This synthesis was derived from the collective wisdom of the below individuals. Any

peanutplausibleElectronics - Devices

Nov 21, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

114 views



This synthesis was derived from the collective wisdom of the below individuals. Any
errors are those of the author.


Travis J. Allan,


Zizzo Allan Climate Law LLP

George R. Alkalay, Northfield Ventures Ltd

David Demers, CEO, Westport

Prof. G. Bruce Doern,
Director of the Carleton Research Unit on Innovation, Science and Environment
(CRUISE)

Deborah Doncaster, Executive Director, Community Power Fund

David Donnelly, Founder, Donnelly Law

Stewart Elgie, Chair, Sustainable Prosperity

Patrick Gillette, Presiden
t and COO, Xeneca

Terry Graham, Chairman, Pond Biofuels

Professor Thomas Flanagan, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

Michael Fortier, Partner, Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, TORYS

Harry French, Director, Community Pow
er Services Group, Ontario Sustainable Energy Association

Christopher Henderson, Founder,


The Delphi Group, President, Lumos Energy

Jacob Irving, President, Canadian Hydropower Association

John Keating, Chairman, BluEarth Renewables Inc

Jacques Lamarre, F
ormer CEO, SNC
-
Lavalin, Director, Suncor Energy Inc, Director, Royal Bank of
Canada

Serge LeVert
-
Chiasson,


Vice
-
President & CIO, Sarona Asset Management

Stuart Lombard, President, ecobee

Donald McInnes, Vice
-
Chair & CEO, Plutonic Power Corporation

John Pa
ul Morgan, President & Chief Technology Officer, morgansolar



Ogilvy Renault, Cleantech team

Cynthia Orr, Canadian Leader, Cleantech, Ernst & Young LLP

Chris Ouellette, Manager, Environmental Solutions, RBC

Nicholas Parker, Chairman Cleantech Group/Chairman
, Corporate Knights Inc.

Juergen Puetter, Chair, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, President, CEO and Chairman of
Aeolis Wind Power and Blue Fuel Energy

Gerhard Pries, Founding President, Sarona Asset Management Inc.

William Lahey, Director, Healt
h Law Institute, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University

Leah Lawrence, President, Clean Energy Capitalists Inc.

Thierry Pagé, CEO, Odotech

Tom Rand, Venture Capitalist,


Cleantech Practice, Lead Advisor at the MaRS Discovery District

Don

Roberts, Vice Chairman, Renewable Energy And Clean Technology Banking, CIBC

Diane Saxe, Dianne Saxe,


Certified Specialist in Environmental Law, Saxe Law Office

Sandra


Schwartz, Vice President, Policy Development, Canadian Electricity Association

Profess
or Malcolm K. Sparrow, Harvard Kennedy School

Kim Sturgess, CEO and founder, Alberta WaterSMART

Nabuo Tanaka, Executive Director, International Energy Agency

Peter Tsantrizos, President, Terragon Environmental Technologies Inc

Ian Todd, Vice President, Gov
ernment and Media Relations, Enmax

Michelle Turner, Manager, Environmental Stewardship, Canadian Electricity Association

Paul Ungerman, Former Director of Policy, Office of the Minister at Government of Ontario, Ministry of
Energy and Infrastructure

Robert

Wakulat, Wakulat Law






Two papers of note that were particularly helpful:

SMART REGULATION: A Regulatory Strategy for Canada, Report to the Government of Canada,
External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation, September 2004, SMART REGULATION: A
Regulat
ory Strategy for Canada, Report to the Government of Canada,
http://dsp
-
psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CP22
-
78
-
2004E.pdf

Environmental Regulation of Energy Projects in Canada: Challenges
and Solutions, William Lahey

http://www.energyframework.ca/assets/files/Policy%20Doc/Pillar%202%20Final%20Paper%20Lahey.pd
f





















Cu
tting Canada’s environmental red tape to a sustainable future

Toby Heaps, Chief Executive of Corporate Knights Inc.


While no one doubts Canada’s heavyweight status as a nation of immense natural abundance, we are not
seen as a nation of innovators, despit
e a well
-
spring of ingenuity that has spawned so many of the modern
world’s advances from insulin, to kerosene (or coal oil as it was then called) to the first electric light bulb
(the patent for which was sold by Torontonian Henry Woodward to Thomas Ediso
n), the telephone,
which Alexander Graham Bell declared was “conceived in Brantford, Ontario,” to the most exciting game
on the planet: ice hockey, a child born out of marrying up the best of Aboriginal traditions (lacrosse) with
the cool splendor of our n
atural environment and a creative twist.

But on the score of innovation in the 21
st

century, save a few breakthroughs such as the blackberry,
Canada has fallen behind. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our overly bureaucratic, lackadaisical
approach to

seizing the pole position in the space race toward the green economy
--
a race which will
determine which nations prosper or whither.
1

Nothing about this, save maybe the bifurcated nature of our
constitution, is inherently Canadian. Indeed, Canadians and Ca
nadian companies are pioneering green
innovations the world round. The failure to nurture our own environmental entrepreneurship is even
worse than our inability to commercially foster our rising entertainment stars, such as Celine Dion and
Jim Carey, who
had to go to the US market to prove their worth in Canada. Take Westport, Canada’s
largest cleantech
2

company with a market cap of $1.15 billion. Until recently, the company had just one
customer in the land of the Maple Leaf. The rest of its diesel to cle
aner and cheaper natural gas engine



1

Clean energy finance and investment in the G
-
20 countries totaled $198 billion (excluding res
earch and development funding) in 2010, 33
percent more than was invested in 2009. Data Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance,
http://www.pewenv
ironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/G
-
20Report
-
LOWRes
-
FINAL.pdf
. In 2009 Global Investment in
Electricity Generation Capacity (green beating brown): $162 billion invested in rewewables, more than the $134.4 billion inve
sted in fossil fuel
(
oil, gas, coal)Source: http://sefi.unep.org/english/globaltrends2010.html

2

Globally, cleantech is the number one venture capital category by deal flow. In Canada, the cleantech sector is a $2 billion
industry with high
growth potential both domestically a
nd in export markets, with among the highest corporate spending on R&D. The Canadian cleantech sector
has the potential to follow the growth trend of the aerospace industry which was a $2 billion industry in Canada a decade ago
, and today is a $22
billion
industry.



conversion business is done in the US, Asia and Europe, where the doors, unencumbered by cobwebs of
red tape, swing open.

While environmental entrepreneurship comes in many flavours, nowhere is the gap between our poten
tial
and reality as heartbreaking as on the green energy side. While the current contribution of oil and gas to
GDP figures may suggest otherwise, we are far more than just another petro
-
state. The oil sands were
once a pipe
-
dream too, until industry and g
overnment worked together to create an enabling framework
and the pipe infrastructure to make it possible to get the oil to the hungry US customer. Had the same
focus and foresight been applied to our electricity industry (where our absolute resource advan
tage, in the
form of hydro and wind coupled with pumped storage, is even stronger than on the conventional energy
front), with a framework to clear the way for private sector investors and a HVDC electricity grid
highway to get the electrons efficiently to

market, our clean electricity exports to the US would have
generated closer to the $70 billion of revenue we earned from oil exports in 2007, than the actual figure of
$4 billion that it was. As an unintended consequence, this scale of exports (which woul
d only scrape the
service of our clean energy endowments) would also result in cleaner airsheds and displace about one
billion tonnes of carbon annually from US coal
-
fired power plants. For scale, that is 20 times the total
emissions projected from oil san
ds extraction. These numbers are too big to ignore, and it’s time we took
a hard look at the barriers holding up this economic and environmental opportunity of a century

which
is only going to expand as the electrification of the transportation proceeds af
oot.

Aside from an articulated Continental or Canadian energy strategy with clear signals for cleantech
3
, there
are six
-
chief barriers holding things up:




Mind
-
boggling maze of multi
-
dimensional red tape;



absence of enabling infrastructure (similar to our

oil pipelines) in the form of pan
-
Canadian
HVDC smart
-
grid with north
-
south chutes;



extension of common sense financial instruments to unlock the necessary billions of capital
investment;



a non
-
confiscatory carbon price to reflect the true costs of carbo
n pollution in a way that respects
our constitution;




3

In the course of the author’s interviews, there were a number of recommendations made to tear down specific barriers to the c
leantech economy
including: a) taking away requirement for environmental assessment that is presently triggered on pro
jects receiving federal assistance; b)defining
ownership of carbon, to remove uncertainty around carbon capture and storage projects; c)work with municipalities, possibly b
y linking
remittance of gas tax, to allow private homes to install renewable power s
ystems without permits (as in Scotland), and to recycle grey water; d)
fast
-
track worker visas for workers in the cleantech economy; and e)Use public procurement budgets to lead by example by allocatin
g certain
percent of procurement to SME cleantech compa
nies, which serve specific procurement functions.





an outdated and deeply dysfunctional wardrobe of straightjackets holding back Aboriginal
environmental entrepreneurship;



absence of public map delineating our abundant clean energy endowments coast
-
to
-
co
ast
-
to coast.

The good news is that all these problems are solvable, even within the confines our bifurcated
constitution, provided we borrow from the policy kit of innovations that sprung the natural gas trunk lines
and the oil sands, and the artful syste
m of federal transfers linked to ensure a common quality of
healthcare for all Canadians, no matter which province you live in.

From a myopic, drawn out maze of multi
-
dimensional red tape to single window, one project
-
one
process approvals

While regulatio
n costs Canadian businesses more than $30 billion a year plus untold tens of billions of
dollars of squelched potential, we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The
central purpose of social regulation is the abatement or contro
l of risks to society. Elegantly designed
regulations can marry the public good of environmental protection with responsible economic prosperity.
At the other extreme, a completely unfettered approach would come at too high a social and
environmental cost

for most Canadians. Unfortunately, the current silos and lack of regulatory integration
fails the Goldilocks test of just enough smart regulation to protect the public while opening up the rich
economic promise of our clean energy endowments. Outcomes mos
tly range from protecting one aspect
of the environment at all costs, to the worst of both worlds: when economic progress is shackled with no
apparent benefit to the environment. For instance, the 2009 Spring Report of the Commissioner of the
Environment
and Sustainable Development concluded that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO), “cannot demonstrate that fish habitat is being protected as the Fisheries Act (and DFP
policy) requires” and that, “Environment Canada does not have a systemati
c approach to addressing risks
of non
-
compliance with the Act that allows it to focus its resources where significant harm to fish habitat
is most likely to occur”.

There are six pieces of key federal legislation impacting green energy projects:

• T
he Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

• The Fisheries Act

• The Migratory Birds Convention Act

• The Navigable Waters Protection Act



• The Species at Risk Act

• The Explosives Act

When you combine these six acts with t
he various provincial regulations, the result is death by a thousand
cuts: much duplication, delay, uncertainty, and unnecessary cost, which can be suffocating to
environmental entrepreneurship. The solution is to create a mechanism for one
-
stop shopping,

where one
project goes through one approval process with a time
-
cap guarantee of six months. The first step is to get
the federal house in order, which will facilitate the second step of delegating more authority to provinces
to carry out as many of the a
pprovals as possible in one fell swoop that meets both the federal and
provincial requirements. A key success factor here is that the feds agree to cost
-
sharing for such joint
environmental assessments.

Environmental issues for all agencies should be addre
ssed at the environmental stage, with the
environmental assessment as written being the guideline to the issuance of permits and approvals. This
full scope rather than death by a thousand cuts approach would eliminate wasted time, cost, and
uncertainty. Au
stralia provides an example of a federal government that has moved from the many
-
headed beast of a decentralized model to a centralized model. In the context of Canadian energy projects,
greater use of substitution


under which the National Energy Board p
rocess encompasses both its
customary scope (under the National Energy Board Act) and the environmental assessment that would
otherwise happen separately under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act


is an option worth
considering. A more modest option

would be the insertion of cross
-
referencing clauses into the most
relevant federal statutes. These would authorize consolidated administration of multiple acts by a lead
federal regulator for each project. Such a clause is already found in section of the
Species at Risk Act.

Once the Federal government has its own regulatory house in order, it should, wherever possible, simply
vacate the space in the environmental assessment process and the issuance of permits and approvals by
delegating to the provinces,
which will make for a more streamlined process.

The federal government can set the stage for timelier cost effective approvals on four other fronts as well.

Working with provinces to pre
-
clear entire swaths of participating provinces for renewable energy
-
based
provincial plans, endangered species protection areas and other environmental considerations would make
for a more efficient approvals process. A similar exercise was undertaken in BC in the 70's when the
provincial government designated large swath
s of BC “Agricultural Land Reserve” protected land based
on soil type and a number of other factors. In designated areas, the presumption would be that


development of renewables within certain specifications and subject to setbacks is permitted and could b
e
expedited.

The class screening approach involves a little up
-
front cost for a lot of ongoing savings. It requires
creating a manual of standardized templates that can be taken off the shelf to deal with the majority of
issues which crop up in a project,
such as when a pipeline crosses a stream. Right now, there is way too
much reinventing the wheel each time one of these common types of issues crops up.

Another way to get better environmental and economic outcomes, where there is broad agreement
between

industry and environmental groups, is to tie enforcement and stewardship together. Right now,
the focus is on adhering to the letter of the law rather than actual outcomes. For instance, because having
just one fish caught in a run of river damn can bring

serious consequences, many run of river hydro
projects will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on sophisticated motion sensors and underwater
cameras to guard against this risk, when spending a fraction of this by seeding fish upstream would do a
lot
more to protect the population of the species of fish in question.

The most effective way to take advantage of industry/environmental agreement is through habitat offset
programs in Canada, which in North America have been a proven success. In particular,

the US wetland
and species compensation programs and Canada’s fish habitat compensation program have made an
impact. Canada’s programs are focused on fish habitat and wetland compensation, and there are currently
six programs that exist in Canada, with on
e in development. Canada needs to expand the scope of these
programs to include wetland and species compensation programs that have been so effective in the US. In
particular, Canada must expand its offset credit banking system. Currently there are 17 acti
ve and sold
-
out banks here, but over 600 in the US.

Right now, the lack of flexible market
-
based mechanisms for industry to use cost
-
effective mechanisms to
achieve the desired environmental outcomes via land offsets (habitat offets) or the provision of
e
nvironmental goods and services in an equally or more valuable ecological zone results in less
environmental bang for more economic buck. The US has many provisions that allow for industry to
offset an environmental impact in one place, such as where there

may be a valuable sub
-
soil asset, by
carrying out action that achieves equal or greater environmental benefit in another place, where it can be
done more cost effectively. These types of flexible market mechanisms that focus on the outcomes are
also appli
ed widely in the agricultural sector in the US, where farmers and landowners who carry out
improved land management to conserve habitat for wildlife (e.g. planting hedgerows, conserving
wetlands) are given a small payment for the provision of these environ
mental goods and services.



Most reasonable people would not object to the above streamlining suggestions, which begs the question
why hasn’t it happened already? The simple answer is: a lack of focus by the federal government, and
more problematically, tu
rf wars that our bifurcated constitution invites. Assuming the federal government
can get its regulatory house in order, what is the incentive for a province to adopt or carry out the federal
standards? Money usually does the trick. If the federal governm
ent delegated federal environmental
regulatory decision
-
making to provinces (one window for decision
-
making), where there is significant
overlap (e.g. fish habitat, species at risk), and agreed to cost sharing of the environmental assessment,
most province
s would play ball.

21
st

Century pan
-
Canadian network of electricity pipelines

In line with Sir John A. MacDonald’s bold vision to connect Canada with the national railway in the 19
th

century and the network of fossil fuel pipelines laid down in the 20
th

ce
ntury, the economic enabler of the
21
st

century for Canada will be a staged pan
-
Canadian HVDC electricity highway to unlock what Prime
Minister has identified as an “unprecedented economic opportunity” of getting our abundant clean
electrons to the hungry
US market. The upshot of the current dilapidated and balkanized electricity grid
can be contrasted with our extensive network of hydrocarbon pipelines. Although we have even more
impressive endowments of clean electricity potential (in the form hydro and
wind backed up by pumped
storage) than hydrocarbons, we currently supply the US with 17 per cent (generating in excess of $70
billion for our economy annually) of their domestic oil consumption and only one per cent of their
electricity consumption ($4 bil
lion per year). The disparity is not due to a lack of US hunger for clean
electricity. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) projects that over 260,000
megawatts of new variable power will be needed for the North American bulk power sy
stem in the next
decade

with the vast majority being consumed in the US. While there are several barriers, the biggest
reason for this disparity is that while we have an extensive network of pipelines to get the oil to market,
no such infrastructure to uns
hackle our electricity export potential exists.

As it stands now, new grid roll
-
outs are so bogged down in red tape that the timescales would try the
patience of the pharaohs who used to build pyramids
---
whoever starts a project is unlikely to be alive by

the time it comes to fruition. The U.S. has already recognized this problem and under the most recent
Bush administration moved to cut some of this red tape with The Energy Policy Act of 2005 which has a
provision to invoke National Interest Electric Tran
smission Corridors
4
. Here’s how it works: the U.S.
Department of Energy is mandated to conduct periodic national electric transmission congestion studies
and to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors if deemed appropriate. Under the



4

http://www.uwig.org/transtech08/Smith_paper.pdf



En
ergy Policy Act of 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can issue, under certain
circumstances, permits for new transmission facilities within a National Corridor. If an applicant has not
received approval from a state regulatory body to s
ite a proposed new transmission project within a year
of application, FERC may consider whether to issue a permit and to authorize construction of the project.

Invoking national interest electricity corridors for Canada to maximize our clean electricity g
eneration
potential, with defined provisions that ensure affected local Aboriginal peoples are provided a fair stake,
makes a lot of sense. This would raise some constitutional and trade issues, but nothing that couldn’t be
resolved by some smart lawyers,
and smoothed over with some creative financial sweeteners (more on
this later in the paper), which would come at minimal cost to the Treasury

a necessary condition in this
deficit era.

National interest electricity corridors drawn up in a continental cont
ext would enable the immensity of
this clean energy wealth creation opportunity and help set the tone for steamrolling the other three main
barriers to a staged pan
-
Canadian electricity highway
--
which has been talked about for over 50 years
now.

Mindset:

I
f we recognize the magnitude of the opportunity that exists, we will reframe the nature of the
barriers. The convening power and leadership from the federal government could go a long way to
helping Canadian provinces see how little our current slices of t
he US electricity market are, and the
potential for an electricity export pie that is ten times bigger than today. Instead of fighting over crumbs, a
pan
-
Canadian grid with multiple north
-
south chutes is a means to enhancing access to US electricity
market
s

not a limiting factor. The 21
st

century grid will require transcending historical cleavages and
reframing the notion of an east
-
west grid in the context of a Pan
-
Canadian enabler to supply the vast US
electricity market. The convening power and leadershi
p from the federal government will be essential in
this regard.

From Balkanization to Partnerships:

Just as the cross
-
Canada railway required the leadership of Prime
Minister MacDonald to open the way for public
-
private partnerships, a pan
-
Canadian Public
-
Private
Partnership HVDC bulk
-
electricity grid (with multiple US entry points, and expanded opportunities for
pump storage) will too. Jacques Lamarre (former CEO of SNC Lavalin and corporate director) has
forcefully articulated a proposal for such a grid,
which would be 50 per cent owned by the provinces and
50 per cent owned by private investors. Such a grid would provide far superior US market access and
economic outcomes for each and every province.



Foreign policy (
Mixing oil and water as a combo deal)
:


There are many more barriers to exporting clean
energy than for exporting oil (especially large hydro, including its pumped storage variants). A foreign
policy push to leverage our clout as a secure U.S. oil supplier to help break down these irrational ba
rriers
would open up vast new markets to Canadian electricity producers.

According to the National Energy Board, 49 states do NOT count large hydro (from Canada) toward their
renewable portfolio mandate .There is a strong sentiment from large hydro
-
prod
ucing provinces that one
way to alleviate this is for the federal government to take more of a targeted approach in our US relations
to ensure US markets are as open to Canadian clean electricity as they are to our oil. That way hydro
-
producing provinces a
nd Alberta can work together as part of the same team instead of at cross purposes.

As Canadians, it is time to move on from energy from something that divides us to something that unites
us, with an annual $70 billion boost to our economic prosperity tha
t sleighs almost one billion tonnes of
US coal emissions in the same fell swoop.

Six Financial instruments to unlock environmental entrepreneurship: loan guarantees, flow
through shares, ACCD, SH&ED, SICAV, and ECOGIFT

Invoking national interest electricit
y corridors for Canada would almost certainly lead to come provincial
objections. One compelling way to bring some of the more jurisdictionally sensitive provinces on board
would be to take a page out how we ensure health care standards. It is not a coinci
dence that provinces
implement a common set of national standards in line with the Canada Health Act, and that the federal to
provincial transfers are linked to Canada Health Act implementation.

In an age of scaling back deficits, the federal government d
oes not have access to news pools of revenue.
A creative way around this can be drawn from the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to provide a
loan guarantee for the Newfoundland government to support the construction of the $6.2 billion Lower
Churchill
hydroelectric project and underwater power cable to Nova Scotia, as a gateway to US markets.
In this instance, the federal government effectively co
-
signed for a $4.2 billion loan, guaranteeing that if
either province defaults, the federal treasury would b
e responsible for the bank payments. Because there
is almost no chance of this happening, the loan guarantee is considered cost
-
free, although a small
percentage of it will be recorded on the federal books, according to Finance officials. The Office of the

Auditor General of Canada studied loan guarantees in the 1990’s, noting that they can be a more attractive
tool to the government than direct loans or grants, particularly in periods of fiscal restraint.
5

The US



5

http://www.oag
-
bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199212_13_e_80
66.html



Department of Energy is already providing e
xtensive support in the form of loan guarantees to promote
the diffusion of renewable energy technologies on a commercially effective basis.
6

While capital markets can be incredibly efficient at financing certain types of transactions (recall sub
-
prime mor
tgages), the plumbing is significantly plugged when it comes to renewable energy projects and
grids which cross
-
cut jurisdictions. At least in the early stages of grid development and renewable energy
deployment, this kind of support is essential for many
economically viable projects to go forward, due to
the highly conservative Canadian banking culture that has many other opportunities to earn healthy rates
of return investing in more familiar conventional energy with tried and true track records.

Prime Mi
nister Harper said this type of financial support will be considered for projects that meet three
criteria: be of “national or regional importance, have economic and financial merit and significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” A fourth criteria that

linked the availability of these loan guarantees to
going along with the national interest electricity corridors would be a tempting carrot to bring provinces
on side. Taken to scale, however, such a scheme of federal loan guarantees could invite moral ha
zard on
the part of the financial community. To prevent this, it would be wise to attach an additional provision
that federal loan guarantees of this sort are only provided for projects where the bank has some financial
skin in the game as well, even if it

is as little as 10 per cent of the downside of default. Without such a
provision, we run the risk of falling prey to the old adage: Governments are not the best at picking
winners from losers but losers are sure good at picking governments.

There are five

other financial instruments that could be extended to unlock green entrepreneurship:



Make the same accelerated capital cost depreciation, which was extended to get the oil sands off
the ground available to a host of clean technologies including: clean(er
) transportation such as
natural gas and electric vehicles, infrastructure too like refueling stations, and for the production
of solar panel and wind turbines.



Extend the same flow
-
shares advantage that oil and mining projects currently enjoy to the
clean
tech sector, which would allow investors who invest skin the in game of the cleantech sector
to claim tax breaks. Jurisdictions that have implemented this process have had significant
increases in investment, employment, commercial deployment and actually
increased tax
revenue.



To the extent that federal funding is made available to green technologies, putting that funding
within the SR&ED program or a similar program, would be a fast and efficient way to spur



6

http://theenergycollective.com/nathantemple/57049/recent
-
renewable
-
federal
-
loan
-
guarantees



increased investment in cleantech companies and

would help to ensure that industry is on the
same side as government, as it requires companies to invest and pay for the research and
development in advance .



To provide Canadians the opportunity to invest in private equity funds, including those that ser
ve
an environmental purpose. Cleantech is currently the number one category in venture capital

yet
average Canadians have almost no opportunity to part of this investment story because of
paternalistic policies that only allow high
-
net worth investors to p
articipate. This is an area of
provincial jurisdiction, but certainly something that could be addressed with a national securities
regulator. In Europe, there are SICAV funds, which are being increasingly cross
-
border marketed
in the EU under the UCITS dir
ective. Some countries in Europe, Luxembourg in particular, allow
the sale of private investment instruments to retail investors via a construct called SICAV funds.



the Ecogift tax credit program is not taken advantage of by many landowners because they ar
e not
in a financial position to take advantage of those tax credits. If landowners were granted the right
to transfer these credits to other parties, there would be much more update and reserved land
delivering ecosystem services as a result


The elephant

in the room: carbon pricing

It is already here in varying extents in Alberta, BC and Quebec. In their financial budgeting, most major
businesses (Transalta, Suncor Energy, Shell, Rio Tinto) are already assuming carbon prices. Dithering on
carbon pricing s
ystem is creating a lot of investment uncertainty. Of course, carbon pricing is a hot potato
political issue. But it is a question of when not if. There are two ways to cool the potato: ensure all carbon
levies collected stay within jurisdiction, and at le
ast to start, exclude transport fuels from the levy. This
would avoid the prospect of civil war with resource
-
rich provinces, because all the money would be
staying in their pockets, while the political heat for applying the price would be focused on Ottaw
a. And it
would also avoid the riposte of voter outrage at the pumps

where the full fury over high gas prices
would be focused on the carbon levy, even though it would make up just a small fraction of the overall
gas price. By getting the carbon pricing ba
ll rolling, as a continental carbon market develops over the
coming decades, Canada would be better situated from a carbon accounting and carbon management
perspective to be a competitive participant.

Unshackling Aboriginal environmental entrepreneurship



On renewable energy projects, the federal government should articulate that First Nations have the right
to self
-
determination. If you are on reserve and there is a way to get renewable energy up and running,
liberate the market with a one
-
stop approval pr
ocess for these projects.

Canada needs new electricity supply to meet the needs of growing regions and replace antiquated power
plants. Reserves are lands they can call their own. But ironically First Nations, for the most part, don't
own these lands; the
y are held by the federal Crown for the use and benefit of the First Nations. Tom
Flanagan’s recent book, BEYOND THE ACT, proposes a method for allowing those First Nations who
wish to own their reserves to do so. The approach is the same one pioneered by
Peruvian economist
Hernando de Soto, who has argued that defective property rights breed poverty in the Third World.
Ottawa should introduce a First Nations Property Ownership Act to encourage the widespread ownership
of private property on reserves
--

a m
ove that would free up “dead capital” and increase prosperity among
Canada's poorest citizens. The suggested legislation would transfer the underlying ownership of land on
native reserves that opt into the program from the Crown to those bands. Once India
n bands legally own
their own land, they would be free to issue individual property titles on homes and commercial projects in
the energy sector that could then be bought and sold the same way as across the rest of Canada. The new
act is in line with Secti
on 35 of the constitution: To ensure and uphold aboriginal rights and interests.

In addition to clarifying property rights, the federal government can catalyze Aboriginal Clean Energy
developments in 3 ways through actions to reduce red tape and promote e
conomic development.

1. Federal Lands: The federal government own lands that were originally Aboriginal territory. Where
these lands can be used for Aboriginal clean energy projects, the charges the federal government assesses
should be reasonable and se
t so that projects can move forward. For example, on the French River in
Ontario, PWGSC (Public Works and Government Services Canada, the federal government's land
manager) took lands of the Dokis First Nation, about 100 years ago, and used it to build th
ree dams to
control water levels. The Dokis First Nation, with a private partner, plans to build a small hydro power
plant near these dams, and the project has received approval from the government of Ontario, the First
Nations community, and all local sta
keholders, as well as environmental groups. However, based on a
Cabinet Directive, PWGSC wants to change a lease payment for the land to be used for the power plant
that is so high (over 5% of all project revenues), the project becomes uneconomic. This wou
ld hurt the
Aboriginal community (who used to own this land), green power supply and local economic development
(over $50 million all of which is financed privately). There must be a better way.

2. Large Hydro Projects: There are 15
-
20 large hydro projec
ts with development potential across Canada
being led by provincial utilities or private companies. These projects are virtually all on crown lands, and


are also Aboriginal territory. Moving forward on these projects implicitly and explicitly requires th
e
support of First Nation, Metis and Inuit communities who desire to own a part of the project to drive long
term economic development and prosperity. In partnership discussions, Aboriginal communities generally
receive a small share of the project (usuall
y less than 5 per cent) as a carried interest (i.e. without
investment), and have rights to purchase additional equity (as high as 25
-
45 per cent of projects). This
level of capital investment is beyond their capacity. A federal Loan Guarantee Mechanism
to backstop
debt for equity arrangements has huge upsides. One, it catalyzes infrastructure investment. Two, it
creates a high driver for rural and Aboriginal economic development. Three, is generates long term
earnings which can be invested in areas suc
h as education and economic development builds a foundation
for prosperity. Such Loan Guarantees can be a ultra low
-
risk proposition for the federal government as
the mechanism would only come into force if: a) provincial power authorities approve the pro
ject and
agree to buy power for a set price; b) the project is built; and c) the other sources for project debt and
equity financing are confirmed. Such a Loan Guarantee Mechanism would be one way to fulfill the
Prime Minister's commitment to support the
development of the Lower Churchill Hydro Project (which
involves Innu Partnership). This type of federal support can also have conditions such as a portion of
earnings benefitting all Aboriginal communities in a province or region. And, these projects ca
n have a
huge impact on reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, slashing about 5 per cent from Canada’s
total tally.

3. Aboriginal Employment: Over $50 billion of capital will be investment in Aboriginal Clean Energy
Projects across Canada over the

next two decades. That will create opportunities for sustained Aboriginal
employment. But this requires that Aboriginal peoples be trained and equipped to seize these
opportunities. The federal government has a role in Human Resources Skills Development
. A purposes
-
built program that supports human resource training and skills development of Aboriginal peoples,
especially youth, is a winning proposition for all Canadians.

Public Map inventory of Canada’s clean energy potential

A public map delineating C
anada’s wind, solar, tidal, pumped storage and geothermal potential would
help delineate where to plan national interest electricity grid corridors and would be catalytic for private
sector power producers. A key priority area where there is immense potent
ial is geothermal

an area
where there are many Canadian companies with expertise who are forced to invest in other countries
where there is better information and supporting frameworks. To date, the federal government has largely
ignored the potential of
geothermal power development in Canada, and in doing so, it has not kept any
updated, detailed mapping of geothermal resources across the country. The Geological Survey of Canada


needs to be given some resources to update this mapping, keeping us in line w
ith efforts in the United
States, and make the information freely available to potential developers. Without this data
--
combined
with the lack of a geothermal power strategy in Canada
--
developers have to rely on outdated data or
proprietary data (availabl
e at high cost) to find out the best sites for drilling and exploration. The
information could initially be easily available if the government required that temperature data from oil
and natural gas drilling operations be submitted into a national reposito
ry. This would remove a barrier to
development of an overlooked but potentially large clean energy resource.

The magnitude of the opportunity for Canada to become a continental clean energy super
-
power is too big
to pass up. The barriers, while not inconse
quential, are tiny in comparison. All that’s required is a
streamlined regulatory process with one project
-
one process approvals, with a MacDonaldesque vision to
build the electricity highway of the 21
st

century, backed up with the resolve of national inte
rest grid
corridors, bolstered with elegant loan guarantees and rational carbon pricing, with strong provisions for
Aboriginal communities to harness the immense potential of their territories, and a map of clean energy
resources to chart our way forward.
Four years of a majority government could lay down the foundation
for Canada to win this race, and the prize of an economic prosperity for generations to come.