November 28, 2006
Kamloops Daily News

Premier Campbell has been trying to make his B.C. Liberals
seem more liberal but lately it's one step forward and one
step back.

The good news is that Campbell is reversing some of the
damage done by his government to B.C.'s small communities.
One of the first things he did when elected was to close
government offices in small towns. The effect was
devastating.

Employment in local government agencies - - welfare offices,
court houses and correctional camps - - not only brings the
government closer to people it serves, it provides a
much-needed employment. Those jobs have a multiplying
effect on the economy as employees spend money in local
stores and business.

Campbell failed to realize that what's good for Vancouver is
not good for the interior of B.C. Centralization of
services might make sense in the big city but spreading out
those resources is better for small centres. It's a way of
transferring capital back into the community. Jobs are
simply a return of some of the money taken through resource
extraction from B.C.'s interior.

Campbell's tax cuts didn't help either. The benefits went to big
cities. For example, the average annual tax cut for
residents in small interior communities was $615 while those
in West Vancouver received $2,085 per taxpayer. The rich
got richer and the poor got poorer.

Campbell now realizes that rural citizens also vote and that
it might be a good idea to correct some of the damage done
to rural B.C. He has picked his loyal soldier, Kamloops MLA
Kevin Krueger, to oversee the spending of $7 million a year
on communities with populations under 5,000. It's not much
money but Krueger will do a good job. He has been a vocal
advocate of small centers in the North Thompson, especially
after the devastation of the firestorms of 2003.

While the restoration of funds to small communities is a
step forward, Campbell's insistence on public-private
partnerships is a step back. He recently told delegates to
the Union of B.C. Municipalities that they better start
seriously considering P3s if they wanted to receive
provincial funding for projects over $20 million.

Campbell left his right-hand man in Kamloops to explain
things in his usual blunt fashion. "If it's not a P3, the
province may not consider it at all. It's just the way to
go," said Krueger.

Campbell should have learned a lesson from the first
mistake. Centralization of government services in rural B.C
is as bad as centralization of funding for municipal
projects. Beyond centralization, P3s pose additional
problems.

Advocates of P3s claim that they save money but that's
unlikely when you consider that private businesses have to
pay more interest than governments to borrow money and that
those private businesses have to make a profit whereas
public corporations don't.

Also, P3s have a longer and more complicated bidding
process, which increases the total cost of a project.

Supporters say that P3s reduce risk by transferring it to
the private sector. However, companies don't take on risk
just as a goodwill gesture. The cost of that risk has to be
built into the P3 contract. And even with the added cost of
risk, the private sector can walk away from projects by
simply declaring bankruptcy. This leaves governments
operating facilities that could have been built cheaper in
the first place as public projects.

Anyway, in most cases the risks are relatively small when
you consider that private operator has the government as
client, someone who will never default on payments. It's
barely a risk at all.

Campbell is making the same mistake with P3s as he did with
the closure of government facilities in small communities.
Local governments are in the best position to determine
local needs.

Mayor Terry Lake is understandably concerned with the
interference by the provincial government. "I'm not sure I
like the idea of Victoria mandating this for us."

In addition the loss of local autonomy and the increased
cost of projects to the public, the central agency that
oversees P3s is in a conflict of interest. Partnerships
B.C. is supposed to provide neutral advice on whether P3
proposals are a good idea while at the same time they
promote P3 projects. It's not exactly impartial.

Publicly operated projects like Kamloops water treatment
plant provide good value for taxpayer dollars. If P3s are
such a great thing, why does Campbell have to dictate their
use?


David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca

go back to my Columns in the