I would like to follow-up on Mr. Denley's column entitled "Politicians have private-sector phobias". The column deals with the privatization of government services, an issue which all levels of government are examining closely in these times.

The effort is worthwhile, even essential, but let's all be clear on the goal of the exercise. If the services are worth providing, perhaps we can agree that cost-effectiveness is the issue. How then are we best to proceed toward that goal?

First, the service itself must be clearly defined so that 'effectiveness' can reasonably be discussed. The service sought must be well-enough described that everyone is bidding on the same thing - that a level playing field exists. It must also be clear enough so that, at the end of the day, it is possible to say if the result is success or failure. In the case of the unique yet-to-be-opened Don Gamble Centre, nobody, inside or outside government, knows where the efficiencies will be found or how large they will prove to be.

Second, some knowledge must exist of what the service might reasonably be expected to actually cost. Without that obvious baseline, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusions about 'cost-effectiveness'. It is not even possible to know if a good offer is on the table.

Mr. Denley cites Regional Government's experience in refusing an offer by a firm to save taxpayers $8 million annually on the operation of the sewage treatment facilities. A tempting offer to be sure. It was turned down, however, not because politicians were concerned about protecting staff jobs, but because they wanted to protect the public purse. The offer was a "sole-source" offer - not the best way to ensure that the virtues of the competitive process are brought to bear in favour of the taxpayer! Further, staff were not sure, at the time, what the real best-cost figure was for the operation of the waste-water treatment facility although they felt that they could do as well as the firm's offer. It turns out that, 6 months later, they were right. Our staff found those savings and are currently looking for more. When they have done the best that they can, the RMOC will go out to tender to see if outside innovation and entrepreneurial spirit can do better. But first we will have done our homework. We will know where we stand. There are lessons to be learned in that experience.

Knowledge is strength. We need to get that strength working for the taxpayer. It would be too easy for politicians to claim that they had saved the operational costs of a facility by turning it over to the private sector. Sophisticated taxpayers should demand proof.

Jacques Legendre
Councillor