The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Canada needs more independent media. And independent media needs you.

Did you know that most news organizations in Canada are owned by just a handful of companies? And that these companies have been shutting down newsrooms and laying off reporters continually over the past few decades?

Fact-based, credible journalism is essential to our democracy. Unlike many other newsrooms across the country, The Tyee’s independent newsroom is stable and growing.

How are we able to do this? The Tyee Builder program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip into our editorial budget so that we can keep doing what we do best: fact-based, in-depth reporting on issues that matter to our readers. No paywall. No junk. Just good journalism.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to be Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.
News
  |  
Transportation

Public-Private Partnerships Inflated Costs to Taxpayers, Says Report

Province will spend $3.7 billion more than it needs over the lifetime of 17 projects.

By Andrew MacLeod 13 Jun 2018 | TheTyee.ca

Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee's Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria and the author of All Together Healthy (Douglas & McIntyre, 2018). Find him on Twitter or reach him at

The British Columbia government should consider dissolving the agency responsible for public-private partnerships, concludes the author of a new report.

“Demonstrably it’s a process that has failed us,” said Keith Reynolds, the researcher who wrote Public-Private Partnerships in British Columbia: Update 2018 for the Columbia Institute.

While the NDP in opposition criticized using public-private partnerships, or P3s, for public projects, there have been few signals since it won office a year ago of what it intends to do, Reynolds said in an interview.

“They’ve been there a year and they haven’t initiated anything new,” he said, noting the government hasn’t launched any new P3s, but it hasn’t ruled out doing so in the future. “They haven’t made a clear statement.”

Finance Minister Carole James, who is responsible for Partnerships BC, was unavailable for an interview Tuesday.

P3s are contracts between governments and the private sector that may include building, operating and financing roads, hospitals, schools or other public infrastructure, usually over a long period of time. Pioneered in the United Kingdom, they were popular with the former BC Liberal government, which initially required any public project valued at over $20 million to be considered for a P3. The threshold was later raised to $50 million, then to $100 million.

It took Reynolds years of freedom of information requests to get what he needed to compare the $18.2 billion cost of completing 17 projects in B.C. as P3s instead of as public projects. What he found is the province will spend $3.7 billion more on those projects than it needed to over the life of the contracts.

That is not, however, the full extent of the overspending since those 17 projects are only half of the 33 undertaken as P3s since 2003. “While $3.7 billion may seem like an enormous amount of money — approximately $1,800 for every B.C. household — the number underestimates the additional cost B.C. will pay as a result of the P3 projects currently on the books,” Reynolds wrote in the report.

Examples cited in the report include Abbotsford Hospital, which Reynolds’s report argues cost taxpayers $50 million more than it would as a public sector project, and the Canada Line transit line, which resulted in escalating costs and “a limited advantage for the public-private partnership over a public sector comparator.”

Partnerships BC was making assumptions that made P3 projects appear cheaper than public projects, he wrote. “In short, PBC methodology overstates the risk carried by the public sector project because it fails to consider how risk could be shed under traditional procurement. And it understates the risk associated with the P3 because it fails to address contract failure. The value of that assumed risk can be very high.”

Aside from dissolving Partnerships BC, Reynolds’s recommendations included no longer using long-term P3s where a private partner provides financing for a project and is responsible for its management, operations or rehabilitation. “At a minimum, there should be a moratorium on such projects, until the process has been fully reviewed by the auditor general.”

The government should also look at the costs and benefits of buying back existing P3s and should “more rigorously” police whether they are meeting their contract requirements, the report said.

Reynolds warned that even though the conditions under which a project would be considered for a P3 had already been tightened even before the provincial government changed, with the federal government’s interest in the model and the infrastructure bank it is creating, “new P3s remain a possibility in B.C.”

Jurisdictions including the U.K. are re-evaluating P3s and in B.C. the process was questionable from the beginning, Reynolds said on the phone. “If the government hasn’t made up their mind, I hope this [report] helps with their decision.”  [Tyee]

Read more: Transportation

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free.

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Do not:

  •  Use sexist, classist, racist or homophobic language
  • Libel or defame
  • Bully, threaten, name-call or troll
  • Troll patrol. Instead, downvote, or flag suspect activity
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities

Do:

  • Verify facts, debunk rumours
  • Add context and background
  • Spot typos and logical fallacies
  • Highlight reporting blind spots
  • Ignore trolls and flag violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity
  • Stay on topic
  • Connect with each other

LATEST STORIES

The Barometer

Do You Think the Injunction at Fairy Creek Will Be Reinstated?

Take this week's poll