Last week I wrote about BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 that proposed amendments to the Clean Energy Act allowing BC Hydro to:

1. Implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

In my blog post entitled Bill 17, Burrard Thermal, BC Hydro self sufficiency and clean electricity, I detailed a series of amendments that ensured:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

That blog post, together with my exchange during Question Period with the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15th, provides a comprehensive analysis of why I proposed the amendments. I conclude the post with this:

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

In an odd press release and through an an even more odd, and unsupportable amendment, the BC Greens made it clear that this Bill will die on the order papers. And this troubles me.

The press release appears to be tone deaf. The feedback my office received from Indigenous communities has been almost exclusively on the government’s proposed removal of the self sufficiency clause (see my blog and also my Question Period exchange for more details). Yet the BC Greens propose no amendments in this regard and instead make the bizarre claim that more consultation is needed. The BC Greens could have either proposed to support my amendments to remove the self sufficiency clause, which has been sitting on the order papers since July 14, or introduced similar amendments themselves. This would ensure that the very positive aspects of Bill 17 are passed in a timely fashion. They chose not to, thereby ensuring Bill 17 will die on the order papers.

Unfortunately, the BC Greens’ proposed amendment is unsupportable and in my view shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of the energy file. I too heard feedback from stakeholders that the definition of clean electricity was problematic. However, many of the people raising this issue didn’t realize that the existing Clean Energy Act has very similar regulation enabling legislation. My amendments ensured that the existing definition remained in place for clarity.

Below I reproduce all definitions so I can expand upon this:

The various definitions

1) Existing definition in Clean Energy Act:

“clean or renewable resource” means biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean, wind or any other prescribed resource;

[there is no definition of clean electricity]

2) BC NDP government proposed change:

“clean electricity” means electricity

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

3) My proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

4) BC Green proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a renewable non-fossilized resource, including biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean and wind;

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

You’ll see that the government proposed to essentially leave the definition of “clean electricity” up to regulation. My amendments simply reverted the definition to what has been in place in the existing Act for more than a decade.

The BC Greens basically took the existing definition in the Clean Energy Act and added “non fossilized resource”. While at first glance this might seem sensible, it is problematic for a number of reasons:

1) “non-fossilized resource” is not defined in the bill.
2) Their definition of “clean electricity” may in fact preclude aspects of the establishment of a hydrogen economy. One of the main ways to generate hydrogen is to use steam-methane reformation and partial oxidation to strip it from methane molecules.
3) Despite the BC Green claim, leaving in: “clean resource” means a prescribed resource means that the definition of clean electricity and clean resources is not in fact stronger. It is, ironically, weaker.

In summary, it appears to me that rather than doing what is right and ensuring that the key aspects of the bill are retained while more work is done on the self sufficiency clause, as I proposed, the BC Greens have chosen to introduce 11^th hour politically-motivated amendments as a face-saving exercise.

I am profoundly disappointed in the BC Greens for forcing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater on Bill 17. As I noted earlier, under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens should communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate. I’m not sure what the BC Greens were thinking, but I certainly understand why the BC NDP might not choose not to bring this bill forward for debate in light of the uncertainty created by the BC Green position on this file.

Over the last few days there has been a flurry of emails to MLAs around the province concerning BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020. These emails articulate opposition to the removal of BC Hydro’s “self sufficiency clause”.

Let’s take a look at this issue in more detail.

Bill 17 proposes changes to the Clean Energy Act and Utilities Commission Act to give BC Hydro the ability to consider a range of energy resources and asset options as it prepares its Integrated Resource Plan.

The bill has been put together in what teachers reading this will recognize as a “two stars and a wish” format. That is, sandwiched between two very positive changes is one that is creating a great deal of concern.

The bill proposes amendments that will allow BC Hydro to:

1. implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

You’ll get absolutely no argument from me about the importance of implementing a 100% clean energy standard. The bill does not require 100% of BC’s electricity to be produced from clean sources, but it does set up a reporting structure and the intention is clearly to move in that direction as part of CleanBC, which the BC NDP government and I developed collaboratively in 2018. The requirement for 100% clean electricity would have to be set through regulation (Order in Council) and presumably that would occur after consultation with Washington, Oregon and California as to the precise definition of what is considered “clean electricity”. Presently, about 95% of BC’s electricity is generated from renewables.

You’ll also get absolutely no argument from me about the needs to mothball Burrard Thermal. Burrard Thermal was shut down in 2016 by the previous BC Liberal government after announcing it would do so in 2013. It sits on 78 acres of waterfront property in Port Moody that could be put to better use. What’s particularly strategic about the location is that it already has transmission lines to the area and so could supply power to heavy users of clean electricity. In fact, this strategic asset could be used as a carrot to attract to our province industry looking for access to clean energy as a means of demonstrating corporate leadership and developing green branding. Ever since I got elected in 2013, I have been pointing out that British Columbia should be using its abundant clean electricity resources to attract cleantech and manufacturing industries here. And so I am very supportive of government’s intentions in this regard.

What’s more troubling is the removal of BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. In reality, BC Hydro does not actually have a stringent self-sufficiency clause in place, although we used to. That’s because on February 3, 2013 the BC Liberals relaxed this clause (to protect ratepayers from hydro increases) by changing the requirement for BC Hydro to be self sufficient for average instead of critical (i.e. the most adverse sequence of stream flows occurring within the historical record) water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams. Back in May 2019, I expanded on BC Hydro’s lack of self sufficiency in a series of questions I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Much like the BC Liberals wanted to protect ratepayers from hydro increases, the BC NDP clearly want to do the same. The removal of the rest of the self sufficiency clause would create electricity trading opportunities with the United States via the highly successful power trading arm of BC Hydro — Powerex. The US is awash with very cheap solar power that Powerex could purchase during the day and at night, when the sun isn’t shining, they could sell back hydro power from our legacy dams at a premium. The arbitrage opportunities are boundless and it is no doubt that this would a) protect ratepayers from hydro rate increases and b) bring in much needed revenue to our province.

But here’s the twist, in doing so, we will likely put the final nail in the coffin for BC’s once vibrant clean energy sector.

When the BC NDP introduced Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 on June 23, I immediately determined that it was problematic. The problem was not with the desire for BC Hydro to keep rates low or use our legacy dams like batteries (one of my very first blog posts upon getting elected was on this topic), but rather that some of the unforeseen consequences and missed opportunities had not been fully explored (see for example my question to the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15, 2020). And so I immediately set out to work with the BC Legislative drafters to propose amendments to the Bill (reproduced below). The amendments have been sitting on the order papers since July 14 and will be moved during committee stage for Bill 17.

The amendments ensure that:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

Should these amendments pass, the positive aspects of Bill 17 will be retained whereas the more troubling components will be removed.

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

I look forward to the exciting opportunities for innovation that present themselves with the removal of Burrard Thermal from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets and the move of BC to 100% clean electricity.

Proposed Amendments to Bill 17

17   Mr. Weaver to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020, to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

1 Section 1 (1) of the Clean Energy Act, S.B.C. 2010, c. 22, is amended

(a) in the definition of “acquire” by striking out “used in relation to the authority” and substituting “in sections 7, 12 and 15”,

(b) by adding the following definitions:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

“compliance period” means a prescribed period; , and

(c) by repealing the-definition of “electricity self sufficiency”, and

(d)(c) by adding the following definitions:

“grid-connected customer” means a person in British Columbia who receives service through a direct or indirect connection to the British Columbia electrical transmission grid, other than a person in the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality;

“regulated person” means
         (a) the authority,
         (b) a prescribed public utility or class of public utilities, or
         (c) a prescribed person or class of persons who deliver electricity to grid-connected customers; .

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 2 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(a) by repealing paragraphs (a) and (n), and

(b) by adding the following paragraph:

(q) to serve grid-connected customers with clean electricity.

SECTION 3, by deleting section 3.

SECTION 4, by deleting section 4.

SECTION 6, by deleting section 6.

SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

8 Section 37 is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(a) by adding the following paragraphs:

(a.1) for the purposes of the definition of “clean electricity” in section 1 (1), deeming electricity delivered under any of the following to be clean electricity:
         (i) a specified contract or class of contracts;
         (ii) a specified rate or class of rates;
(iii) a specified international agreement;

(a.2) a regulation made under paragraph (a.l) may prescribe that of the electricity delivered, a specified percentage is deemed to be clean electricity;

(a.3) prescribing resources for the purposes of the definition of “clean resource” in section 1 (1);

(a.4)(a.1) prescribing a period for the purposes of the definition of “compliance period” in section 1 (1);

(a.5)(a.2) prescribing public utilities, classes of public utilities, persons and classes of persons for the purposes of the definition of “regulated person” in section 1 (l);  ,

(b) in paragraph (c) by striking out “sections 6 and 13” and substituting “section 13”, and

(c) by adding the following paragraphs:

(j) prescribing requirements for the purposes of section 19.1;
(k) prescribing matters that must be addressed in a report prepared under section 19.2 (1);
(l) for the purposes of section 19.2 (2), prescribing requirements respecting the preparation, verification and submission of reports, including, without limitation, the following:
         (i) respecting the form and content of reports;
         (ii) respecting who may conduct verifications;
         (iii) respecting the conduct of verifications;
         (iv) requiring reports or statements in relation to verifications, and respecting the form and content of those reports and statements;
         (v) respecting the dates by which reports must be submitted to the minister.

SECTION 10, by deleting section 10.

SECTION 11, by adding the underlined text as shown:

11 Sections 44.1 (8) (b), 44.2 (5) (c), 46 (3.1) (c) and 71 (2.1) (c) and (2.5) (c) of the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, are amended by striking out “sections 6 and 19 of the Clean Energy Act” and substituting “sections 6, 19 and 19.1 of the Clean Energy Act”.

Over the last few days my office has received a number of emails concerning the City of Victoria’s proposed closure of Richardson Street at its junction with Foul Bay Road. The stated goal for this closure is to install bike lanes and limit the traffic along Richardson Street to fewer than 500 cars per day. Unfortunately, the City of Victoria has chosen not to send their proposal to the District of Oak Bay for comment. In my view, this is unacceptable since Victoria is surrounded by neighbouring communities and any traffic flow changes have significant concomitant regional consequences.  It’s particularly troubling as Foul Bay Road represents the boundary between Oak Bay and Victoria.

Below I reproduce a letter I sent today to Victoria Council expressing my concerns regarding their lack of consultation.

Text of Letter

Dear Mayor and Council of the City of Victoria,

I am writing to you to express my profound concern regarding your proposed forthcoming developments for Richardson Street at the Foul Bay junction.  As you will know, the junction where Richardson Street meets Foul Bay resides squarely in the riding of Oak Bay Gordon Head which I represent.

I understand that Council has unilaterally decided that it wishes to restrict traffic to only 500 cars per day along Richardson Road without consulting with the District of Oak Bay.  To meet this arbitrary target, council decided to close off Richardson Street at Foul Bay and hence only allow bike traffic through the intersection.

Richardson Road is one of only two main roads that connect south Oak Bay (where a substantial number of civil servants live) and downtown Victoria.  While I applaud your efforts to create more biking infrastructure for the City of Victoria, I remind you that Victoria is surrounded by neighbouring communities and any traffic flow changes have significant concomitant regional consequences.  In addition, for many people living in south Oak Bay, cycling is not an option.  In my view, it is not appropriate for your council to proceed with this project without formally referring this proposal to the District of Oak Bay for comment.

As you will also know, Oak Bay is planning to expand their active transportation infrastructure.  They are in the midst of ongoing consultation and planning.   It strikes me as both a missed opportunity and inappropriate for you not to consult with them on your plans.  My recommendation to government is that provincial funding requests for the Richardson Corridor project not be considered until such time as said consultation is completed.

I am not sure what, if any, regional traffic flow modelling your council has done on the proposed closure of this intersection.  Nevertheless, as someone who was born and grew up in Victoria, I would suggest that all that this will do is divert traffic from South Oak Bay to Fairfield Road.  This will greatly increase traffic on side streets throughout the area.  As you know, Fairfield Road passes two elementary schools: Margaret Jenkins and Sir James Douglas.  This substantially increased traffic flow on Fairfield Road presents a very real, increased danger to the elementary school students.  In addition, the substantially increased traffic on the side streets also presents a very real, increased danger to children.  Fairfield Road also meanders by Ross Bay Cemetery, Fairfield Plaza and Hollywood Park.  In many places, it is very narrow and very busy.  Richardson Road, on the other hand, could easily handle separated bike lanes.

I recognize that Victoria Council might counter that they expect traffic to come along Oak Bay Avenue instead.  I would suggest that this is certainly not a given as Oak Bay Council is presently exploring traffic options in the Oak Bay Village to make it more pedestrian friendly.  In essence, this is precisely why consultation with neighbouring communities is imperative.

Thank you in advance for considering this request that you enter into consultation with the District of Oak Bay in advance of proceeding with the closure of Richardson Road at Foul Bay.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Weaver

MLA Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Cc  BC Minister of Transportation  (minister.transportation@gov.bc.ca)
BC Minister of Environment  (env.minister@gov.bc.ca)
BC Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing  (mah.minister@gov.bc.ca)
Oak Bay Mayor and Council (mayor@oakbay.ca, obcouncil@oakbay.ca)

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how he reconciles his government’s claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for clean energy economic development. I also asked him whether he was willing to instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs.

Below I reproduce the text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Many Indigenous communities in British Columbia anticipated being able to sell surplus electricity to B.C. Hydro. Despite this government’s professed commitment to reconciliation, the decision by B.C. Hydro to cancel its standing offer program has placed these communities in a very difficult position.

As I’m sure the minister is aware, reconciliation is a multifaceted process that involves building genuine, long-lasting economic partnerships with Indigenous communities. Otherwise many such communities will continue to struggle economically. More recently, with the proposed changes to the self-sufficiency clause in the Clean Energy Act, First Nations aspiring to become clean energy producers will be dealt yet another serious blow.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How can this government claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for economic development?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. Let’s begin by remembering that the old government signed insider deals for power at five times the market price. That created a $16 billion obligation owed by British Columbians. That’s $16 billion in unnecessary costs.

We are committed to keeping B.C. Hydro rates low and building a low-carbon economy for people. Maintaining affordable electricity is critical to electrifying our economy and meeting our CleanBC goals. The standing offer program was not compatible with this.

Our government understands — and I acknowledge the import of the member’s question — that many Indigenous communities view small-scale private power as economic development opportunities. Indeed, when we suspended the standing offer program in February 2019, we exempted five projects in development that had significant First Nations involvement.

I agree with the member that it’s important to support Indigenous communities in clean energy economic development. Just last month we announced $13 million for four clean energy projects to help remote communities get off diesel.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Over the last decade, numerous First Nations have banked heavily on clean energy projects as an economic development strategy. Many have entered into agreements with independent power producers to do the same. On Vancouver Island, for example, 13 of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations are either current or perspective stakeholders in renewable energy products. The Tla-o-qui-aht Nation has poured over $50 million into clean energy projects and has plans to spend an additional $100 million.

Successful endeavours, such as the T’Sou-ke Nation’s solar farm in the Premier’s own riding, have helped get Indigenous nations off diesel, while others that have received financial backing from the government promise to do the same. For many Indigenous communities across British Columbia, the opportunity to sell excess electricity is a vital component of their future economic plans.

My question, once more, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs?

To remind the minister, market rate is not 20 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s not 15 cents a kilowatt hour. It is a few cents a kilowatt, as is demonstrated worldwide with the price of solar and wind being lower than the price of coal and natural gas combustion in most jurisdictions.

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Once again, I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. As a government, we are committed to working collaboratively with Indigenous communities on opportunities for economic development. We consulted widely, including engagement with Indigenous nations, on the Comprehensive Review of B.C. Hydro: Phase 2 Interim Report, which includes the proposal on the self-sufficiency requirement.

I think it’s important to note that the changes that we are proposing will not happen overnight. They will allow B.C. Hydro to consider out-of-province energy, as one option — one option among many — to providing clean and affordable energy, as part of their next 20-year plan. These changes support our climate plan, CleanBC, and they allow B.C. Hydro to continue purchasing power from First Nations-owned projects.

My ministry has a wide range of programs that support Indigenous communities to transition to clean energy and improve energy efficiency. For example, we’ve invested $5 million in the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative. This initiative supports community clean energy projects. I appreciate the member’s questions on this important topic. Our government will continue to work with Indigenous communities to identify clean energy opportunities.

There is a coming paradigm shift around the purpose of investment and businesses.  The last decade has seen growing pressure on corporations to consider the environmental, social, and governance consequences of their investment and management decisions.  This more holistic view of the corporation is a necessary and positive development.  Corporations do not exist in a vacuum; the societies in which they conduct business are indispensable sources of their success and vitality.  Accordingly, corporations have duties to both their shareholders and the societies in which they are embedded.  By incorporating these other considerations into their decision-making corporations will not only provide many societal benefits but will enhance profits at the same time.

Increasing numbers of Canadians are coming to believe that companies should stand for something more than profit.  Over half of Canadians now lean towards purchasing products from businesses that align with their worldview.  Some of this change is likely being driven by the values and interests of millennials and gen-z who make up a growing share of the population.  A recent survey by Deloitte provides interesting and important insights into the priorities of these two generations.  When asked to identify the three issues they believed to be most important, health care and disease prevention, climate change, unemployment, and income inequality all ranked higher than economic growth.

There are signs that the private sector may be shifting towards more holistic governance models.  Many companies are attempting to align their brands with shifting consumer preferences and nascent corporations embrace socially and environmentally conscious business models.  In Europe, over two-thirds of the start-ups at the Slush 2019 conference were classified as purpose driven companies, defined as corporations that include one or more of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as an integral component of their operations, an increase of about 7% from 2014.

However, actions taken by the state can help to accelerate the shift towards corporations with a defined social purpose.  By creating the right regulatory and policy frameworks, government can incentivize socially responsible investment.  One step in this direction is the BC Government’s recently announced regulations around benefit companies.  Canadian corporate law does not have a formal doctrine recognizing shareholder primacy.  However, the new legislation and corresponding regulations will empower corporations to continue addressing pressing social and environmental issues as they scale their operations and make it easier for investors to choose companies that align with their values.

In the future, another avenue that the province could consider promoting to encourage investment with the potential to generate positive social returns are community investment co-ops (CICs).  CICs are capital pools that provide residents of a specific region or locality with the opportunity to invest some of their money in local businesses.  Individual investors typically elect the fund managers themselves to ensure that the investments made through the vehicle are consistent with their priorities and values. Through CICs, residents can become directly involved in economic development projects within their communities.

Ample capital already exists within the province which could be harnessed by CICs.  Each year, millions of dollars exit British Columbia to be invested in other jurisdictions.  If the province established a structure designed to incentivize investments into CICs, some of this capital could be redirected into local businesses.  At a time in which rural regions in BC are experiencing economic stagnation, CICs could be used to reinvest money generated through regional economic activity into local corporations and start-ups, helping to stimulate rural economies.

Several CICs already exist within BC including the Vancouver Island CIC, the East Kootenay CIC, and the West Kootenay Boundary Investment Co-Op.  Some have already received financial support from the government.  However, there are a number of legislative and regulatory changes open to the government which could be used to make these investment vehicles more attractive to British Columbians.  Some options include creating a tax credit for investors and amending the securities act to make it easier for CICs to generate larger capital pools for investment.

The adoption of a legislative and regulatory framework designed to popularize CICs would not be without precedent.  Other jurisdictions have successfully introduced programs centered around social finance, including other Canadian provinces.  In 1993, Nova Scotia introduced the Equity Tax Credit which allows residents to claim a tax credit on investments made into provincially based businesses.  Six years later, the province created the Community Economic Development Investment Funds (CEDIF) program in an attempt to encourage wider adoption of the tax credit.  The program offers a streamlined application process for those seeking to establish a CEDIF and allows investors to claim an income tax credit on their investments in the vehicle.  By 2013, Nova Scotians had established 47 CEDIFs which had contributed over $56 million in financing to local businesses, some of which were mission-oriented corporations dedicated to social and environmental causes.

When provided with the opportunity to pursue business models that have the potential to generate positive social and environmental outcomes, many individual investors and nascent corporations will choose to do so.  As society begins to redefine its expectations of corporations, the province has the chance to become a world leader in the movement towards socially responsible business.  The recently introduced legislation and regulations around benefit corporations represent a positive step in this direction but the province should not stop there.