And this is what I have been saying for over a year. The government is acting like they can disarm a bomb, that's already gone off.

We are damned, regardless of what we do. The millions of jobs that are going to be lost, were going to be lost the second the housing market crashed. Nothing the government can do to save them. The more they try and save them, the worse the recovery becomes.

The spending is deemed wasteful, because in the end, it serves no purpose but to worsen the lives of those the government is in place to protect.

If for a second I thought it would work, I would not be so against it. The last year has proven me right however.

Because between oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro-electric, and bio-fuels Canadians have a shortage of energy resources? Canada is not a big enough country for any government investment into a field with as much investment as alternative energy research and battery development to make a difference; and we can create a better dynamic energy grid for less money if we wait for larger countries (US, China, Russia, etc.) to produce similar systems first.

Now, the home renovation tax credit allows people to make a claim on their taxes for 15% of eligible home improvement costs up to a maximum (household I believe) credit of $1,500. To put it into context of the cash-for-clunkers program, with the amount of money that will go towards this tax credit you could (potentially) offer a $500 discount off of the purchase of a more environmental car ... but guess what, as part of the stimulus program in Canada you can receive a tax credit of (up to) $7,500 if you bought a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. ( http://www.four-pillars.ca/2009/02/24/new-car-buyer-tax-deduction-2009-economic-stimulus-package/ )

I'd say Europe still takes the crown for paying people to have babies.

I don't see the relevance of the first point, since hydro (which is already heavily developed) is the only energy source you listed which we won't be paying market prices for, and those market prices are set to skyrocket. I'm sure the provinces which don't produce energy won't mind paying tons of money to the provinces that do. No way would they feel exploited and try to push through an NEP-like bill to turn the exploiters into the exploited, dredging up all that old animosity. Just because Canada is an energy exporter doesn't mean that we don't have to worry about the problems of scarce energy, and it doesn't mean we can't achieve more prosperity by improving our energy efficiency and distribution.

I'm not too taken with your plan to just buy all our new energy tech from overseas rather than develop our own industry to sell abroad. The long-term potential of selling renewable energy tech has much better prospects than selling dwindling primary resources.

For the second point, the existance of a somewhat less useless subsidy doesn't suddenly make the granite countertop subsidy useful. I remember Grant Devine failing spectacularly with a 'rec room subsidy' some twenty years ago, failing to substantially stimulate the economy and succeeding in throwing money out the window. Stimulus spending should go into things like infrastructure projects, investments which create future opportunities, rather than get eaten up by consumption and forgotten.

Furthermore, the vehicle subsidy in this country suffers from the same problem as the American one: E85 SUVs qualify for subsidy, even though you can't actually buy E85 fuel anywhere and ethanol has extremely limited potential as an alternative fuel. That's on top of my criticism that it's consumption stimulus, albeit with at least a little impact on energy demand. The money would be better spent building mass transit systems.