Tom Kertes

From Policy Note, “A Modest Proposal“:

At some point before long, Haiti is going to be rebuilt. It occurs to me that we in BC have available wood to help in the effort. Most things are built of concrete there because there simply isn’t any wood. Rebuilding out of concrete will be massively expensive and massively polluting. And, as Premier Campbell noted in his speech to the BC Truck Loggers Association this week, wood buildings are much better in an earthquake zone than is concrete.

Using the pine beetle wood from our forests for rebuilding Haiti seems like an idea worth considering. What it would take would be enormous amounts of government money to make this happen, but if the Premiere truly wants to “re-establish and revitalize our forest industry” it makes sense.

Come to think of it, I can’t remember hearing anything at all about the BC government’s contribution to the Haiti relief effort. BC municipalities have signaled their intention to give support, and Harper is all over the news with his efforts. It would seem that Campbell needs some encouragement in this direction. I’m sure the forestry sector would be on side, and perhaps even the federal government could be.

I like this modest proposal because what Haiti needs is resources to build its own infrastructures and institutions.  Haiti needs resources, beyond the donated labour, management and help of over 10,000 foreign charities.  I cannot imagine how hard it would be to govern a country with its social infrastructure fragmented by so many missions and agendas, and by so many people based outside of the country.  So while we should help in all ways needed now, this should include sharing tangible resources that can be used to support long-term development that’s based entirely in Haiti.

From: TarSandsBlow.org

Poverty is a political choice made by those in power and the willingness of the public to tolerate the ongoing conditions of poverty. We need to be honest about this fact, and either do what is required to end poverty through society-wide commitment to this, or be honest about the choice we’re making in allowing poverty to keep harming so many people. What we don’t need to do is manage the PR of poverty, hiding it or reframing poverty as anything other than a political reality stemming from our political choices.

What we don’t need is this:

When the 2010 Winter Olympic Games get underway, the Campbell administration won’t just be showcasing Beautiful British Columbia. It will also be showcasing government programs that have been “undertaken to address the issue of homelessness” in Vancouver’s “colourful” Downtown Eastside. This, according to a concept paper prepared by the Crown corporation responsible for the province’s subsidized housing.

Olympics bring a lot of power to developers, event organizers and civic boosters, but if that’s all who benefit then everyone else ends up paying for what am0unts to a massive transfer of public resources – building the power of the few at the expense of the many. Will the Olympics benefit all of BC, or only a few in BC?

Here’s an update on the government’s economic impact of the Olympics, which may have been cut by $6 billion since the last time figures were publicized:

Finance minister Colin Hansen said today the economic impact from the 2010 Winter Olympic Games will be “billions and billions” but declined to give a firm figure.

Yesterday the Tyee reported that the government had quietly downgraded its estimate of economic activity around the games from $10 billion to $4 billion. Today Hansen faced questions on the issue from New Democratic Party MLAs in the legislature and from reporters in the hallway.

There will be lots of direct spending by VANOC and corporate sponsors, Hansen told reporters, as well as ongoing impact from the high-profile event. It’s a big number regardless, he said. In the billions of dollars.

In February’s budget speech Hansen had pegged the figure at $10 billion, but today declined to offer a firm number. It all depends on what aspect you want to look at and what parameters you want to put around that analysis.

I don’t think that’s good enough for a finance minister, NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston said. It’s a big difference between a $10 billion economic impact and a $4 billion economic impact. We’re three months away from the Games. Why can’t the minister answer that question?

Asked if Hansen misled British Columbians last February on the issue, Ralston said, Certainly there was every motivation to exaggerate the impact of the Games going into the election.