|
In the news
Public interest compromised by
government’s pursuit of “P3s”
June
20, 2006
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
(Vancouver) - As industry proponents and BC
government officials prepare for a closed-door conference promoting
‘public-private partnerships’ (P3s), a new study raises major concerns about
higher costs and lack of accountability in P3 infrastructure projects.
Value for Money? Cautionary Lessons About P3s
from British Columbia was released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives. It examines how P3s have been used for public infrastructure
projects such as roads, transit and hospitals in BC and internationally. It
finds that:
-
P3s are
being aggressively pursued in BC in spite of a lack of evidence that they are
a superior option.
-
P3s are
less cost-effective, timely and transparent than traditional government
procurement.
-
Partnerships BC, whose mandate is both to promote P3s and evaluate whether
they are appropriate for use on specific projects, cannot adequately protect
the public interest.
-
Decision-making about infrastructure projects is being guided by “Value For
Money” assessments produced by Partnerships BC that are so subjective, so
complicated, and so consistently withheld from public scrutiny that they are
not of legitimate use.
Stuart Murray, author of the study and the CCPA’s
Public Interest Researcher, says “One rationale after another has been put
forward by those who favour P3s, but the only rationale that stands up to
scrutiny is that they generate profit for industry. That’s not a good enough
reason to pay more for something than it’s worth.”
The study looks in detail at three BC case
studies: the Abbotsford Hospital, the Canada Line (RAV), and the aborted
District of Maple Ridge Core Project. “In all three cases, the Value For Money
reports used to justify the P3 option were not produced by an independent third
party, nor were they released to the public before the contracts were final,”
says Murray. “Instead, the Value For Money reports were produced at the wrong
time, by the wrong people, and with limited transparency.”
Murray says that “While P3s may be appropriate
under some limited circumstances, the provincial government should abandon its
commitment to this model and take a more objective approach.” The study
recommends that:
-
All
major public infrastructure projects should undergo a cost-benefit analysis
that assesses the value of undertaking a project in the first place.
-
If the
government wishes to consider pursuing a P3, the Value For Money process used
to assess this option should be carried out by the Auditor General’s office,
not Partnerships BC.
-
Assessments of P3s, including Value For Money reports, should be made
available to the public before projects reach the point of no return.
Download the report from here
|
