The CLC and Public-Private Partnerships

The development of Public-Private Partnerships, or P3s as they are sometimes called, is beginning to gain momentum in Canada. The Confederation Bridge, the lease of the Bruce Nuclear Plant, Highway 407 in Toronto are some examples of this merging of public money with the private sector to deliver what was traditionally a public undertaking. According to the Canadian Council for Public-Private Enterprise the delivery of public services is taking place in this way in more that than 25 distinct sectors and at all levels of government.

Such partnerships are more common in Britain, the United States and Australia. Tony Blair, for example, is an enthusiastic supporter of handing over the delivery and management of public services to the private sector and the so-called economic efficiencies and discipline it embodies. Not surprisingly this has led to clashes between the public sector unions and the Blair Government.

P3s represent the erosion of the public control over what has always been viewed as key economic and social services that are essential for society. Despite the rhetoric of "public control" and "partnerships", P3s are nothing more than privatization under a new and more sophisticated guise. In fact, the proponents of P3s acknowledge the deep distrust people have for turning over public services to the private sector. The privatization of public services has been synonymous with the conversion of these services into "for profit" industries which are governed solely by the bottom line and not by the provision of a particular need or service.

One of the first targets, and potentially most lucrative, is the provision of health care. This is one of the first areas which is receiving attention from both the promoters of P3s and their opponents, especially the unions that represent workers in the health care sector.

Other areas of the public sector will also come under pressure to enter P3 arrangements - from Canada Post, to education, to the maintenance of urban infrastructure and transportation. Indeed, this process has already begun with the introduction of alternative service delivery in many services essential to cities, and the contracting out of health care services.

It is to be expected l that workers in the public sector will take up the fight against this form of privatization along with the accompanying erosion of public standards and policies in the provision of social services. In response to the growing problem of P3s, the CLC announced the formation of a "Working Group on Public Private Partnerships". Its mandate is to review the CLC policy statements on P3s and those of its affiliates and to develop policy in relation to the implementation of P3s. Members of the Group are Ken Georgetti (CLC), Barb Byers (CLC), James Clancy (NUPGE), Phil Flemming (IBEW), Buzz Hargrove (CAW), Paul Moist (CUPE), Linda Silas (CFNU), Sharleen Stewart (SEIU). The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, certainly a key public sector union that has battled privatization, is not included in the Working Group.

While most public sector unions have categorically rejected the entire concept of Public-Private Partnerships, it appears that the CLC Working Group has not accepted this as its starting position. Rather, it accepts P3s in principle, so long as they contain two elements: the provision of public services by crown agencies or public boards and the delivery of these services by unionized public sector workers. This mandate which the CLC's Working Group has given itself complies with various models touted by the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships. For example, there is the "Operation and Maintenance Contract" model in which a private operator, under contract, operates a publicly owned asset for a specified term, while ownership of the asset remains with a public entity. Simply add the requirement that these workers be unionized and in the public sector and the CLC's objectives have been met.

This convergence between the CLC's position on privatization and the notion of Public-Private Partnerships is a dangerous one. The struggle against privatization and the provision of public services for profit is essential to dealing with the problem of how Canadian society is organized and in whose interest. The fact that the rich and their governments are looking at ways to turn the provision of social services into a more profitable venture for the capitalists is at the root of this strategy for Public-Private Partnerships.