I'd hate to be critical about such initiatives which appear to be very beneficial, but this is definitely not the way to help make Canada more environmentally friendly, and cutting down on its overall ecological footprint and emissions reduction. Problem #1 is that this pledge is betting on the goodwill of the average household to encourage more environmentally friendly retrofitting. As in the past, such changes will not necessarily be appealing for the average household to invest in. Once again, the government is betting on the use of incentives to lure Canadians out of a consumerism type of a lifestyle, and although this is the more liberal way to approach the issue, the fact of the matter is that the average person, unless environmentally motivated, will not make the changes necessary if they are only being partially compensated for the changes. The mentality of making changes only when it deems suitable for ourselves is essentially a selfish concept that is engrained in the minds of many living in this culture of ours, and that itself would fundamentally prevent any significant changes in the environment. Only regulations, laws, and a more intimidating approach towards saving the environment will actually reap results, when it comes to the need for people to sacrifice their own freewill living for the benefit of the entire world. The 2nd problem is that this does nothing to actually tackle the real offenders of global greenhouse emissions. The average household contributes a marginal amount to the overall pie, and the real issue is in the energy sector, the industrial sector, and the automobile industry, combined with an aggressive forestry industry. The energy sector alone contributes to the largest greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from the oil sands of Alberta, to the large demand of energy controlled by ontario hydro, sourcing from its high reliance on coal. Many businesses have also not seen any benefit to making progress towards reducing emissions simply because the government tends to protect them from suffering in the economy (and hence affecting the Canadian economy). The automobile sector is also a large offender of emissions pollutions for obvious reasons. Unless initiatives are taken to change the main sources of emissions, we can never claim to have accomplished anything. The question always appears to be: How can we make a difference in the environment, without taking away from the consumeristic lifestyles that we live; and the answer is that such a lifestyle can never support a healthy environment. People and government alike, need to realize that no technology will ever make up for the harm we have already caused the environment, and that sacrifices are needed in order to ever make a difference.

Tories pledge $300M for energy efficiency efforts

Sun. Jan. 21 2007 3:07 PM ET

CTV.ca

The Conservatives have pledged $300 million to help Canadians make their homes more energy efficient -- the latest in a list of environmental initiatives recently announced by the government.

The announcement, made at Toronto's home show on Sunday morning, will give homeowners an average grant of $1,000, ranging up to a possible $5,000, said Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn. The grants will come in the form of cash, not a tax rebate.

The $1,000 grants, Lunn said, will help reduce homeowners' energy costs by 30 per cent.

"So not only would they receive the $5,000 to help them in the retro fits -- that's a maximum -- but they'll also go on to receive thousands of dollars in savings in their energy costs year after year."

Lunn also said 800 small businesses will receive help from the so-called Eco-Energy Efficiency Initiative.

Earlier in the week, Lunn promised Ottawa would spend $230 million over four years towards researching clean energy options.

After the Sunday announcement, Lunn appeared on CTV's Question Period.

He countered claims that the initiative is nothing more than a repackaging of the EnerGuide program, one of the former Liberal government's programs that was cancelled by the Conservatives.

"It's important to note under the old Liberal program, almost 50 cents of every dollar spent went to doing audits and administration," he said.

"But even worse than that, of those people who had the audits done, only 30 per cent of those actually went on to do renovations. Seventy per cent of the people didn't do anything, and nothing was done for the environment."

By comparison, he said the Conservative program will deliver 90 per cent of every dollar spent, to renovations or retrofits. That will have a direct impact on reducing greenhouse gases, Lunn said.

Lunn said he has been working on the initiatives since early spring.

David McGuinty, the newly minted Liberal environment critic, said the ideas unveiled this week were originally announced by the previous Liberal government.

"There's no problem with these announcements except they're one year too late," he told Question Period.

"They are Liberal programs that were first cancelled by the government when they slashed almost $600 million of climate change funding in the last budget."

McGuinty said the recent Conservative announcements don't seem to be part of a comprehensive plan.

"What's concerning here is that we have lost the year, but, secondly, what we're seeing is ministers dispatched, as I like to say, jumping from ice floe to ice floe around the country and announcing these programs, but we don't see how they connect."

Nathan Cullen, the NDP's environment critic, said the announcements appear to be an attempt for the Conservatives to boost their environmental credentials -- fast.

"There's not a lot of substance behind the announcements. A lot of them are played out," Cullen told Question Period.

However, Cullen said, hope does lie in the fact the NDP is playing a key role in helping rewrite the Conservative Clean Air Act.

"We're quite comfortable working with the other parties, the Bloc and the Liberals as well as the government, to actually get something done, because, essentially, we head into another election and we don't want to waste another year," Cullen said.

"There's an opportunity for us in this parliament to do some really decisive things and move us along."

Yes I know, I like to quote articles from CTV.ca quite a lot. Probably should use some better primary sources, but nonetheless the point is in the message. Anyway here's another point demonstrating the fallacy of capitalism. The people with the money control the distribution of power, and has political influence, which makes it harder to control this runaway socioeconomic gap between the rich and the poor. P.S., please dont label me as a communist.

CEOs pass average Canadian salary by Jan. 2

Tue. Jan. 2 2007 8:49 AM ET

CTV.ca

By the time most Canadians drag themselves into work on Tuesday after the holidays, the country's highest-paid CEOs will already have earned the average employee's annual salary.

By 9:46 a.m. Tuesday, the 100 highest-paid private-sector executives will have earned an average Canadian's salary of $38,010, says a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

For minimum-wage workers, the country's top earners made their entire salary average of $15,931 by New Year's Day.

"When you say that the average CEO made $9 million in 2005 and the average Canadian made ($38,000), the comparison between those things is so far into the stratosphere that I think people have trouble just coming to terms with what the comparison means,'' Hugh Mackenzie, an economist with the independent research institute that focuses on issues of social and economic justice, told The Canadian Press.

"Converting it into time sort of puts it into a frame that people can get their heads around."

The statistics are based on 2005 salary figures from Statistics Canada and Report on Business magazine's most recent listing of the 100 best-paid CEOs of Canadian publicly traded companies.

According to the figures, by the end of the workday Tuesday, the average CEO will have pocketed a staggering $70,000.

"I was kind of hoping it would get into the second week of January. As it turns out, it was not even close," said Mackenzie. "Once people get over how stunning the differentials are, I think it really raises a lot of questions in people's minds."

"How can somebody possibly be worth that amount in income and . . . if those people are taking that much money out of the company or out of the economy, what does that mean for what's left for the rest of us?''

Recent scandals have focused the public spotlight on the huge salary and severance packages that top CEOs receive.

Former Ontario Hydro One CEO Tom Parkinson resigned last December after criticism surfaced about expense account irregularities and his $1.6-million annual salary and bonus.

Despite his resignation, Parkinson received a $3-million severance package.

Since Parkinson's wages were largely based on the earnings of CEOs in the private sector, Mackenzie says Canadians need to start looking at private-sector pay practices.

"I think people are now starting, certainly in the (United) States... to ask questions about how the market actually works... like who gets onto these compensation committees and how the consultants that are brought in to do the studies, how they actually do the work that they do.''

"These large corporations are not one-man bands. These are very large, sophisticated operations, and it just kind of boggles the mind that anybody thinks it's reasonable to be paying out, as an annual income for the year for a chief executive officer, numbers averaging $10 million for the top 100.''

PM to bring 'democracy' to choice of senators

Updated Wed. Dec. 13 2006 11:00 AM ET

CTV.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government will introduce legislation today that would bring democracy and greater accountability to the way Senators are chosen.

"For the first time it will let the prime minister give Canadians the decision on who represents them in the upper house," Harper said in a campaign-style address to his caucus on Wednesday morning.

The legislation is entitled an act to provide for consultation with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

The bill falls short of actually electing senators. But it would give the prime minister a measure of public opinion when he appoints members to the upper chamber.

The bill, if passed, would amount to essentially a referendum in the next general election. There are currently 10 senate vacancies in the 105-seat senate, so under the proposed bill voters would be asked who they would like to see fill those spots in their provinces and territories.

"Elections Canada will oversee the vote," said Harper. "If need be we'll use a plurality voting system at first and then move to a preferential system of proportional representation."

Harper has been pushing for reform of the 105-seat Senate for years. But a complete overhaul of Senate powers and way in which its members are appointed would require a change to the constitution.

Neither the governor general nor future prime ministers would be bound to the proposed bill since it has no bearing on the constitution.

The big question is whether the bill will pass. Harper already has legislation in the works to limit Senators' terms to eight years; but like many other government bills, it's still stuck in the Senate where Liberals hold a majority.

Harper noted that the bill was being introduced the day after the government's Federal Accountability Act received royal assent.

But he acknowledged getting one passed won't be easy. He said the Liberals like the senate "just the way it is" and that they recently defended senators having 45-year terms.

"A democratically elected and genuinely accountable Senate may not serve the interests of the Liberal party; but it will serve the Canadian people, and their interests come first to this government," he said.

"Just as the Liberals opposed the accountability act, the federal budget, the GST cut, child-care allowance, softwood lumber deal, the tax fairness plan -- do you see a theme here?"

"I don't expect them to embrace senate elections without a fight."

Liberal have yet to comment on the proposal. But in the past, Liberal senators have suggested the proposal is unconstitutional and should be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada first.

Today being the last day Parliament sits for 2006, politicians won't actually start debating the bill until they return at the end of January.

"It will certainly take a couple of months and there will be lots of wrangling over it," said CTV's David Akin in Ottawa.

"Harper may not get this bill through, but he has something now to take to the polls, perhaps in the spring. He can say to voters 'look, I tried to have an elected senate, but (the opposition) is in the way.'"

More details about the new bill will be released when it is introduced in the House of Commons later today.