Letter to the editor

Summit, Sep 2003 by Fox, Robert

10 june 2003

It really is too much. I recognize that the standards of journalistic objectivity that would be expected of a daily newspaper cannot be applied to trade publications but Summit of late has abandoned any pretence of journalistic integrity.

I am moved to write by the latest piece of pro-P3 propaganda in your June issue, an article by Richard Bray entitled "On the edge."

In this article, the author quotes five unabashed advocates of publicprivate partnerships. No critics are cited nor 'independent' voices.

One of the P3 promoters insults all public sector procurement officers suggesting their understandable skepticism about P3s arises not from their careful scrutiny of the sorry experience to date, but rather their aversion to innovation. She is later quoted pushing contracts for the burgeoning industry of P3 consultants and unabashedly shilling memberships in her own organization.

Another suggests that because public servants have concerns about the legality of P3s under the Canada Health Act or the liability of P3s under international trade agreements they should be compelled through legislation, regulation or the terms of federal transfers to pursue P3s.

Another is a business colleague - not to say partner - of the author. Certainly they recently promoted themselves under the banner 'Team P3' at the Municipal Expo of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Union opposition is acknowledged in passing as a barrier to unbridled progress in pushing P3s but no union spokesperson is quoted in this article. Our position is cited only in order that it can be discounted.

I acknowledge that Summit has interviewed CUPE leaders in the past and that our position in opposition to P3s has received coverage. I also acknowledge that we have advertised in your publication in the past, running ads highlighting the risks of P3s under international trade agreements. On balance, however, from your choice of guest columnists to your editorial coverage, there can be no question that a pro-P3 bias permeates your publication.

I note that Mr. Bray is identified as a freelance writer with broad experience, including with the public broadcaster. I note too that he is a contributing editor. I find it passing strange, however, that the brief bio does not identify him as a principle in P3PR, a firm dedicated to promoting P3s.

This may mirror the conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency and accountability that are endemic to P3s, but is does not stand up to the scrutiny that would be expected in the public sector. Nor in my view does it meet the standards of journalistic integrity that should be expected of a publication such as yours.

As I've said, I don't expect a trade magazine to lack a point of view. But I wonder if the public sector procurement officers to whom this publication is targeted know the extent to which your magazine pursues an explicit agenda of promoting P3s and outsourcing and I wonder that Materiel Management Institute would wish to attach its prestige to P3 propaganda.

As your publication does not print letters to the editor, I am taking the liberty of copying this letter to a number of interested parties.

Robert Fox

Director, Communications Branch

Canadian Union of Public Employees