We’ve been hearing a lot lately about how one should never let a good crisis go to waste. Moving right along, Ontario appears to be following that advice seriously.

On Monday the Ontario government released its proposed Green Energy Act, a sweeping bill that would amend 15 existing provincial statutes. The new Act is incentive-based and would, among other things, encourage renewable energy projects, promote energy efficiency programs, and build a smart grid, which in turn would present opportunities to develop new technologies. Through the initiative, the McGuinty government hopes to create some 50,000 jobs.

Environmentalists, so far seem happy enough, though there are objections over the role of nuclear power. Most critics are zeroing in on the feasibility of the initiative in the middle of a cash crunch. And one of the more controversial features of the bill is the proposed $300 energy audit that would be required whenever homes are sold. Who would bear the cost of this is unclear, which is why some are calling it a disguised tax on homeowners.

Ontario seems to be taking a lead in consultations aimed at designing a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system. In December the province released its discussion paper on the issue. Gowlings gives a good breakdown of the details.

A copy of the discussion paper can be found here. Comments will be accepted until March 3, 2009, following which consultations will continue in 2009 on a sector-specific basis with industries likely to be affected, to guide the development of the system. It’s expected that the framework will be announced as early as 2010.

At the request of a small association of local residents, the Superior Court of Quebec has ordered the City of Sainte-Agathe to “cease any non-treated discharge to the North River sewage ” (translated), a situation that the court awards to the “persistent laxity of the City and the Ministère des Affaires municipales” (MAM) for their tolerance of the non-compliance with the Environment Quality Act (EQA).

• The Court gave 30 days to the town to “take all measures necessary to operate its treatment plant in accordance with authorization under the EQA” (translated).

• Since 2006, the Court concluded that, “the City rejects carelessly treated wastewater into the North River which contains concentrations of fecal coliform exceeding  the authorized limits. The City also rejects untreated wastewater without demonstrating how these overflows are allowed, because the City does not use the mandatory overflow recorder.” (translated)

•  Instead, Sainte-Agathe installed a plastic bottle, tied with a rope and placed on a wall, to determine if the untreated wastewater were overflowing. For the Court, this method does not determine the frequency or extent of discharges of untreated wastewater, which its release is only permitted on exceptional basis.

• For more info, click here (in French only).
• To read the judgment, click here (in French only). 

We believe lighter, faster and easier is …. better! Despite this common sense approach, too many companies invest in expensive “enterprise” software that they think will solve their problems, they won’t. In fact, these software packages ranging in price from 10 000 $ to over a million dollars usually cause more headaches than they relieve. For one, these large pieces of software try to do too much, making them bad at many things instead of good at one thing. The software salesman, who works on commission, will promise you the moon to get you to sign on the dotted line. These companies resemble a used car salesman more than an engineering firm, there is no sense of quality over quantity.

Large amounts of functionality sound nice on paper, but fail miserable in practice. A good criticism is found in an article called If It Looks Like a Cow, Swims Like a Dolphin and Quacks Like a Duck, It Must Be Enterprise Software. The title says it all. Yet another article on why enterprise software fails, Why does enterprise software suck?

Ultimately it boils down to this: Who is making the purchasing decision? In general and with the exception of gifts, the purchaser of a product is usually the end user, not so with enterprise software. Too often, top level managers decide on software packages, pushed by sales reps, that they are going to impose on thousands of people without their consent. Since someone who does not use a product cannot adequately evaluate it, the managers abstract it to a list of items. But a software is not a list of items any more than a car is. Do walk into a car dealership and say, “I want a motor, a driving wheel, 4 tires, 2 doors…”? No, you want a reliable, affordable, working vehicle. How many gifts have you received that did not meet your expectations? Now, what if we told you that you have to wear the sweater your grandmother got you, everyday, forever, regardless of your taste. That is how the enterprise software business works.

The emerging field of Software as a Service (SaaS), of which we are part, flips the issue on its head. This industry offers very low cost entry points with monthly fees, no contract and an ability to extract your data. If you sign with an enterprise software and don’t like it, you are out tens of thousands of dollars, months of time and your information is in a proprietary format. With Software as a Service, you can get in and out with nearly no cost, no headaches and all your data intact. A recent article I stumbled across outlines why software as a service has a much higher return on investment for the client.

Hopefully this post outlines some of the problems with enterprise software and the interesting solutions Software as a Service offer.We believe lighter, faster and easier is …. better! Despite this common sense, too many companies invest in expensive “enterprise” software that they think will solve their problems, they won’t. For one, these large pieces of software try to do too much, making them bad at many things instead of good at one thing. The salesman, will promise the moon to get you to sign on the dotted line. These companies are no more than used car salesman, there is no sense of quality over quantity.

Large amounts of functionality sound nice on paper, but fail miserable in practice. A good criticism is found in an article called If It Looks Like a Cow, Swims Like a Dolphin and Quacks Like a Duck, It Must Be Enterprise Software. The title says it all.

Ultimately it boils down to this: Who is making the purchasing decision? With most products, the person who buys something is the person who is going to use it (with the exception of presents). Not with enterprise software, too often, top level managers decide on software packages – pushed by sales reps – that they are going to impose on thousands of people, without their consent.

The emerging field of Software as a Service (SaaS), of which we are part, flips the issue on its head. This industry offers very low entry points with monthly fees, no contract and an ability to extract your data. If you sign with an enterprise software and don’t like it, you are out tens of thousands of dollars, months of time and your information is difficult to extricate. With Software as a Service, you can get in and out with nearly no cost, no headaches and all your data intact. A recent article I stumbled across outlines why software as a service has a much higher return on investment for the client.

Hopefully this post outlines some of the problems with enterprise software and the interesting solutions Software as a Service offer.

Companies’ scrutiny of their own suppliers is beginning to show signs of improvement.

At an event organized by the Conseil patronal de l’environnement du Quebec, held today, a half dozen presenters – representing private industry (Bell, Desjardins, and Walmart) and government (MSDEP, Loto-Quebec, Public Works Canada) — shared the details of their responsible procurement policies with attendees.

The purpose, of course, is to achieve real gains in sustainability by purchasing environmentally friendly products and services, selecting appropriate contractors and including environmental requirements in a contract.

This can be done by drawing up Codes of conduct, which set out the standards organizations expect of their suppliers and contractors. It seems these Codes are finally beginning to move beyond vague promises to more detailed rules.

But credible enforcement of these rules is not easily achieved without proper inspections, preferably unannounced at the supplier’s facilities. Admittedly, getting those suppliers to agree to audits without warning is another matter, but larger clients can more easily make these kinds of demands.

Even so, getting suppliers to buy into green procurement policies will likely require an incremental approach toward imposing a Code of conduct. That might take time, sure, but one has to be realistic to ensure one’s business partners truly change their behaviour over the long run.