P3 projects are bound by the disclosure regulations of private enterprise. While the public interest is generally served by maximal transparency, it is disadvantageous for private firms to disclose certain information, including hiring and staffing practices. 

Examples of Access to Information Issues

In Quebec, the Regional Municipality of Haut-Richelieu entered into partnership with Compo-Sortium to provide sorting, recycling and composting services, including the development of waste management sites. Three shareholder municipalities have refused to do business with the corporation, and another is engaged in a prolonged legal battle over access to information.

In the Hamilton-Wentworth water services P3, PUMC provided audited financial statements to the public Regional Authority, but the terms of the P3 contract did not allow these to be made public. In Vancouver, elected officials were denied access to requested documents concerning a massive transit line project they were asked to approve.

The City of Edmonton is currently considering building the new Southwest Recreation Centre as a P3. The City issued an RFP for proposals to build only the arena portion of the complex as a P3, and intended to build the rest of the complex publicly. One company submitted an unsolicited bid to build the entire project as a P3. The issue comes to Council for approval in late December, but due to confidentiality rules, the City will not disclose the identity of the bidder before then. This means that the public will likely not know the identity of the bidder until the Council agenda is released one week before Council is asked to approve the P3.

Is this enough time for citizens and media to do their due diligence?

Accountability

Private partners are only accountable to their shareholders and to their contracted clients; they are not directly accountable to the public. P3s therefore place an extra barrier between service providers and public accountability, and it is often extremely difficult to enforce accountability.

In 1996, PUMC, Hamilton-Wentworth's private partner, was responsible for a massive sewage spill. External consultants confirmed that PUMC was responsible for the spill, but PUMC did not offer to pay for damages to homes and businesses, and the public Regional Authority paid all damages rather than pursing a long and costly legal claim against PUMC.

Often, it is difficult to even identify who should be held accountable in a P3. The private partner in a P3 deal is typically a consortium of several corporations.

For example, a recreation centre P3 contract might be awarded to a consortium that includes a construction company, a project management firm, and a non-profit sport association, each of which would have a limited stake in the consortium. If construction costs balloon unexpectedly, it might be advantageous for the construction company to abandon its stake in the consortium and walk out on the deal. It would now be impossible to hold the construction company accountable - only the consortium would be liable, even though the two remaining partners would have upheld their parts of the agreement.


More:

Cost and Quality: P3s Lead to Higher Costs and Lower Quality Than Public Service

Risks to the Public Partner: P3s Are Not a Low-Risk Option

Loss of Flexibility: P3s Reduce Public Control Over Services and Planning


Get Informed and Take Action

Current P3 Projects in Alberta: More Expensive, Less Effective