Social Finance Ontario: Seminar

1,668 views
1,578 views

Published on

Social Finance Ontario is a working constellation of the Ontario Nonprofits Network. This slide presentation provides a brief description of policy in the UK, US and Canada that supports social enterprise. Along with a brief description of some community investment funds and models.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,668
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • OpportunitiesCautionsChallengesStrategiesWhere are we today?Social Finance Tools: mechanism and is it adaptable for Ontario?
  • No consumer initiated activity for 15 yrs. Goes into a fund, Gov’t holds back $ incase people come forward. Focus funding on youth programs.
  • Federal seed money for nonprofits to leverage private sector funding to improve local innovation, test the impact of new ideas and expand successful programs to scale. Results-Focused> -Funds would provide financial capital to> nonprofit organizations based on rigorous criteria and analysis to> ensure the highest likelihood of results, particularly projects that would yield a return on investment, such as savings on future public services.Community-Directed> - Funded efforts would respond to specific community-identified priorities. For example, one community might focus on crime prevention while another might choose education. Cross-sector> -> Strategies that engage volunteers and businesses> would receive special emphasis; a private sector board of local> leaders, including business, government, community organizations, and the target beneficiaries would make funding decisions with assistance from analytical experts.> *>  Long-term> -> Investments would occur over a period of years to> increase the likelihood of success and sustainability. Social Entrepreneurship Agency for NonprofitsDedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector. Improving coordination of programs that support nonprofits across the federal government.  Fostering nonprofit accountability. Streamlining processes for obtaining federal grants and contracts eliminating unnecessary requirements.  Removing barriers for smaller nonprofits to participate in government programs. The agency will make grants to build the infrastructure of the nonprofit sector and capacity of nonprofit organizations, including their ability to ensure accountability, manage volunteers, and improve outcomes.
  • CRA lending has been profitable for financial institutions. The ten-year California commitments made by Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank and First Interstate Bank in 1992 were completed within four to five years. In half the time expected, a total of $21 billion had been invested in low-income communities and communities of color. This was a lesson for all the major banks:
  • Who uses CEDIF’s? Municipalities that would have a vested interest in seeing such funds develop,  Local entrepreneurs,  Community or business leaders,  Cultural groups,  Unions. Government concerned with economic outcomes. ExamplesBBI, Halifax : Create a pool of capital which will invest in businesses owned by persons in the Black community.Just Us! Fair Trade Investment Co-op Ltd. : Invest the proceeds in their fair trade coffee business. La Residence Acadienne, To build and operate a seniors housing facility. Valley Funeral Home Co-op Invest the proceeds in the development of a co-operative funeral home
  • EligibilityInvolved in active business or investing in other eligible businesses,  Less than $25 million in assets and/or revenues,  At least 25% of salaries and wages paid in Nova Scotia,  Corporations must have authorized capital consisting of common voting shares,  Co-operatives must be marketing, producing or employee co-operatives,  Corporations must have at least three eligible investors taking part in the specified issue. (Government of Nova Scotia) And must provide a Community Economic Develoment PlanOther Restrcitions Include:In the case of corporations, eligible investments must be newly issued common voting shares of the corporation that are non-redeemable, non-convertible and are not restricted in profit sharing or participation upon dissolution. The shares cannot be eligible for any other tax credit or deduction allowed under the Income Tax Act, except as a deduction for RRSP purposes. In the case of co-operatives, eligible investments must be a share that would, if it were the only share issued to the investor, allow the investor to be a member in the co-operative and allow the member to participate in the affairs of the co-operative. In addition, shares are not eligible if the investor disposed of any shares of the eligible business at any time after September 30, 1993 and before the specified issue of shares. The specified issue of shares means the shares that are specified in the application of the eligible business to which a Certificate of Registration applies. (Government of Nova Scotia) .Return on InvestmentThe provincial government also offers a partial guarantee on funds invested in CEDIFS. If a CEDIF becomes insolvent within four years of a purchase of eligible shares, the province will compensate the individual investor at 20% of their initial investment. In addition, if the CEDIF is valued by a certified professional at less than 20% of its initial capital investment pool within the four year period, the province will also compensate investors by paying the difference between the value of their investment and 20 percent of their original investment. With some geographic restrictions.Funds invested in CEDIFs have been recognized as pre-approved holdings for a self-directed RRSP by the federal government. (Government of Nova Scotia, 2007) .Not publically traded entitites. Some published offerings include: For example, New Dawn Holding Ltd. paid dividends of 2.14%, ththth
  • Criteria for becoming an eligible community enterprise: In addition, community enterprises must not be engaged in any of the following businesses which have been designated as ineligible by the CED Tax Credit Act: - Deriving income from property, other than commercial property owned by a community development corporation; - Management, administrative or financial services; - Farming, fishing, forestry, hunting, or resource exploration; - Performing arts, sports, amusement, gaming and recreational activities; - Seasonal enterprises such as recreational parks or camps, hunting or fishing lodges or gamps, or golf courses; - Others7. (Government of Manitoba, 2004, pp. 4-5)
  • USES of a CICTaking over state assetsJoint ventures, charity and commercial partnerNew community focused businessesAsset LockNo transfer or distribution of assets exceptat full value to specified asset locked bodyor with consent of Regulatorfor the benefit of the communitypayment of limited dividendsRestrictions on performance related interestCommunity Interest TestMight a reasonable person consider that its activities are being carried on for the benefit of the community?Community includes a section of community, but not just employeesCannot have political purposeCannot be a charityMust provide an annual report to the CIC RegulatorEquityDual cap on dividend flow:maximum annual dividend 5% above base rateTotal 35% net distributable profitsWinding up/sale of shares to company:shareholders get par valueCan sell to third party at market rate
  • Mannweiler CEO Robert Lang has spearheaded the creation of the low profit limited liability company (or L3C), signed into law by the Governor of Vermont in May 2008. Because limited liability companies (LLC’s) are legal across the United States, once one state includes L3C’s in their LLC laws (as Vermont has), L3C’s are considered to be legal across the country.
  • BOTH CIC’s and L3C can issue sharesLLC: LLC that banks and financiers already understand and use. (Limited Liability Company)Hybrid ownership:corporations are taxed at the corporate tax rate, individuals at the personal tax rate, charities at zero..)PRI: Counts towards the foundations mandated 5% disbursement. loans flowed through foundations with expectation of below market or zero returns. Layerd: some can have below market rates of return, others can receive market rates of return. The tranched structure attracts a greater mix of financial backers. A socially-based mission will seldom attract investment if it is offering below-market returns. Tranched investments allow the L3C to offer competitive returns on investment.  
  • seeking to leverage an additional $92 millionThe Chantier negotiated with the former Liberal government to ensure that the funding allocated to Quebec in the Federal Government’s Social Economy Initiative was moved through the Federal Treasury Board prior the 2006 federal election. When the Federal Conservatives took government after the election they cancelled the Social Economy Initiative and as a result the Initiatives’ funding for provinces outside of Quebec was never realized. The Chantier’s steadfast efforts to ensure that the Initiative’s funding reached Quebec prior to the 2006 Election provided a tremendous payoff in the form of a 22.8 M non- repayable contribution towards the capitalization of the trust. In addition to these funds the trust has managed to raise an additional 30 M in capital which together provided the trust with 52.8 M in initial capital to start the trust. (Chantier de l'économie sociale Trust)
  • The following four partners contributed to the trust’s initial pool of capital: Canada Economic Development (previously discussed), Fonds de solidarité (a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation), Fondaction - Fonds de développement de la CSN pour la coopération et l’emploi (a labour-sponsored development fund), and the Government of Québec. The contribution from Canada Economic Development is non-repayable, whereas the other three investors received a debenture in exchange for their investment (the debenture product is explained in section 2.05). The trust received investments from the four partners at the following amounts: Canada Economic Development – CED $22.8 M Fonds de solidarité FTQ $12.0 M Fondaction CSN $8.0 M Government of Québec $10.0 M Total $52.8 M
  • . innovative enterprises which combine a strong social purpose with sound business principles, rather than being simply driven by the need to maximize profit. The Social Venture Fund’s primary focus is on for-profit social businesses; however in an effort to pilot social venture investing in Ontario, the investment strategy included the ability to fund strong non-profit social enterprises. The target sectors for investment include: Education, Environment, Health and Community and Human Capital Development (affordable housing, support and services for marginalized persons). The Social Innovation Generation at MaRS (“SiG@MaRS) team is actively developing programs to support the launch and growth of social ventures, enhancing the skills and networks of social entrepreneurs, exploring new instruments of social finance, fostering opportunities for technology platforms to help scale social ventures and building the social enterprise community. The Social Venture Fund is planned to provide a source of potential capital for these social entrepreneurs. In late October 2008, as part of its “Spending Restraint” initiatives, the Ontario government announced a delay in launch of the Social Venture Fund. On December 4th, the Ontario government announced its Poverty Reduction Strategy, recommitting to the $20 million Social Venture Fund, but not indicating a timeline for launch of the fund. The MaRS SVF team continues to work with Ontario and others on the development of a social venture fund vehicle.  
  • Ontario: proposedSocial Venture Fund
  • Clarify the Income Tax Act regulations for foundations enabling them to participate in new forms of Program Related Investments (PRI's) that enable charities and nonprofits to establish and finance social enterprises. 
  • How can we go to scale?What kind of people need to be involved?
  • MARKETPLACE PROFILEInvestorsRetail investorsWealth management firmsHigh net worth individuals (HNWIs)Mass marketInstitutional investorsPension fundsCredit unionsCharitable trustsVenture capitalistsPrivate social venture capital FirmsEnterprising non-profits (negative financial return)Social enterprise (zero financial profit)Social purpose business (social mission for profit) (Note: Each firm has different needs) ScaleSocial firm small cap: $1,000 to $100,000Social firm mid cap: $100,000 to $1 millionSocial firm large cap: $1 million to $50 million 
  • Advocates enable service providers to connect to the supply and demand
  • Recent announcement of 42 million for support through the economic crisis, specific to volunteers, charities and social enterprise.A £15.5 million Community Resilience Fund for local organisations providing services in the most deprived communities in the country.A £0.5 million boost for the School of Social Entrepreneurs.A £10 million investment in a volunteer brokerage scheme for unemployed people to allow them to gain skills and experience through community-based work.
  • Social Finance Ontario: Seminar

    1. 1. Social Finance Ontario
    2. 2. Agenda 12:30-4:30pm  Introductions - Lynn  Social Finance Policy Context - Joanna  BREAK  Social Enterprise Framework – Tonya  BREAK  Social Finance Tools & Models – Joanna  Discussion - Allyson
    3. 3. Survey Monkey says….  Exploration of whether social finance can meet the current and emerging needs for the nonprofits sector.  Can we create an enabling environment for social finance in Ontario?  Explore policy and social finance models for adaptation in Ontario.
    4. 4. Outline  What is social finance?  Policy Context: UK, US, Canada.
    5. 5. Social finance is… sustainable finance with a social or environmental goal. Social finance aims to leverage existing capital to attract new investment for public benefit
    6. 6. Taking root in a hybrid universe BUSINESS GOVERNMENT Hybrid Space CHARITIES& NON- PROFITS Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- 8 Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License
    7. 7. Ying and Yang: social enterprise & social finance • Community NPO’s are innovatively developing new enterprising models. • Social finance ( loans and quasi- equity financing) is needed to start- up, operate and expand enterprising components.
    8. 8. Who is involved? People looking for capital:  social enterprises, community nonprofits, charities, social entrepreneurs. People supplying capital:  retail investors who invest in a finance product. e.g. RDSP or SRI mutual fund through a bank or credit union.  institutional investors e.g. pension funds, foundations or labour funds. Advocates:  networks & organizations, individual champions, academia, think tanks, government. Service Providers:  legal, accountants, product supply, finance institutions.
    9. 9. Fraser Valley Centre for Social Enterprise Économie solidaire de l’Ontario Social Enterprise SRI in the Rockies Community Haween Power Fund Social Investment Eco Trust Social Capital Organization Partners Carleton CCA Center for CED-NET Community Plan Innovation Alterna institute VanCity PfC Chantier de Resilient Capital l’economie Edmonton Social Sociale Enterprise Fund Ontario Non –Profit Network Causeway SiG@MaRS Eva’s print shop Ashoka Somali Business Development
    10. 10. Enabling public policy UK and US Government Bodies  Office of the 3rd Sector  US office of innovation  US Community Reinvestment Act
    11. 11. Office of the 3rd Sector  Created in 2006  Lead to policy changes and streamlined funding to the voluntary sector.  As well as grants, there are other sources of investment:  Social investment  Risk Capital Fund for Social Enterprise  Unclaimed Assets  Adventure Capital Fund
    12. 12. Office of 3rd Sector: Social Investment  Social investment is investment made for a social purpose organizations.  grants, loans, equity investments or other emerging forms to enable social enterprises, to develop their operations and be  Examples of social investors include:  Adventure Capital Fund  Community Ventures  Charity Bank  Futurebuilders England  Triodos  Unity Trust Bank  Venturesome  Bridges Community Ventures
    13. 13. Office of 3rd Sector: Risk Capital Fund for Social Enterprise Risk Capital Fund for Social Enterprise The Office of the Third Sector's £10m risk capital investment fund aims to improve social enterprises’ access to private and independent investment. Supports enterprise in the stage between start-up and growing their business. They established a fund manager, “Capital for Enterprise Limited” to manage funds for risk capital investment.
    14. 14. Office of 3rd Sector: Unclaimed Assets Unclaimed Assets  Allows money in dormant accounts to be reinvested in youth programs  Protects consumers' rights to reclaim their money at any time.  “Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, 2007.
    15. 15. Office of 3rd Sector: Adventure Capital Fund Adventure Capital Fund Launched in December 2002 with the aim of delivering a new form of long-term investment into community enterprises. Aims to fill the investment gap that faces community enterprise, and to increase investment readiness of community organizations who want to move to enterprise.
    16. 16. What is stirring in the US? ISSUE:  Provides $7B a year in R&D tax credits but,  a disconnect exists for nonprofits and charities with limits to their activities.  Therefore no market place for innovation in the nonprofit sector. IN RESPONSE:  Obama and Biden will create a Social Investment Fund Network, a gov’t supported corporation (like the CBC)  Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits
    17. 17. Community Reinvestment Act,1977  to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.  to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.  CRA has helped community organizations win increased investments, charitable contributions, branches, and access to loans and financial services. More than $1 trillion dollars has been committed to community investments; the polices and practices of financial services have significantly changed;
    18. 18. Enabling public policy Canada  Nova Scotia CEDIF  Manitoba Tax Credit  New Media Tax Credit
    19. 19. Nova Scotia Community Economic Development Investment Funds  Since 2000, 51 Community Economic Development Investment Funds (CEDIFs) have been established in Nova Scotia.  These CEDIFs have been established as a result of the Nova Scotia Equity Tax Credit, a tax credit specifically developed by the provincial government to stimulate investment in Nova Scotia’s small businesses, co- operatives and CED organizations.  CEDIFs raise funds by issuing shares to individual investors and then invest that capital in local businesses.  The enterprises that CEDIFs invest in may or may not have social objectives in addition to economic objectives.
    20. 20. Nova Scotia: the Equity Tax Credit  CEDIFs are one of two vehicles through which investors can access the ETC. Individual investors can also benefit from the ETC through purchasing shares directly from eligible businesses.  CEDIFs sole means for raising capital through the ETC is through the issuance of shares to individual investors.  The main incentive of the ETC is a 30% tax credit calculated at 30% of the investment to a maximum annual investment of $50,000 (the maximum annual tax credit is therefore $15,000).  Investors are required to hold the investment for a minimum of 5 years.
    21. 21. Nova Scotia: Community Economic Development Investment Funds Eligibility either a corporation or co-operative. cannot be a registered charity, non-taxable, or not-for-profit. A further stipulation is that the organization must have at least six directors elected from their defined community.
    22. 22. Nova Scotia: Community Economic Development Investment Funds Return on Investment  The provincial government also offers a partial guarantee on funds invested in CEDIFS.  If a CEDIF becomes insolvent within four years of a purchase of eligible shares, the province will compensate the individual investor at 20% of their initial investment .  Funds invested in CEDIFs have been recognized as pre-approved holdings for a self- directed RRSP by the federal government.  Some below market rate return.
    23. 23. Manitoba CED Tax Credit  9 community enterprises have been approved. Province has not received any CEDIF applications.  565 individuals have received tax credits for investing in community enterprises.  Collective investment is $1,865,000
    24. 24. Manitoba CED Tax Credit Criteria An eligible community enterprise can participate in the CED Tax Credit through a CEDIF, or through direct investment by an individual investor. Not have gross assets in excess of $25 M Not have net assets in excess of $10 M Must employ no more than 200 employees. 25% of total wages must be paid to Manitobans. Must receive a sponsorship endorsement from a community development organization.
    25. 25. Ontario: Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit  Eligible Ontario labour expenditures.  Eligible marketing and distribution expenses.  By a qualifying corporation with respect to interactive digital media products.  Corporations that are exempt from tax do not qualify.  Corporations that are labour sponsored venture capital do not qualify.
    26. 26. Ontario: Poverty Reduction Strategy “Social enterprises are a unique business model capitalizing on the skill of low-income Ontarians.”  Will create an Social Policy Institute  Sustainable Procurement Strategy, 2009. Pilot projects will be launched through Ministry of Children and Youth for local courier and printing services.  Conduct a feasibility study for an Ontario Social Investment Exchange.  Explore a Community Interest Company model.
    27. 27. Finance products Hybrid Companies  Community Interest Companies  Low Profit Limited Liability Community Investment Funds  Fiducie, Chantier de l’economie sociale  Ontario Social Venture Fund Program Related Investments  Endowments and US examples Ontario Social Investment Exchange  Working group Affordable Housing Models Options for Homes Alterna Community Alliance Housing Fund
    28. 28. Community Interest Companies (UK)  Tailored for social enterprise  Asset lock  Community interest test  Payment of directors  Equity finance  Cannot be a charity  2225 CIC since its inception in 2005, as of June 2008
    29. 29. Types of CIC in the UK  Manufacturing 49  Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 18  Construction Wholesale, Retail; Certain Repair 66  Hotels and Restaurants 38  Transport, Storage & Communication 53  Financial Intermediation 19  Real Estate, Renting & Business 377  Public Administration & Defence 19  Education 402  Health and Social Work 308  Other Social & Personal Services 667
    30. 30. Low profit limited liability company L3C The challenge put before the New York based Mannweiler Foundation was how to “access the vast pools of market-driven wealth to make socially responsible investments in … non profit areas”, Robert Lang CEO Mannweiler Foundation
    31. 31. L3C is different from the CIC  Based on an existing legal structure called the LLC.  Can have hybrid ownership allowing each partner to be taxed separately according to their own situation.  Unlike a corporation, flexibility of the operating agreement allows members (rather than owners) to receive profits proportion to their investment or to the agreement.  Eligible to receive Program Related Investments.  Can have layered investments.  No asset lock and no dividend cap.
    32. 32. Quebec: Fiducie, Chantier de l’economie sociale.  Started in 2006 with $52 million for investments in Quebec’s social economy (community controlled) businesses.  Since beginning its operations in February of 2007, the trust has already made investments in 12 social enterprises totaling 4.5 M.  The trust invests in market-driven or market-supplemented social enterprises that are operated by non-profit organizations and co-operatives.
    33. 33. Quebec: Fiducie, Chantier de l’economie sociale.  1/3 of the first 12 projects have been start- ups while the remaining 2/3 are expansions.  Each of the 12 social enterprises to receive financing derives between 60-75% of their total revenue from market revenues.  Enterprises generate the additional 25-40% of their income from of other sources including government subsidies, contributions from foundations, and fundraising activities.
    34. 34. Quebec: Fiducie, Chantier de l’economie sociale. Eligibility  the trust’s loan must not represent more than 35% of the total project-related costs.  Provincial gov’t agencies and those that deliver gov’t programs are not eligible.  Housing cooperatives are not eligible
    35. 35. Quebec: Fiducie, Chantier de l’economie sociale. Financial Product Offerings  two patient capital loan products with 15- year capital repayment moratoriums.  The amount of the loans range from $50,000 to $1.5 M, and the average loan at present is approximately $350,000.  Operations Patient Capital & Real Estate Patient Capital
    36. 36. Quebec: Fiducie, Chantier de l’economie sociale. Return on Investment  The Government of Canada’s contribution (Canada Economic Development) is non-repayable.  The other three partners (Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Fondaction CSN, Government of Québec) each received a debenture in exchange for their investment.  The debenture product offered to the three institutional investors is scheduled for repayment at the end of a 15 year period.  The rate of return for the debenture product is the principal plus interest equal to that paid on a Government of Canada Bond (greater than 10 year) plus 2%.  At present, the debenture product pays a rate of return of roughly 6.35%. (Charest, 2008)
    37. 37. Ontario: Social Venture Fund  2008 Ontario Budget recognized social entrepreneurs as an innovative way to advance social goals.  Allocation was made to pilot social venture investing in Ontario.  Proposed $20 million investment vehicle managed by MaRD Discovery District on behalf of MRI  Delay was announced in October 2008 as part of a “Spending Restraint”.
    38. 38. Canada: Community Investment Funds  Edmonton Social Enterprise Fund  Toronto Enterprise Fund  Enterprising Non-Profits: BC and Ontario  Meritas (2% of assets to community development investing = $1million)  Resilient Capital  Great Bear Rainforest Fund
    39. 39. Program related investments  In Canada, private foundation endowments are estimated at $10 billion and universities at $11 billion.  Blended value investments that are directly aligned with program objectives of the foundation.  Take form of loans, guarantees, equity investments and recoverable grants.  Foundations in Canada can only make PRI investments into charities. This limits social enterprise.  Public policy is required for deals to work.
    40. 40. Ontario Social Investment Exchange “moves beyond SRI” Vision  Broad Vision: Improved social (and environmental) outcomes Mission  Efficiency: increase efficiency of existing financial capital (it’s ability to generate social capital)  New financial capital: attract new financial capital for social firms  Screening/valuation/assessment: assess the social impact of non- profit firms  Intermediary: act as an intermediary for social investors and social firms (investees) Focus Areas  food security  energy poverty  low-income housing  community economic development  microfinance  environment and conservation  first nations  etc.
    41. 41. Alterna Community Alliance Housing Fund  $2 million investment by the pension fund of Public Service Alliance of Canada.  Alterna Savings Credit Union acted as the financial intermediary and partnered with the Ottawa Community Loan Fund.  Carleton Centre for Community Innovation 3ci acted as intermediary.  Long-term 5-year GIC rate of return to provide low cost financing for 2nd mortgage and primary mortgages.  Bridge financing for affordable ownership developments.  Interim financing to cover the costs of construction overruns,  Pre-development financing to assist community groups in developing housing proposal.
    42. 42. SRI in Canada  $433 billion in SRI pension assets in 2006.  Institutional investors are coming under pressure from stakeholder advocacy to invest in SRI.  That Alterna example can be used to leverage other capital pools.  Although, the infrastructure to scale such opportunities does not yet exist in Canada.
    43. 43. Affordable Housing Models Options for Homes  private affordable housing developer with 1500 units. Innovative down-payment arrangement that provides assistance to buyers.  The model is being considered by CMHC to increase stock of privately financed affordable housing in Canada.  Home Ownership Alternatives
    44. 44. Discussion: Ontario options  Low hanging fruit  Inter-governmental working group with nonprofits  Community involvement  Public endorsements  Partnerships, co-production, collaboration  Capacity and skill building initiatives  Use what has been announced in the Poverty Reduction Strategy  Procurement Strategy  Ontario Social Venture Fund  New permissive roles for foundations  Identify and develop intermediaries  Identify Platforms e.g. affordable housing & infrastructure spending  Make our mark  Develop strong accountability frameworks  Engage business community and SRI community
    45. 45. Ontario Strategies… sustainable and effective framework  Low hanging fruit  Inter-governmental working group with nonprofits  Community involvement  Public endorsements  Partnerships, co-production, collaboration  Capacity and skill building initiatives  Use what has been announced in the Poverty Reduction Strategy  Procurement Strategy  Ontario Social Venture Fund  New permissive roles for foundations  Identify and develop intermediaries  Identify Platforms e.g. affordable housing & infrastructure spending  Make our mark  Develop strong accountability frameworks  Engage business community and SRI community
    46. 46. Potential Leverage Points Policy  Corporate Structure  Tax Products  Social venture capital  Specialized investment products  Issues with substantial assets  Affordable Housing  Community revitalization (infrastructure)  Energy and efficiency
    47. 47. Canadian Opportunities  New legislation was tabled as Bill-C4 and died when the Parliament was prorogued.  Bill-C4 is amodernization to improve governance, accountability, and administration of existing non- profits and charities that incorporate federally.  Not specific to enable community nonprofits.
    48. 48. Cautions  “off-loading” of government responsibility.  Values disconnect with the private and financial sectors. How can civil society organizations retain their values and culture once they have entered into partnership with the private sector?  Are we abandoning collective provision of public goods if we consider financial models other than current delivery?
    49. 49. Barriers, just a few of them  Ontario Charitable Gifts Act, prohibits charities from owning more than 10% interest in any business  Co-ops are not allowed to issue investment shares, in some provinces.  Limits on capital retention to be used on infrastructure and management.  We have no national charities act.  Outdated Canada Corporations Act. No action since 1917!
    50. 50. References  Baldwin Andrea, “Creativity, Social Benefit & Job Creations, Martin Prosperity Institute: February 2009  Bridge Richard, Corriveau Stacey, “Legislative Innovations and Social Enterprise: Structural Lessons for Canada” BC Centre for Social Enterprise: February 2009  Chernoff Alex, “Creating Capital Pools to Support Social Enterprise Development in Manitoba”, August, 2008  Community Reinvestment Act, http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/CRA/  Hebb Tessa, “Program Related Investments in a Canadian Context”, PowerPoint, 2007  Lloyd Stephen, 2008 presentation at the Social Finance Forum. Available on Vimeo  Fraser Valley Centre for Social Enterprise, “Analysis of L3C and CIC Social Enterprise”, October 2008  Wolk Andrew, “Advancing Social Entrepreneurship: recommendations for policy makers and government agencies”, The Aspen Institute: April 2008
    51. 51. Questions to ask  Can people who receive social assistance earn a living wage from a social enterprise that brings them out of poverty?  Is there potential for enough impact for the community nonprofit sector? Can public policy enable the nonprofit sector to attract enough capital that diversifies our funding streams

    ×