It's already been decided Ron

You know that, why not just face the fact that, 75 years after it should have started to treat its sewage, the provincial capital is finally going to.

It should be publicly funded, publicly built and publicly run. Period.

P-3's cost the taxpayer more!

All that Campbell's much touted P-3's (Ponsie scheme times 3)do is increase the cost to the taxpayer. In a P-3, the winning consortia must make a profit. Now in a transit product, a P-3 either has higher fares or higher subsidies, in order to sustain profits.

RAV and the Sea to Sky highway projects are not P-3's at all. A true transit P-3 would have never opted for a metro/subway, instead opting for cheaper LRT on Arbutus (that's why international banks dropped the project like a ho potato). Sea to Sky is nothing more than an accounting method which gouges the taxpayer, while at the same times creating an illusion of profits for friends of the government.

The real question of a P-3 is, why do not the private sector, secure the cash and build the project themselves, without taxpayer's money.

When their is billions of taxpayer's money is to be doled out, the odor of government corruption is very heavy indeed.

WRONG-Grumpy

The private sector takes a risk since they have to carry cost overruns. It's less risky and often cheaper for the public sector.

Wrong again

The international banks would not fund RAV and Campbell had to rob the public sector pension plan schemes to fund SNC Lavalin. The cost of RAV went from $1.4 billion in 2002 to over $2.4 billion in 2007. Costs have escalated so much that the Cambie St. Merchants are being 'hung out to dry' because there is no money for compensation.

Sea to Sky is costing the taxpayer much more than if it was a straight public construction project. The only people who support P-3's in this province, are people who make a buck off of them.

Realisticman, have you read anything about P-3's or are you just Gordon Campbell hiding behind the anonymity of this post?

wrong on all kinds of levels - R/Man

The private sector, as amply illustrated in your example Grumpy, also loves cost-plus contracts. The kind of thing that's gotten the current government into such an enormous mess over the Convention centre expansion.

I'd like to know of any P3s that haven't favoured the private partner over the public. It certainly hasn't been true in health care either.

But then, that was the object, has been the object, and will always be the object of this government's activities. Outside of a small circle of friends - no one benefits.

Which is what makes the Musqueam/UBC Golf Course/Marty Zlotnik thing so interesting.

"unrealisticman" blind to facts

realisticman wrote: "The private sector takes a risk since they have to carry cost overruns. It's less risky and often cheaper for the public sector."

What typically happens is the private sector bids an unrealisticly low amount, gets into trouble, the asks the government for a bail-out.

BTW: in the US (or at least Oregon), any group that lobbies the government must disclose their funding sources. When I was active in the fight to close Oregon's only nuclear plant, I was able to obtain (for the cost of copying, roughly 5 cents a page at the time) roughly 200 pages detailing every single contribution to a self-proclaimed "grass roots" organization that was against shutting down the nuke. This document showed that, although they had a number of $10 and $20 contributions, 95% of their funding came from just three sources, all of them public relations firms contracted to Portland General Electric, the firm that owned the nuke.

Why does Canada not have similar laws? Do you think it is acceptable to hide your funders behind a grass-roots patina?

P3 B.S.

Can realisticman tell us where the private sector is doing a better and cheaper service on any municipal water and sewer services any where in the world. Maggie Thatcher privatized the railroad, water and sewer systems in Great Britian and they're are still feeling the affects today. The only people who benifited were a few people on top. Or maybe we should copy the privatization system that they had in Bolivia where it was illegal for the people to even collect rain from their roofs. Hey, South Africa tried also and a bunch of people died of cholera. P3 is a myth that is propigated by our business and political elite.

Real P-3's

The Nottingham and Dublin LRT P-3's are turning a profit, the consortium's operating the P-3 include the banks, local government, transit authority, Engineering firm and vehicle supplier, will all share the annual profit.

The bidding consortium started from the beginning, selecting best route and transit mode, risking their money. There is nothing wrong in this at all. Campbell's P-3's are an accounting procedure, where for nominal cash input, the winning P-3 operator gets regular payments of government money and makes his profit of money not spent.

As the operator has little or no investment in the project, he/she can walk away with little or no penalty. RAV is certainly of this nature.

Pilfering the public purse

3P’s potentially exacerbate this potential public ‘fraud’ to the extent that we will never know what precisely transpired. The books are closed to the taxpayer. Once a private company is involved, proper oversight disappears. ANY oversight disappears. What precisely is the rationale for this emerging 3P monster anyhow? According to Gordon Campbell, it’s government debt. As it is right now how much of this government debt problem did Gordon Campbell’s government contribute. My research indicates that Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberals are just as responsible for structural debt as the BC NDP was. In essence, Gordon Campbell’s government has contributed to the problem of structural debt in order to set in motion the 3P monster. Are these 3P’s under Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberal government potentially the crime of the century in BC’s history? My gut instincts and the facts as we know them, including the opinions of the public tell me they will be.
Does rising structural debt provide a sane rationale for 3P’s? Why should there be cost overruns if the government prices the project correctly in the first place? Would a successful business permit such cost overruns in their budget? Of course not. In essence what the government is doing is saying, ‘look these businesses are good enough to invest their money in our public projects to ensure our debt doesn’t escalate.’ We should really be asking the question “why would anyone in their right mind loan a business one half of the money for a project interest free, and than pay that business a leaseback fee for thirty years on top of the profits they will make from the operation of the business?”
If governments whose budgets and spending are (supposed to be) accountable and we still see money go missing, how accountable are private public partnerships going to be? 3P’s or private public partnerships are a recipe for DISASTER. It isn’t a question of “if” so much as a question of “when”. 3P’s are specifically designed to keep the public from knowing what is going on. Gordon Campbell drew up the blueprint for this in this province on July 8, 2002 at the Address at 3P Transportation Conference in Vancouver. In a keynote address the Premier said:
“I’ve travelled around the province for the last decade now, and there hasn’t been a time when I’ve visited a region and they haven’t talked to me about a transportation problem.A little while ago there was a classic discussion about whether or not there should be a toll on the road from Vancouver to Whistler. One of the people who commented said, “I don’t have any money, why doesn’t the government just do it? But there is no such thing as government money. It’s all your money-money we take out of the public’s pocket to provide public service."Pilfering the public purse, is Gordon Campbell claim to fame and If a lowering of standards explains 3P's Then this stinks of corruption.
Jim Van Rassel
604-328-5398

P3 money saving

The problem the supporters of P3 projects have is explaining how they save money. In Alberta every time the province has started a P3 process when questioned where the savings are they backed down.

In the dying days of Mike Harris's (oops Ernie Eves) government in Ontario, towards the end of the election, they signed two P3 deals for hospitals but the details were so secret the incoming Liberal government couldn't reveal ANYTHING about it. You'd think with all these "savings" P3 contracts would be the most open.

Anonymous money from

Anonymous money from anonymous investors. Why? Under the ndp, the government introduced "alternative capital procurement guidelines". (This really points to how the government, no matter who is supposedly in power, is actually a tool of the elite.) The government allows "private investors" to buy the government's bonds for the p3 project without indentifying the buyers and no accountability as to where the money comes from.

In a world where some $700 billion in drug money needs to be laundered annually, it's not unreasonable to suspect the secrecy. The sums are vast and drug money needs government megaprojects to legitimise it. Our government is as corrupt as any.

Like everything surrounding elite finance, p3s are a scam, yet another brilliant way, like banking, to transfer money out of our pockets into theirs. They are so good.

The private sector takes a risk???

According to realisticman, "The private sector takes a risk since they have to carry cost overruns. It's less risky and often cheaper for the public sector".

I've got news for you, realisticman. The private sector doesn't assume risk for the good of their health or because they are altruistic. They are there in the first place to make a profit, not take a loss, and do not assume risk at all. Most P3's are "padded", with payment for "risk" built into the contract. That is part of the reason why P3's are more expensive than public projects. If a project ultimately were to cost more than originally estimated due to increased labor costs, etc., the private company probably would,as Bytesmiths says, ask for a bail out or simply cease construction altogether until they are given more (public) money. Or, using the Golden Ears bridge as an example, they will simply jack up the toll. Unfortunately, the public will never know about Campbell's very own "sweetheart deals" because P3's are exempt from Freedom of Information law(s).

Anyone who thinks that the private sector is actually going to let risk eat into their profits are either naive, obtuse, rely strictly on the CanWest media for their information, or all three.

G West, a real P-3

In the public transport sector, a real P-3 has the operating consortium operating the completed transit line without any subsidy. This means the bidding process starts from scratch, with competing consortium's (made up of local authorities, banks, suppliers and engineering firms) compete with what they think is the most economic solution to a transit route.

There is full public debate and after a proper process, the winning consortium is built and there is no further subsidy from the public purse.

If a proper P-3 was done in Vancouver, no way would a $2.4 billion subway be built under Cambie St. It would have been LRT on the Arbutus.

Campbell Puil knew this and they did a sham study supporting a subway under Cambie and the 4 bidders were only allowed to bid on this.

Alstom, saw the sham for what it was and pulled out.

Siemens were hoping for a sane solution, but were dropped when they said it was silly to build a subway when there was a perfectly good route for LRT.

Bombardier was 'hoisted on its own petard' with SkyTrain, as the SNC/Lavalin/Serco bid was cheaper because SkyTrain is just too bloody expensive.

The foreign banks would not invest a cent into RAV, SERCO abandoned ship and Campbell had to pull money from the public service pension plan to give to SNC/Lavalin in a mock deal.

RAV is a farce, abetted by bill Boring/CORUS radio and the Asper press.

I have been told in confidence that TransLink and Falcon have been advised that by the year 2012 or two years after RAV opens, ridership may be a dismal 30,000 a day.

This why the region want road pricing and/or tolls, to force people onto a transit system that is basically very expensive joke and why the $4.5 Gateway highways/bridge planning has been a Liberal mantra!

Pension scam

The funding scheme for RAV is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

BCIMC invested $40 million in RAV, along with $40 million from Quebec’s Caisse pension fund and $40 million from a third party I can’t remember now. Two other private partners MacQuarrie Bank and another European investmant bank) were also involved to the total of $600 million for all five parties. This as intended to be 35% of the total funding for the project, meaning RAV was intended to cost $1.7 billion.

First MacQuarrie dropped out, then the last pension fund, then the other investment bank. Then a couple months later, the Caisse took a good look at what it had bought, and dropped out as well. At this point, without fanfare, it was found in a disclosure statement gained by FOI requests that BCIMC had taken over Caisse’s portion. No word on who took over the missing $480 million from the two private partners.

Here’s the problem:
BCIMC invested in InTransit BC, a private corporation with no assets except a 35-year contract to build and manage the RAV line. Quite the flyer, wouldn’t you say?

Costs of the RAV line were up to $2.2 billion at the time. No competitive bidding resulted (all the contractors dropped out except one - SNC Lavalin). How can you have a proper competitive bid for a P-3 if you can't get anybody to bid? Payments to InTransit BC for the operating line total $98 million a year, sufficient only to service operating costs and debt of $1.6 billion at 6% simple interest, which was a low return for the private partners.

No LRT line has ever met its targets for ridership or cost recovery since the original Skytrain in 1984. Translink’s own figures are the source for this. No riders, no income, no profit.

(continued)

Pension scam II

So what happens when SNC-Lavalin defaults on construction due to costs? InTransitBC’s contract is worthless unless the line is completed. Therefore the pension fund investment is toast. Is there an asset that can be sold to recover funds? Possibly, if the government steps in and finishes the line with taxpayer dollars.

But wait! BCIMC is an unsecured creditor - behind the governments and the private lenders. Remember, BCIMC made this deal while the private lenders were still “in”, knowing already that costs were through the roof. There is no possibility that BCIMC would ever get anything for its investment - not one red cent. That’s probably why Caisse and the other pension fund got out.

This is clear example of either failure to do “due diligence”, or the existence of a secret contract to indemnify the pension fund against any loss. Remember, this pension fund has just reduced pension benefits to its own members for dental, health and extended because it is running out of money. Why would it throw away $80 million on this fools errand, when they could buy an office building and rent it out for a return of 6% for time immemorial and never fail to pay the pensions?

So someone else filed an FOI to prove the existence of a secret contract, while I filed a motion to divest with the trustees through the Pension Advisory Committee of which I am a delegate. The FOI went nowhere ( I can’t remember the details I heard, but it sounded a stonewall job) while the motion I put forward was narrowly defeated (I’m still figuring out the politics of that one), and the trustees of the investment committee absented themselves from the discussion so they wouldn’t have to take official notice at that particular meeting, and thus be held accountable. However, with the minutes read into the next meeting, official notice was taken, and that’s when the stories started about frequent visits to Victoria and meetings etc. However, nobody’s talking, at least on record.

Good question Mel

Mel from Calgary asks a good question. How do you prove that a P3 project saves money? The problem is; the only public project currently on the books in BC is the Vancouver trade and convention centre project and it is massively over budget. You could argue this is due to Liberal mismanagement, but the previous public Fast Ferries project was equally as poorly executed so it seems counter productive to make such an argument.

Without any frame of reference for a publicly executed project that was done in a manner that did not come in massively over budget; it seems counter productive to bash a P3 with no clearly viable or visible alternatives. The fact is; the government regardless of any political stripe do not seem to make for good builders. I am no fan of P3’s, but until government proves it can build something on time and on budget I suspect we will continue to see more of them.

Keep water public-what you can do.

A small band of residents fought off water privatization in Whistler just a year ago. Link to this is at the bottom of this article..."Down The Drain Goes A P3"

Also water is a key campaign of the Council of Canadians: link for info.
http://www.canadians.org/
If there is any hint of water privatization coming to your town in the disguise of a P3, contact the Council of Canadians

Also great N.F.B. doc. "Dead In The Water" about the corporations plan to privatize the world's water-get this doc. for your local library-arrange a showing.
Link for N.F.B.-
http://www.nfb.ca/?v=h&lg=en

Our water is our right and is not for profit!

God God!

To see T. Buck Suzuki and Bruce Hallsor mentiond in the same article...its distressing. I can't think of two people with a more different set of values and world view. I always thought Hallsor was unprincipled, but this is unbelievable.

No risk P3s, eh? Ask the people in charge of London (England) Underground. Currently the private partner is going under and suing the public partner for @ billion pounds. Lovely....

The attached link doesn't

The attached link doesn't mention the recent suit (go to the Independent for that) but there are a number of "no-risk" P3 projects referenced.

http://www.web.net/ohc/P3s/100_p3s_media_release.htm

p3, RAV and pension funds

Firstly, I want to thank Grumpy, GWest and Zalm for the conversation on RAV funding. Daily, this government loses ground on behalf of the citizens of BC. This is but another item from a huge list of Liberal mismanagement. I am wondering if they can be sued or prosecuted for failure to act in a way that demonstrates their duty to care for the citizens and their property. Their many failures and their concealing of their dealings seem criminal to me?

I also wonder if these politicians would be willing to invest their own shiney new pensions in the RAV line? How dare they give themselves gold-plated pensions while raiding their working constituents' retirement cookie jar to fund a subway project that seems destined for failure!?

public v private profitability

Please don't let any libertarian tell you private businesses are more efficient or better for the economy. Here is a link to Stats-Can figures regarding profitability:
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ149a.htm

One will notice that the percentage of profit as compared to revenue is more than double for publicly owned businesses. The argument that public corporations are not taxed, thereby creating unfairness does not hold water: all of their profits are revenue for the citizens. In essence, all of their profits are taxes collected for the benefit of all Canadians.

Turning public corporations private means only that their will be more over-paid executives and shareholders milking the system for profit. The primary reason for all privately-owned businesses to exist is to extract and transfer capital from the public for the benefit of a relatively small number of shareholders. Publicly-owned businesses exist to provide service, employment and revenue for the citizens. Once again, sharing is good!