TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Tories pull plug on popular EnerGuide
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Tories pull plug on popular EnerGuide

Link

Announce phase out of home reno grants

Funding for plan axed in May 2 budget
May 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
LES WHITTINGTON

OTTAWA�Thousands of Canadians hoping for federal grants to help cover the cost of making their homes more energy efficient are in limbo after the Harper government quietly cancelled a popular program.

Funding for the $44-million EnerGuide for Homes was axed in the Conservatives' May 2 budget but official notice that it is being phased out only emerged on a federal government website on the weekend.

Homeowners who took steps before midnight Friday to begin energy-saving renovations under the EnerGuide program will still be in line for grants averaging $737 per household if the retrofit work is completed by next March 31, a federal spokesperson explained yesterday. But getting the money may depend on how many people complete the process by next March and how much money Ottawa sets aside to pay for the grants to homeowners, said Emma Welford, an aide to Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

The intention is to deliver grants to every household that qualifies, Welford said. But "of course, all of that is subject to the availability of funding."

Last year, with interest in the program booming along with energy prices, the Liberal government spent $44.3 million on EnerGuide and had planned to increase funding by $200 million this year. But that money was cut in the Conservative budget.

Lunn has asked the Harper government for additional cash to cover homeowner grants during the phase-out period but Welford declined to say how much was requested.

Cancellation of the program, which paid grants to 30,429 homeowners last year, spread shock through the network of hundreds of conservation organizations and companies that has grown up to publicize EnerGuide and provide energy audits and renovations.

"The government's cancellation of these popular, effective programs is very bad news for residential energy efficiency in this country," said Clifford Maynes, executive director of Green Communities Canada, a Peterborough-based group of environmental service organizations.

There are also concerns about the federal Conservatives' decision to scrap a new five-year, $500 million program introduced by the Liberals called EnerGuide for Low Income Households, which would have paid the full cost of renovations to improve energy use for low-income earners.

"Low-income households already live close to the edge, and steep increases in energy prices will push many of them over," said Maynes. He called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reconsider eliminating these initiatives.

Critics of the Conservatives' approach point out that Harper's party voted in support of funding for EnerGuide for Housing in the Commons in November.

As they field questions from upset homeowners and service providers, organizations involved in upgrading homes are wondering why the current federal government, which favours a "Made-in-Canada" approach to tackling global warming, didn't see the appeal of EnerGuide.

"I am baffled by the decision because it seems to be exactly what they say they want," said Mary Jane Patterson, manager of the Residential Energy Efficiency Program in Waterloo. "It's a Canadian program through and through. It's very accountable because of the (energy) evaluations. The grants are based on results" and the project is effective in reducing pollution, she said.

"People are stunned, they're asking, `Who can I write to in the government right now?'" she recounted.

The Conservatives say EnerGuide is being dropped because the cost of the audits was too high. Last year, audits in support of homeowners' energy renovation grants totalled $15.1 million out of the total $44.3 million cost of the program, Natural Resources officials said.

"We are going to ensure that every single Canadian taxpayer gets value for their money," Lunn said yesterday when asked in the Commons to justify the decision.

Contractors who performed the evaluations � which made homeowners eligible for grants covering part of the cost of recommended energy efficiency measures � received a terse email from Ottawa late Thursday announcing the impending end of EnerGuide.

Ottawa's decision may put pressure on the Liberal government in Ontario to step in and fund the EnerGuide project instead of the federal government. Quebec and New Brunswick have agreed to do so, according to federal officials.

wow...my parents just replaced all the windows in the house and are putting in a new furnace and air conditioner this weekend.

I believe this will go along with their whole new strategy to develop their own energy plan for Canada. It seems that they are trying to distance them selves from the liberals in any way they can.

So here it truly is a question of money vs the environment. Too much money is being spent on the legal process and not enough on actual energy conservation.

Does that justify cutting out the good that those upgrades would have done for our environment? I have always believed that it is much cheaper to rape this land, but when will we actually start spending money?

I really do want to see the new Conservative plan for environmental change. At this point they are saying the liberal approach just wastes money and they are not behind it. I hope they can come up with a cost effictive plan that actually gets people to conserve. As of right now, Canada is far too wastefull.

Brutal.

Re: Tories pull plug on popular EnerGuide

quote:

Originally posted by Swamper Link The Conservatives say EnerGuide is being dropped because the cost of the audits was too high. Last year, audits in support of homeowners' energy renovation grants totalled $15.1 million out of the total $44.3 million cost of the program, Natural Resources officials said.

So instead of axing the whole program, why didn't the conservatives just fix/streamline the administration of the program to reduce associated administrative costs?

This program is sooo beneficial to the economy: increases productivity (due to increased energy efficiency), catalyzes the development of energy efficient and related technologies, reducesin the amount of natural resources being consumed, stimulates the home renovation industry (construction is a primary driver of the economy).

what were they thinking?

The PC Reign of terror continues. I'm so pissed off right now I'm at a loss of words. Let's just cancel everything that works.. why not.. it'll be fun.

Considering in Waterloo, and most University towns, those audits are performed free by 3rd and 4th year students. What a loss, cause most people will just say fuck it without the government grant.


Hey let's open some more coal burning plants, even better let's just burn our garbage too..

the best part is that the CPC voted IN SUPPORT of this program while they were part of the opposition.

Like most of you, I was pretty pissed when I heard about this too, but then I did a little digging...

I mean, why would they do that??

It appears that this program, like a lot of other Liberal nanny State programs, was being heavily propped up with our tax dollars.
Or course our lovely liberal run media wouldn't dare point that out.

Don't even get me started on the whole Gun Registry fiasco...

quote:

[...] The Conservatives say EnerGuide is being dropped because the cost of the audits was too high. Last year, audits in support of homeowners� energy renovation grants totalled $15.1 million out of the total $44.3 million cost of the program, Natural Resources officials said.

That's right folks, they are telling us that 33 percent of the grants went just to public-sector union taxpayer-paid liberal-hired bureaucrats? Each year? Just for the audits? Fully one third? And that�s not even counting the cost to dole out the cash through the liberal-left bureacracy, advertise it through liberal-friendly ad firms, and then sell! sell! sell! it at election time with massive full-page dead tree ads, and more�which would all amount to a large portion of the rest of that $44.3 million, probably. That�s some efficient government!

Had I had this background information is morning, I probaby would have had a skip in my step rather than the small heart-break.

Facts are a bitch...

So are you saying that the program probably ran out of money completly and the audits were a small part of that, but they were blamed for the program's cancelation?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's right folks, they are telling us that 33 percent of the grants went just to public-sector union taxpayer-paid liberal-hired bureaucrats? Each year? Just for the audits? Fully one third? And that�s not even counting the cost to dole out the cash through the liberal-left bureacracy, advertise it through liberal-friendly ad firms, and then sell! sell! sell! it at election time with massive full-page dead tree ads, and more�which would all amount to a large portion of the rest of that $44.3 million, probably. That�s some efficient government!

But apparently the conservatives would NEVER run things the same way as the liberals. If 33% of the grants went just to public-sector union taxpayer-paid liberal-hired bureaucrats. Each year. Just for the audits. And then advertise using liberal friendly ad firms. Geez look at all the waste.

But alas I thought the CPC was based on efficiently run government. Thus solving the original "inefficient" problems with the system.

So why are they scrapping this? really?

quote:

Originally posted by Orko So are you saying that the program probably ran out of money completly and the audits were a small part of that, but they were blamed for the program's cancelation?

No, I wouldn't say it ran out of money, it's just not a very efficiently run program.
The Liberals were talking about bumping this program's grants up another $200 Million a year and $500 Million a year for poor folks who would end up living in better than us.
So image 33% of $700 Million dollars just for auditing themselves...

you don't have to be a wiz at math to figure out that that a lot of money that we might as well burn in the fireplace to keep warm...

well instead of eliminating it all together and hopefully replacing it with something similar sounds a whole lot more expensive than actually streamlining the current system. I'm afraid we will never see a grant again, and that's just sad.

Has a replacement system been announced? I smell cash grab... Does the federal government do anything anymore, I mean other than collect our taxes and transfer them to other provinces. Screw it, i'm gonna find me a nice cash job, collect welfare and play bingo.. I'll most likely be better off than i am now..

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ...and $500 Million a year for poor folks who would end up living in better than us.

Maybe it would make sense to give further funding to those of lower income levels? They do usually live in older housing, and have less per year to spend on home renovations. With that thinking, they could become the biggest wasters of energy(per square foot of space per house) since the materials are old, and nothing is being done about it. People at higher income levels would obviously have more to spend on reno's because their other bills are taken care of.

Giving money to the poor to fix up their house, seems like helping Canada and not the poor.

Hmmm...food for the kids or new double pane windows?

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Maybe it would make sense to give further funding to those of lower income levels? They do usually live in older housing, and have less per year to spend on home renovations. With that thinking, they could become the biggest wasters of energy(per square foot of space per house) since the materials are old, and nothing is being done about it. People at higher income levels would obviously have more to spend on reno's because their other bills are taken care of. Giving money to the poor to fix up their house, seems like helping Canada and not the poor. Hmmm...food for the kids or new double pane windows?

True say, however I can of think better programs like Habitat for Humanity that doesn't need 33% of it's funding just for auditing never mind overhead...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r True say, however I can of think better programs like Habitat for Humanity that doesn't need 33% of it's funding just for auditing never mind overhead...

Agreed, but you are just looking at the one negative aspect of the program. I was specifically referring to the poor people comment.

Yes, other programs need money, but we should focus on getting that 33% back into the initial program, or trying to find a way to stop it from happening in the future.

Its a worthy idea, and we need something in place of it, just not a cancellation. People develop negative views about programs like this when they are cancelled mid step. Will they be as willing to sign up in the future, only to have their hopes dashed again? That's the type of mentality we need to avoid.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Agreed, but you are just looking at the one negative aspect of the program. I was specifically referring to the poor people comment. Yes, other programs need money, but we should focus on getting that 33% back into the initial program, or trying to find a way to stop it from happening in the future. Its a worthy idea, and we need something in place of it, just not a cancellation. People develop negative views about programs like this when they are cancelled mid step. Will they be as willing to sign up in the future, only to have their hopes dashed again? That's the type of mentality we need to avoid.

Oh I agree but we haven't heard about a replacement program either so there could still be something in the wings (there better be something or I'd be pissed too).
It's a great idea, it just had lousy program efficiencies, what do you expect it's government!

The government is better off giving special tax breaks/incentives to smaller, leaner, private programs for such a cause.
Bureaucracy also begats more bureaucracy, that's just the way governments work, and guess who pays for it all...

the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

quote:

Originally posted by King Luis the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

The current government just saved you and I a lot of money, whatchutalkin'boutWillis?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Bureaucracy also begats more bureaucracy

I agree, and after working for a large company, I can see why. Its not just the gov though(they are the worst), its just human mentality. Its about covering your ass. Everybody needs a paper trail, which leads to forms, which leads to procedures, which leads to....

Its amazing the amount of waste that is created because of the fear of litigation. Ive always wondered, with the amount of money 'wasted' in paper work, vs the amount of income paid to workers, which goes back into the gov and society, are we better or worse off with all this bureaucracy?

thnk god i decided to not use my energuide market plan for my business. be alot of unhappy ppl right now

all programs started by the liberals need to be at least audited and many completely cut...

the party itself should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up...

they're crooks... fir3start3r hit the nail on the head... the corruption in that party is no joke.. and def. not conservative propoganda... billions of dollars that liberals misappropriated could have been used to fund this program for years to come...

PC reign of terror... lol... their socially conservative mindset aside... they're going to tackle the debt a bit more... thus reducing financing costs... and finally making it possible for my tax dollars to be used for programs, such as this, that will benifit the people... or even reduce my income tax....

lex

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The current government just saved you and I a lot of money, whatchutalkin'boutWillis?

At what cost?!!?!?

If the conservatives were really about efficient government they would streamline the administration of the program to reduce it's costs. FFS, the whole program is about efficiency!
Sadly, the conservative party uses thier supposed "mandate" for efficient government as an excuse to reduce the government's capacity to aid average Canadians. Effectively, they rollback the social welfare programs that benefit Canadians in middle and lower income groups (health care spots), they scoff at programs that help the environment (this article), they reduce the GST (benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor) etc.
The conservative party is a thinly-veiled social/business elite party. I really don't understand how someone in a lower income bracket could even vote for them (sponsorship scandal notwithstanding), given the lack of progressively equitable policies that they support. Open your eyes and look at the policies people!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Like most of you, I was pretty pissed when I heard about this too, but then I did a little digging... I mean, why would they do that?? It appears that this program, like a lot of other Liberal nanny State programs, was being heavily propped up with our tax dollars. Or course our lovely liberal run media wouldn't dare point that out. Don't even get me started on the whole Gun Registry fiasco... That's right folks, they are telling us that 33 percent of the grants went just to public-sector union taxpayer-paid liberal-hired bureaucrats? Each year? Just for the audits? Fully one third? And that�s not even counting the cost to dole out the cash through the liberal-left bureacracy, advertise it through liberal-friendly ad firms, and then sell! sell! sell! it at election time with massive full-page dead tree ads, and more�which would all amount to a large portion of the rest of that $44.3 million, probably. That�s some efficient government! Had I had this background information is morning, I probaby would have had a skip in my step rather than the small heart-break. Facts are a bitch...

Please show me your evidence that it is mainly "Liberal friendly" auditors and firms who have been, and would contintue to be, benefiting from this program.

Facts are a bitch, indeed...so let's see those sources please! That's quite the unsupported assertion you're making there, it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Oh I agree but we haven't heard about a replacement program either so there could still be something in the wings (there better be something or I'd be pissed too). It's a great idea, it just had lousy program efficiencies, what do you expect it's government! The government is better off giving special tax breaks/incentives to smaller, leaner, private programs for such a cause. Bureaucracy also begats more bureaucracy, that's just the way governments work, and guess who pays for it all...

sure, there *could* be...just like there *could* be a new deal for the Natives...just like there *could* be new environmental initiatives.

The problem is that in the meantime there nothing. Personally, I'd like to *at least* see a replacement proposal before they just go ahead a scrap an existing intiative (an initiative that they themselves supported!)

if the audits cost too much, then how about addressing those costs instead of scapping the program? Farm out the audits to those "leaner firms" of which you speak. How many businesses are now negatively impacted by suddenly scrapping this program that had, until the CPC took office, support from all parties, AFAIK?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ...The Liberals were talking about bumping this program's grants up another $200 Million a year and $500 Million a year for poor folks who would end up living in better than us. So image 33% of $700 Million dollars just for auditing themselves... ...

So fully paying for the audits and retrofits for lower income people means that they would be better off than the middle class? come on now...you wanna trade places with low income earners?


Here we apparently had a successful program that had widespread support...that provided concrete incentives for people to take an active role in energy conservation...now it's gone...with nothing yet tabled to replace it.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT sure, there *could* be...just like there *could* be a new deal for the Natives...just like there *could* be new environmental initiatives. The problem is that in the meantime there nothing. Personally, I'd like to *at least* see a replacement proposal before they just go ahead a scrap an existing intiative (an initiative that they themselves supported!)

Thats exactly what I was thinking, but then the idea comes up of cutting your losses.

Here it just depends on what you think is best, continue to spend money and improve the sysetm, or scrap it and come up with a whole new one. Continued projects vs saving money. It is very hard to decide which one in the end will provide the greater good to the Canadian taxpayer.

The conservatives have said they were not happy with the liberal take on environmental issues, nor the world's views considering they are pushing for their own guidliens and plans. What are these plans? I am not against a conservative lead environment plan, I just want to see a firm plan in place to aid in reducing Canada's pollution.

In respect to these audits, what exactly are they auditing?

One thing I must say, that liberal lead "One tonne challenge" was a HUGE waste of money, and I am glad the conservatives scraped it.

Unless you were a home owner, with command over the construction of your house, there was very little in the challenge for you. I was excited about a program which would help Canadians lower their emmissions, but it didnt help anybody.

As somebody who rents, bikes/busses everywhere, there was nothing more for me to do. Maybe thats the truth, but they should have also included sections which addressed more physical/visable pollution.

We need to tackle the fast food industry! The amount of garbage created by Timmy's or any other place is just crazy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.