this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023

55 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

10273 readers

297 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Exclusive: The feds bought a pipeline for $5B. How did the cost balloon to over $30B? (globalnews.ca)

submitted 2 years ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How a pipeline project, purchased by the Trudeau government, went from an initial estimate of $5.4 billion to $30.9 billion, potentially leaving Canadian taxpayers on the hook.

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 years ago (3 children)

30 billion??? Fucking hell.

Imagine all the social housing we could've built with that money instead.

What a waste of public money. And SO MUCH money.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago

Justin got it so Albertaskatchetoba would like him again.

He was wrong.

He's still wrong.

In fact, they will use it to hate him forever, for he flies the wrong flag.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We probably could have bought more oil with $30 billion than we will ever sell with this pipeline.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Right???

[+] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Imagine all the social housing we could’ve built with that money instead.

Depends on how well pipeline building skills translate to home building skills, I guess. There isn't anyone accustomed to building houses that is free to build more. They are booked up for years to come. Money only helps if what you want to buy is available for purchase.

If a sealed tube will suffice as a home then you may be on to something!

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The market isn't static. If you throw money at an industry, it grows. Existing people in that industry start their own businesses, or expand, and new people get training in the field.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If you throw money at an industry, it grows.

Of course. Money brings out the people.

But then you've compounded the cost of constructing homes, which will also drive up the cost of used homes. That's how we got here in the first place.

Not really solving the problem.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You really need to stop making assumptions about economics, you're pretty bad at it.

At no point did we mention raising the prices of houses. Rather, if you're using the money to offer multiple contracts to build houses, there's more opportunity for people to enter the industry since there's more income available.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Rather, if you’re using the money to offer multiple contracts to build houses, there’s more opportunity for people to enter the industry since there’s more income available.

Exactly. More offers competing for vendors means price will rise to attract vendors, either to win over existing vendors who will otherwise build a house for the next guy instead, or to compel new vendors into the marketplace who find the current rate not sufficient enough to bother with the industry. The going rate today is not enough to see more housing construction than what is already happening. Again, anyone who works on building houses today is booked up for years to come. Price has to rise to see something change.

At every point we mentioned raising the price of housing as it is fundamentally baked into the discussion. I don't know, maybe you just forgot to read the discussion taking place?

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Money only helps if what you want to buy is available for purchase.

I think you're incorrect here, especially when the amount of money in question is on the scale of $25 billion (5.8% of Canada's total 2023 budgetary spending ($432.9 billion)). I'm not an economist, but I'm willing to bet that sum of money, if redirected towards the 'housing crisis,' could make an appreciable difference in addressing that crisis. As you point out, increasing the skilled labour force would be a priority. Subsidized training, retraining, relocation, and focused immigration initiatives are all low-hanging fruit options and ones that would have many collateral benefits for Canada/Canadians as well.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/government-expenditure-plan-main-estimates/2023-24-estimates.html

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

As you point out, increasing the skilled labour force would be a priority

Yes, and why do you think the labour force is so comparatively small right now? That's right, because it isn't lucrative enough for most people to bother with. There are so many other jobs the people can do instead.

So, to attract more workers, you need to offer them more money, and to pay them more money you are going to increase the cost of building a house. And if the cost of building a house increases, the next best alternative (used housing) is going to go up in price too.

That's how we got here in the first place. If we could pay homebuilders $1 per hour, housing would be quite affordable (to anyone not building houses, at least). But you can't. They won't show up if you try. It costs serious amounts of money to compel what homebuilding workers we have to show up, and will cost even more if you want to convince more to join them.

If the BoC manages to kill the job market like they say they will, that will change things. Building homes starts to look more attractive when you're unemployed. Taking a huge pay cut starts to look more attractive when you have no other jobs options in front of you. But, until then...

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

You're right in that those jobs/careers need to be lucrative to attract individuals to them. Again, that's where the billions come in handy. I don't see how increasing the compensation of a single job sector will lead to a net increase in the cost of housing when the same compensation is being used to increase the housing supply

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

Comme on man. You know that's not how I meant it.

I understand there aren't enough construction workers or resources to go around right now, but if we stopped building giant luxury condos for rich investors to leave empty and built community or social housing instead, we'd probably have the resources.

And with that amount of money, I'm sure plenty of companies would volunteer.

[–] FreeBooteR69@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

Here's their checklist:

Buy pipeline for much more than it's worth and mismanage it.
Socialize the losses.
???
Privatize the profit.

[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

All to buy votes in Alberta that, as a person who lives here, I guarantee he will never get. What a horrible, absurd waste...

[–] tal@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2017/megaprojects-over-budget-over-time-over-over#

THE IRON LAW OF MEGAPROJECTS

Performance data for megaprojects speak their own language. Nine out of ten such projects have cost overruns. Overruns of up to 50 percent in real terms are common, over 50 percent not uncommon. Cost overrun for the Channel Tunnel, the longest underwater rail tunnel in Europe, connecting the UK and France, was 80 percent in real terms. For Boston’s Big Dig, 220 percent. The Sydney Opera House, 1,400 percent. Similarly, benefit shortfalls of up to 50 percent are also common, and above 50 percent not uncommon.

One may argue, of course, as was famously done by Albert Hirschman, that if people knew in advance the real costs and challenges involved in delivering a large project, nothing would ever get built — so it is better not to know, because ignorance helps get projects started. A particularly candid articulation of the nothing‐would‐ever‐get‐built argument came from former California State Assembly speaker and mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown, discussing a large cost overrun on the San Francisco Transbay Terminal megaproject in his San Francisco Chronicle column:

News that the Transbay Terminal is something like $300 million over budget should not come as a shock to anyone. We always knew the initial estimate was way under the real cost. Just like we never had a real cost for the [San Francisco] Central Subway or the [San Francisco‐Oakland] Bay Bridge or any other massive construction project. So get off it. In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment. If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in [emphasis added].

Rarely has the tactical use by project advocates of cost underestimation, sunk costs, and lock‐in to get projects started been expressed by an insider more plainly, if somewhat cynically.

Maybe there needs to be the introduction of new mechanisms to deal with assessing the cost of very large projects.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

It's not possible. This is a function of the complexity of big projects, not some nefarious politicking. That is even if you completely remove any politicking out of the equation, large complex projects will still be grossly misestimated, likely on the lower side. Also I would discount anything coming from CATO.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What will the budget overrun be to establish that new mechanism?

Standard practice already dictates that you double the estimate, and then double it again. Aside from the Opera House, there are no real surprises in the examples given. 90% accuracy is good enough, no? Cost starts to outweigh the benefit if you want to reach for 100%.

[–] Guns4Gnus@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago

Because it's being made by private business, and they love love LOVE that sweet government money

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

Electrifying the GO rail network was supposed to cost like $25B, which is why the McGuinty liberals abandoned the project. About a quarter of Canada lives in the cities serviced by GO.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

I mean... This is basically just a subsidy to Alberta's economy, right? It's to quell all the bitching and moaning about how the federal government doesn't spend money on Alberta.

While other cities get transit systems and housing projects funded, Alberta gets a pipeline. Sure, sucks for Alberta, but this is what Albertans want.