Skip to main content

Does Canadian business have the financial jelly to win P3 deals?

Even more concern about P3s (public private partnerships) in Britain has emerged.  This time that they might disadvantage English based manufacturing.  


Bombardier lost its position as the favorite for a £1 billion Crossrail train contract when the government moved to fund the deal through a P3, the Guardian reports.  


The problem?  Bombardier's German based competitor, Siemens,  has better access to financing than Bombardier.  "A large company like Siemens will be able to borrow the money to undertake a project of this kind," Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, warned. 


Indeed, Siemens's superior financial firepower is thought to have been a factor in their victory over Bombardier for a recent Thameslink deal that caused Bombardier to announce it would layoff 1,400 workers at a British factory.  


This dynamic is likely even more relevant to Canada than England. Our local business class is not among the big boys (even compared to British business who have, in fact, pushed into the Ontario hospital industry through P3s).  Indeed, Bombardier (the little boy loser in the English deal) is actually a Canadian based corporation -- one of our biggest.  


So are Canadian corporations likely to have the "superior financial power" that will advantage them in the long term financing deals inherent to P3 privatization?  Their size, at least, suggests otherwise.  


The problem is particularly acute given that the world's financial troubles has made the cost of private financing even more expensive compared to public financing.  


Nevertheless this Zombie staggers on: the Ontario government is launching a major P3 hospital program, just as the English did.


Update October 2011: As it turns out, the Bombardier CEO actually publicly questioned P3s earlier.  Here's a report from May 2010: 



The president and CEO of transportation giant Bombardier has publicly questioned the value of public-private partnerships (P3s).  
 Speaking at a conference in California, Pierre Beaudoin said corporations aren’t always the best choice to finance transit infrastructure projects.
He pointed to the difference in public and private borrowing rates, and highlighted the ongoing impact of the financial crisis on private financing. 
Beaudoin’s caution is rooted in reality. In 2007, Bombardier lost $164 million in the collapse of a P3 to maintain and expand the London subway system.

The privatized tube project has been labeled a “spectacular failure" and “an ill-conceived disaster.”

London taxpayers are now facing service cuts and upgrade delays to pay for the privatization fiasco.

http://cupe.ca/images/pdficon.gif Translated media coverage of Beaudoin's remarks



Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…