It’s a measure of how much secrecy surrounds P3 privatization schemes that councillors weren’t even allowed to know if the companies being awarded contracts had met the minimum technical requirements.
As long as the federal government continues to take a hands-off approach to the economy and to use P3s and other privatization schemes, there is a good possibility we will see a repeat of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. What’s needed is a change in direction.
In the MUHC P3 case, the secrecy surrounding privatization schemes may have been the getaway car that allows those responsible for paying the bribe to escape.
What's being done in Britain will look very familiar to Ontario residents who saw how P3 privatization schemes were rebranded in that province.
It’s so common for politicians who privatized public services when in office to be hired by companies that profit from privatization after they retire that it rarely gets questioned.
Last month saw the second conviction related to allegations that SNC-Lavalin executives paid $22.5 million in bribes to get the contract for a P3 privatization scheme.
What the EU Court of Auditors found was that, even though the public were paying €1.5 billion for cost overruns, they were also providing investors with returns of up to 14 per cent.
“Thanks to P3 privatization schemes, money that should be funding quality public services is ending up in tax havens.” — Larry Brown, NUPGE President
“The size of the gap between what the cash flows for the three hospital projects show and what Partnerships BC claimed shows why the public needs access to all information regarding P3s and other privatization schemes” — Larry Brown, NUPGE President
“The vote by British doctors linking the crisis in health care to privatization should be a wake-up call for those who believe privatization will solve the problems of underfunding.” — Elisabeth Ballermann, NUPGE Secretary-Treasurer