For making a presentation to a municipal council, labour council,
press conference, etc. Be sure to make the adjustments required in the
introduction.
Good morning/afternoon/evening.
Introduction:
My name is [___________________]. I am a [job title goes
here_____________________________] with the Ministry of Transportation.
That means I [describe your job briefly] [Here is an example for the
job of transportation enforcement officer: I inspect trucks to ensure
they are safe and properly maintained. I check loads to ensure they are
securely attached and to be sure dangerous goods are properly
transported and documented. I check the qualifications and logs of
drivers for hours of work.]
I’ve worked with the ministry for [insert number] years.
I’m here this afternoon because of my position with OPSEU. I am
__________________ [union position].
The issue:
Bill 137 – the Road User Customer Service Improvement Act
This law literally opens the door to gutting the Ministry of
Transportation and turning its responsibilities over to the private
sector – to make a profit out of it. It lets the ministry privatize
everything concerned with "Road User Safety."
Obviously we are opposed because this means the loss of potentially
some 2,000 union jobs. But our opposition is a great deal deeper than
that.
Just what is "Road User Safety"?
The law doesn’t define it, and its broadest interpretation could
include everything except policy planning. More narrowly, it probably
means the work of driver examiners, and the work of inspection,
investigation and enforcement.
Let’s start with Driver Examiners:
This operation brings $15 million a year to the provincial treasury.
Clearly it is a potential gold mine for a private operator. And the bill
lets private operators set their own fees – on which you will also be
charged GST. So the profit motive is pretty clear. We have a government
service that contributes to general revenues. And we’re going to trade
it in for something that sends its profits to shareholders and will
charge citizens more for the privilege.
But what’s really at stake in privatization?
- Consistency
– the same judgement applied to all driver tests
across the province.
- Confidentiality
– There is a lot of personal individual
information in drivers’ licence records, including addresses,
medical information and a lot more.
- Accountability
– Public servants are accountable to the
people of Ontario. They take an oath of secrecy. They are in their
positions to serve the public. Someone working for a private operator
is accountable to their boss. If the boss pushes them, they don’t
have the oath of secrecy to support them. They are not working in an
environment that honours public service. They are far less
accountable.
- Potential for corruption
– Most driver examiners regularly
are asked how much it would cost for a person to pass the test. A
driver’s licence is an important document in our society and people
are willing to pay to get one – to pay well beyond the registration
fee charged by the province. In a profit-motivated environment, it
will be harder to resist the temptation. And every driver behind the
wheel of a vehicle which he or she is incompetent to control is a
hazard to every other person on Ontario roads – or sidewalks for
that matter!
- It’s about service
– When a driver examiner takes time to
explain to an applicant why they failed the test, and the changes they
must make in their driving behaviour, it helps the applicant the next
time. It also helps make our roads safer. But it doesn’t bring in
dollars. Privatized operations will lack any financial incentive to do
this important educational work – and financial incentive is their
bottom line.
What it boils down to is this: Privatizing driver examinations does
nothing to improve road user safety in Ontario. Instead it is a move in
the exact opposite direction.
Yet, the ministry has issued a Request for Qualifications on delivery
of driver examination services. It is the first step toward
privatization.
Now, l’d like to move to the area of inspections, investigation and
enforcement.
It’s undoubtedly next on the list for an RFQ. And our concerns are
similar:
- Consistency
– One thing we are learning from the Walkerton
Inquiry is the importance of "institutional memory." When
one Ministry is responsible for enforcement, people know what is
happening over time and around the province. If a trucking company has
a history of violations, the enforcers know it and ride herd on that
company’s trucks. If there is a spate of problems in one part of the
province, the whole ministry is aware of it and looks for similar
instances. If the same people aren’t doing the work over a long
period of time, you lose that.
- Confidentiality and Accountability
– The same concerns
raised around drivers’ licences apply here. Public servants work in
the public interest.
- Potential for corruption
-- With just-in-time delivery,
truckers are under a great deal of pressure to meet hour-by-hour
deadlines. If we detain them over a serious infraction, their
livelihood is at stake. We all know what higher gas prices have done
to profit margins in the trucking industry already. We’ve already
had inspectors assaulted for detaining truckers, to the point we have
had special training in defusing tense confrontations. This work is
wide open to potential bribery and threats. The environment of public
service is an important safeguard for citizens. You won’t find that
in a for-profit operation.
Conclusion:
The first privatization in the Ministry of Transportation was road
maintenance. The Tories downloaded that in 1996, claiming it would save
taxpayers fistfuls or dollars. What was the experience? It actually cost
a great deal more and the maintenance levels are much lower than when
the Ministry did the work itself. Why? The profit comes from doing less
work, and from cutting corners. And profit-motivated operations aren’t
going to forego the profit in the interest of public safety.
Privatizing water monitoring is one of the chief suspects being
investigated in the Walkerton Inquiry. In Walkerton, seven people died
on the altar of "small government."
The record so far is clear:
- Privatization costs more.
- Privatization endangers public safety.
- Privatization means you will pay more for your driver’s licence
and get less.
The obvious question is this: Why is this government committed to
shucking its responsibilities? What valid public policy objective is
served?
We ask the government to impose a moratorium on privatization until
the full long-term impact is known. We need a lot more information
before we go down this road – to make sure we can all use the road in
safety.
Thank you.
