Business
How big things could get done—even in Canada
From the Fraser Institute
By Philip Cross
From Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls hydro project, to Ottawa’s Firearms Registry and the Phoenix pay system, to Montreal’s 1976 Olympics, Canada is a gold medal winner when it comes to wasting tax payer dollars. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Last year, Bent Flyvbjerg, a Danish professor of economic geography specializing in megaprojects, and Canadian journalist Dan Gardner co-authored a book How Big Things Get Done. They investigate what they coin the “Iron Law of Megaprojects,” which holds they routinely come in well over budget, far past projected deadlines, and without the projected benefits.
Unfortunately for taxpayers, the book contains numerous examples of Canadian megaprojects that follow this Law of Megaprojects. The federal government’s infamous firearms registry is a textbook template for how IT projects can go terribly wrong, ending up 590 per cent over budget. The Muskrat Falls hydro project in Newfoundland is cited as a classic demonstration of what happens when hiring a firm with little direct experience managing such a large complex project. Most famously, the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games wins the title for the largest cost overrun in Olympic history, finishing 720 per cent over budget. The authors suggest Montreal’s “Big Owe” stadium “should be considered the unofficial mascot of the modern Olympic Games.”
One thing all these Canadian examples have in common is extensive government involvement. Not that governments learned from their past mistakes. The federal government’s Phoenix pay system fiasco demonstrates that IT remains a black hole, with the government recently announcing it would abandon Phoenix after spending $3.5 billion trying to implement it. Several light train projects across the country have gone off the rails, the poster boy being the system in Ottawa, which is years behind schedule and already $2.5 billion over budget.
There are several reasons why government projects are chronically prone to failure. One is that politicians, especially late in their careers, want legacies in the form of monumental tangible projects irrespective of whether they effectively meet a public need. You can see this dynamic clearly at work today in Canada, as the Trudeau government pushes for a prohibitively expensive (probably more than $100 billion) high-speed rail connection between Windsor and Quebec City. Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford promotes a traffic tunnel underneath Highway 401 between Brampton and Scarborough, and Quebec Premier Francois Legault revives plans for a third link connecting Quebec City to the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. While Canada clearly needs more transportation infrastructure, these projects are not the most cost-effective way of meeting the needs of commuters.
Governments deceptively deploy several tricks to help get uneconomic projects built. They routinely produce unrealistically low-cost estimates to make wasteful ego-driven projects appear affordable. Another tried and true tactic is to just “start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in,” as former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown admitted. This approach preys on the mistaken belief that large sunk costs mean scrapping a project “would be interpreted by the public as ‘throwing away’ the billions of dollars already spent” when it is actually a textbook example of throwing good money after bad.
Unlike other studies of how major infrastructure projects typically are over budget, Flyvbjerg and Gardner have some concrete recommendations on how to manage large projects that respect deadlines and budgets.
These steps include careful consideration of the actual goals of the project (airlines can meet the need for fast transport in the Windsor-Quebec corridor without the expense of high-speed rail), detailed planning and preparation followed by swift execution to minimize costly surprises (summarized by their advice to “think slow, act fast”), accounting for the cost of similar projects in the past, and breaking large projects into smaller modules to allow projects to scale back when they run into trouble. A good example of these principles at work in Canada were several oilsands projects built before 2015, when severe shortages were addressed by firms using modularity and synchronizing their work schedules to free up scarce labour and materials.
However, one major flaw in Flyvbjerg and Gardner’s analysis is their failure to understand the economics of renewable energy. They cite solar and wind projects as examples of projects that routinely finish under budget, a major factor in their declining cost. But building renewable energy is not their only cost to the energy grid, as back-up plants must be maintained for those periods when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, as noted in a recent article by Bjorn Lomborg. The expense of maintaining plants that often are idle raises overall costs. This is why jurisdictions that rely extensively on renewable energy, such as Germany and California, have high energy costs that must be paid either by customers or taxpayers.
However, apart from this mistake, there is much governments and taxpayers can learn from How Big Things Get Done.
Author:
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
CBC President and CEO Catherine Tait tops the Taxpayer Naughty List for dishing out executive bonuses that cost more than the average Canadian worker makes in a year.
“Santa doesn’t like it when girls and boys are greedy, and forcing struggling taxpayers to pay for Santa-sized executive bonuses is as greedy as it gets,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “And Canadian diplomats are on the Naughty List too because Santa likes eggnog as much as the next guy, but even he knows Global Affairs Canada is sipping on a little too much Christmas spirit.
“For billing taxpayers $51,000 a month on booze, Global Affairs Canada bureaucrats find themselves on Santa’s Naughty List.”
Ontario Premier Doug Ford made the Taxpayer Naughty List for extending political welfare after promising to scrap it. And for breaking his promise to cap property tax increases, Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham is also on the Naughty List.
For resigning over wasteful spending and saving taxpayers’ money in the process, former Kensington mayor Rowan Caseley tops the Taxpayer Nice List. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey also made the Nice List for cutting gas taxes and fighting the federal carbon tax.
“Santa is getting hammered by carbon tax bills on his reindeer barn, so Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lands on the Naughty List for making everything more expensive with his carbon tax,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe made Santa’s good books for taking action against Trudeau’s carbon tax.”
You can find the entire 2024 Taxpayer Naughty and Nice List here.
Taxpayer Naughty List:
- CBC President & CEO Catherine Tait
- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
- Ontario Premier Doug Ford
- Global Affairs Canada
- Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham
- The entire federal bureaucracy
Taxpayer Nice List:
- Former Kensington Mayor Rowan Caseley
- Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe
- Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey
- Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
- Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux
From LifeSiteNews
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions from 61-66% over the next decade, even though President Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced December 19 a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions of more than 60% over the next decade, even though returning President Donald Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
“Today, as the United States continues to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, President Biden is announcing a new climate target for the United States: a 61-66 percent reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions,” the White House announced, the Washington Free Beacon reports. The new target will be formally submitted to the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.
“President Biden’s new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we’ve already accomplished,” Biden climate adviser John Podesta added, “and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future.”
The announcement may be little more than a symbolic gesture in the end, however, as Trump is widely expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement upon resuming office in January, in the process voiding related climate obligations.
Trump formally pulled out of the Paris accords in August 2017, the first year of his first term, with then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stating that the administration would be “open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its business, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.”
Such terms were never reached, however, leaving America out until Biden re-committed the nation to the Paris Agreement on the first day of his presidency, obligating U.S. policy to new economic regulations to cut carbon emissions.
In June, the Trump campaign confirmed Trump’s intentions to withdraw from Paris again. At the time, Trump’s team was reportedly mulling a number of non-finalized drafts of executive orders to do so.
Left-wing consternation on the matter is based on certitude in “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) or “climate change,” the thesis that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate and that such trends pose a danger to the planet in the form of rising sea levels and weather instability.
Activists have long claimed there is a “97 percent scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number comes from a distortion of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals, 66.4 percent of which expressed no opinion on the question; in fact, many of the authors identified with the AGW “consensus” later spoke out to say their positions had been misrepresented.
AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings in order to make the so-called “settled science” say what climate activists wanted it to.
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
-
Business2 days ago
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
-
Internet19 hours agoGov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’
-
Opinion23 hours agoThe idea of ‘democracy’ championed by globalist elites is far from what the people think
-
Business20 hours agoCanada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets
-
Business16 hours ago
Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover
-
Artificial Intelligence21 hours agoUS House report exposes Biden admin push to use AI for censorship of ‘misinformation’
-
Business1 day agoThe Strange Case of the Disappearing Public Accounts Report
-
Business1 hour ago
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List