Mega-Projects

Why would Gordon Campbell take the political risk of becoming personally identified with the RAV line? In a July 22 Vancouver Sun story by Craig McInnes and Frances Bula, the Premier is quoted saying that "It's a great project for B.C. . . and it's a great project for the region."

The $1.7 billion Richmond-Airport transit line was not part of the Olympic bid. A leaked federal report points out that the project is subject to major capital cost overruns and over estimation of use which would negatively impact operating deficits. The federal report also said that its contribution would come at the expense of work on the Kicking Horse Pass, Campbell's supposed top priority for federal funds.

If any of the downsides identified in the federal report are true, the RAV line could become Gordon Campbell's fast ferry - except that the initial estimate of $1.7 billion is three times the cost. By stubbornly advocating for the RAV line, Campbell is showing the same kind of political judgment that has sparked the Coquihalla controversy and that led him to make $2.2 billion in tax cuts before he received the report from his hand picked Fiscal Review Panel.

What is it about politicians and mega-projects? Campbell campaigned saying that he was not going to make the mistakes of the past, yet his list of projects dwarfs those of previous governments. He is spending $600 million on the road to Whistler when a sensible government might have used the railroad for the two week event. Of course, he is selling the railroad, another major gamble with the province's economy.

According to the Campbell government, BC cannot afford child protection or court houses but it can afford billions for ill conceived, low priority, mega-projects. Some people can be counted on to argue that any kind of government spending, no matter how wasteful, will produce some benefits with a few crumbs falling off the table to those who pick up temporary jobs. Some of the RAV apologists who have good temporary jobs are now in defensive mode as they respond to the leaked federal document. They are claiming that the document is "old" and that the "private partner" will pick up all the risks. Of course, as of yet there is no private partner and no contract. The companies on the short list are all proposing to set up separate limited liability companies to do any deal. Perhaps that is to limit their liability as any shareholder in those companies would reasonably expect. The private sector will never write a blank cheque to cover government errors. On most major contracts involving public money, there are legal actions between the government (or its agents) and the private contractor. Frequently the private contractor has won by simply asserting that the representations made by government with respect to the initial contract were incorrect (for example the tunneling conditions).

Campbell wasn't supposed to be the kind of foolish spender who blindly wasted hundreds of millions of tax dollars. He was supposed to be the kind of politician who looked for the best way of spending limited funds. The image and the reality are very different.