The president of the Saskatchewan Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees was in North Battleford Monday where he told union members he has no good news regarding the construction of a new integrated mental health and corrections complex to replace Saskatchewan Hospital.
Tom Graham, president of CUPE in Saskatchewan since 1998, talked to approximately 24 people gathered at a meeting of the North Battleford Labour Council, saying the provincial government's plan to use a public-private partnership (P3) process to build a new hospital is nothing more than privatization.
"They'll tell you it's not," said Graham. "They'll say this isn't privatization, it's this new financing model."
Further to that, he expects union jobs to be lost.
"They may bring in private companies to do the food services, the housekeeping, the caretaking, all those things, security because there's a correctional centre there. We think that they are just going to privatize the whole thing," said Graham. "Existing jobs are threatened, no doubt about it."
He expects large companies employing minimum wage earners will come in, some of which are notorious for using temporary foreign workers.
"That's the fight we have in front of us," he said.
Because of the inclusion of a correctional component in the Saskatchewan Hospital project, he said, tension could be created between the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union and CUPE about who gets the work when the hospital and the correctional centre begin sharing services.
"That creates a problem for us jurisdictionally but more importantly it means less jobs."
Graham said the maintenance workers in the same CUPE local workers as Valley View Centre in Moose Jaw, which is closing, have already been told their jobs are done.
"That part of it is going to a private contractor," he said.
Other unions affected are the Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses.
Marion Palidwor, president of the North Battleford branch of the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Saskatchewan, commented, "My concern as a registered psychiatric nurse is what does this P3 establishment do for client care."
Graham said research has indicated the P3 process has affected client care negatively. It restricts the ability to do things differently and privatized support services may or may not meet the standards that should be there, he said.
"Again you're bringing a profit into the whole mix."
Graham also said the whole process lacks transparency.
"We can't find anything out about Sask. Hospital right now. What you see in the papers is about it. There's no information," said Graham. "When we do freedom of information requests, you get these documents with black lines through them."
The P3 process has been around for about 20 years in Canada, said Graham. One of the first such projects was Confederation Bridge in Prince Edward Island, which Graham said cost $45 million more to build as a P3 project than if it has been built the traditional way.
Just before the 2011 election, he said, the provincial government said a new Saskatchewan Hospital would cost $100 million. Now, he said, they are saying $175 to $250 million.
It's proven that P3s cost more, he said, pointing to studies showing they cost about 16 per cent more, with an additional three per cent for contract development.
For example, he said, the Saskatchewan Hospital project already has seven advisors, including a fairness advisor, "whatever that means."
"Nothing has happened yet and they've already paid a lot of our money out for that," said Graham.
He questioned the government's statement that going with a P3 process would save 6.3 per cent. Where does that number come from, he asked, if they don't yet know how much it's going to cost.
The biggest reason governments go with P3s, said Graham, is to access federal funding.
"Federal funding is tied to P3s these days."
An older reason to go with a P3 is to hide debt. It's like a lease versus a mortgage, he said.
Another argument is transfer of risk, he said.
"There's so much upfront money put up that the risk is really not transferred anyway, furthermore private companies can go bankrupt and walk away, and they do."
The risk always remains with the public, he said, but the public loses control.
Ideology, of course, is major motive, he said.
"As you know, our provincial government and our federal government tend to lean a little right in the political spectrum and they like that private involvement in everything."
Graham said the private companies involved are not in it for the good of the public, they are there to make a profit. How can that be cheaper, especially when private companies cannot borrow money at the same low rate governments can, he asked.
He also pointed out the contracts are lengthy, typically 30 years, as well as complicated and even small issues can create huge problems. As an example he pointed to P3 schools in Nova Scotia.
"It's almost comical," he said.
In one school everyone had to drink bottled water for four years because there was arsenic in the well, and who should filter the water wasn't in the contract. At another school, he said, the playground was a field of dirt because the contract didn't state who should plant the grass.
We're going to be trying to do something about this, he said.
"Sorry I didn't bring you a happy story and bring you all the answers, but the answers are political."
One member of the audience said, "I am of the age group that I can remember when you had to go out and fight for a few things, especially women."
She said, "We fought for a lot of rights, signed positions, all that stuff. I feel with my children's generation and the ones coming up everything that grandparents, parents, Baby Boomers fought for tooth and nail in this province to achieve, it has been handed to our children."
She added, "Right now there are good times in Saskatchewan. They have never fought for anything, they have never signed a petition for anything. The young people have got to get on board more information has got to come out and it's got to hit this younger generation, especially because they don't know anything, they've never fought for anything, they don't even vote, the biggest majority of them."
Graham added it's not just young people who need to get active.
"I don't know what the answer is, but there is a lack of willingness to get out there and do something."
He said, "At the end of the day, that is what matters - can you get citizens, the people to stand up, because a politician will respond if enough people do that."
