Now entering its fifth week, the Outaouais-wide school bus drivers’ strike continues to be massively disruptive for students and parents, and underlines why transparency in how public money is spent is so important.
In the Pontiac chapter of this drama, Sogesco (owner of Autobus Lasalle), says it is unable to offer wages close to what the union is asking for due to a shortage of provincial funds for school bus transport in the Outaouais, compared to other regions of Quebec. It is an assertion corroborated by both our local MNA and the owner of another bus company who was quoted in a recent Le Droit article saying that some jurisdictions receive $4,000 more per bus than others.
While Sogesco’s explanation sounds plausible, the company has provided no documentation to back it up. As the party making the claim, it would seem reasonable that it would bring forward the evidence to support its own argument. Nor would it be unreasonable for the government to come forward with information that would clarify the situation. After all, it is spending public funds to pay for the delivery of a public service, so there is an onus there for transparency as well.
In the absence of knowledge, neither the bus drivers, the students, their parents, nor the tax payers have any way of knowing what would constitute a fair outcome of this standoff.
If it is the case that some bus companies are underfunded, then the union members exercising their right to strike for better wages could direct their efforts along with the employer at the government. Unfortunately, rather than being forthcoming, Sogesco has chosen to stonewall any attempts at gathering information to support its claim and so is taking the heat itself.
But, yes, it is complicated.
On one hand, bus companies are private businesses, and they have a reasonable expectation of being able to operate privately, not disclosing proprietary information about their profitability that could prove advantageous to their competitors.
On the other hand, they are paid from the public purse for the public service they provide. And, as is the case here, they often don’t face much competition due to the prohibitively high costs of entry into the sector, and are heavily favoured to be refunded year after year in the absence of alternatives.
This raises questions about transparency when the public sector out-sources services to the private sector, currently popular, among other reasons, because it can create the impression of smaller government. But even if the costs to the tax payer end up being larger, they can be more difficult to track as they show up in different places. That is, if they show up at all, as contract details can be hidden behind the requirement to protect proprietary information when dealing with the private sector. So one could reasonably wonder whether there should be special requirements for transparency in such cases where the private contractor is effectively an extension of the public sector.
The public has the right to know how and where their tax dollars are being spent. It is the public that bears the costs, whether it is in terms of dollars spent on bus transport as an investment in the education of our children, or in terms of the difficulties endured in the lack of this service.
Anything that ensures the public has a clearer picture of the root of disputes like this would be helpful.
