving well easy or challenging?
So, if you could, we’ll leave it open for another 10, 20 seconds, anything else based on your experience that you want to add in on their Lori.
[Lori]
I like that you said it's really quite subjective what giving well is.
I think, yeah, I'm quite interested in the answers because I have a preconceived idea what I think the answers are going to be, but I'm interested to hear the actual answers.
[Marvin]
So, it looks like we are just, I’ll just close this poll now, and looks like 65% of the people on the call tonight are saying somewhere in between, 36% say challenging and no one thinks giving well, is easy and I find it fascinating.
I had a meeting not too long ago, and not around the charitable side but actually giving well to family, you know, helping family out or friends out in need is actually a very complex, you know, thing to do, to do well, without creating entitlement or dependency and so forth.
And, you know, I think the same thing, you know, giving well charitably can also, you know, be tricky.
So, we're going to address some of these things.
Is that what you expected there Lori?
[Lori]
It is what I expected.
I was going to be surprised if anyone said it was easy because I think some people, it's easy to write cheques, I don't know if that always feels like giving well because I think sometimes that's just a result of people asking us to say yes, but do those cheques represent the stuff that we love and want to change in the world?
Or do we feel like we understand the impact of it, or do we feel like it's going into a big nebulous pot that we can't, where we can't quite figure out where it fit, so yeah, the answers make good sense.
Okay, next slide please.
So, Marvin’s asked me to talk about the elements of a good giving strategy and I think I would say that that the main elements of a giving strategy, are that you love it, that you love the stuff you're giving to, that you think it's important, that it brings up good things for you, that it's not obligation.
I often have people write down their gifts for last year and then say why did you give?
Because you love it its important because you felt obligated or something else, and also after people have figured out what's important to them to say, does it fit into the categories of what you think are important when you think of your kind of mission statement for giving.
So one friends/client, he says to everyone I hear him all the time at dinner parties, international development is my thing I’m all about international development.
And then we went through his work sheet and he gives like 6% of his $50,000 year to international development.
So, I said why is that?
He said because I like that person, I went to high school with them.
So I said we'll you can do whatever you want.
You can keep those you can, you know, whatever you like, and he said, I think I’ll just feel too guilty saying no to those people and giving the money to international development stuff, even though that's what I want to do.
And I said how about you give me a year's notice or two years notice say, so appreciate what you do, so appreciate you. And then the next 24 months, I'm going to keep supporting at the same level and then I’d love to move on and support some other people.
And the difference for him in that he was like he felt like his values match the practicality and was so much more excited about his giving.
The feeling of obligation, it just doesn't feel nice. And so, when you sort of put that on your shoulders as you're doing, you're getting it's just it makes it less fun.
So, in terms of this list, your values and priorities, some people say I want to give to faith-based and some people say I have a lot of blessing. I want to make sure that I’m giving to people who have a tougher time. So, I'm going to focus there.
So, figuring out some of those details in and we're going to do some actual specific tools for those who want them to answer some questions that will help you think through these things.
Your cause or areas of interest again, we often are giving to the people who asked versus giving to the thing we want to change in the world.
So even I just in the last year, last 2 years filled out my own forms. I always think children in care, the foster care system, it's all I care about. I think they give 10% to that.
So, I want to start shifting in the direction of my cause or areas of interest for people who are in a relationship, marriage, family members.
I think it's really important for everyone to say what's important to me and what do I want to change? Why I watch the news. What makes me rage or cry or have hope or joy.
What you know, asking each person answering those questions I think can make for really even an even better charitable strategy.
Then research is an important part of it, your personality is second only to your cause or area of interest.
If being with people does the opposite of energizing you and you have a goal to give away whatever the amount is. $10,000, $100,000- and million-dollars year, whatever it is.
And the requirement for you to do that successfully is to have 50 coffee a year. It isn't going to happen. I can say from much experience within, many donors, it won't happen.
So, setting your plan up so that it works for your personality to say to people. I don't want to meet. I would love to get half a page or a page a year to hear about how things went.
Asked me in October or I would love to meet twice a year.
You know some people have said to me if someone doesn't ask me for a coffee, I get kind of offended like I feel sort of like a wallet.
So, charities don't know this kind of stuff unless we tell them. So, the more we figure for ourselves, what works for us then we can tell charities what works and they're so excited. They're like, oh good I don't have to figure that one out anymore.
And then the last one is you're granting and you’re reporting how do you want to hear back? Do you never want to hear back? Do you want a page a year?
I work for some families who give away millions of dollars a year and the most we ever ask of anyone is three pages because we're not going to read it so we might do a $500,000 donation or a Million Dollar donation.
We want three pages once or twice a year because we know we're going to read it and then we can follow up and have a meeting or something like that.
But the 20 or 30 page pages, makes charities spend a whole bunch of wasted time where they could be doing their good work.
And unless I mean for people who are likely to read it really into it for million dollars sure, but other for $10,000, $5,000. I would, I would let people off the hook.
That was a long one, any questions Marvin?
[Marvin]
Yeah, you know, I think what I hear so much is why the giving strategy or for a successful giving strategy is maybe not done as well as people want to do is, just time.
You know, it's important, but it's not urgent, you know. And so, when someone is standing in front of you and asking for a donation, for example, you know, that's kind of something right now. I got to deal with it.
And so, you got to deal with it. But finding the time or making the time to do not just the important work, but also to make it urgent is really I think that number one factor that I've heard over 30 years now is that how do I make more time? How do I find time? Where do I start even?
And they think it's really quiet it could be quite overwhelming because there aren't a lot of philanthropic consultants that exist in Canada, right?
You have lots of bankers you have lots of lawyers, you have lots of dentist and so forth.
But for someone to actually objectively walk alongside you, that actually isn't the one asking for the money. There's very few of those specialists like yourself, Lori, around to help guide people.
So therefore, it just kind of overwhelming or where do I even start? And therefore, they don't answer that yes or no with something else.
But I think that's probably the number one experience that that we've heard over the years with clients.
[Lori]
I agree with you 100%.
It's the thing the falls to the bottom of the list for understandable reasons but those charities need that money, and we need that transformation and asked to make sure that that money gets out the door.
Whatever that goal is that we have every year. I think we have to be really honest with ourselves about our ability to reach that goal.
If we're setting ourselves up for a bunch of coffees that we may or may not be able to have and all that kind of thing, so I think so yeah, I could not agree more.
[Marvin]
So, what do you tell those people that say, you know, I’ll give well in retirement when I have time and then, of course, when people retire. You know, in fact, I got some clients that created business cards, I’ve never been busier until the day I retired.
So, what do you tell people that, you know? How do you start? Where do you start? How do you make it easier but still do it well? Can you do it easy and doing well or easy and well, don't go together in this in this space?
[Lori]
I think, yeah, I think It's actually really, really thoughtful question I really like that.
I think you can do easy and well, because I think most charities are just doing really good work.
So, I think it's totally fair to say, here's $10,000, I trust you enjoy. I don't need to hear back, but I do need to flex that muscle of getting that money out the door
I say to people, I think it's important. I think it's important to do it as a responsibility.
I'm not a person who is really into kind of guilt and responsibility, but if you've got extra, I think it's. Important to do it before retirement to have an amount of money whatever that amount of money is.
And then if you don't have time, send it out or hire someone to say these are my 5 things I like.
Can you go figure out who likes it?
There are people in all of our circles are I know people who do that for you.
So, the other thing, I think that it was going to get to a bit later, but that's relevant here is I don't think endless consumption feels that good. I think we feel better when we. Also give in addition to consuming.
So, I think it may feel like a bit of a hassle or a challenge, but I think psychologically somehow also giving back is probably psychologically good for us.
Of course, in addition to being good for those charities who need that money.
[Marvin]
See I think other people or people also are fearful that you know, if they give, they don't want to be hounded you know, year after year.
Maybe want to do to this cause this year but not do it the following year.
And so, I think sometimes people don't give because of the fear of well now I’m on a list, and now I'm going to be regularly on that list, and I just don't want that.
So, you delicately or how do you give and ensure that, you know, you don't have that.
You know, constant no hassle factor?
[Lori]
Give less than $5,000, that's that that's the number where they really start paying attention.
So, I mean, that went on to another option is to give some of some or all of your money through an advised Fund.
There are a few of them out there that are online where you know, it's like a charitable bank account and you can decide each time you're giving if you're going to give anonymously or otherwise the really safe way to do it is to give anonymously if you want to do more than say 500, $5,000.
But I've known many people have said, I give away $50,000 a year at 4,999.00 worth of dollars because I know once I hit that mark, it's going to be like rich people.
So yeah
[Marvin]
Yeah Okay, okay.
[Lori]
Okay Next slide. Please.
So why do people give?
97% so this one is kind of a neat one that I like the results of So 90% of high-net-worth donors.
This is in the U.S. U.S. trusted this research sometimes or always give because they believe in the mission of the organization.
94% give because they think their money can make a difference 90% because it's a hit feels good. I think that's it perfectly good reason to give. It's good for everyone.
And I think we're more likely to give when we feel we enjoy and feel great about it.
70.3% to receive a tax benefit, so I think people are quite surprised by that.
People often say to me, well, I know why people give so that they can get a tax benefit because they all about not paying taxes. And I say that no that’s not the case, people give his their generous and they're nice and they want to change things in the world.
And so, as you pointed out to me Marvin when we went through this, I said oh, it's barely anything. It's still 70.3%, but it's just the bottom of that list.
But it's a reminder that there are a lot of a lot of people out there who really, really, really care to make a difference.
I think that's kind of an and encouraging statistic.
[Marvin]
For sure.
And, you know we see that all the time simply by clients saying can I give if I have a foundation. Can I give to you know, somewhere that I don't even get a receipt for? Yeah, you can do that.
Not you'll get a tax receipt through your foundation, but absolutely. And you know, they still do it all day long, right because they're driven more by your number one point.
You know, the mission we're trying to really, you know, have a deep concern for that cause for that individual or the case may be a much more so than actually getting the tax receipt, so we certainly see that for sure not from people.
On the other hand, are 100% they wouldn't give anything to go get a tax receipt, but I think your numbers we certainly of experience that as well for sure.
[Lori]
And that's A-OK with me.
If people get just the tax receipt, I'm good with that. No problem here.
The other thing is that someone who I work with wealthy family. The wife said to me that she says to her friends like they have a written value in there. Donor advised fund that looks like a foundation of given whether they can get a tax receipt or not.
And she what she says to her friends is if you have something that you love and you can't get a receipt, just give half as much.
If the money is an issue, just give half as much. And I thought good point. It's a really, really good point.
Certainly, if you have money already receded and it's in an account and you want to give it understandable if your priority is to give to charitable organizations. But nothing prevents us from doing that additional money, too.
[Marvin]
Well, let’s now move to as a few polls, we have a few polls going back to forth about go back-to-back here and then will a move back into a Lori’s section there.
So, this kind of speaks a little bit to what we're just talking about. You know do you donate all that you intend to Donate each year?
You know, are you meeting you're giving goals whether that be by dollar amount, or percent,
Yes or no pretty simple answer there.
Let's just open the polls there and just see what people's responses are. Are you giving what you intend or intended to donate each year?
Yes or no.
So, we can see how people respond. You know, open what have you found, Lori? just as people put in their answers.
[Lori]
I find that people do not meet their given goals.
I find that I have to. I don't push people is not my business to push people, but I say to them, you wanted to get this amount out by the end of the year.
Should I push on that a little bit and takes some organizing to get that done. It's it again. It's complicated in. Can be complicated and hard.
So, I would most people life happens and very understandable why things happen. But very few people I know actually meet their goal every year.
So how about you, what do you see?
[Marvin]
Yeah, no you know what I think without crossing any lines here. I think. People that we're raise maybe with a tithing benefit. I know that comes more from a faith-based background.
The 10% or whatever the that is for any faith-based organization.
I think there it seems to be more formulaic from when your first born. It kind of grew up with, you know, that percent, you know, goes to, you know, whatever faith you may have.
And that seems to be more consistent. You know, people kind of give that that amount not to say that that is exclusively for sure not.
But I have found that people over the 30 years have seem to be a little more formulaic if I could say that if they came more from a faith-based background of that, go into indicated that itself but and what we see here is on the responses.
61% of people tonight are saying that they would be no, they have not given what they intended to.
And 39%, yes itself.
So that is that I guess that matches your research and experience as well Lori.
So why don’t we go to the next polling question here and that is have you intended to create a giving strategy?
So yeah, have you and your spouse been, or you and your family Has that been be a part of conversation or you know, in your mind that you wanted to create a giving strategy together or not?
And then maybe we’ll just open that question up here and see how people respond, what have you found Lori, do people generally or the quite intentional and actually having mapped out giving strategy where they intended to do it now, they've done it, and now executing on it?
[Lori]
I think people perceive that giving strategy is a lot of work.
And a big time. It takes a lot of time. It really isn’t. And I think a good giving strategy could be developed over 2- or 4-hours kind of thing.
So, the question also as people might see that term and think that must be big. But so, I think most people don't because they don't know how simple. It can be the basics of it or that a basic strategy is better than no strategy.
I say to people like I think you can just start a really easy and simple, and but a strategy definitely helps to get the money out the door. I would say sort of setting that intention.
[Marvin]
The next question, I think it's going to be the most relevant question. So, it's really dependent upon how you answered poll number 4, have you intended to create giving strategy and what our response is, responses are coming in.
That is that 54% have said I just lost it here I think was 54% said no and 46% said yes.
So now we go to the next poll in question and that is. If you replied, no to having created a giving strategy. Why is that?
No number four is having you created a giving strategy.
So that is where did you intend sorry, I apologize here.
Have you intended to create a giving strategy? That's what we just had.
And 54% said yes. And that 46% said no.
And then number four so if you intended to create a giving strategy. Have you created a giving strategy?
So how many people today on the webinar actually have a documented or thought out, you know, agreed upon family spousal giving strategy?
So, let's just see here. If we open that pull up. Have you today created a giving strategy?
But sure, there's that poll live. It’s just coming on screen now. Have you created a given strategy?
Let’s see how people respond there.
I guess it depends on how you define a given strategy to some subjectivity. I guess to that would you say Lori were ordered or certain definitions as too what actually defines a giving strategy?
[Lori]
I think you're right. It's just really subjective.
I think do you have a plan in place for you given that you that you look at and try and see through. What I that I would say.
[Marvin]
Okay so, it says, we have here at 75% of respondents said they do. They have not created giving the strategy.
And 25% of said yes. So great job for those 25%.
And for the other 75%. That's exactly why we're here this evening. And have this part one and part two session is to help you move that along.
So now let's move to our final polling question. I believe of the evening. And that is, you know, for the 75% of you who've said no, you have not created a giving strategy.
The question is why?
And there's a few different, you know, questions that will pop up here you know, I'll do that when I retire. You know, I certainly heard us for a lot of people before.
I do not know where to start and not confident that the charities will spend the money well, certainly I hear that fear, Life is busy and create a given plan gets bumped by other priorities or you know, just prefer to roll with it itself.
And so, we'll see how people responds on why it's been more difficult to create the strategy. Would you say Lori you've had some clear answers there as to why people have not creative strategy from your experience versus the poll, which will see when we close this.
[Lori]
I think life is busy and creating them plan gets bombarded by other priority is I think people have or that people don't feel like they need to plan or strategy.
They're just happy to kind of enjoy them into people, presenting things to them and saying yes, and like to roll with it.
You don’t know where to start.
That's another one. It pretty much all of them actually
[Marvin]
So, no clear winner.
Well, that's interesting because we are about a 3rd, a 3rd, a 3rd almost not quite as we have 27%. that life is busy.
27% I’m not confident that the charities will spend money well
And 25% I don't know where to start.
And then 4th would be preferred role with it and 8%, sorry. I'll do it when I retire.
So yeah, about a quarter of the people each on life is busy not confident and don't know where to start until hopefully we can address some of those fears those questions here tonight.
So, it wasn't too that's like this. It's good it's live here that enough for you and now you can help us all some of these concerns or problems. Lori.
[Lori]
Okay. So, this this graph actually is fascinating because it addresses pretty much what you've told us.
Your representative and in this research that was done.
So, in this particular research that major hesitations by high-net-worth people in particular, was just worried that the going donations and gifts wouldn't be spent very well.
Lack of knowledge, or connection to a charity, not wealthy enough. Then haven't explored my options, which is a kind of don't know where to start. And no tradition of family giving.
So actually, it isn't like the top. The not wealthy enough one. We didn't ask that question. But it's pretty interesting that the top 4 kind of represent the 3rd there that are that you're talking about or yeah, make sense. They're real challenges for people so.
[Marvin]
Would you find that people because passion gets explored later in life to think that's just natural or, you know, or can a millennial have a strong passion and cause or do you think is more tied to the amount of wealth you know, once you get to mass loads higher archery the top one, no self-actualization. Then you start thinking about us they're there for more connected to wealth or actually you do see any connectivity’s to age or wealth?
[Lori]
Yeah, I until 2 or 3 years ago, I would have said that people don't no matter what people don't really give generously until they're sort of. 55 plus, 55, 60 65 70.
Including close friends of mine who have grown up with family money. And I would say what about this? What about that? What about this and they give little amounts and no we’ll wait on it and I could not figure it out.
And what I realize was that I think that there was an element for the for those people anyway, of like I don't want to be the d***** who loses the family money.
I want to make sure that I know had earned before I start to give.
And then once it kind of got to that place of comfort, people start really, really getting generous. And so, I think age is a factor in that that whether people come from family money or not.
I think that is a factor, although people who have made their own money I find often Give earlier because they know they come maybe something like that.
The other thing I would say it is. In the last 2 or 3 years. I have seen millennials get so passionate and millennials are very, very generous givers.
Just not they just don't have much money to do it. So, I'm confident people are really worried about. Boomers. Generosity being gone in 20 years.
I'm not nervous about that. I think if millennials are able to make money. They feel very strongly and very passionate about issues, different issues that we're passionate about.
But I'm excited about the things that they're going to do and the and the numbers back it up that they're very, very, very generous. Just it within their capacity to be so given, you know, that houses cost a lot more in. All. You know, it is different now than it was 30 years ago.
[Marvin]
I know we have a lot of families on this call with the, you know, the matriarch and patriarch and then adults, children that are calling in from different parts of the country or internationally this evening.
And so, I think that’s a good question for family discussions as to you know, the parents actually more passionate about giving or other children as that dependent on family wealth or individual wealth or age or just busyness of life.
But you know, it's just something for family, a dinner discussion.
[Lori]
And we're going to dig into this one next week as well in intergeneration giving too. So.
[Marvin]
Yeah, that's a that's a big part of next week session is how do you give as a family?
How do you create family values and should be all that the parents that have more than money should be more?
The parents driving it or should be more. The children driving or where was the happy medium?
How do you build a planned out?
That will be a big part of next week session itself.
[Lori]
Next slide, please.
So, we're going to get into sort of some of the meat of some of the issues that big issues that people ask very often.
And so hopefully I won't talk too long on these Marvin if I really get really get rolling. Just give me we’ve got something like that.
So how relevant are overhead costs to high quality charitable work?
It's sort of the number one question that I get like is there is there overhead low, and I assume that most people know what overhead is, but just to be specific, it's the non-programmatic expenses of the charity.
So, management. Fund raising costs, keeping the lights on. Basically those 3 things.
So, Siri tells us that 35% more than 35% is too much of your expenses to have to have those going overhead costs.
The thing I say to people consistently is. It matters. But I'm not going to make it a decision. An immediate decision on it without further investigation.
If overhead is over, 35% and say under 7% I’ll called the charity and say, tell me more so the typical responses from charity say for under 7%. Are the donors paying for it this year?
So, the expenses still exist, and it still cost that much to do your work. But it looks like it 0 because the donors paying for it.
So, I say to people I would prefer that you show them as they are and then have a thing on your website say, hey, guess what, the donors paying for it or we’re run by volunteers. Also, amazing.
As long as those volunteers don't have to be. new people are filtering through every 3 months where you're not sure if any year that work is going to be as good as it is.
Now, some organizations I know our unbelievably organized, an amazing purely volunteer run. I would say that would be rare. I think those organizations you would give to because, you know, there's a lot of heart.
And, you know, there's a lot of walking alongside people, but their ability to really scale is really not getting out of the park. Probably is limited because of how much time and effort it takes to get people to work aren't being paid to do it.
You know, we've all seen the media would love for us to believe that most charities are spending way, way, way too much on overhead.
It isn't. That doesn't bear out. In fact, I think they say Canada helps just did in their 2021. Giving report. And it says that the average overhead for charities is 10% because lots of them. Lots of those 86000 are teensy weensy.
The other thing I would say is if the thing you want to change in the world, people having access easy, quick. Quality access to recovery services for alcoholism for drug addicts and those kinds of things say that's the thing I want to change in the world, and I give to an organization that does beautiful, beautiful work for 50 people a year.
Don’t I want that organization to be able to do it for 1,000 people a year for 10,000 people a year or so this that my only hope is that we don't tie people down so hard to low overhead that they're in this tiny box not being able to scale.
And so, my personal hope would be that we get over that one a little bit and that organizations can actually put some money into. Building their capacity, getting online at a charity.
And Vancouver, think for women in recovery said that COVID basically force them to spend a lot of money to get online. Well, now they had women reading them from Ireland, from Australia from. That's what I want. I'd rather have them say are overhead. Is 30 or 35% if there, if there able to scale their work.
[Marvin]
Yeah, it's interesting.
I've heard many comments on both sides of the fence on this one. You know where people say, you know, I don't know. They seem like a small fry charity. I don't know if they are, you know, really super reputable their website isn't very strong.
And, you know, they're marketing material is super week and so I don't know why should give there. And then you look at their overhead and it's really low.
And then you have other charities that say I feel really good about giving to this charity us that super slick there. Awesome, responsive. They got great materials are super, you know, great website and so forth.
And but, you know, I don't think I should give them because their overheads too high. So, you know, it's tricky because we want these charitable organizations that looks as prop, you know it to look as reputable as a for-profit organization. And yes, we often don't want them to be able to do that because we got to deal with them in the penalty box for looking like a for-profit organization.
But being no, really, really slick and I remember. You know, we spoke with one particular charity and exactly to your point, Lori you know, for the discussion was, you know, kind of grind them down to, you know, just exactly what the cost is to do. The work, you know, their cause and not more like well, you didn't. The project didn’t cost more this, you know, why are you wanting no more donations?
And the gentleman said, you know, Marvin, if we need to be able to invest in our business, we need to invest in our people, train our people. We need to be able to get great quality people so that as you said, you know, we can scale and we can grow otherwise, you know, we can't do more work for more people.
And it really dawned on me that it doesn't mean that to be a for profit, but they do need to have some surplus funds in order to be able to continue to expand, you know, the good work that they're doing and that that really changed my perspective.
That was many years ago now. But it's a fine line, I guess, and I don't know, Lori, if you have any wisdom as to, you know, how do you know if the money is being spent well or money is you know, being spent for you know a bunch of fancy dinners for the charity, you know, staff people.
How do you know if it's being done well or not?
That's where the skepticism a lot of the times is right.
[Lori]
In 12 years of doing advising donors and their gifts and giving helping with probably 80 million dollars’ worth of gifts I would say I just have never come across that, like never.
People. It's way more often the case that and actually someone said to me yesterday. I wanted to take I wanted to give gift cards to our volunteers and is told their account that's a bad idea. I just you know, it's so irresponsible. And just I realize I just made such a big mistake there.
He said, give your volunteers some gift cards like. They're working their butts off for free.
And so. I mean, I don't have a really quantify watching for that except to say what I see is be people not being paid enough. And so, they go to the marketplace.
They tough it out and tough it out and tough it out. And then they're like. I could just tough it out and makes 30 percent more. So, I think I can do that to for my family kind of thing.
So yeah, I'm certain there are the stories in the paper. But it just hasn't been my experience that that organizations are wasting money their way more often being cheaper than I would like.
In terms of, you know, turn over. I think, you know, as business owners, people can win, realize the cost of turnover. When you have people ever-evolving door because you're trying to keep costs down. And I understand why donors feel strongly. And I understand why charities, but just tryma do their absolute best and keep things really for real because they think that's what donors want.
So, I don't know the answer, but you're right. It's a very fine line. So, what I would like is to see every charitable organization have that have on their website that says financial transparency.
Let’s tell you how we do this. Let's tell you why. We're a little higher on overhead this year because we invested in this really amazing, you know, online system. You know, database so that we can communicate to better and know what you want drive crazy with 40 pieces of mail every year.
So, I would love if the charity said that just made it easier on people to be able to assess if the money is being spent. Well, because I think it typically is might not be, you know, there's more or less organized. You know, they're small grassroots organizations, just like you said that area. Volunteer base, loving, sweet, whatever. It's going to be hard to get a call back from them. It's like it's easy to get a call back. Not the thing you want.
So, I think we just have to investigate and ask us the questions. They're happy to answer them.
[Marvin]
Which I guess leads into your second point from the slide right
[Lori]
How do I choose a charity when there is so many, I think I think actually the bigger question here is what's important to me because I think when you have to find what's important to you and ask yourself some questions, do I like friendship or start up?
Do I want local or international a faith based? If this or do I care either way you ask yourself enough of those questions in the pool gets with one, especially if you do, you know national work? Little or nothing.
Then you can go on to a website like Canada helps. It's pretty easy to punch in the search terms, southern Alberta or Edmonton or and punch in some search terms and it will give you some wonderful stuff. And you can look at their finances.
That's how I do it often I just Google it well and talk through things. The other thing that I think its fun is it's like a bit vulnerable but to have a dinner party and save your friends come and tell us it to be it for 5 minutes. What your very favorites, charities that you get to and why?
For the people who like to do that, it can be really need to kind of be sold charitable work by your friends. And I find that most of us like almost anything is part of our portfolio. We could have some real, take the advice of our friends and then also get to the stuff it's really important to us.
[Marvin]
Well, then the next one is still international work right for, you know, us being in the Northern Hemisphere and the developed, you know, part of the world's, you know, the common comment also is real people should, you know, we can see the work the that's being done of its international working.
So, have, you know, kind of these 2 camps, people that say, well, that's actually where the work, you know, should be done is internationally where the most vulnerable are and others. They will know we should just do it in your own backyard. Take care of your home. First of all, before you go to you know the international scene, what what's your thoughts around that?
[Lori]
I've had that exact conversation with a couple and with, you know, yet the close friends who are also donors. And he just said so help me God, I will not give a single penny to the international development programs until everyone here is fed and his wife was like. You're cruel.
We like said. She's like, what about refugees and people suffering from Famine.
How could you be so wealthy? He relatively speaking and that kind of thing.
My answer to that was you both do those things you're passionate about. That's perfect. Like that's a good portfolio that covers both of those things.
So that's kind of one side of it. And I think a portfolio should have someone who really wants components to it. Have the arts have international development, even if it's a small percentage just to say what matters there. Matters here it impacts us. And also, you know, because we care.
10 years ago, it was very hard to get to international work because we just couldn't see it unless we went to visit, and it was hard to get.
Now, I think with the advent of zoom and other things like that, you could write a country director, you could say to the Canadian counterpart, the fundraiser here. Can I talk to your country director?
And talk to them the way we talk about and a business that you're investing and get us.
What's your vision? What are your values around this thing? How do you decide these things?
Those that I think is a real treat to get to know things. People can take their phone and take you around the program and say this is so when this is the work, we do so I think it's much, much easier to get internationally now than it has been in the past. They're one quick thing I would say is that Canada is you're very, very strict about international finances as it relates to the charitable sector.
So, an organization who has a fund-raising arm here has to sign an agency agreement with those international partners and it is almost a press of the amount reporting that that they have to do and receipts and all those kinds of things.
So. Of course, of course, fraudulent things can happen and all that kind of thing. But I would worry less about that and more about do I like this leader? Are they doing good work?
And just yet take the time to do a skype and they would love that to. I think people are excited to talk about the work and don't get to that much when international perspective
[Marvin]
Well, I have to tell you, that's the most exciting part that I heard. You talk about portfolio. I talked about heard you talk about the diversification and different pools of giving strategy will now know you're in my world.
So that’s awesome because, you know, you know, a diversified portfolio of giving, you know, very similarly to a client who wealth portfolios right. But there's a lot of truth to be said to that, right. You know, if you only do good work at home, the world doesn't. The world doesn't work. If the southern Hemisphere you know, is an existing well and vice versa, you know, the Northern Hemisphere doesn't work well as if everything is just given to the southern Hemisphere, right? So, a portfolio diversification of your given strategy.
Certainly, sounds like that the right approach.
I guess, you know, I want to leave sometime for your last slide to be a lot of questions about should we have been, you know, we were really wanting to get more meaningful into the giving side.
Do we establish our own private family foundation, or do we do a donor advised fund or do we just give, you know, write the cheques as we go?
So, can you maybe just talk a little bit about that? Because the those are big questions, certainly for people on the webinar here this evening
[Lori]
So, if there's anyone in the cold who doesn’t know what a donor advised fund is a donor advised fund is basically like a charitable bank account inside a community foundation.
So, it's like your own bank account where you put that money in today, you get your receipt and then you can get away over time.
It's the technical aspect of it being advises that it legally belongs to the nation. But you advise them how you want, how you want to give it. Well, we say yes, as long as it's a registered charity.
The reason to, in my opinion, the reason to have to get through a private foundation would be some kind of legacy feeling.
Branding for lack of a better word, which I think is a perfectly fine thing to do.
Private foundations, the public and public foundations or private. So, when you have a private foundation, everyone can see what you're getting to its public information.
So, a lot of people don't know that. And so, people a quite you know, personally private and they open a private foundation a year later, the whole world can figure out what they're going to know if even if you call it the, you know the hemlock foundation, it's people can figure out who the directors are and who you are and that kind of thing.
So, if that would be a worry for you, you might not want to do a private foundation. The benefits of it are legacy. You can do your own charitable activities; your own charitable programs foundation and you can expense things so you can hire staff.
A donor advised fund which I see more people moving into. You can call your account. The Schmidt Family Project Foundation, whatever you want, it can look like it's coming from that. But you don't have to do all the filings and, on the back, and they do all the back, and we do that the giving and that part can be quite enjoyable.
The other thing is with a private foundation you have to give away 3 and a half percent of your assets every year with that with a donor advised fund in a public foundation, it’s all cumulative aggregate wealth and so they are definitely going to get that 3% of aggregate wealth out every year.
So, it means if you're selling your business and you need the receipt this year, you pop it into there you get your receipt, and you could probably wait 5 years to give it away, depending on which donor advised fund it is.
You can take your time because you don't have to worry about the source of code is.
[Marvin]
Yeah. I guess a couple clarities. If you had a private foundation, you could also put it in, get your receipt and then over time and get that out as well. So that that would be the same.
[Lori]
Just with the requirement to do the 3 and a half percent of you, which is which is easy.
[Marvin]
Yeah, that's right.
[Marvin]
Now is it's an interesting way to phrase that your private foundation is public. And don't advise but is private and so is what a drill into that a little bit further.
So, it's the Marvin and Leah Schmidt Foundation. As an example. Well, that's pretty clear. You can find us Super Easy but if I called it, you know, say it's, you know, Leah’s and my foundation, but I called it, you know, the ABC Foundations, so it’s not associated with our family name or anything.
And so, can you explain a little bit further how really how hard is it for someone to track back that that is Marvin and Leah Schmidt giving a donation from their foundation versus it just showing up as ABC like when you have to do a little bit deeper work, though, to really to get to see that is actually Marvin and Leah Schmidt?
[Lori]
Yeah.
Their databases out there for fundraisers where they are just you can buy access to a database that says who the directors of every foundation are.
So, if I googled in that database Marvin Schmidt, it would stay CIBC Foundation. So, it's so for your friends, people out there, they're probably not going to know how to do that.
But for Earth, visitors who? Who will approach to what you may or may not want?
They can figure that out. So, you're right. It's not a giant. I mean, I tell people that I work for a specific foundation and they're out there a little bit and they are they there they feel responsibility to given and a responsibility to encourage other people.
But once in a while, someone will say ooh. I saw you know; all these things’ you guys are giving to and they're ooh I did not intend for that to happen. So.
I think for most people they are that private. So, it doesn't really matter. But I think for the people we're really matters; you don't want people sort of judging are analyzing how you give you might start with a donor advised fund and then move private foundation if you decide.
But I think a donor advised fund can be a good place to start.
[Marvin]
Yeah.
And just for people's interest. You know, we actually here at The Schmidt Investment group and CIBC, we actually can run donor advised funds as well. And we actually have the, you know, CIBC door buys fund program in place. And so, we actually can manage is part of your portfolio just actually of a different account. Number itself, and, you know, it's part of the foundation's overall pool of capital.
But it is still broken down. You could see your portion, your donation amount it's comes under, you know, whatever name you want to give it itself. But all the administration and so forth is taken care of in an ARC CIBC use has benefaction. But you know, it has an investment policy for that. You know, we have to do a minimum of 3 and a half percent dispersed and out of it annually or more, of course, if you wanted to you could directed kind of how you want to.
So, we can say families with that, and we assist families and establish a foundation running foundations. You know, managing them helping family’s gift through those foundations either. We can certainly assist with, but they are. They are a little bit different and with a with a donor advised fund. Actually, the minimum amount to put in a donor advised fund that's of CIBC is $25,000.
We certainly wouldn't suggest that if you're going to a private foundation. $25,000 is not what we would suggest. That should be a number, you know, well, north of us, we typically would suggest not considered a private foundation for any less than a quarter million dollars. Not that you have to we'll give away a full quarter million dollars all at once. But it can go into a foundation, you know, your foundation and then you can feel how to be a legacy piece. You can continue to build upon it and have the grow with other family members and so forth or whatever the case may be.
But I wouldn’t typically suggest starting a private foundation for less than a quarter million dollars for sure. Not. But you know, if either of those are of interest, you know, those are the more on a one off. No one by one, you know, conversation and kind of walk through, you know, either with Lori and or us in that.
So. You know, there's a lot more information as released. The technicalities of how to establish private foundations and so forth. But if there's no further interest and that certainly we can guide and walk through that individually as a family on that.
So, what I’d like to do is as we get to a closing here. If there's any questions that, you know, some questions have come in through the evening here to try to filter that into our conversation this evening. Here with you. um Lori.
But if there's any questions, you know, now would be a great time to put them into the Q & A box of the top right of your screen and we can bring those forward the last few minutes before we wrap up.
Lori, anything else going on your side that you want to bring forward?
[Lori]
I really enjoyed that. Thank you so much.
[Marvin]
Fabulous, fabulous. Perfect.
I know maybe just spend a moment. You're know we have next week session as well. I just want people to the able to just prepare for next week's session.
If you haven't registered already, you know, please register and, you know, click on the link that we sent you. And that will just get right into your calendar.
We will also, again, just send you the link if you have any problems with it to, you know, go to our before next session and now the next session, as you can see on the screen here is going to be, you know, much more about. You know, some of these topics here in the next generation and family giving strategies and kind of go from there.
Lori, can you just comment of for 2 minutes here?
Just to help, you know, families understand. Because you are really such a rare, a rare gem in Canada here. You know, as one of the very few philanthropic strategists’ consultant. If someone wanted to get a little bit of assistance here, how does that work in working with you can use explain that.
[Lori]
I'm happy to help. However, people need I find most what most people need is to create just helped to create a plan. Help figure what's important to them. How to work amongst their family members to create a plan.
And then once they have that in place. They're able to do with the ones want to know. I did research for people, but honestly, it can look quite different depending on the people who are asking so I'm just happy to help with. With anything that people need.
If it's like a. 30-minute call to bat around some ideas, I think people can just feel free to just call me up and, but I also have packages of this is what you need. Let's figure out how to.
Let's figure out how to get that done. I can.
Yeah, I don't know. Does that? Does that help?
[Marvin]
Yeah.
Yeah. Because everyone’s needs are unique.
You know, sometimes it may be how to help the next generation get more engaged. How to make sure the next generation is as interested as you to keep it going.
You know, through the generations you'll strategy planning around that it would be there's just so many different elements that that you can assist with Lori.
You know, it could be just actually vetting which charities these are the causes, you know, the causes of the you know, that are really important to you as a family. But, you know, one of the best charities to do that through based on your host of different criteria.
So, you know where you can vet that and so or just, you know, kind of do ongoing due diligence. You know, every, you know, first, just like if we are of money manager and portfolio of this is that's the right money manager 3 years from now still.
So maybe, you know, Lori helps out with the these are the charities that you're currently are using light utilizing and you're going to portfolio of giving maybe it's time to do a full due diligence review of those charities and see if they are kind of the top of their fields. You know, best in class.
So, she can do that, you know, due diligence, the vetting process, maybe that happens every 5 years or something. And maybe there's 2 or 3 charities that, you know, Lori might indicate you know you might want to consider adjusting, you know, from the couple the charity that you have been given to the last few years for these x reasons. And these might be some additional options for these reasons.
And that's every 5-year exercise or something. So, it really depends on each individual family. You know what we what do you feel? You could have some guidance line and it's a simple as just where do I start then?
You know, you know, spend 3 hours with Lori and let's just map out a road map on kind of where to start to go from point a to point you know z these are the next 5 Things or whatever the case is that you need to do so and we can you know, there is no financial enumeration. I just want to be very clear on that. There's no financial enumeration at all between Lori and ourselves. You know, we have sought out, Lori, as was one of the top experts in this area in Canada. And we're just so, you know, thankful to partner with you to build to help. You know, our clients in Canada here and in whatever capacity they have done their philanthropic giving plans.
One of the questions that is has come up here just in the last moment as a we wrap up here is are there any rules around who directors of a private foundation?
Not sure if you want to take that or I will pass over to you Lori, maybe.
[Lori]
You go or I. I know it’s not my technical area of expertise, but I think I can answer it.
[Marvin]
Sure, yeah go ahead
[Lori]
A private foundation the directors are typically not arm's length. The money comes typically from.
A director of the foundation kind of thing.
So, you don't you don't have to have arm's-length directors in a private foundation in a public foundation. You do
What would you add Marvin?
[Marvin]
So real simply for a private foundation.
Can be, you know, one director and the 50% or more of the donations are going to come from that one director or that immediate family member or whether the directors are it is a public foundation has the minimum of 5 directors with the majority being non-Family members or non-arm’s length directors.
So, 60% or 51% you know if its 5 minimum directors. 3 of them would have to be, you know, not family members of self but a private foundation that can be 100%. Just family members. A self-parent’ adult children, no limitation there at all.
So hopefully that answers the question. If there's a any follow-up and that's certainly drop. Drop us a line. We can certainly further discuss that.
Also just want to be clear here with Lori is not necessarily on the technical side. So, we're looking at establishing a foundation itself and, you know, there's registering a company because it's actually you register as a as a society or a part. 9 company.
Lori does not do that, we would, you know, bringing the appropriate a lawyer or accountant, maybe the ones that you're currently using where we can bring them in ourselves, specifically specializes in the foundation and charitable side.
So, the technical side, tax and legal would be outside of the realm of Lori. Lori is really taking care of everything outside of the tax and legal the non-technical element.
[Lori]
Yeah, people.
I say to people year your experts. Ideally, people come to me knowing how much they want to give each year and I'll help them take down some of the barriers to giving that well and feeling and enjoying. That's more yet how it works.
[Marvin]
Perfect.
That's brings us to the end of session one of two next Thursday evening. Again, same time. Same place just 6 o'clock mountain standard time
December 2nd, I guess it is. So, thank you, everyone for participating is even hopefully that's helpful as the week goes on here. You have to have any questions. Certain feel free to drop us a line throughout the week.
Otherwise, you can put them all into a Q and A next Tuesday or next Thursday. And we will uncover all the topics there plus that your questions
So, thank you again, have wonderful evening and all the best take care bye.
Thank you, Lori,