[0:19] Good morning, everyone. We are. About to start our second
[0:22] meeting of the one joint investor board this year. And
[0:25] before we get to the begin, I want to introduce
[0:27] our new board member, Nickel Pinkfall, where's Nicholas? He's right
[0:30] there. It's been called Mr. Commissioner of Finance and Regional
[0:34] Treasurer at the Recomicity of Durham. So welcome. Thank you
[0:40] for being a member of the Board. We're looking forward
[0:42] to working with you. Thank you very much. And also
[0:45] we have an intern with us. Andrea, I don't know
[0:47] injury's last name, but Andy is over here. So you
[0:49] might find a moment during our breaks and lunch to
[0:53] say hello to Nicole and to Andrea. Gonna start with
[0:57] Atlantic acknowledgement, as we always do. We recognize that our
[1:00] work has the one joint investment board and the work
[1:03] of municipalities take place on traditional indigenous territories across Ontario.
[1:08] We recognize and we respect the history languages and cultures
[1:11] of the First Nations, matey Inuit and all indigenous peoples
[1:16] whose presence continues to enrich all of our communities across
[1:20] Ontario. Are there any members of one jib who have
[1:24] a conflict to declare due to a monetary interest on
[1:27] any item on today's agenda. Looking around, I see none.
[1:33] So I think we will continue. We're on to item
[1:37] three on your agendas, minutes of the previous meeting. So
[1:40] could I have a motive of February 26, 2026 when
[1:44] Jiv meeting be approved at circulated. Board member, Fraser makes
[1:49] that motion. All in favor, please raise your hands. Any
[1:52] opposed. That carries. I should say also, I think board
[1:56] member Dowdi is joining us by phone. So you don't
[1:59] see her on the screen. But I think she is
[2:02] attending. Is there any business arising from the minutes of
[2:07] the February 26. Meeting. Seeing any will carry on. So
[2:13] now we're on communication. So we have before us the
[2:17] 2025, 2026 annual report of the integrity commissioner from John
[2:23] Mascarin, who's our very commissioner. And I'm happy to note
[2:28] that our integrity commissioner once again is indicated there are
[2:31] minimal activities to report this year. He's also stated that
[2:35] during his six years as integrity committee, sure, they have
[2:38] not received any complaints for investigation under the code of
[2:41] conduct or applications for inquiries under the municipal conflict of
[2:45] interest act. So that is very good. It means that
[2:49] board members are behaving. In a respectful way. And with
[2:55] integrity. So that is great. Any discussion on the report
[2:58] from the Integrity Commissioner. Not seeing any people are comfortable.
[3:05] All right. Then could I have a motion to receive
[3:07] the 2025, 2026 annual report of the Integrity Commissioner. And
[3:12] also thank Mr. Masker and for his services. Board member
[3:17] really makes that motion. I'll in favor, please raise your
[3:19] hands. Any pose. That carries. No committee reports today. We
[3:26] do have some delegations. So we're on item six on
[3:28] your agenda. Two delegations today. The municipality of Lampton Shores
[3:33] and the town of Nutic Techumseth have indicated their wish
[3:36] to join us as participating municipalities. So we're going to
[3:39] hear from Lamped Insurance first and then new to Kamsith.
[3:44] Rebecca Clothier, Director of Financial Services. We'll be making the
[3:48] presentation on behalf of Lampton Shores. She'll tell us about
[3:51] some of the interesting facts and financial challenges that Lampton
[3:56] chores is dealing with. So can we let Ms. Clovey
[4:00] are into the meeting, please?
[4:11] There we are. Welcome. Ms. Claudier, thank you for being
[4:15] with us today. We're very much looking forward to hearing
[4:18] from you. We're glad that Lampton Shores wants to join
[4:21] the one joint investor board. To your presentation. So I'll
[4:25] turn the floor over to you. Great. Thank you. So
[4:29] good morning and thank you for the opportunity to spend
[4:32] a few minutes introducing you to lamped and shores. My
[4:35] name is Rebecca Claudier and I'm the director of financial
[4:37] services. My goal today is to give you a quick
[4:40] sense of who we are, where we are and what
[4:44] makes our municipality unique. I'll keep it brief, but I
[4:47] hope by the end that you'll have a real feel
[4:49] for who lamped inshores really is. Lampton Shores is located
[4:57] in the northeast Lampton County at along the beautiful shores
[5:02] of Lake Huron. I often describe it as the gem
[5:05] of Flampton County with our stunning lake here on sunsets,
[5:10] our vibrant small towns and our rich agricultural roots. One
[5:14] of our biggest strengths is our location. We're close enough
[5:16] to large centers like Sarnia and London to be connected,
[5:20] but we still offer many of the benefits of smaller
[5:22] communities, the rural landscapes, and waterfront living. I also want
[5:27] to recognize that the chippewas of kettle and stony point
[5:31] First nations are located within the Lampton Shores area and
[5:35] are important neighbors and partners and form part of the
[5:38] identity of our region. Lampton shores is also a growing
[5:45] community. This slide shows an estimated 2026 population of just
[5:50] over 13, 000 people that is spread out across, uh,
[5:53] just over 300 square kilometers. Our growth reflects the appeal
[5:57] of the area. People are drawn here for the natural
[6:00] amenities, the quality of life, the smaller community feel, and
[6:04] the ability to stay connected with larger regional centers. Our
[6:08] age profile is also important. We serve families working age
[6:12] residents and a significant older adult population. So when we
[6:16] plan services, we're thinking about recreation roads, health access, housing
[6:22] accessibility and community connection. Lampton shores is not a one
[6:30] - center municipality where a collection of communities and each
[6:34] one brings something different to the overall identity of the
[6:36] municipality. Grand bend is probably the best known with its
[6:40] beaches, restaurants, events, and world - class sunsets. Forest is
[6:45] our largest town and an important service and commercial hub
[6:48] to the greater community. Then vered is home to our
[6:52] municipal office and has strong rural roots. Arcona is known
[6:56] for the rock glen conservation area and its fossil history.
[7:01] Port Frank's offers acquired her waterfront and Marina setting at
[7:05] the mouth of the Assauble River. And Iperwash is a
[7:09] residential beach community with a long lake here on shoreline.
[7:14] Together, these communities give lamped inshores a lot of depth.
[7:18] We are rule, waterfront, residential, commercial, and tourism focused all
[7:22] at the same time. Tourism is one of the most
[7:32] important parts of our local economy and community identity. In
[7:37] the summer months, our population grows significantly as visitors, seasonal
[7:41] residents, campers, and cottagers come to the area. What makes
[7:45] Lampton Shore special is that the draw is not just
[7:48] one attraction. It is the grand - bend beach, the
[7:51] provincial, uh, the pinary provincial park, Epperwash and Itch Beach,
[7:57] Port Franks and its beach. The rock Glenn Conservation Area,
[8:02] local trails, arts and cultural, farmers markets, restaurants, theaters, and
[8:07] many community events. That visitor economy supports local businesses and
[8:13] jobs, but it also means that municipality has to plan
[8:16] carefully. Parking, washrooms, beaches, parks, bylaw services, emergency planning, roads,
[8:23] waste collection and customer service all become much more complex
[8:27] during this peak season. Graham Ben Beach parking generates over
[8:36] a million dollars in just the summer months, which helps
[8:40] us pay for a lot of the tourism related features
[8:44] at the beach.
[9:00] One of the things we're special, we are especially proud
[9:03] of is our blue flag status. Graham Ben Beach, Graham
[9:07] Ben Marina and the Port Franks Marina have all been
[9:09] recognized under the blue flag program. The blue flag is
[9:13] an international eco - certification. So it's more than a
[9:17] nice symbol on a flag. It means that the site
[9:19] must meet standards for water quality, environmental education, environmental management,
[9:25] safety and services. For residents and visitors, that means clean
[9:30] water, accessible facilities, safety standards, and a strong focus on
[9:34] protecting the shoreline and ecosystem. For the municipality, it is
[9:39] a reminder that our natural assets are also our responsibilities.
[9:42] We want people to enjoy Lake Huron, but we also
[9:45] need to manage those spaces carefully and sustainably. When people
[9:52] think of Lampton Shores, they often think of beaches and
[9:55] tourism first, but agriculture is just as important to our
[9:58] identity. We have productive farmland, greenhouse operations, orchards, farm markets,
[10:05] and specialty crops that contribute to the character and strength
[10:08] of our local community. The bog areas near Graham Bend,
[10:12] Bazengquit, and Thedford support specialty crops such as potatoes, celery,
[10:16] and cooking onions, along with traditional field crops, such as
[10:20] corn, soya beans, and winter wheat. Looking more broadly at
[10:25] lampton county, agriculture and agri - businesses are a major
[10:29] part of our economic sector. In 2021, Lampton County had
[10:34] more than 2, 100 farms and over 550, 000 acres
[10:38] operated by farmers. With almost 730 million dollars in agricultural
[10:43] sales. Lampton County is also significant producer, soya beans, wheat,
[10:48] and sugar beets. So when we talk about lampton shores,
[10:51] we're not only talking about the shoreline and visitors were
[10:54] also talking about productive farmland, agricultural history, local food, and
[10:59] a rural economy that continues to shape who we are.
[11:05] So thank you for this opportunity. And if you've had
[11:08] any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Questions. Uh,
[11:19] comment actually. Thank you for that presentation, Rebecca. It was
[11:23] good. I just wanted to share with you that before
[11:25] I knew that Lampton Shores was joining the one. I
[11:29] had, um, booked a trip with my outdoor club to
[11:33] the pioneering. So we're going in June for, uh, five
[11:36] days in the pinery. And then when I read the
[11:38] presentation, I thought, you know what, we're going to stay
[11:40] another few days and check out the area. So I
[11:42] just thought I'd share that with you. I'm so happy
[11:44] to hear that. And you will absolutely love your time
[11:47] at the pioneery. It is a beautiful provincial park. One
[11:54] other municipal Scott that Rebecca shared with us. And I
[11:56] think you might find interesting is their employment numbers double
[12:00] in the summer. They have to hire, they hire significant
[12:03] students mostly in the parking department to manage the tourism.
[12:07] But, uh, so the stops, he's a significant increase straight
[12:11] in the summer months. Yes, that's correct. We have 51
[12:15] full time staff members on a regular basis, which, um,
[12:19] escalates to 100 in the summer. So between lifeguards, uh,
[12:23] harbor attendance, beach cleaners, gardeners and everything else that's associated
[12:29] with, uh, managing all the tourism. Board member. Oh, yes.
[12:35] Uh, thank you. Um, Rebecca, I wonder if you could,
[12:37] um, say a few words about what you think are
[12:40] the most significant financial challenges facing your municipality, let's say
[12:45] over the next term of council. Well, uh, over the
[12:49] next term of council, um, I think that they're going
[12:52] to have to, uh, look at the assets that we
[12:55] have and the, the funding gap that we have for
[12:59] the future replacement of those assets. Um, that's one of
[13:03] the reasons why we are joining, um, one investment with
[13:06] our investments. So similar to many other municipalities in the
[13:10] province, we need to raise additional funds to ensure that
[13:14] we have the funding necessary to the replace our assets,
[13:19] uh, when they come do. I think it's also going
[13:21] to be necessary to reevaluate, uh, some of our services,
[13:25] uh, as I mentioned, Lampton shores has a number of
[13:30] municipalities and what that means is that we are the
[13:34] formation, uh, we were formed by the combination of five
[13:37] municipalities into one. So, you know, as, as time goes
[13:43] on, uh, it is necessary to reevaluate some of those
[13:47] services like five fire departments and look at ways of
[13:51] streamlining costs in order to ensure that we have that
[13:55] sustainability. Um, managing the tourism of course and all the
[14:00] assets that are associated with that ensuring user fees, uh,
[14:04] that are in place such as the parking that I
[14:07] referred to our sufficient, to, um, to cover the costs
[14:11] of providing those extra services. Uh, we don't want the
[14:15] cost of, of tourism to fall on our rate pairs
[14:19] because it's something that they wouldn't be able to bear.
[14:21] It's about being able to collect those costs, uh, from
[14:26] the residents that come with us. Um, also at our
[14:29] last council meeting, council has decided to build a new
[14:32] community center in grand binds. So finding, uh, funding for
[14:36] that is also going to be, uh, a priority for
[14:39] the next council when they come in. Great. Thank you.
[14:44] Sounds like you have a lot on your plate. Any
[14:47] other questions or comments. The only comment I would offer
[14:53] is a side commit is some, um, lamped inshores. It's
[14:56] great for bird watching too. And we're going to is
[14:59] that way you're going? Partly. All right. Then, uh. Could
[15:03] I have a motion to receive the presentation from his
[15:06] clothing or on behalf of the municipality of Lampton shores.
[15:10] Let's see. Remember when right van Kessel makes a motion
[15:14] all in favor, please raise your hands. Any of those.
[15:19] So, uh, thank you for joining us today. You are
[15:22] more than welcome to stay. There are two more items
[15:24] on the agenda that are related to land and shores
[15:27] and will consider them shortly after we hear from the
[15:29] town of newed to Kamsa. So I don't know what
[15:31] your schedule's like, but if you want to stay, you're
[15:33] welcome. That's great. Thank you very much. All right. Now
[15:37] we have Allison Gallant. And, um, then you got that.
[15:45] From the municipality of new to Comsa talking with some
[15:49] of the comfort characteristics and financial challenges. So can we
[15:54] please let them into the.
[16:10] Okay. Okay. Well, we will continue on then. And we'll
[16:17] come back to them. So we have a report. Do
[16:24] we have any ETA. Okay. Well, we, we have kind
[16:31] of do another report. I think. So let's move on
[16:34] to item seven on your agenda. And our first report
[16:38] is the request from Lampton Shores front of young Georgina
[16:42] and newed to Kamsa to join the one joint investment
[16:45] board. Any questions on this report. Any discussion. Comfortable.
[16:55] So, uh, could I have a motion that the board
[16:57] accept the municipality doors, the township of front of young,
[17:01] the town of Georgina. And the town of newed to
[17:03] Kamsat has participated in municipalities with one jib. And number
[17:07] two in this motion authorized the chair and board secretary
[17:11] to execute the one Jib agreements on behalf of one
[17:13] jib with the municipality of Lampton chores. The township up
[17:16] front of Young, the town of Georgina and the town
[17:18] of new to Kamsa. Board member Giles makes that motion.
[17:24] I'll in favor. Please raise your hands. Any opposed. That
[17:30] carries. Great. So. Yeah. She's here. Okay. We'll do another
[17:39] one. We'll just keep going. We've got a lot on
[17:43] our agenda. So we might as well just keep. It.
[17:47] Oh, they're here. Okay. Great. So they both here. Okay.
[18:09] Anyone else joining us. Sorry. I was going to say,
[18:18] I think I met for new tech. Okay. Great. Well,
[18:22] welcome. I'll let you introduce yourself because I can't see
[18:25] a name on the screen. It's probably bad. You're not
[18:28] my part. But. Is it tenure? Okay. So, um, welcome,
[18:34] Ms. Cadet. Glad to see you here. And we're looking
[18:37] forward to hearing about new to compass. So, um, over
[18:40] to you. Thank you. I'm happy to be here. We're
[18:44] happy to be here speaking on behalf of my team
[18:46] here. Thanks for having us. So just a quick presentation
[18:50] about who we are. You take home cis. So our
[18:54] main communities are the towns of Alistair in Tottenham. We
[18:58] do have a large rural network as well. Sorry. I
[19:01] was still speaking to the cover page, but we're all
[19:03] good. Um, we were amalgamated in 1991 from several smaller
[19:08] communities, uh, unfortunately there was already a town of Ticumsis.
[19:12] So we chose new to commsis, which has been just
[19:14] as confusing. We get their mail, they get ours. We
[19:21] consider ourselves to be small town charm with vibrant rural
[19:25] urban lifestyle. You'll see throughout this presentation that we are
[19:29] poised for growth, uh, largely do in part two, our
[19:32] location and proximity to the GTA and the greater Toronto
[19:36] horseshoe area. Currently as of the last census, we were
[19:42] about 44, 000 residents, uh, the growth plan that's currently
[19:46] before our council does see us grow into about 80,
[19:52] 000 people by 2051. With that said, the province did,
[19:58] uh, ask us to hold off on our quotes plan.
[20:01] And while they've recently approved it still at around 80,
[20:04] 81, 000 people, they have identified different areas than we
[20:09] would have envisioned for ourselves in terms of growth, which
[20:12] is going to start to connect those rural areas that
[20:15] I was talking about. Because a lot of that development
[20:18] is actually in between the communities as opposed to neuron,
[20:23] largest center, which is Alistair. In addition, you'll hear throughout
[20:26] this presentation that they have suggested there should be additional
[20:30] growth. And so there's some, some large numbers coming at
[20:33] us. We consider ourselves strategically located. We're about an hour
[20:38] north of Toronto. We are very close to hiring 400
[20:43] pardon me. And the soon to be constructed Bradford bypass,
[20:46] which is going to be a little bit south of
[20:48] here, but nonetheless, we'll bring a lot of traffic. Simpler
[20:51] access, if you will, then the eastern part of the
[20:55] province. We're considered a major employment hub for our area
[20:58] in Cinical County. We have about 2, 500 businesses and
[21:01] 21, 000 droughts. Uh, the census indicated there's a strong
[21:06] quality of life here. It's an affordable place to live
[21:09] or at least it's still somewhat affordable. Uh, and we're
[21:12] known for our safety record. It's also a very passionate
[21:18] town. There's a lot of long - term residents. At
[21:21] least still see a lot of those grassroots festivals that
[21:24] are occurring year over year. There's a lot of engagement
[21:26] by the public, um, volunteerism. And we have a large
[21:30] cultural aspect as well. It's real sea on the following
[21:34] slide with some significant, uh, folks having come out in
[21:38] this area. Next slide, please. So a bit of a
[21:42] community snapshot about us. I will read it to you.
[21:46] Obviously you guys can read yourselves, but we are about
[21:50] 90, 000 dollars in terms of a median house field
[21:54] income. What you can see on the chart on the
[21:56] right, puts us in a pretty strategic position for relative
[22:03] to other populations per se comparative to us. Uh, we
[22:10] do have. You'll see 30 percent of our house. So
[22:17] we do expect to see that rise of course as
[22:19] the cost of housing continues to increase, but we're also
[22:22] hoping that some of those pressures can be relieved with
[22:25] some of the growth that we have coming. In the
[22:29] 2021 census, we were actually seventh in Canada in terms
[22:34] of population growth. And we do actually project that that
[22:38] is going to continue. We are dealing with again, some
[22:42] growth directives from the province. We're currently dealing with some
[22:45] constraints. As there are many municipalities in terms of how
[22:48] to, uh, fund that infrastructure with a long - term,
[22:52] we need some additional capacity in water and some of
[22:56] the things that we have to work out, but we'll
[22:58] get there. Next slide, please. Number 65 percent of our
[23:04] labor force lives outside of need to come site, although
[23:07] we are considered a strong employment hub. We are surrounded
[23:10] by some fairly rural communities. And so we do actually
[23:14] see where a lot of our Lego force, uh, does
[23:17] have to come in. We also have some very technical
[23:20] businesses. So the very large hand out of water plant
[23:23] here, uh, and, you know, to get the skilled trades
[23:26] that they need, some of those folks do have to
[23:28] come in right now from outside of me to come
[23:31] to one of the things we are hoping for. And
[23:33] we're trying to contract skilled trade center here to town
[23:37] so that we can actually grow some of those and
[23:40] employees with paranopali that would then work in our local
[23:43] businesses. We have a large trans candidate trail about almost
[23:49] 27 kilometers of that. Again, large parkland coverage as well.
[23:55] Their top languages other than English here in our community
[23:59] of cinch Italian and Spanish Portuguese. I mentioned earlier there's
[24:03] a lot of Rashford's festivals that continue year over year.
[24:07] And there's always new ones coming up as well. There's
[24:11] a large focus right now on recreation in our community,
[24:15] but we already have just over 2000 recreation registrants. We
[24:20] have a lot actually registrants from, uh, neighboring municipalities as
[24:24] well since, as I mentioned, we are one of the
[24:26] larger centers in Simple County. And we have a large
[24:31] drop in participants. So 30, over 30, 000 people dropping
[24:34] in nearly for our programs. Uh, talked about it a
[24:39] little bit earlier. Something we'll noticeable things notable things about
[24:42] us. So Alice is known as the potato capital. We
[24:46] do annually have our potato vestibule every year. Beaten our
[24:51] other community is home to the honey and garden festival
[24:54] and that stems largely from DA Jones, a residence who
[24:58] was known as the king of Canada and brought, uh,
[25:01] be keeping to the area. We are also the birthplace
[25:05] of the surf projects, or Frederick painting, uh, who co
[25:10] - discovered insulin and want to win an Nobel prize
[25:13] for that. So we have a large heritage, bending heritage
[25:18] site here, which was donated by the family, which we
[25:21] are just about to take over operations. So we've already
[25:24] owned it, but we're now going to actually assume operation
[25:26] as well. That was, uh, contracted a previously. Next slide.
[25:31] Thank you. So from 2021, uh, back, you can see
[25:38] that there has been gross. However, not to the extent
[25:42] that we're projected. So we had an initial housing growth
[25:46] of 6, 400. We needed 64 additional bones. Uh, as
[25:50] requested by the province, we're now actually seeing a much
[25:54] bigger figure, particularly if their projects of interest. So in
[25:59] addition to the 80, 500 people that we ourselves envisioned,
[26:03] we would grow to in order to meet that housing
[26:05] target. The province has also identified within single candidate 32
[26:10] additional projects. 10 of which they said are very important.
[26:15] Uh, and six of those are either in new to
[26:18] come sit or right on the border. Well, they haven't
[26:22] given population figures with that additional, those additional 10 projects
[26:28] looking at our average household occupancy. That would be a
[26:31] very CS growing to a bit 150, 000 people in
[26:38] 2051. So in the official plan, so the 80, 590
[26:46] population, we do need an additional 498. Hectors for community
[26:52] lands and 173 fund plant. And we would see ourselves
[26:57] employing approximately 31, 000 people by 2051, which is very
[27:02] large compared to the number eSA on a year. Slide.
[27:06] So as I mentioned, they do have 10 other projects,
[27:10] 32 really, but 10 that they've narrowed down and said
[27:12] are very important and that they're actually currently seeking public
[27:16] feedback on. That does add another two, almost 3, 000
[27:21] hectares of land, crossing those housing and employment lands. Uh,
[27:27] an additional 30, 000 homes being considered. So when I
[27:31] mentioned our initial target of 6, 400 and now we're
[27:34] talking about 30, 000, so that's a big step up.
[27:38] And then about an approximately 980 additional jobs. The one
[27:43] other thing I will point out on this slide is
[27:45] our population by age. So that is also change in
[27:48] our demographic is changing. We had a lot of very
[27:51] long - term residents kind of grew up born and
[27:54] raised in the area and state. We're now actually seeing
[27:57] where we are at growth node people are moving in.
[27:59] And so we're now in that 62. 96 range between
[28:03] 15 and 64. Which we roughly consider a age. Just
[28:12] wanted to talk briefly about a newer initiative. So again,
[28:16] here in neutral comes with, we have Honda as one
[28:18] of our major employers. We know throughout the province, the
[28:22] province has a big push on protecting our automotive sector
[28:26] at the moment. So here at home, this single automairs
[28:29] group, the starter formed and led by our own mayor
[28:33] here, knew to come this in our cuffs. Uh, and
[28:36] their latest initiative is the Canada North vehicles concept. So
[28:40] this is barely new. It was just unveiled last week.
[28:43] Yeah. And it looks, but you should start hearing more
[28:46] about this. Essentially, we want to brand Canadian vehicles. So
[28:52] other countries are known for European luxury cars, for example.
[28:57] We want people to know Canada vehicles. Vote for rugged
[29:02] terrain, harsh weather conditions, uh, and so they've devised this
[29:07] logo as well as a campaign to promote the Canada
[29:13] North, which we envisioned seeing on vehicles in the future
[29:16] to identify that they weren't built here in Canada, manufactured
[29:20] here in Canada. And we also foresee that this could
[29:22] also apply to automatics. Next slide, please. That ends our
[29:30] presentation. Unless anyone has any questions for me. Questions for
[29:35] Ms. Codette. What a member Fraser. Thank you. And thank
[29:41] you for the presentation. Uh, talked about Honda a little
[29:45] bit. How much of the employment in the area comes
[29:48] from Honda? And I'm wondering, I believe they sort of
[29:51] have our backpedaling on their plans to expand for vehicles
[29:56] in that area. So I'm wondering how that impacts some
[29:58] of the numbers that you just shared with us. Yeah.
[30:01] Great question. Thank you so that Honda is one of
[30:04] our major employers, the biggest in the community in fact.
[30:08] You are correct. They had envisioned building next year at
[30:13] EV battery plant. They haven't canceled those plans, but they
[30:17] have recently. So they first they deferred to a later
[30:21] date. They've now recently announced that they are indefinitely deferring
[30:27] it. So it's not canceled. Uh, they do still plan
[30:31] to meet their commitment to use those lands for some
[30:34] purpose. They're just not sure that it would be for
[30:37] electrification. Perhaps it might be hybrid. Perhaps it might be
[30:40] something else. Uh, as I alluded to in the presentation,
[30:44] the Canada North vehicles are part of that stems from
[30:47] our desire to support Honda. And that partnership. We also
[30:57] are looking at ways to help Honda, if you will.
[31:03] So I won't get into the details, but you know,
[31:05] things like DC credits and things like that. Um, so
[31:08] we do foresee the endoskilled trades, the skill trade center
[31:12] that I, that I mentioned as well. So we do
[31:15] still have a commitment from Honda that there will be
[31:17] growth. We just don't know what that looks like just
[31:19] yet or when that might have come. To questions board
[31:26] when we're ready. Tani, you mentioned, um, at the outset
[31:30] that, uh, the municipality was formed through amalgamation of a
[31:34] few smaller municipalities. Are you struggling with multiple community centers,
[31:39] multiple fire halls, those sorts of things? Have you done
[31:41] master planning to, to kind of have a future plan
[31:44] for consolidation or efficiency of services. Another excellent question. And
[31:51] I think you've been through this before, absolutely. Uh, it's
[31:56] gotten much better, but people are still very tied to
[32:00] their community. We have a couple of memorial arenas that
[32:03] were, you know, either built by or dedicated to some
[32:06] of our veterans. So there's an emotional attachment to them.
[32:09] Although at this point in time, they're in need of
[32:13] repairs and we are talking about those strategic decisions, you
[32:18] know, do we, you know, how do we manage three
[32:20] rec centers? Everybody wants a pool, pick a ball is
[32:24] the latest that everybody wants pickleball courts. Um, so that
[32:29] is a real challenge. But remember, I, Tanya, can you
[32:37] say a little bit about, um, about what you see
[32:41] as some of the more significant financial challenges affecting, uh,
[32:46] the town in addition to obviously the growth that, um,
[32:50] anticipating over the next number of years. Certainly. Thank you.
[32:55] For that question obviously, notwithstanding growth, which we have to
[33:01] figure out, you know, how we're going to front end
[33:03] pay for some of that so that we can manage
[33:05] those that population as it arises in those houses as
[33:08] they come online. Like many municipalities will now newer in
[33:13] looking at our asset management plans. Even looking at our
[33:17] existing assets, there is an infrastructure gap over the long
[33:20] term. So we're looking at, and of course, we know
[33:26] the province is now putting some restrictions in on, you
[33:30] know, how DCs can be applied when DCs can be
[33:33] applied, stormwater fees is another one, you know, they're now
[33:38] talking about how publicly managed forests and agricultural lands can't
[33:42] actually be, you know, have a stormwater fee automated speed
[33:46] enforcement cameras, whereas a revenue tool that has been removed.
[33:51] So, um, you know, I think like many municipalities were
[33:56] now faced with some tough decisions on how we find
[33:58] existing infrastructure. Much less the growth that we need and
[34:03] the infrastructure that we need, particularly given as I mentioned
[34:06] earlier that the province has directed us that our growth
[34:09] is not necessarily centered around somewhere like Alistair, where we
[34:13] already have infrastructure. It's out in what we would now
[34:16] consider a rural lands. So they're currently had servicing to
[34:19] them in all cases. Great. Thank you. Welcome. How long
[34:26] the same lines I just like to follow up. On.
[34:28] Remember Dyer's question. So how have you given any thought
[34:32] to how you manage the risk that the growth, the
[34:36] province's envisioning will not materialize at least at the rate
[34:41] that they are thinking. When you may have to put
[34:44] infrastructure in the ground in anticipation of that growth actually
[34:48] happening, but it may not happen for quite some time
[34:51] war and all. Great question. Yeah. That is something that's
[34:56] before our council at the moment. There's been a lot
[35:00] of debate. Certainly I don't, I don't want to speak
[35:03] on behalf of them, but they haven't actually approved the
[35:07] growth plan as presented by the province just yet. They're
[35:10] actually planning to go back to the province to outline
[35:13] some of the risks with that that we see as
[35:16] well as some of the, uh, constraints in terms of,
[35:21] you know, what they're envisioning for us versus how we
[35:23] projected, we could reasonably grow. Um, we have been lucky
[35:28] enough to receive some funding of late, uh, but we
[35:32] certainly are going back to them and saying, you know,
[35:34] with, with some of the funding challenges that we already
[35:36] had, those that will actually come with the projected growth
[35:40] and some of the restrictions that were now actually seen
[35:43] for the providence and some of those larger grant programs
[35:45] that are concluding. We are looking for provincial support as
[35:49] well. Um, or I should say we, but counsel is
[35:53] looking for some provincial support as well and how we
[35:55] accomplish that. Thank you. Any other questions. Uh, the only
[36:02] other comment I would offer is I think that Canada
[36:05] North, uh, labeling on, on fires is a great idea.
[36:09] Um, I know it's a challenge. If you're looking for
[36:13] a car and you want to buy a card that's
[36:15] built in Canada, which my wife and I do, um,
[36:20] is a challenge when manufacturers are making the same vehicle
[36:24] in different locations. Absolutely. So it would be helpful to
[36:29] have some sort of label that's like Canada North that
[36:34] was clear that that car was built in Canada. So
[36:40] thank you. Great idea. Uh, thank you. Honda Civic was
[36:45] built in Alistair. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. And that was a
[36:50] benefit when I was looking for a car. As a
[36:54] point of interest, uh, the province has put out a
[36:56] directive about buying Ontario fleet. Their identification is that the
[37:01] VIN starts with a two. So we want something a
[37:04] little bit more visual than that. But if you're looking
[37:06] for Ontario made vehicle, you look for a bin that
[37:09] starts with a two marketing person. If you didn't hear
[37:14] vice chair James comment, she said not a marketing person.
[37:21] Could I have a motion to receive the presentation from
[37:24] Ms. Goded on behalf of the town of new to
[37:26] comfort. Spoig member Franken makes that motion. Oh, in favor,
[37:30] please raise your hands. Any opposed that carries. So thank
[37:34] you very much for joining us today. Thank you for
[37:36] the presentation. You are more than welcome to stay. We've,
[37:40] uh, already accepted new dicampset as a member of one
[37:44] jib. And we'll be dealing with their investment plan. I
[37:49] think four items from now. So if you want to
[37:50] stay, you're welcome to, but if you have other things
[37:52] you need to do, that's also fine. Whatever works for
[37:54] you is good. Wonderful. Thank you everyone for having us
[37:58] today. All right. Thank you. Okay. So, um, board members,
[38:03] we've dealt with item 7a. So we're now on to
[38:06] a series of investment plans starting with item 7b. First
[38:11] one is the township of the front of young. Any
[38:19] questions on their investment plan. Member Franken, my notes on
[38:24] my phone. There was a section on section three that
[38:30] said that alternatives were allowed, but that it was not
[38:33] recommended to do this because the lack of experience or
[38:37] exposure to. Complex investments. Great question. I just wanted to
[38:43] understand that. Great question, Mr. Taylor. Well, broadly speaking with,
[38:48] uh, municipalities, we've always worked for the process of prawl
[38:54] law run. We want to make sure that our investors
[38:56] know what they're getting into. They have experience in the
[38:59] type of investments. We're getting them into. Front of young
[39:02] is coming from bank accounts and GICs, um, although council
[39:07] may have actually, uh, approved an IPS that had permitted
[39:10] envy, the document. I don't have any confidence that they
[39:13] have. They're, they're aware of the details of it. I'd
[39:17] rather with the, uh, the municipality and the treasure to
[39:21] make sure that they're aware of what they're getting into.
[39:24] Um, the number of municipalities based on, on what they
[39:26] have in their MCQ, the investment variety is appropriate for,
[39:30] for long term, uh, investments like alternative investments. Um, I
[39:36] don't think there's any particular rush. And I want to
[39:38] make sure that it's an informed decision. So it is
[39:42] a judgment call. There are certain municipalities where I think
[39:47] it's a slam dunk in these circumstances. I'd rather them
[39:51] get comfortable and we get comfortable with them. I mean,
[39:55] one is the liquidity issue. And the other is that
[39:58] there's actually very punitive. They need to draw them on
[40:05] you down or change allocation, uh, with the alternative investments.
[40:10] The brake feuds are about five percent in the first
[40:13] year and deplinding by one percent every year. So I
[40:17] want to make sure that they're comfortable. I want to
[40:19] make sure that I'm comfortable, that they are aware of
[40:21] the circumstances. And the say we can't put alternative investments
[40:26] in the portfolio at a later date. Thanks for that.
[40:32] Um, so my question then is because this one with
[40:35] such a very long time horizon. I think it was
[40:39] 30 plus years and then very low risk of withdrawal.
[40:42] I just am curious or would like to hear board
[40:45] member feedback on. I appreciate the point. But if ever
[40:48] there was a one to have altered like the seems
[40:51] except for the experience issue and the concern, this seems
[40:54] like it would be the one. So what is our
[40:58] role or our, uh, view, if somebody seems to fit
[41:02] squarely in that, but there's a concern at them in
[41:05] a municipality's not, uh, we're the ones making the decision
[41:09] ultimately. Right. So just wanted to hear some feedback on
[41:12] that. So, um, vice chair Jameson had the same issue.
[41:17] That gender review. So if the board feels, um, it
[41:22] would be appropriate to include alternative investments in their investment
[41:25] plan. We can just amend the investment plan at this
[41:28] meeting. Motion to that effect. But board member dyer. Yeah.
[41:34] So I had, I had the exact same, uh, comment
[41:37] as a board member, board member Franken. And I guess
[41:41] there's a couple of aspects to it. So the first
[41:43] is, and it supplies to, I think front of young
[41:46] Georgina and new compsy new to come see who have
[41:49] all have policies that allow for alternatives. But as, as
[41:55] recommended, the plan would not include them. And so, so
[42:00] I guess I think a couple of things. The first
[42:02] is that, um, I think we should try to approve
[42:07] a plan that is consistent with the policy. That's not
[42:12] to say that we have to or should jump into
[42:16] investing in, um, alternatives right away. But it gives the
[42:24] staff team and our OCIO, the opportunity to take advantage
[42:29] of those, uh, investments, um, in the moment. Right? Because
[42:36] if I, if I understand it right, if the. Staff
[42:39] would have to come back to this board to amend
[42:43] the policy in order to actually invest in something that's
[42:48] already in the policy. No, that happened. Taking sense. Not
[42:51] quite. You'd have to amend the investor plan. Sorry. I
[42:55] misspoke. Yes. We have to amend the plan. Which we
[42:58] could do today if you want. Right. So I would
[43:01] recommend, I would propose that we amend the three plans
[43:07] today. Where their policy allows for, um, uh, foreign alternatives.
[43:16] Again, it's not to say that that action would be
[43:20] taken right away. It just gives, it just gives the,
[43:23] the staff team and the OCIO, the opportunity to take
[43:26] advantage of those opportunities. Does that make sense? That's not
[43:32] how it works. The, uh, the OCIO will respond to
[43:35] what is approved by the one chip. If you approve
[43:38] alternative investments, they get. Sort of, just for clarity. Okay.
[43:42] Thank you. That's helpful. So I think board member Dyer,
[43:44] what we would do if the board, um, wishes. And
[43:48] if you want to make a motion to this effect,
[43:50] uh, we would deal with them one by one. Fair
[43:52] enough. And, uh, what we do in this case is
[43:55] we amend recommendation number three to be model G plus
[44:00] rather than Model G. Yes. That's what I would propose.
[44:05] Okay. So you're making that amendment. Yeah. All right. So
[44:10] commentary on that. Board member. I would prefer see something
[44:18] from staff to say that the municipality is aware of
[44:22] what they're getting into and that they are comfortable that.
[44:28] People, that the whoever's responsible to municipal level is comfortable
[44:32] with that investment before COVID. They put forward a plan
[44:37] which allows them to do it. I'm not sure that
[44:40] we should go ahead and do it without being comfortable
[44:43] that they are aware of what it is they are
[44:45] actually getting into. Just give a follow up. When we
[44:50] do discuss the investment plan, the proposed investment plan with
[44:53] municipality. We also talk about the risk that are on
[44:56] roll. Obviously it's the, uh, the Jibs view and the
[45:01] recommendation that is most important here. But yeah, the, the
[45:07] model that's in the plan here has been discussed with
[45:10] the municipality. Discussion and understanding or not necessarily the same
[45:16] thing. Uh, I mean, if you're telling me that you
[45:19] have a reason to believe that it's, it sounds like
[45:24] you have reasonably that they're not totally aware of what
[45:27] the investments are and their risks are. Um, I would,
[45:31] I'd like to hear you say that, yes, we've explained
[45:35] it. They're educated. They're ready to go. Don't think they
[45:39] are. Yeah. That's what that's what I was in a
[45:43] judgment call. I mean, like on paper. Yeah. You look
[45:46] at the other reserves. Absolutely. This is a slam dunk.
[45:49] This is suitable. Um, I don't think there's any rush.
[45:54] We can certainly get them in next year. I'd like
[45:56] to have that conversation within this palette. You know, for
[46:00] a number of these new guys, it's a bit of
[46:02] a leap from where they are to where they're going.
[46:05] Um, it may be the direction they need to go.
[46:07] And please, please note that I talk about alternative investments
[46:11] with every municipality. If they haven't permitted it in the
[46:16] IPS, I will mention, you know, your circumstances are such
[46:19] that I think it is appropriate. Uh, but I think
[46:22] that, that, you know, for some of these, uh, these
[46:24] new guys, the level of maturity, uh, the knowledge of
[46:27] investments, um, you know, Crawl run, that's really a very
[46:32] simplistic way of putting it. But yeah, it is absolutely
[46:35] suitable, but I'm not sure about the conflict level and
[46:38] full understanding. Well, remember Fraser sort of following up on
[46:42] board member Giles question. Um, did you, um, and just
[46:46] to clarify, did you talk to them about G plus
[46:49] in terms of a portfolio with an alternative in it
[46:52] in terms of your discussion with them in terms of
[46:54] arriving at the recommendation of G. Um, I had suggested
[47:00] G in other circumstances that we have had new municipalities
[47:04] that went straight into alternative investments. Uh, and I praise
[47:08] the treasurer's knowledge. Such a thing knew exactly what they
[47:12] were getting into. Um, I wasn't there with, with, with
[47:16] some of these, these other new guys. Thank you. Board
[47:20] member ready. So agree with board member Frank and on
[47:27] this project is perfect for this allocation of fines to
[47:32] a long - term obligation. I think what we need
[47:36] to also consider though is the fragility of the environment
[47:40] that municipalities are working in right now. If something else
[47:43] comes up or some other revenue tool disappears, will they
[47:46] have to change? And the long - term nature of
[47:50] alts, uh, and the, you know, sophistication of a municipality
[47:54] of this size. I understand those staff constraints. I think
[47:58] I like the approach. I'm going to be saying the
[48:02] opposite when we get to Georgina, but I think for
[48:06] this one, this, I like the recommendations. So I'll be
[48:10] voting against the. Um, I remember Lechman. So I'm, I'm
[48:15] mindful of the board's role versus management's role or staff's
[48:20] role in getting involved in some of these, well, I'll,
[48:24] I see the point. I'm just mindful of the fact
[48:26] that our job is to sort of prove the models.
[48:30] And the accountability responsibilities left with the chief investment officer,
[48:34] which I think he should have some discretion. I also
[48:37] support this cause it's a leap from GIC to launcher
[48:42] assets. Um, in a year, they come up for a
[48:45] review, maybe a different story. But I also think we
[48:49] have to be mindful of, unless it's something egregious, it's
[48:52] not our job to, to be in the leads on
[48:56] some of these issues. So, um, maybe on the next
[49:00] one, it's different. Um, I think this can go either
[49:03] way. So I defer to management. Anyone else. Remember with
[49:09] cleanline fan castle. So in this one in particular, with
[49:13] it being, uh, relating to the investment for the landfill
[49:16] closure funds. So it talks about the annual review from
[49:20] their auditors and you have discussions with them like, what
[49:24] if there is a loss on some of the investments
[49:26] and how they would manage that. And if you could
[49:28] share that with us. Yes. So we did, we did
[49:32] talk with the, um, we did talk with the treasure.
[49:35] That was my one of the questions. Right. What happens
[49:36] if it goes down the loss? It really is right
[49:38] now. If you look at what their financial statements are,
[49:41] what it says and what the reserve was, there were
[49:43] already was a bit of a gap. Um, so they've
[49:45] identified the gap in their financials, but it's not an
[49:47] automatic top up. They are still continuing to put money
[49:50] in each and every year. Um, and the hope is
[49:53] eventually to close that gap. And then to stop using,
[49:56] um, taxpayers, dollars to make the annual contribution would be
[50:00] the ideal portion, the ideal goal in some percentage, um,
[50:04] but yeah, they don't have to, doesn't it doesn't have
[50:06] to be an automatic payment if the market dip. Going
[50:11] to more directly. Uh, we talk about risk with every
[50:13] client we meet. We will remind them that that dialing
[50:18] up the, uh, the equity exposure increases the probability of
[50:21] short - term losses. We want to make sure that
[50:23] they know what they're getting into. So we understand this
[50:26] is very much a long - term view. Yes. But
[50:30] do it's always, right. To deciding which portfolio, it's a
[50:36] bit of our art and science. The numbers are the
[50:39] more the science, but then there's the art, the field,
[50:42] the knowledge of the treasure, their understanding of what's going
[50:44] on. So really all three parties, after we met with
[50:48] this municipality myself, Keith and Phn, all basically came out
[50:52] and said, alt's not right away. It is a goal
[50:55] in a couple of years, but let's stepping up this,
[50:59] uh, let's get them stepping up into their, their comfort
[51:01] level. First. And I do think this is a good
[51:04] candidate for alternatives, but I do appreciate the, the views
[51:07] from staff and that we move into that in the
[51:11] future, but maybe not this time. Okay. So, Mr. James.
[51:19] Comment, I guess, just from a pure investment standpoint, the
[51:23] addition of alts would seem to be the most prudent
[51:25] thing. Again, you've got to match it up to what
[51:27] they're doing. But just from the investment side, it actually
[51:29] reduces risk. Um, and I would question their understanding. To
[51:35] me, municipality probably understands infrastructure and real estate more than
[51:39] they do emerging markets equity. So I guess my question
[51:44] is, and I'm understanding that maybe the reason to do
[51:49] it a little more slowly. My question would then be
[51:52] what are staff's plans to educate. Our municipalities so that
[51:57] they are ready as opposed to just, if we feel
[52:01] sometime in the future, they are, we'll pull the trigger
[52:03] then. Like we really should be educating them on this
[52:06] because it is a risk reduction. It will be a
[52:09] conversation next year. This year, there's a lot of hurdles
[52:13] to get over with the documentation. Uh, understanding of their
[52:17] circumstances, understanding of how things work at the one jib,
[52:20] understanding of equities in the sort. Um, it's an ongoing
[52:25] conversation. I, I assure you the next year we'll, we'll
[52:28] deal, we'll make another assessment. And we'll just be discussing
[52:32] it with the treasure. And, uh, making sure that they,
[52:36] they and their counsel understand the adulterer investments are a
[52:40] little bit different than the rest of their portfolio. And
[52:43] the idea is to get them into the core portfolio,
[52:46] get the other growth of what, uh, what PI offers.
[52:49] We can always revisit that. One of the opportunities that
[52:56] we have is we actually hold quarterly participating municipality meetings.
[53:00] And I think that would be a great venue just
[53:02] to remind people and doing education session about, uh, the
[53:07] illiquidity of alts and how that, uh, impacts their portfolio
[53:12] as well as how that would be reflected in the
[53:14] investment policy statements. Keep in mind, these are template documents
[53:17] that go to council and we always have to keep
[53:19] that in the back of our mind, uh, making sure
[53:21] that people understand clearly both at the council and at
[53:24] the staff level and municipalities about what they're approving. We've
[53:27] actually booked PHN to come and speak to Ms. Pallisa
[53:31] at their September meeting. So the September meeting will include
[53:34] an education session on alts. Yeah. I think it's, it's
[53:37] messaging because we shouldn't be focusing on each individual investment
[53:41] separately. Like we are looking at the totality. So if
[53:45] we're sort of missing an understanding of one of those
[53:47] pieces, um, it sounds like you've got some plans to
[53:50] address that. And I would also ask, I'm not sure
[53:52] who to ask, but, uh, I think it would be
[53:55] good to have pH in income to Jiv and talk
[53:58] about those two strategies too. So that we're sure we
[54:00] understand. Uh, what they are. Cause I don't think we've,
[54:03] we've reviewed those in detail. We're going to confident position.
[54:08] Where they give us more reserves next year. Let me
[54:11] move them into an allocation where alts are not, not,
[54:14] not in there. And they need to sell. So and
[54:17] I don't have enough, uh, detail about the, uh, the
[54:20] stability of what their money not quality is going to
[54:23] be in the future. To. Yeah. So I think it's
[54:27] just premature. That's all. So I'm going to call for
[54:29] a vote in a second. I'm just going to offer
[54:31] one comment first though. So we have, um, a couple
[54:35] of things at play here. We have an approved investment
[54:39] policy statement. Proved by council. So, um, we're required to
[54:46] pay a lot of attention. Factor investment plans have to
[54:49] conform. So in these municipal cases, board membered I pointed
[54:54] out. So they are an option. And it's up to
[55:02] us as a board to decide whether alts are appropriate
[55:06] given that the council has said okay to alts. It's
[55:09] up to us to decide whether they are appropriate given
[55:12] the municipality circumstances. And to me, the fact that a
[55:17] treasure or a municipal staff are uncomfortable, um, or inexperienced,
[55:23] if council has already approved the investment policy statement, to
[55:26] me, that doesn't get a lot of weight. It's really
[55:29] up to the board's judgment. Rather than putting a lot
[55:33] of emphasis on what municipal staff are saying. It's up
[55:35] to the board's judgment to decide whether alts are appropriate
[55:38] in their circumstances. So I'm just going to offer that
[55:41] comment and then I'll call for the vote on the
[55:43] amendment. So board member Dyer has, um, put forward an
[55:47] amendment to approve the township in front of young's proposed
[55:50] investment plan to be invested in Model G plus. That's
[55:54] the amendment. So all those in favor, please raise your
[55:57] hands. So I'm going to count here. One, two, three,
[56:03] four, five. Posed. One, two, three, four, five. Okay. Dennis,
[56:13] what do I do now? We have Jennifer online. Yeah.
[56:19] Did board member. Say, sorry I had to unmute. I
[56:26] had to admit myself. I would vote against the amendment
[56:28] for the G plus. Okay. So the amendment fails. In
[56:33] a close phone. All right. So now we'll go to
[56:36] the, um, all the recommendations. So if there's no further
[56:41] discussion, can I have a motion to adopt the recommendations
[56:43] and the report as follow. Number one, receive the township
[56:47] of front of young's invested policy statement, which is attachment
[56:50] one. Number two, receive the township up front of Young's
[56:52] municipal client questionnaire, which is attachment too. And number three,
[56:57] approve the front of the angst proposed investment plan to
[57:00] be invested in model G. All those in favor, please
[57:03] raise your hands. Mr. Make that more. Oh, sorry. Yeah.
[57:06] We need some, we need someone to make the most
[57:08] thanks to us. Board member ready makes the motion. I'll
[57:11] in favor. Please raise your hands. Any opposed. All right.
[57:15] Thanks, Karen. So a good discussion. Um, so now we're
[57:18] on to town of Arduino's investment plan. So I'm sure
[57:22] there are comments on this report given some of the
[57:25] discussion that has happened already. So open the floor to
[57:29] flesh into discussion. I remember ready since you said you
[57:36] were going to switch position. Uh, so, uh, and I
[57:43] don't know if I'm positioned to make an event yet,
[57:45] but I will say that to me, this one is
[57:47] different. Larger municipality, uh, they've stated that, uh, they're one
[57:53] to three year investments, which aren't under our purviewer in
[57:57] excess around 30 million dollars. To me, there's more flexibility
[58:01] there. They've provided an allowance for alt. I would be,
[58:06] um, interested in keys, the discussion with them was a
[58:10] little more evolved than front of young. And if we're
[58:13] in a different position. I have less confidence in the
[58:17] investments horizon for the reserves here than they are for
[58:20] for front of you. He could easily be a much
[58:24] shorter than, than what we have here. If it had
[58:27] reserve next year that could dilute the investment horizon, um,
[58:30] I can't nail this one down. I mean, for the
[58:33] investments horizon front of young, suitability is definitely there for
[58:38] these numbers. I just can't do that. So it kind
[58:42] of plays into the reason for being reluctant to introduce
[58:47] them at this time. Anyone else. We exhausted this topic.
[58:56] Boy remember, probably. Yeah. I think I just took my
[58:59] reason for voting against on the previous is simply, um,
[59:02] I think board member Leckman and vice chair. James makes
[59:07] a really good point, which is one to a certain
[59:11] degree. We're relying on the input from the CIO. The
[59:15] meetings that they're having. And the second piece is the
[59:17] education side, which there needs to be a pathway to
[59:19] say, how do we actually get them from where they
[59:21] are today to be comfortable? Um, and just sort of
[59:26] the practical example I'll use is private credit. Right? So
[59:30] the one thing about talking about liquidity was some of
[59:33] these investments. And then the other thing when you actually
[59:35] have gating implemented, which we've seen in private credit over
[59:38] the last few months, right. And understanding that difference, because
[59:41] it does happen from time to time. And people who
[59:44] are comfortable in theory with illiquidity often have a very
[59:49] different reaction when gating is actually implemented. So I think
[59:55] it's the two pieces judgment and then the pathway to,
[1:00:00] you know, getting the education in that the municipality needs
[1:00:02] to get comfortable, excuse me. Anyone else. Ford member Franco,
[1:00:09] I'm just like, uh, chair queues about your comment about,
[1:00:12] you know, the council has approved, uh, the alt. And,
[1:00:17] you know, I'd almost rather that the template goes to
[1:00:20] counsel without that in if the feeling that there's an
[1:00:23] uncomfortableness of, uh, the staff not being ready, then have
[1:00:26] it in there. And then, then we apply the judgment
[1:00:30] that they're not ready. So we're going to ignore what
[1:00:33] council approved. I don't know. It's just, it's just a
[1:00:36] thought. It's just that disconnect to me between like what
[1:00:39] the council has said they're willing to do. And what
[1:00:42] we're then saying. And I fully support the agreements, you
[1:00:45] know, baby steps and all that. Like I don't have
[1:00:48] an issue with that. It's just more the optics, I
[1:00:52] guess, of council versus what we're saying here and what's
[1:00:55] our role as a gym to make the ultimate decider.
[1:00:58] So, so, so staff take the investment policy statement to
[1:01:02] counsel. Right. So if I were a staff member and
[1:01:07] I was uncomfortable with alts, I would say that to
[1:01:10] council. So it's to me, it's weird that council has
[1:01:15] approved an investment policy statement that includes alts and, uh,
[1:01:19] we're saying that staff are uncomfortable with. If they were
[1:01:22] uncomfortable, they should have recommended against it. Right. That's board
[1:01:26] member ready. I will maybe just add a little color
[1:01:28] to that conversation. Because to me, the investment policy statement
[1:01:34] that councils approve, uh, set in place a framework for
[1:01:39] the gym who council seizes the professionals to make decisions
[1:01:44] within that framework. That doesn't mean use them because we
[1:01:47] said they're available. It means they're available if you guys
[1:01:50] think as professionals you should use them. Councils aren't professionals
[1:01:54] at this. That's why this got delegated to an investment.
[1:01:58] So I think we should feel comfortable being flexible within
[1:02:01] that policy framework. Absolutely. Good comment. Anyone else. On this.
[1:02:10] Okay. So, um, I see no one proposing amendment. So
[1:02:14] I'm just going to call the question. So could I
[1:02:16] have a motion to adopt the recommendations and the report
[1:02:19] as follows? Number one, receive the town of Georgina's investment
[1:02:21] policy statement attachment one. Number two, receive the town of
[1:02:24] Jordanius municipal client questionnaire attachment to. And number three approved
[1:02:29] the town of Jardim's proposed investment plan to be invested
[1:02:31] in Moto G. Attachment three. We would like to make
[1:02:35] that motion board member poteni makes that motion on favor.
[1:02:38] Please raise your hands. Any opposed that carries. All right.
[1:02:43] So now we're on to the municipality of Lampton Shores
[1:02:45] investment plan. Any questions or discussion on this one.
[1:02:58] Are either comfortable or exhausted. I'm not sure where. All
[1:03:03] right. So, um, if the discussion then could I have
[1:03:07] a motion to adopt the recommendation the report as follows.
[1:03:10] Number one receive the municipality of lampton shores and vessel
[1:03:13] policy statement, which is attachment one. Number two received municipality
[1:03:17] lamped insurance municipal client questionnaire, which is attachment to. And
[1:03:21] number three approved the municipality of lamp insurance proposed investment
[1:03:24] plan to be invested in Model G. We're doing a
[1:03:26] lot on Model G. Board member Fraser makes that motion.
[1:03:31] All in favor, please raise your hands. Mary's. Okay. So
[1:03:36] now we're on to the town of new to Kumseth
[1:03:38] investment plan. Any questions or comments on this one. I
[1:03:46] think we're in the same place we were with the
[1:03:48] previous one. All right. So I could have a motion
[1:03:51] to adopt the recommendations in the report as follows. Number
[1:03:54] one received the town of new to come sith invested
[1:03:56] policy statement, which is attachment one. Number two received the
[1:04:00] town of ninth to Comseth Municipal client questionnaire, which is
[1:04:03] attachment too. And number three approve the town of new
[1:04:06] to come sit proposed investment plan to be invested in
[1:04:09] Model E. So a different one. Different model this time.
[1:04:13] Okay. Uh, with someone like to make that motion. Board
[1:04:18] member Giles makes that motion all in favor, please raise
[1:04:20] your hands. On that cherry. Okay. Great. So maybe what
[1:04:26] we'll do is we'll do the, um, consent items and
[1:04:28] take a break how sad. So there's six items listed
[1:04:34] on the agenda as items receiving by consent. The first
[1:04:38] one is the risk on an audit committee update for
[1:04:41] Q2 2026. Um, the second one is the municipal performance
[1:04:45] reports for Q1. Third one is the compliance report asset
[1:04:51] class and target weight allocations for Q1. Fourth is strategic
[1:04:55] plan Q1 progress update. Fifth is the investment plan implementation
[1:04:59] report for Q1. And the sixth is the municipal insight
[1:05:04] support. Q2 version of that. Would any members of the
[1:05:08] board like to hold or pull any of these consent
[1:05:11] items for questions or discussion. Uh, board member Giles, which
[1:05:15] one? 8D, the strategic plan. I just had a comment
[1:05:18] today. Okay. Well, if it's just a comment, go ahead.
[1:05:22] Uh, I made this one before, but the, uh, focus
[1:05:26] on growth of assets under management again needs to be
[1:05:29] split between the net contributions in the municipalities and the
[1:05:34] market effect of those assets. If the market goes up
[1:05:38] 20 percent and you're assets under management goes up 20,
[1:05:42] you're Mike patch yourself in the back and saying you're
[1:05:44] having a great year. But it wouldn't necessarily be the
[1:05:47] case. And I think also, um, we were working on
[1:05:54] the strategic plan when we're thinking about adding new municipalities
[1:05:57] as well. Yeah. So you need to break it up
[1:06:00] in the set. So staff can take that under advisement.
[1:06:04] Um, any other. So board member Fraser. Either eight C
[1:06:09] or eight E. I think it's both the same moment
[1:06:12] or same question. I can tell what this is going
[1:06:14] to be. Go ahead. I just wanted to ask staff
[1:06:17] maybe to elaborate on the issues with respect to the,
[1:06:20] uh, transition is Quinty West where they're placed in April.
[1:06:25] Um, so you have providers and comments in the book
[1:06:28] process. We just want to ask you to elaborate a
[1:06:31] bit on that. Oh, that's good. It's good to surface
[1:06:33] it at the board meeting. Who would like to comment
[1:06:36] on that? Sure. Uh, I'd be glad to. Um, typically
[1:06:40] one there is the cash movements, uh, when the cash
[1:06:44] arrives, things automatically get deployed. In this particular case, the
[1:06:47] buzzed no cash in or out. With plenty west, uh,
[1:06:51] investment plan update. So it's trade we're not implemented on
[1:06:56] the same timeline. Honestly, I believe it should have been
[1:07:00] done more promptly. We will make sure that, uh, you
[1:07:05] know, the follow - up meetings immediately after the Jamaican,
[1:07:08] the way, the way it works is that pH and,
[1:07:11] um, responds to approved investment plans, uh, but we need
[1:07:14] something in place to make sure that even if there
[1:07:17] isn't cash moving, they still, uh, implement. In their case,
[1:07:22] what would have needed to be done is that the
[1:07:26] allocation chain would have need to be updated in their
[1:07:29] portfolio management system, Charles River. And, uh, then they'd be
[1:07:33] automatically triggered that they're out of compliance and that a
[1:07:37] rebalance was required. Uh, that did not happen. Uh, we
[1:07:41] did not on the modeling spreadsheets that we have for
[1:07:46] that. It was also not done. So it was backpedaling.
[1:07:52] Um, as noted, it had a positive impact on performance,
[1:07:57] which doesn't really help very much. Uh, I think we
[1:08:00] can do better. Thank you. Uh, I think Mr. Taylor,
[1:08:05] if I remember correctly PHN also offered staff turnover as
[1:08:09] a factor in this, I wouldn't pin it on that.
[1:08:14] This, this regardless of that. Um, it requires better monitoring
[1:08:19] and then follow up with due to ensure it doesn't
[1:08:22] happen. So you've put a new process in place to
[1:08:28] make sure. That's good. I would remember like when I
[1:08:30] think you had, it's something it's similar in your commentary
[1:08:36] just on trading supplementation report. So these are all simply
[1:08:43] sewing one fund and buying the other fund in the
[1:08:46] rebalancing. And also in the switch from the international to
[1:08:50] the other international. So what's, what's the question? Is it
[1:08:55] just a matter of buying and selling units. And it's
[1:08:59] unsult simultaneously. As best as can be possible. In this
[1:09:04] case, Yahweh simultaneously. If it's less liquid, some moving parts.
[1:09:11] So that kind of commentary is what's important, not just
[1:09:13] the facts that you put in here. It's that it's
[1:09:16] at the editorial commentary. You talk about was trading implemented
[1:09:19] effectively where their transaction cost there aren't or whatever. I
[1:09:24] mean, it's more the execution commentary we need as opposed
[1:09:28] to just saying this is what happened. I think would
[1:09:31] be it's much that's what's useful to me. Not just
[1:09:34] saying we switch from this one to this fund. Possible.
[1:09:42] Okay. So staff can take that comment on your advice.
[1:09:45] Thank you for that. Any anything else on the consent
[1:09:48] items. Then could I have a motion to adopt consent
[1:09:57] items 8A 8B 8C 8D 80 and 8F. And the
[1:10:00] recommendations contain in the related staff reports all of which
[1:10:03] are to receive the report. I don't want to smack
[1:10:08] that motion. There we are. Ford member Dyer makes that
[1:10:13] motion. I don't think the please raise your hands. Any
[1:10:17] opposed. So these six items are now completed. I think
[1:10:23] it's probably a good time for a break. So if
[1:10:28] someone would need a motion. Yeah. So how about a
[1:10:32] motion for a 10 minute break. So vice chair James
[1:10:34] makes that motion on favor. So any opposed carries. Okay.
[1:10:40] So we'll take a 10 minute break and then we'll
[1:10:41] come back and do some more before latch. Thank you
[1:10:44] everyone. Good discussion.
[1:21:20] So I'll say that again. We're green. All right,
[1:21:30] so we're on item 9a on your agendas, the external
[1:21:34] investment manager oversight report for Q1. Any questions on the
[1:21:38] support. I wanna look at, all right. And could I
[1:21:43] have a motion to adopt the recommendation of received report?
[1:21:45] So do you make that motion, please, board member of
[1:21:48] Putin makes that motion all in favor? Please raise your
[1:21:50] hands. Any opposed. Thank you, that carries. So now we
[1:21:56] are on to a regular presentation from PHNN. So Mark
[1:22:01] LeClaire is at the podium. Well, thank you. Thanks. And
[1:22:06] thanks for having us. So in the matter of time
[1:22:11] we have, I'm gonna go fairly quickly over the first
[1:22:14] part of the presentation, which is the standard slides. If
[1:22:19] I go correctly, it doesn't mean don't ask any question.
[1:22:21] If I go quickly, it's not because I wanna hide
[1:22:23] something. So, but it was a fairly quiet. Quarter, performance
[1:22:31] is good. So, but I will make a point on
[1:22:33] each slide. We do have a special guest today with
[1:22:37] us. Melanie Adams, who is our managing director and head
[1:22:42] of responsible investment, that's going to be a very important
[1:22:46] conversation. We certainly want to hurt to have the spotlight
[1:22:49] today. She heads up a team of 18 people. Based
[1:22:53] in London, Toronto, and Vancouver. Her team does work in
[1:22:58] the background, right behind the scenes, but they are influential.
[1:23:02] They have an impact on every single fund that we
[1:23:04] have on the one - jip platforms. Certainly looking forward
[1:23:08] to this conversation. Moving on to the next page, please.
[1:23:13] Yes, thank you. We do have a new member joining
[1:23:17] the one team at PHNN following Dylan's departure. And given
[1:23:22] the strategic importance of this relationship, we really wanted to
[1:23:26] find an exceptional talent to replace a dillon. And Catherine
[1:23:31] said, yes. And so welcome, Catherine. Catherine has been with
[1:23:34] PhNN for 14 years. She's an IPM, an institutional portfolio
[1:23:39] manager. And she's a quant expert. Uh, she works closely
[1:23:42] with a cube team, which is quite useful considering the
[1:23:47] important exposure that we have to that team. Uh, some
[1:23:50] of you have met her in person at the Phoenix
[1:23:54] event in April and we'll be, uh, she will be
[1:23:58] here on every game. Um, so thank you, Catherine, for
[1:24:01] being here. On the next page, the multiple model portfolio,
[1:24:06] please. Thank you. So, uh, just two models very quickly
[1:24:13] here. Very pleased to see that more, uh, municipalities are
[1:24:18] adopting real estate infrastructure. Those private assets, um, they are
[1:24:22] important for long - term performance. Um, you know, in
[1:24:26] terms of inflation protection, low correlation, low correlation to public,
[1:24:30] uh, assets, very steady income. So this is an important
[1:24:33] asset class. So we're quite pleased to see some of
[1:24:35] them are willing and to invest in those, in those
[1:24:38] strategies. We did pass along, um, the details on how
[1:24:42] these two funds are priced. You should have this along
[1:24:47] with your package. Um, happy to circle back on that.
[1:24:51] If there's any question now secondly the annual review. So
[1:24:54] these portfolio force are reviewed annually. And approved annually at
[1:25:01] least annually by the board. And so we have started
[1:25:03] the process of reviewing this internally. So we are working
[1:25:06] with new capital market assumptions. We have a few ideas.
[1:25:10] So stay tuned. We are going to come forward with
[1:25:12] some, some ideas. And more data in the coming weeks.
[1:25:16] Now on the next page, please. Thank you. Um, just
[1:25:23] to summarize this page, you know, we came into 2026
[1:25:26] with, uh, US economy in a companies that there were
[1:25:31] some, some major tailwinds, um, you know, think about the
[1:25:34] massive AI CAP expending, uh, their regulation tax got, um,
[1:25:40] so we got in 2026 with, uh, very, very strong
[1:25:44] earnings. And that's a very positive. That helped the market,
[1:25:48] you know, that helps support the market. That made the
[1:25:51] market quite, I would say resilient. Um, interface of, uh,
[1:25:56] what happened in the Middle East, the War in Ireland.
[1:25:59] So the Warren Iran created a bit of a chaos
[1:26:03] and volatility, uncertainty. Um, it, it certainly created a bit
[1:26:06] of a commodity price shock inflation up. And so, you
[1:26:10] know, you have central banks essentially going from a commodity
[1:26:14] stance to a restrictive sense. So really this is what
[1:26:17] happened in Q1 that needs to be, that needs to
[1:26:20] be monitored. So we should expect a higher risk premium
[1:26:25] on risk assets for some time. From a performance perspective
[1:26:30] on that page here, um, just want to very briefly
[1:26:34] touch on three asset classes. The first one short term
[1:26:36] bonds. Performing well, it's doing their job. Uh, it's a
[1:26:41] defensive holding. Played its role in Q1. In Q1, we
[1:26:44] saw the short term rates coming up. So that's putting
[1:26:48] a bit of pressure, uh, on, on the asset class.
[1:26:51] But overall, a good performance. The Canadian equity, uh, still
[1:26:55] outperforming. It's still one of the best equity markets in
[1:26:59] the world. Uh, the, the oil and commodity, uh, price
[1:27:05] shock. It's actually benefiting Canada given, given, given, given the
[1:27:09] companies that we have here. And the same could be
[1:27:11] said to some emerging economies. So Canada has been, has
[1:27:14] been fairly quite well in that situation. Um, from a
[1:27:19] credit perspectives of third line, so this is the third
[1:27:22] largest exposure in the platform, global multi asset credit, which
[1:27:25] is the blue bay total return credit fund. Um, when
[1:27:29] you look at credit and fixing income and investment grade
[1:27:32] bonds, if you look at the compression of spreads over
[1:27:35] the last few years, um, we're, we're back. The threads
[1:27:40] are, are back to what they were in tune 2007.
[1:27:43] So it's, it's quite expensive. I mean, it's supported that
[1:27:45] good earnings. Um, but in given, it's so expensive. Um,
[1:27:50] given the market shock that we had in Q1, we
[1:27:53] saw the spreads coming off a little bit. And so
[1:27:56] that's the reason why you had a bit of a
[1:27:58] negative performance there. Fill on to the next phase, please.
[1:28:06] So these are all the model portfolios. Um, despite volatility,
[1:28:11] lots of uncertainty, those model portfolios, they did protect, uh,
[1:28:16] armed as felt these assets quite well, uh, for convenience.
[1:28:19] We added the expected returns and volatility just to give
[1:28:22] you a bit of context on when we built those
[1:28:24] models, um, using the capital market assumption of last year,
[1:28:29] um, this is what you should expect. I mean, I
[1:28:31] remind everybody that the expected return here is a 10
[1:28:34] year expected annualized return and volatility is a one year
[1:28:38] volatility. The point here is when you look at the
[1:28:41] volatility and the performance for these models, you know, you
[1:28:44] have much stronger returns with much less volatility. And I
[1:28:47] made that point of the last meeting. So is sustainable.
[1:28:50] Perhaps it is, but maybe it's not. So it's, I
[1:28:53] think it's, it's fair to say we could expect 2026.
[1:28:56] Maybe it's a year where we start reverting. Next slide,
[1:29:00] please. Yes. Comment on the underperformance versus the reference portfolios?
[1:29:05] Yes. Insignificant. It's significant because the reference portfolio is, um,
[1:29:12] it's made up of can equities and universe bonds. That's
[1:29:15] the proxy we're using. And can iniquities has been the
[1:29:20] by far this equity performance. So the fact that we
[1:29:23] are well diversified over such a period of time when
[1:29:26] a candidate market is outperforming so much, that's creating the
[1:29:30] underperformance in every single folios. Simply the Canadian equity mark?
[1:29:37] Yes. Follow the question on that. Have you actually done
[1:29:45] the attribution analysis to identify how much of that. Is
[1:29:50] to, uh, we have done the attribution. I don't have
[1:29:52] the numbers with me, but I'm happy to circulate that.
[1:29:58] Staff and put it in the resource slide. Yes. Of
[1:30:00] course. On the next page commercial mortgage. Yes. Okay. So,
[1:30:05] um, it's, it's still a fairly slow market, um, but
[1:30:08] we've seen a reasonable flow of deal in the Q1,
[1:30:14] we review just about three billion in deals. And our
[1:30:20] ratio is about 10 percent that we actually fund. Which
[1:30:24] happened in Q1. Um, and out of this 300 million
[1:30:28] that we funded about 100 million was allocated to one
[1:30:31] investment. Um, so, um, the queue is, is, is, is
[1:30:36] moving on. Um, slowly but surely, uh, but we do
[1:30:39] expect that the pace will pick up and we expect
[1:30:42] that the queue here that you see should be gone
[1:30:45] in about six to 12 months. Now regarding the front
[1:30:54] performance on the next few pages. Well, um, nothing much
[1:31:00] to say here in terms of fixed income, it's strong
[1:31:03] relative performance across the board. I would say, uh, entering
[1:31:07] the very quickly entering the, uh, we were short duration
[1:31:11] generally speaking, entering the, the quarter. We are now long
[1:31:14] durations likely long duration, uh, and we are being very
[1:31:18] defensive on, on investment grade, uh, we, this is not
[1:31:21] a place where we are willing to take too much
[1:31:23] risk. On the next page equities still, it's a very
[1:31:29] tough market for active managers, but you know, generally speaking,
[1:31:32] the funds are doing okay. Happy to have some, some,
[1:31:36] some, some, some style diversification when you look at quant
[1:31:39] versus fundamental. That's been very healthy. Um, the one place
[1:31:43] where I want to comment is the RBC international equity
[1:31:48] fund. This is still a fun. That's on our watch
[1:31:50] list, but there's been a change in leadership in the
[1:31:52] fund. Uh, and that's effective April 30th of this year.
[1:31:57] So it's very recent. Um, so we have co -
[1:32:01] leadership. You have met with David Lambert in queue four,
[1:32:04] uh, David is still the co - head of the
[1:32:06] fund. He's still managing her up. But in Asia, we
[1:32:09] changed the leadership. Um, the attribution when we look at
[1:32:13] the fund and how it performed, the real, the real
[1:32:16] problem was a Japanese stock selection. And so that fund
[1:32:22] had a strong underperformance in its Japanese carve out. And
[1:32:26] so the person that's replacing, uh, the cohead, um, she
[1:32:31] is the current manager for the RBC Japanese equity fund
[1:32:36] and are outperformances about five percent So she's currently realigning
[1:32:41] the portfolio around her own, um, ideas and themes. And
[1:32:45] so, um, we certainly hope that it's going to, uh,
[1:32:47] improve performance, uh, short to medium term. And that is
[1:32:56] pretty much it. Uh, we have low vol after, well,
[1:33:00] we have, uh, emerging market on the next page, nothing
[1:33:04] here to comment really. Um, and low vol, I'm highlighting
[1:33:09] the five years here because low volatility, the goal of
[1:33:13] these strategies is to, um, have a performance that's similar
[1:33:17] to the broad market over a full cycle, but with
[1:33:21] much less volatility. And this is what we are seeing
[1:33:24] over five years, which you've been argued as a full
[1:33:27] cycle, similar performance. And when you look at the volatility
[1:33:31] numbers down, it's much older. Um, and as you can
[1:33:35] see, just three months, um, the US has now been
[1:33:39] a good market in the first three months of the
[1:33:42] year, but the significant outperformance from, uh, the fund that
[1:33:45] you were invested in. And that's exactly what we expect
[1:33:48] during time of stress. We'll stop here. Moving on to
[1:33:55] the next page, maybe Melanie. I think it's time to
[1:33:58] have now in here. So as I said, Melanie joined,
[1:34:04] uh, RBC on 2014. She's managing director at a responsible
[1:34:09] investment. Um, big team. Ask any question. This is an
[1:34:15] important component of asset management, very influential, uh, and critical
[1:34:20] to RBC GAM, Melanie. What I'll for do, please, um,
[1:34:24] please dig the stage. Okay. Just before. Oh, yes. Um,
[1:34:27] any questions for Mr. Leclerc before we move on to
[1:34:30] Ms. Adams. Oh, people are comfortable. Okay. So welcome, Ms.
[1:34:36] Adams. We're looking forward to this. Thank you very much.
[1:34:39] Thanks so much for having me. And thank you everyone
[1:34:41] for your interest in the responsible investment space. It's been
[1:34:45] a space where we've seen a lot of change over
[1:34:47] the last few years. So please feel free as I'm
[1:34:50] speaking to interrupt me and ask questions as we go.
[1:34:53] That might, uh, make it easier, but also I'll make
[1:34:55] sure to save some time at the, for questions at
[1:34:58] that time. So if we could, um, who's controlling the
[1:35:03] deck, if we could go to the first slide on
[1:35:05] the deck. Thank you. So is Marty mentioned responsible investment
[1:35:10] is a priority for asset game. The reason it's a
[1:35:14] priority is we believe that we can help our risk
[1:35:17] return profile over the long time. If we're looking at
[1:35:20] environmental, social and governance factors as part of the process.
[1:35:24] The RI team is, as Marty mentioned as well, primarily
[1:35:28] based in London and Toronto, we do have members in
[1:35:32] Vancouver and Minneapolis as well. Our role is set out
[1:35:36] on here. We developed the strategies across the firm. We
[1:35:38] develop our policies, how we think about different ESG factors,
[1:35:43] doing the deep research for the investment teams. But a
[1:35:45] big part are sort of red and butter is the
[1:35:48] second pillar that you see there, which is supporting the
[1:35:50] investment teams. We are on the investment platform. My boss
[1:35:53] is do CECADWEL, our CIO. And what we're primarily tasked
[1:35:57] with is helping the investment teams think through these issues
[1:35:59] and how they integrate it as part of their investment
[1:36:02] process. We also do the proxy voting on behalf of
[1:36:05] the firm. So for all of our equity portfolios, we
[1:36:08] have a centralized function. We work very closely with the
[1:36:11] investment team. Sometimes you hear that maybe proxy voting at
[1:36:14] the AGMs is separate. For us, it's a really important
[1:36:17] part of our fiduciary duty to our clients, but we
[1:36:19] also want to have that deep expertise. We want to
[1:36:22] talk to the investment teams closely and we want to
[1:36:24] execute our, our votes in a consistent manner across our
[1:36:28] portfolios. Uh, we are involved in industry initiatives. We are
[1:36:33] involved in engagements. For example, climate engagement candidates and organization
[1:36:37] that we're a part of. And we also, you know,
[1:36:41] we also do a lot of work with clients as
[1:36:43] well to make sure that we're out there conveying how
[1:36:46] we think about these issues to our, to our clients.
[1:36:49] We can go to the next slide. So this is
[1:36:52] our approach responsible investment. This is a document the policy
[1:36:55] that governs how we think about these at a firm
[1:36:57] level. We think about it in three different pillars. First
[1:37:00] of all, is the ESG integration. This is the bread
[1:37:03] and butter that I spoke to on the previous slide.
[1:37:05] It's about looking at the investment teams, how they're thinking
[1:37:08] about ESG factors, where they're exposed, you know, merging markets
[1:37:12] has different considerations than Canadian equities, for example, how are
[1:37:16] we thinking about. Um, and helping the teams do that.
[1:37:19] So they're making the right decisions. We don't interfere with
[1:37:22] the investment process or the investment decision making process. That
[1:37:25] is entirely, uh, up to the investment teams, but we
[1:37:28] help them think about some of these research and some
[1:37:31] of these deeper issues. Active stewardship is the second pillar.
[1:37:34] This is two components of this and I'll get into
[1:37:36] them in a little more detail. One is engagement. How
[1:37:38] we meet with the boards and senior management of the
[1:37:40] companies in which we're invested. And secondly, the proxy voting
[1:37:43] that I just spoke to a moment ago and how
[1:37:45] we think about different issues and how we're going to
[1:37:47] vote our proxies. For example, how we break down CEO
[1:37:50] compensation? When do we think that it's appropriate? When are
[1:37:52] we going to vote against the say on pay ballot
[1:37:55] item. And then the final pillar and how we think
[1:37:58] about this is, is our client driven solutions and reporting.
[1:38:01] This is both making sure that we have the funds
[1:38:04] and the mandates that our clients are looking for, but
[1:38:06] also that we're speaking to our clients that we're putting
[1:38:08] out the insight pieces that clients are looking for that
[1:38:10] we're meeting with, with clients and explaining and talking about
[1:38:13] some of these different issues. At the bottom of the
[1:38:17] slide, we know systemic ESG factors. This is something that
[1:38:19] we've seen change quite a lot in the last few
[1:38:22] years. We've had climate change as one of the first
[1:38:27] systemic issues. Well, I won't say first, actually, I think
[1:38:28] the first is governance. Governance has been around for a
[1:38:30] very long time. That's a, you know, across the board.
[1:38:34] But we have seen climate change become really, really important
[1:38:37] in a big topic of conversation. And we're seeing human
[1:38:38] rights become a really big topic of conversation. And of
[1:38:41] course now we're seeing AI come into the fold, uh,
[1:38:44] in the responsible investment space. On the next slide. So
[1:38:50] I've talked about this very briefly. Um, I, I know
[1:38:53] that there's a number of different portfolios, but when we
[1:38:56] think about, um, how we integrate ESG across our investment
[1:39:00] teams, the investment teams all have their own processes. They
[1:39:03] have their own way of doing that. And this is
[1:39:04] what allows them to deliver the performance that they are
[1:39:08] able to deliver for their clients. But what we do
[1:39:10] is we help look at the overall process. What are
[1:39:13] the research inputs? What are the data inputs? How do
[1:39:15] these feed in? How are we thinking about engagements and
[1:39:17] how is that being fed into the process? How are
[1:39:19] we thinking about proxy voting communicating that, uh, as part
[1:39:22] of the engagement process and as part of the investment
[1:39:25] making decision process. And so that all comes together in
[1:39:28] how we think about our different portfolios. And I'll give
[1:39:31] a couple of examples. So I'll, I'll, maybe on the
[1:39:33] next slide, this sets out the three. Ways we think
[1:39:36] about ESG integration, which first of all, I said it's
[1:39:38] investment led. The investment teams drive this. We help them,
[1:39:41] but they, they drive how they think about their process.
[1:39:44] We focus on materiality. So climate change, if it's not
[1:39:47] material, we're not focusing on that as part of the
[1:39:50] investment process. Climate change is material actually for a lot
[1:39:52] of issuers, but there are other ESG factors that are
[1:39:56] not. So we are going to focus our time on
[1:39:57] the ones that have the most material impact. And then
[1:40:01] finally continuously improves and innovates. I always think of and
[1:40:05] my team as sort of a little bit of an
[1:40:06] innovation hub around the firm and how we're thinking about
[1:40:09] this partly because we see the trends coming. We see
[1:40:12] with, you know, we see what's coming down. We can
[1:40:14] see, you know, we're talking about water usage and data
[1:40:17] centers and AI, for example, we're talking about, we see
[1:40:19] these wars globally. What are the human rights impacts and
[1:40:22] how should we be thinking about this? So we, we
[1:40:24] do tend to, to be on the, on the leading
[1:40:26] edge. And we have a lot of, um, skill sets
[1:40:29] on the team. And as we do across the firm,
[1:40:31] all the investment teams have data and technical skills right
[1:40:34] within the team. We do as well on the responsible
[1:40:37] investment team, but we also have climate expertise on the
[1:40:39] team. We have governance expertise on the team. We have
[1:40:42] very, very high AI usage on the responsible investment team.
[1:40:47] So we're always looking at ways to, to do better
[1:40:50] and keep on the leading edge in this space. But
[1:40:52] on the next slide, I thought I would, I would
[1:40:54] give a little bit of an example of how we
[1:40:56] think about some of these in climate change, of course,
[1:40:58] is a systemic factor that we started looking at in
[1:41:02] great detail really in 2019. Um, when we first rolled
[1:41:05] out the climate dashboards for all of the investment teams,
[1:41:08] this is a sample. It's actually, um, a web -
[1:41:11] based tool that is a little bit more interactive. So
[1:41:14] this is just a little snapshot of what it looks
[1:41:16] at. So one of our investment go in and they
[1:41:19] can see under the carbon emissions, they can see the
[1:41:21] finance emissions. They can see the weighted average carbon intensity
[1:41:25] trends. Um, they can see the top holdings that have
[1:41:28] the highest emissions, um, they can see the transition. So
[1:41:32] it's not always about the risk. Sometimes it's about the
[1:41:34] opportunity where the green opportunities within the portfolio. You can
[1:41:38] see net zero alignment. Um, if there are targets, we
[1:41:41] can see that within the portfolio and we can also
[1:41:43] do scenario analysis. And so we, we do this. We
[1:41:46] also every year we put out our own climate report
[1:41:49] where we look at this at the firm level and
[1:41:51] we disclose all of our metrics to the extent that
[1:41:53] data is available to be fully transparent and what we're
[1:41:55] seeing in our portfolios. The next slide is just another
[1:42:00] quick. Overview on the systemic risk of governance. I just,
[1:42:05] especially now with what we're seeing in the US, we're
[1:42:07] seeing a lot of shareholder rights. Issues that are emerging.
[1:42:12] And I'll give one very, very quick example, which is
[1:42:14] the SEC is not opining now. It used to be
[1:42:17] that companies would file with the SEC if they wanted
[1:42:20] to remove a ballot item from, from their AGM, from
[1:42:24] the ballot. And the SEC would provide an opinion on
[1:42:27] whether it was appropriate for them to not include that
[1:42:29] on, um, on the ballot. The SEC has said they
[1:42:34] are not providing that opinion anymore. So what's interesting about
[1:42:39] this is that they're not providing the opinion doesn't mean
[1:42:41] it's right or wrong to the company to do it.
[1:42:43] What we're doing now, we're seeing that. We view that
[1:42:45] as a little bit problematic because what we're seeing now
[1:42:47] are more issuers in the US or moving items from
[1:42:49] the ballot where we don't think that's appropriate. We would
[1:42:51] like to have a vote on it. And we might
[1:42:53] not have voted against management. We might not agree with
[1:42:56] that ballot item. But it's the concept that it should
[1:43:00] go on the ballot. We are a shareholder and we
[1:43:01] would like to have a vote. We would like to
[1:43:03] have a say on these particular items. And one thing
[1:43:06] we did see this past proxy voting season is a
[1:43:08] number of companies who did not put items on the
[1:43:10] ballot that we thought we should have voted on. And
[1:43:12] so how we opted to proceed was to vote against
[1:43:16] one of the directors on the company to say we
[1:43:19] didn't think that that was an appropriate exercise of this
[1:43:21] right here. And so, you know, we didn't do that
[1:43:23] in every circumstance, but we were going, we have gone
[1:43:25] through every day. The SEC website because it's still listed
[1:43:29] the ones that they have not put on the ballot.
[1:43:33] The SEC just does not provide an opinion letter. And
[1:43:34] so that's how we're addressing that, but the type of
[1:43:37] activity happening in the states right now, um, that we're
[1:43:40] following. And that's an example of, of governance. And as
[1:43:43] a shareholder, making sure that we continue to have our
[1:43:45] rights in this regard. So I do vote against one
[1:43:49] director or sometimes it's multiple. It depends on first of
[1:43:52] all, it depends on which directors are up for election.
[1:43:55] Sometimes it's a stagger board. Sometimes it's, it's all, but
[1:43:57] usually we won't vote against every single director on that
[1:44:00] one issue. We will vote against perhaps the chair of
[1:44:02] the governance. Or if there's a depending on what they're
[1:44:06] removing from, from, from the ballot, it might be a
[1:44:09] little bit more targeted, but typically be one or two
[1:44:12] directors. I'm impactful. Do they care? Does do others do
[1:44:16] the same thing? Cause to me, it's nice, nice to
[1:44:19] do, but it's irrelevant to them. Right. Yeah. And absolutely.
[1:44:25] And that's a great point. In Canada, we are a
[1:44:27] large shareholder. So our vote is, is very impactful in
[1:44:30] the US. You know, if we look at a large
[1:44:32] company like Amazon, we're much smaller shareholder. And so if
[1:44:35] we're voting against a particular director, the impact might not
[1:44:38] be as big. But I will say directors really care
[1:44:41] about their votes and they want to get as close
[1:44:43] to, you know, 100 percent as possible. So I think
[1:44:47] even a small delta for a director can be meaningful.
[1:44:50] And typically, we will follow up and we will let
[1:44:53] them know why. So that it's very, very clear that
[1:44:55] this was the particular issue. And we do the same
[1:44:58] on diversity as well in some of our organizations. If
[1:45:01] we think that they're board diversity levels are not, um,
[1:45:05] where they should be. And in particular, we look at
[1:45:07] gender. We will look at the governance committee, uh, chair
[1:45:10] and talk to them. But we want to make sure
[1:45:12] they understand where our concerns are. So that's where engagement
[1:45:15] becomes really, really important. Right. Just to follow up. So
[1:45:19] does CCGG do this like as a group? Cause aren't
[1:45:21] you more, more, um, meaningful if you're a group of
[1:45:24] people doing the same thing? Or do you consult with
[1:45:27] your peers on this or at all? Yeah. And so
[1:45:29] CCGG is we are a member of CCGG. I'm on
[1:45:32] the policy committee and somebody on my team is on
[1:45:34] the environmental and social committee. And CCGG does do collaborative
[1:45:38] engagements. We participate in them. I've done a number of
[1:45:40] them with CCGG. We do about 1500 engagements a year.
[1:45:44] So our numbers are vastly higher than what you could
[1:45:49] do as a, as an organization. And when, and when
[1:45:52] you do a collaborative organization, you representing the interests and
[1:45:55] the views of everybody when we do one - on
[1:45:57] - one engagement, we can really focus in on what
[1:45:59] concerns us as a shareholder at that particular company. We
[1:46:03] don't, uh, I would say the RI team, we will
[1:46:07] do some engagements, but, but they're always in full communication
[1:46:11] with the investment teams. And so usually it's us with
[1:46:14] the investment teams, uh, sometimes we will do some collaborative
[1:46:17] engagements like climate engagement Canada. For example, with other investors
[1:46:21] and investment teams may not be aware, we're fully communicating
[1:46:24] with them. What's happening, um, what's being addressed and what
[1:46:28] was the outcome of it. So very, very close work
[1:46:31] together. You can go to the next slide. So this
[1:46:35] is active stewardship and we've spoken a little bit about
[1:46:38] this. I did, I did speak to proxy voting engagement.
[1:46:41] So these are the two different categories. Let's touch on
[1:46:43] proxy voting. First, which is the way we vote our
[1:46:46] proxies is, as I said before, we worked very closely
[1:46:48] with the investment teams. We do have our own custom
[1:46:51] guidelines, how we view things. For example, we want a
[1:46:54] separate CEO and chair. We want the independent. We want
[1:46:57] two thirds of the board to be independent. So we
[1:46:59] have guidelines. We may override our own guidelines. If we
[1:47:03] want to override our own guidelines, we have an independent,
[1:47:07] sorry, I shouldn't say independent. We're all within GAM. We
[1:47:09] have a, it's independent of the investment teams. We have
[1:47:11] a committee set up. That's the CIO myself and three
[1:47:14] others who are not on an investment team. And we
[1:47:17] vote on whether we can, we should override a particular
[1:47:21] matter. For example, if we are, um, looking at, uh,
[1:47:25] CEO chair separation, we might allow an override for that
[1:47:29] if the sunset clause in place. And it's the founder
[1:47:31] of the company. And so we think that there's some
[1:47:32] value in keeping this structure for a certain number of
[1:47:35] years. And so we look at all of the circumstances
[1:47:38] around it. And then we derive at our decision. And
[1:47:42] then engagement, I've spoken to engagement, but we do, um,
[1:47:45] quite, quite a bit of engagement around the firm. And
[1:47:47] I will get into that in a little more detail.
[1:47:48] If we could just go to the next slide. This
[1:47:52] isn't, this is our engagement. It's 1500 engagements last year.
[1:47:56] This is just where we're, you know, we're talking about
[1:47:58] ESG, the investment teams a lot more. And so it's
[1:48:00] a very, very important part of our process. Typically what
[1:48:04] we're looking for is more information from the company. We
[1:48:07] want to understand how they're thinking about some of these
[1:48:09] issues. Or we're encouraging them to put this publicly out
[1:48:12] there. And we've seen with Bill C59, we saw a
[1:48:15] lot of companies looking at pulling back on some of
[1:48:17] their disclosures and what this meant for them. And we're
[1:48:20] always thinking about these different factors and within the company's
[1:48:22] best interest. Because ultimately at the end of the day,
[1:48:24] we are a shareholder. We want the company to do
[1:48:26] well. You can go to the next slide. I've spoken
[1:48:33] about this a little bit again, when we think about
[1:48:35] our guidelines, which are publicly available on our website, when
[1:48:38] we vote against a shareholder proposal, I will often get
[1:48:41] a lot of questions. Well, this is in line with
[1:48:43] your philosophy. You know, you're asking for a climate strategy
[1:48:49] plan, for example. Well, why did you vote against it?
[1:48:52] Well, we might vote against it if the language of
[1:48:55] the ballot item is really prescriptive. It's telling how management,
[1:48:58] how to do it. Um, or they're already doing it,
[1:49:02] even though we agree with this, we think they're already
[1:49:04] doing a good job. And we think it's confusing for
[1:49:05] the company if we vote for this, um, because they
[1:49:09] will reach out to us and say, why did you
[1:49:10] vote for this? We're already doing this. Where's the gap
[1:49:12] and what we're doing? And, you know, there is no
[1:49:14] gap. We think we're fine with that. We don't think
[1:49:16] the benefit or it's too burdensome. If it's too prescriptive,
[1:49:20] but also if they're asking for something that's outside in
[1:49:24] terms of the cost or the resource requirements, uh, relative
[1:49:28] to the value. We can go to the next slide,
[1:49:31] please. These are a statistics. And we put them up
[1:49:38] there and, uh, sometimes ask, are we comfortable? Do we
[1:49:41] like these statistics. Um, and the answer is it's hard
[1:49:44] to know. I am very comfortable with these. And the
[1:49:47] reason I am comfortable with them is I think if
[1:49:49] we voted against management, all of the time, then we
[1:49:52] would have to ask ourselves, why are we invested in
[1:49:54] this company? Why don't we believe in management? I mean,
[1:49:56] it's really important as a shareholder that we believe in,
[1:49:59] in where management is headed, but sometimes we will vote
[1:50:02] against management because sometimes things come up and we view
[1:50:04] things differently. In the US, it's much higher. That is
[1:50:09] typically due to CEO compensation where CEOs are paid much,
[1:50:13] um, higher in the US than they are elsewhere in
[1:50:15] the world. And next slide. And then this is the
[1:50:21] last slide and this just shows the initiatives were involved
[1:50:23] in CCGG was mentioned. Um, PRI responsible investment association is
[1:50:28] in Canada. I chair the board of that organization. When
[1:50:31] we are involved, we try to be very involved. We
[1:50:33] like to have, um, an influential voice in, in this
[1:50:36] space that we're helping guide where it's going. And not,
[1:50:39] you know, with that, those are the end of my
[1:50:41] slides, but I'm happy to take any questions. Board member,
[1:50:46] penin. I've got a few questions. Um, you mentioned CEO
[1:50:50] compensation as one issues where you may vote against management.
[1:50:54] Is there any other issues that come up, I guess
[1:50:59] for something you would want to vote against? I guess
[1:51:01] management. Yes. Um, CEO compensation is one or we vote
[1:51:05] against, we'll vote against the say on pay. In particular,
[1:51:11] um, we vote against board members. For example, if we
[1:51:14] don't think that they have enough gender diversity on the
[1:51:15] board, that might be one reason. We might vote against
[1:51:18] board members if we think that they're independents is not
[1:51:22] where it should be. And typically it's two thirds is
[1:51:24] what we would require in every, in some emerging markets,
[1:51:28] that might differ, uh, and the requirements in some jurisdictions
[1:51:31] like the UK where you're looking at 50 percent, the
[1:51:38] norms relative to that, but generally speaking, we're looking for,
[1:51:41] uh, two thirds, which independence. We might vote against the
[1:51:45] director, as I mentioned before, if they have removed something
[1:51:50] that we think would be appropriately on the ballot. Those
[1:51:54] are sort of, I would say, oh, the separation of
[1:51:56] chair and CEO, typically we like to see that separation.
[1:52:00] We think, you know, when it's together, there's not that
[1:52:01] independence, but we will make some accommodation for that if
[1:52:05] it's a company where the founder is acting in that
[1:52:08] role. And we think the value to that. We might,
[1:52:11] but we do look for a sunset clause and those
[1:52:12] circumstances. So those are the kinds of things we see.
[1:52:15] Sometimes the auditor, the 10 year of the auditor might
[1:52:17] come up. There might be some independence questions around the
[1:52:20] auditor that we would look at as well. Um. Those
[1:52:23] are generally speaking when we would vote against directors. Now
[1:52:28] we do that is separate from the other part of
[1:52:32] the ballot where we have all the shareholder proposals. And
[1:52:35] those ones we might vote again, or we might vote
[1:52:37] in favor of. And those are very specific. And a
[1:52:40] lot of those have to do with G factors. For
[1:52:42] example, you know, the asking for the company to produce,
[1:52:45] uh, report on its human rights impacts. And sometimes they'll
[1:52:49] say within a year, um, or covering this or, you
[1:52:53] know, and that's where we get a little bit prescriptive.
[1:52:54] And that's what sometimes we might say, well, actually, we
[1:52:56] don't think that time frame is very reasonable. We're not
[1:52:59] going to vote in favor of that. Or sometimes it
[1:53:01] might just say something that's, that's broadly aligned with you.
[1:53:04] And then so that's sort of the two sections that
[1:53:07] we would see typically on the, on the ballot. Okay.
[1:53:11] Um, seeing any, how is, how is viewpoints on ESG
[1:53:16] trending like over the last 10 years? And does it
[1:53:19] differ between what you're seeing in the Canadian market versus
[1:53:23] the US market versus hidden much. They're much more engaged
[1:53:29] in European markets on some of these factors than what
[1:53:31] we see in North America, at least traditionally. Yes. Absolutely.
[1:53:37] And actually that's where it's been very helpful to have
[1:53:40] team and team members in the different jurisdictions. I mean,
[1:53:43] to have their feed on the ground, um, Europe has,
[1:53:46] has traditionally been further ahead, um, but I wouldn't, you
[1:53:50] know, I'm always careful when I say that because when
[1:53:53] I say further ahead, they've had a lot more regulation
[1:53:55] in this space and they're more prescriptive in their regulation
[1:53:59] and what the view is in terms of what is
[1:54:01] good and what is bad in the ESG space and
[1:54:03] what is acceptable if you have, for example, an ESG
[1:54:06] labeled product or an ESG labeled fund. And we have
[1:54:08] a lot more disclosures that we have to do in
[1:54:10] Europe around our ESG factors in our funds under the
[1:54:14] SFDR regulation. Um, but I always don't want to take
[1:54:18] away from other jurisdictions that are doing a lot. The
[1:54:21] US has gone in a different direction. And so the
[1:54:23] US in itself is really split. And as shareholder rights
[1:54:29] have become a big issue that we're focusing on in
[1:54:31] the US, the not talk of climate change issues at
[1:54:35] the federal level. But at the state level, there's a
[1:54:38] lot of activity happening on climate change readiness. And so,
[1:54:43] and, and the US, I would say if we're talking
[1:54:44] about just regulation, no regulation is the way it's going.
[1:54:48] In fact, now companies not getting an opinion letter from
[1:54:49] the SEC. It's sort of in line with, but I
[1:54:53] will say Europe's pulling back from the regulation and it's
[1:54:55] pulling back from the prescriptiveness because I think it's just
[1:54:58] been so onerous for asset managers and asset owners and,
[1:55:02] and companies to make all of these disclosures that the
[1:55:06] pullback and just a little bit of a sense check
[1:55:08] of, is this, is this helping people? This is helping
[1:55:11] investors, um, understand these issues better. So we are seeing
[1:55:14] that in Europe, but I think sentiment remains the same.
[1:55:17] Um, so a little bit is more about how it's
[1:55:19] being spoken of. And Canada always is, is a little
[1:55:23] bit in the middle. Um, I would say we are
[1:55:26] influenced by our neighbor to the south. But I think,
[1:55:30] and we don't have the same regulation as Europe. So
[1:55:32] we're not quite as far as Europe, but there was
[1:55:34] a lot of discussion about enhanced disclosures in Canada. I
[1:55:37] think Canada always is just a very practical, you know,
[1:55:39] what do investors want. Let's be really practical in making
[1:55:43] sure they get those disclosures in a way that's not
[1:55:45] too onerous or too prescriptive or too prescriptive. So that's
[1:55:48] where, you know, clients in Canada are still asking for
[1:55:50] it. They still want to understand these issues, but it's
[1:55:53] not, you know, at the same level of, of detail,
[1:55:56] maybe that in the past, we've seen in Europe. But
[1:55:59] it is a, it is a, you know, I used
[1:56:01] to say the pendulum is swinging back, but it's sort
[1:56:03] of swinging everywhere right now. I remember ready. Actually, my
[1:56:08] question was addressed. Oh, okay. Thanks. One more. Do you
[1:56:12] have more? Okay. Board member company, sure. I have to
[1:56:15] ask. So just because it's, it's kind of in spot
[1:56:18] right now. The greenwashing case with purpose. I don't know
[1:56:21] if. Comments or anything you would want to say about
[1:56:24] that. No, I mean, it's a very relevant case. I
[1:56:27] would just say, um, it probably won't comment on the
[1:56:31] details of that particular case because I, and I also
[1:56:33] don't know the details of that particular case, but I
[1:56:35] would just maybe comment on how we've thought about it.
[1:56:38] And we've certainly been, you know, very in depth with
[1:56:42] as a regulations have changed. How are we wording certain
[1:56:45] things? Are we still being clear and transparent for investors?
[1:56:48] And we've always tried to strive for clear transparency and
[1:56:53] not over promising. We've never used, and in fact, when
[1:56:56] I, when I, you know, seven years ago, it used
[1:57:00] to be a kind of a hot thing, a hot,
[1:57:03] a little bit contentious with myself in marketing where they
[1:57:06] would want to put out stronger marketing language around this.
[1:57:09] And we would say, no, um, pull it back in
[1:57:11] a little bit because we want to be really clear.
[1:57:13] We always say that it is, we strive for better
[1:57:17] risk and return over the long run. But there's really
[1:57:20] like the studies around this. It's, it's hard to sort
[1:57:22] of put your finger on exactly how will this play
[1:57:25] out, but we do deeply believe it is part of
[1:57:27] our philosophy that if we are looking at these material
[1:57:29] factors, how can it not impact your long, um, performance?
[1:57:34] So I'll just maybe without commenting on that particular case,
[1:57:37] just say that we try to be as transparent and
[1:57:40] clear as possible and not make any, you know, any
[1:57:42] promises or commitments that we're not, that we're not doing.
[1:57:48] Else. I remember jobs. Just, and this is something just
[1:57:55] came up again in the media with the SpaceX thing
[1:57:58] and musk having control and voting shares as opposed to
[1:58:01] other shares of being offered. Are you seeing more or
[1:58:05] less of those structures and what's your view on them.
[1:58:08] We like to have one vote per share. We think
[1:58:10] that that's, you know, in terms of governance practice, that's
[1:58:13] the way it should, it should be. We don't like,
[1:58:16] um, to have different structures where we have tiered levels
[1:58:19] of shares. We do understand that when companies first go
[1:58:22] public, you need some incentive. And so you can't entirely
[1:58:26] get away from some of these structures. There is a
[1:58:29] reason that they're in place. We do want more companies
[1:58:32] coming to the public markets. That's, you know, that's where
[1:58:35] we are. Uh, and so we don't want to completely
[1:58:38] that. And founders put a lot of their own time
[1:58:42] and resource. There's a lot that goes into the research
[1:58:44] and development. And so you want people to be compensated
[1:58:47] for those efforts. But we do want to see that,
[1:58:51] that roll off. And we do want one vote per
[1:58:53] share as a shareholder. It gives us more, um, more
[1:58:56] influence on what we want to see with the company.
[1:59:00] And we do see it, you know, I mean, you
[1:59:02] see it more, you see a lot in the tech
[1:59:03] space, you know, and you've given Elon Musk as an
[1:59:06] example where a lot of money can go into some
[1:59:08] of the research and development and they want to be
[1:59:10] compensated. And so what does that look like? And can
[1:59:12] you have a sunset clause on some of these shares?
[1:59:15] Uh, because we do find ourselves trapped in some of
[1:59:16] these interesting situations where we have a vote, but it
[1:59:19] really is not meaningful because, you know, it's, it's, it's,
[1:59:24] you know, somebody else has much more of a stake
[1:59:26] in it. Board member Fraser. Thank you. Um, thank you
[1:59:31] for the presentation. Just a quick question. Uh, you provided
[1:59:35] sort of example of the ESG snapshot sort of addresses.
[1:59:38] But how is this used within the firm? Both of
[1:59:41] the investment manager level and maybe that the committee level.
[1:59:44] It is used by the investment teams. And so this
[1:59:47] is a particular snapshot where they're thinking about an investment
[1:59:50] or looking at their portfolio. They can pull it up
[1:59:52] and they can get the relevant ESG metrics and information
[1:59:56] that they need similar to the climate snapshot if they
[1:59:58] wanted to look at what are their emissions. Same idea,
[2:00:01] but it's a little bit more broadly speaking around ESG.
[2:00:05] My firm. It's an aggregation of all the firms of
[2:00:08] them holdings within the portfolio. By fun. Yes. By fund.
[2:00:11] Yeah. And is there sort of a senior committee then
[2:00:14] sort of monitors the investment managers to find out if
[2:00:17] they're really offside benchmark. With effectively, let's say the ESG
[2:00:21] score? Well with not none of our mandates are a
[2:00:25] portfolios have that as a target. Their performance is the
[2:00:28] target and none of them have any restrictions except for
[2:00:31] the vision funds where you cannot be, they cannot be
[2:00:33] invested in certain, um, industries or certain product level developments,
[2:00:40] but we don't have one group that looks at everything,
[2:00:43] but we do have, several mechanisms in place. So one
[2:00:46] is we were closely with the risk team and we
[2:00:48] do, uh, semi annual semi annual report that looks at
[2:00:52] all of our high risk industries, our high risk countries.
[2:00:55] And we, we lay it all out for the CIO,
[2:00:58] but also it goes into the head of risk for
[2:01:00] all the wealth management at RBC to show where we
[2:01:03] are in some of these particular industries. There are some,
[2:01:07] but we don't go through at a fun level and
[2:01:08] say this, this particular holding is really high in its
[2:01:11] emissions. But we have, for example, climate engagement plan where
[2:01:15] we, we have looked at our top 40 highest emitting
[2:01:20] companies and how we've engaged with them and how we've,
[2:01:23] we've discussed this with them and whether we have any
[2:01:25] concerns. So it's more on these, you know, this level.
[2:01:29] I would say probably the semi annual report that we
[2:01:31] do is the most comprehensive, but on a fun level,
[2:01:35] that's, that's more done by the investment teams as well
[2:01:38] as the RA team together, but more on a ad
[2:01:40] hoc basis. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to
[2:01:43] check in with board member Deed. I board member, daddy,
[2:01:46] I can't see you ask green, but I know you
[2:01:47] know a lot about this issue. So I just want
[2:01:50] to check in to see if you had any questions.
[2:01:53] Oh, thank you for, no, I'm fine. Thank you, Chair
[2:01:57] Hughes. Yep. Okay. Thanks. Anyone else. Then, um, thank you
[2:02:06] very much, Ms. Adams. Great presentation and you could tell
[2:02:11] the global of interest from all the questions. And now
[2:02:14] can I have a motion to receive the presentation. What
[2:02:19] more like when makes that motion on favor, please raise
[2:02:21] your hands. When you posed. It, that carries. All right.
[2:02:25] Thank you very much. Thank you so much. So now
[2:02:29] we are at. I think this would be a good
[2:02:32] time to break for lunch. So let's allow 45 minutes
[2:02:36] for lunch, let's say. A closed session. We're hoping to
[2:02:44] start around one. So we have a couple of reports
[2:02:46] to do first before that. So, uh, if someone was
[2:02:51] to offer motion, thank you for numerogyles offers a motion
[2:02:54] to break for lunch. All in favor, please raise your
[2:02:57] hands and you posed. At Jerry. Okay. So we'll start
[2:03:02] for 40. And then it's going to say 1250. Back
[2:03:10] at 1250 everybody. Big lunch is ready for us. I
[2:03:13] would in the lobby area out there. And you'll.
[2:51:02] Thank you. For ready to start again everyone.
[2:51:23] So board members, we are on item number nine C
[2:51:26] now, which is the 2026 investment plan reviewed for a
[2:51:30] number of municipalities. Aurora Clarington Central Front in that Huntsville
[2:51:34] and innocence six of them. Any questions on these investment
[2:51:38] plans. People are comfortable. The only comment
[2:51:48] I would make, I just wanted to command staff. The
[2:51:51] format of the report, it's very helpful to do a
[2:51:55] whole bunch of investment plans this way. So thank you.
[2:52:05] For a good approach to. All right, could I have
[2:52:10] a motion to adopt the following recommendations in the report?
[2:52:13] So number one, receive the investment policy statement and municipal
[2:52:17] client questionnaires from the following participating municipality, summarized in the
[2:52:21] table that you see in your agendas. So for town
[2:52:24] of worm, you study of clarity. So maybe I'll just
[2:52:27] mention the MNRI values for each of them. Time of
[2:52:31] Aurora, 58, 144, 864 dollars, municipality of clinic to 23,
[2:52:39] 968, 461 dollars, township of central frontnack, 3, 784, 080
[2:52:46] dollars. 68, 575, 864 dollars.
[2:52:56] And then number two, approve the following investment plans, which
[2:52:59] are summarized in the table before. And again, I will
[2:53:02] just mention the model. So town of Aurora, which is
[2:53:08] invested in model E, municipality of Clarington, invested in mono
[2:53:12] G plus. So that's with although township of central front
[2:53:20] neck. Tonight, console, Mahmoudi, town of Innisville Model C. So
[2:53:26] I'm going to let them make that motion. Board member.
[2:53:32] I like them to make that motion. I'll in favor,
[2:53:33] please raise your hands. Can you posed that carries? Just
[2:53:39] a question. Doesn't change the vote or anything. In terms
[2:53:43] of, as we grow, and the more and more on
[2:53:47] the list grows, what is the, how do you check
[2:53:50] for consistency among plans. Sorry, what was the question? It's
[2:53:55] just like, we, you know, when we look at plans,
[2:53:59] we sort of like, do we take the weighted average
[2:54:01] of the charity schedule. Or new requirement for money versus
[2:54:08] the weight? So that, you know, if you're looking, if
[2:54:11] you do it, you know that these are generally in
[2:54:13] the same range. They're in this plan. And then if
[2:54:17] there's any deviation, which there should be, or may not
[2:54:20] be, but you can document this as why they're not
[2:54:23] sort of in line. So that someone who has a
[2:54:26] weighted average of seven years is in a model F
[2:54:29] than someone within weighted average of 25 years is in
[2:54:32] model G. You know what I mean? Like that. Because
[2:54:36] soon the list will be 20 long that you're looking
[2:54:38] at, you know, as you become more successful. Without having
[2:54:44] to look at individuals. You need to have a consistency,
[2:54:48] I think. Make sure that those models. I think that
[2:54:51] it's the time horizons are the first determinant of models.
[2:54:57] And then the adjustments. So do you have a plan
[2:54:59] to make sure you're consistent as this plan grows? That
[2:55:05] absolutely ensures that. We start with the old outcome framework,
[2:55:09] which gives a starting point. We figure out what the,
[2:55:11] uh, the outcome framework would have suggested as a consolidated,
[2:55:16] um, allocation. And then I, I take, um, actually, uh,
[2:55:22] target date bonus, external target tape bonds to give an
[2:55:25] indication of what would be appropriate based on different investment
[2:55:28] horizons. And I just line them up on the graph
[2:55:30] and I can say that that floor from this investment
[2:55:33] horizon, if the average is seven, it should be this
[2:55:36] allocation. And, um, I mean, it's very succinct. And then
[2:55:41] I'll have, uh, notes in there that would qualify when
[2:55:44] we're off the line. So I absolutely have that. Um,
[2:55:48] I think it would be instructive, uh, somewhere down the
[2:55:50] line that we have in educational session. So I can
[2:55:53] go through, uh, the things that I look at and
[2:55:56] the double checks. And so you, you have confidence that,
[2:56:01] that I'm just not picking numbers out of the air,
[2:56:04] uh, G sounds like a good number. Let's put them
[2:56:06] in G. No, there is a process there. Absolutely. And
[2:56:11] I also do, I mean, there is some qualitative, it's
[2:56:14] not just the numbers. The quality of the numbers is
[2:56:17] also factored in there. Um, the, the detail that the,
[2:56:22] the treasurer's provide us. And, um, that will also factor
[2:56:26] in some people might say that, you know, it's gotten
[2:56:30] eight year horizon based on what they have. And do
[2:56:35] I have faith in their numbers? They seem, are they,
[2:56:39] are they, um. Are they putting their thumb on the
[2:56:43] scale to be more conservative with their numbers than, than,
[2:56:47] than reality is. I try to make some qualifications in
[2:56:51] there. But yeah, so we're not strictly putting the numbers
[2:56:54] and putting them on the line. Um, there is, um,
[2:56:57] some level of evaluation. And it's that there is a
[2:57:00] qualitative factor. They get measured in. Member. I'm sorry. I
[2:57:09] was too slow in putting my hand up when you
[2:57:10] asked her questions previously. Um, just a quick point of
[2:57:13] clarification. Um, in the municipal client questionnaire, uh, questionnaires, Clarenrington
[2:57:20] and inniceville both answered yes to question 5. 6, which
[2:57:25] is, does your current municipal forecast include any large or
[2:57:29] unusual capital expenditures? And I'm just wondering if staff have
[2:57:33] any insight as to what those unusual or large capital
[2:57:38] expenditures are. So for Clarington, uh, their counsel's a bit
[2:57:43] on a spending spree. They've got various building expansions and
[2:57:49] new community brink center proposed. So in a lot of
[2:57:54] that money is falling into MNRI, but is, um, is
[2:57:58] either in progress or is starting to become in progress.
[2:58:01] So there's got significant growth going on and go to.
[2:58:07] And they're managing based on their structure. They've got multiple
[2:58:13] downtown course. Right. So there it's not just one municipality.
[2:58:16] It's a bunch of municipalities that came together to pick
[2:58:18] up there. Uh, Ined spille is again, undergrowth very similar.
[2:58:25] So growth related expansion projects. Um, orbit project is it
[2:58:30] did one. I mean, we were there last September and
[2:58:32] we, uh, they told us about all the third body
[2:58:36] be spending. That is why their investment horizon, if anything
[2:58:39] is growing shorter because they have, they gave us a
[2:58:42] good lump of money when they joined the one ship.
[2:58:45] And now it's coming clear that they're going to need
[2:58:46] some of that to build, uh, some of the, uh,
[2:58:49] deepest structure. That within it fills this matter of when
[2:58:57] will they actually need to draw down those funds, but
[2:58:59] they cannot yet clarify. But yeah, that was, that's helpful.
[2:59:05] Thank you. Yeah, I think within us, an issue around
[2:59:09] the timing of a ghost station related to orbital. Is
[2:59:11] that right? Yeah. So, um, it could be longer, could
[2:59:15] be shorter. When they actually need to spend money. Um,
[2:59:18] the only other thing I want to add to the
[2:59:20] commentary just following up on board member Leckman's point is,
[2:59:25] um, I think, uh, this report, Mr. Taylor, had the
[2:59:29] best explanation yet of the process. So thank you for
[2:59:32] that. That was good. So now we're on to item
[2:59:38] 9D. And I think it would be more appropriate for
[2:59:43] us to consider this item after the closed session given
[2:59:46] the recommendation. So I'm going to ask for a motion
[2:59:50] to defer consideration of this item until after the post
[2:59:53] session. Some like to make that motion. Lots of people
[2:59:57] are volunteering. Let's say board member ready makes that motion.
[3:00:01] All in favor, please raise your hands. There's okay. Thank
[3:00:05] you. I think that makes a lot more sense. Um,
[3:00:10] now let's move to vitamin 10 A, which should not
[3:00:13] be too difficult. Uh, this is proposing that we moved
[3:00:22] the agenda date for the date for the September meeting.
[3:00:28] So any concerns or problems that people have.
[3:00:38] So there's no further discussion. And could I have a
[3:00:40] motion that the board of Dr. Recognition report to reschedule
[3:00:43] its meetings currently set for Thursday, September 3rd, 2026. Thursday,
[3:00:48] September 10th, 2026 at the MO offices begin the attend
[3:00:54] as we usually did. So I'll make that motion. Tracer
[3:00:58] makes that motion on favor. Please raise your hands. Any
[3:01:01] opposed that carries. Great. You don't have any reports under
[3:01:06] strategy. A policy today. So I think we are now
[3:01:09] ready for a close session. Okay. We have three items
[3:01:15] listed for our closed session discussion. The first relates to
[3:01:19] confidential presentation from Echler Limited that contains commercial or financial
[3:01:23] information that belongs to the board under subsection 239 to
[3:01:31] subsections 239 21 J. That's two I and J of
[3:01:36] the misspal act. And we have two education sessions under
[3:01:41] section 239 3. 1 of the act. And they relate
[3:01:44] to educating board members on syncing funds and providing an
[3:01:47] update on municipalities that are in the pipeline to join
[3:01:50] the prudent investor program. And there are a few which
[3:01:52] is encouraging. So can I have a motion to move
[3:01:55] into closed session for the purpose of receiving confidence. To
[3:02:03] move into closed session for the purpose of receiving commercial
[3:02:07] or financial under subsections 239 to INJ at the missile
[3:02:11] act and holding education sessions on syncing funds and a
[3:02:14] pipeline update under section 239 3. 1 after miss will
[3:02:18] act board member PIMCO makes that motion. Okay. Carries. Okay.
[3:02:28] So we're going to have a brief recess as we
[3:02:30] transition to the closed session. If anybody said quick break
[3:02:35] the time now and, uh, daddy, we'll need to move
[3:02:39] over to this front. Oh, maybe not if she's on
[3:02:42] the phone. But anyway, I will. Okay. Thanks. We're moving
[3:02:47] into closed session now. And then we'll come back to
[3:02:50] make public motions follow in the closed session. Okay. So
[3:02:53] quick transition. And then we'll get going.
[5:24:51] Okay, okay. So could I have a motion that the
[5:24:53] board received the confidential presentation from the closed session. And
[5:24:57] from the closed education session that relate to items 12A,
[5:25:00] 12B and 12C on the agenda. Vice Chair James makes
[5:25:06] that motion all in favor. Please raise your hands. Any
[5:25:09] opposed that carries. And now we're moving back to agenda
[5:25:13] item 9D. So if there's no discussion on the report,
[5:25:19] that's on discussioning closed. Could I have a motion to
[5:25:21] adopt the following recommendation? The report approved the continuation of
[5:25:25] pH and then institutional as the external investment manager. Board
[5:25:30] member John makes that motion. I'll in favor. Please raise
[5:25:32] your hands. Any opposed. Tered. No other business from board
[5:25:40] members or staff. I can include the meeting lookups in
[5:25:44] a minute of me saying them all. Sure. Okay. So
[5:25:50] I'm going to skip the meeting outcomes. For now. And
[5:25:55] so it doesn't include it in the minutes. All right.
[5:25:57] So media outcomes will be included in the minutes. And
[5:26:03] I have a motion that the appropriate staff of one
[5:26:05] jib and one investment be given the authority to do
[5:26:07] all things necessary, including executing and documents to give effect
[5:26:10] to the board's decisions today. I remember really makes that
[5:26:15] motion on favorite. Please lose your hands. On your pose.
[5:26:20] Bacterias. And I have a motion to adjourn. I remember
[5:26:26] we might. Kessel makes that motion. I'll in favor of
[5:26:28] these raise your hands. You that carries our next meeting
[5:26:32] is on September 10th, 2026 at 10 a. m. here
[5:26:35] at the MO office. Thank you everyone. Have a great
[5:26:39] summer and the board stands adjourned off.