Who’s pushing privatization?

It’s the question on many people’s minds in the wake of CUPE’s first Annual Report on Privatization, Hostile Takeover. Who are the forces pushing for the sell-off of Canada’s health care, education, social services, municipal services, utilities and water? And why are they so out of touch with what Canadians feel about privatization and reinvestment in public services?

This year’s report on privatization delves deeper into the problems with privatization, while highlighting public sector solutions that work. The report also explores the depth and breadth of support for privatization among government officials, corporate leaders and the media.

Poll after poll shows Canadians don’t want public services to fall into the hands of private, for-profit corporations. So why is privatization still on the policy agenda? It’s thanks in no small part to the aggressive machinations of a small, unelected and unrepresentative group of business interests.

A series of wide-ranging interviews with decision makers and opinion shapers in the business, media and political communities found there is a wide gulf between the views of business leaders and those of the Canadian public. Political and media figures are more critical of privatization, tending to favour public delivery of services in most instances. Those interviewed include heads of corporations and vice-presidents responsible for public affairs, mayors, ministers and political aides, and senior journalists and editors.

The business community displayed the least concern for the potential fallout from privatization, with a single-minded fixation on privatization at any cost. Journalists — who neither stand to profit from privatization nor are involved in the process of privatization — displayed the highest level of support for public services and greatest concern about the consequences of privatization, mirroring most closely the attitudes of the public as a whole.

The overall interview results found 81 per cent of respondents believed the private sector could deliver services at less cost than governments. That belief flies in the face of mounting evidence that privatization and P3s cost taxpayers more in the long run.

Perhaps recognizing this, two thirds of those surveyed saw short-term savings and cutting public sector jobs as the prime motivators for pushing privatization. Unlike the general public, few opinion leaders saw patronage as playing a significant role but half acknowledged that ideology was a key factor in promoting privatization. Only one in six believed that improving quality was a motive.

When queried about the consequences of privatization, 60 per cent felt privatized services would not be higher quality than public services, and nearly three quarters recognized public services were more evenly accessible to Canadians in all regions. In addition to reduced access, those surveyed were also concerned that user fees would be introduced or would rise. The majority was also concerned that accountability would suffer, quality would be sacrificed and Canadian control would be lost.

Asked what would influence them to keep a service in public hands, 66 per cent said accountability to taxpayers was a key factor, with service quality, environmental responsibility and safe working conditions also cited. All but five per cent agreed that governments will always have a role in some public services because profit should not be a factor in the delivery of those services.

But attitudes vary significantly among different sectors of Canada’s elite. For example, business leaders showed little concern about the impact of privatization on jobs. Politicians and journalists, on the other hand, recognized the key role public services play in creating good jobs and employment opportunities, especially in smaller communities and for women, Aboriginal people, workers of colour and persons with disabilities.

Services the majority of opinion leaders deemed off-limits to privatization included police services, school administration, social services, libraries, health care, parks and recreation and local water services. However, some were more open to public private partnerships when it came to school administration, libraries and social services. Support for private service delivery was greatest for school maintenance, child care, road building and maintenance, hydro and local bus service. Again with these results, it was the business interests most keen on privatization.

The fact that these interviews show business leaders to be prime promoters of privatization is not surprising. Those behind the push to privatize are those who stand to gain the most through guaranteed profits subsidized out of taxpayers’ pockets. While the list is long, here is a sampling of those pushing privatization.