Low- or middle-income Canadians who falsely claim too much from government programs will find themselves in court faster than you can say “P3 privatization scheme,” but large corporations walk away with millions and barely get a slap on the wrist.
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.
Those pushing social impact bonds are taking the same approach as those profiting from P3 privatization schemes – focus on the new service being provided and hope it distracts people from the problems with the way it’s being funded.
The secrecy that accompanies privatization schemes also makes it a lot harder to figure out when there are serious problems.
What's being done in Britain will look very familiar to Ontario residents who saw how P3 privatization schemes were rebranded in that province.
“Nova Scotians have already wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on other costly P3 projects — more than 30 schools, toll roads, and the Burnside jail, just to name a few. Why are we going down this road again?" — Jason MacLean, NSGEU President
“It looks like Ford is setting the stage to go on a rampage that will make Mike Harris look like a choir boy.” — Warren (Smokey) Thomas, OPSEU President
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.
“In our view, the value-for-money analyses were of little use to decision makers because they contained many flaws favouring the P3 model.” – Office of the Auditor General of Canada
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.