Auditor General cites BC Govt for underplaying Olympic costs
From the we all know its going to cost much more than the government is willing to let on, department
Acting B.C. Auditor General Arn van Iersel today released a report citing provincial government cost responsibility (which means you and me taxpayer) at $1.5 billion, a marked departure from the $600 million dollar figure that Finance Minister Colin Hansen has been brandishing about. (CBC News)
The politicians will cry foul and say that the A.G. is including costs, such as the Sea to Sky Highway upgrade, which it doesn’t consider as “Olympic” costs. That line of argument is of course nothing but nonsense.
The highway to Whistler would not have seen a $600 million dollar investment if it were not for the Olympics, and its debatable whether the RAV Skytrain line extension would have been built in the time frame pushed for by Olympic business interests and boosters.
The AG’s report (PDF) highlights that the real issue is, as ever, government transparency or lack thereof:
The funding envelope presented by the province provides only a partial picture of the total Games-related costs for the province and does not reflect its total financial undertaking related to the Games. Of particular concern is that the province has not yet established a definition of what constitutes an Olympic cost.
[Page 34] In the interest of full disclosure of the Province’s Games-related costs we think a definition should be adopted by the Province. For the purposes of this review, we have defined Olympic-related costs to include: “decreases in economic resources by reduction of assets, incurrence of liabilities, or revenues forgone from Games- attributable actions (both direct and indirect) above expenditures to which the government reporting entity would have otherwise been committed”. This definition is consistent with that used by the Government of New South Wales in the Sydney 2000 Games which had a definition of “costs directly related to, or incurred in meeting, the obligations of the Host City Contract”.
[Page 37] We are also concerned the Province has not done more to make the Games budget a public document. Since the Province is the ultimate guarantor of the Games, British Columbia taxpayers should have access to this information. While VANOC is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Province does have significant influence over VANOC and could encourage a more open reporting of the budget information.
[Page 35] We recommend that the Province:
- establish a comprehensive definition of Olympic-related costs; and
- report regularly to the public on the status of those costs.
The A.G. politely asks the government to come clean with us all – what a concept. Lack of transparency in government is a fancy way of saying that our government, in particular the political arm, lies to us, either outright, or by omission.
[Page 1] We have not included in this report detailed information on VANOC‘s operating revenue and expense estimates because VANOC asked us not to publicly release that information at this time. VANOC is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and we cannot release that information without its approval.
The A.G. is not permited to audit VANOC‘s operations. Why? Taxpayers essentially are footing the entire bill. Ought we not have direct insight into all aspects of the planning, building and operations of the games which will, by latest estimates, cost B.C. and Canadian taxpayers over $2.5 billion dollars?
VANOC‘s Version 2 Business Plan will reflect the lessons learned from the 2006 Torino Olympics. The Version 2 plan will be a completely new budget—unlike the Version 1 plan, which was essentially an update of the Bid Estimates. VANOC expects to release a third version of the Business Plan in fall.
… what cost surprises are around the corner?
