Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction about WorkBC‘s new procurement process, a process that has undermined the work of numerous community-based non-profit organizations that help British Columbians find work.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30 years or more.

Below I reproduced the text and video of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: It sure sounds like there are some fun and wacky times happening down there at the end of the opposition bench. I suspect this must be some kind of rite of passage for MLAs to their second term.

Work B.C. awards contracts for a number of services across B.C. and has a long relationship with non-profit organizations that help British Columbians find work. However, Work B.C.’s procurement process lacks rigour and transparency.

Last year major regions were amalgamated to larger catchment areas for services. The change came with little warning to the service providers and resulted in many local organizes no longer being able to compete. The RFPs that went out were heavily biased towards bigger organizations, often for-profit companies based outside of B.C. with no connection to the local communities, and no points awarded for community connection or knowledge.

Consolidating major services like this means that local non-profits cannot compete and more multinational companies are hired to do the same work, and so public dollars don’t stay in B.C.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Why was such a substantial change sprung on B.C. non-profit service providers, with no public consultation, when nothing in previous evaluations indicated that the change was necessary?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member for the question. In fact, the changes that we’ve made around Work B.C. are changes that will put more money than ever into this system. We’ve had, over the last number of years, about $230 million annually that’s been invested in Work B.C. Under this model, $249 million will go into Work B.C. centres. We will increase the number of centres from 84 to 103 across the province. In addition to that, there are two new provincial programs around assistive technology and apprenticeship services that are now supporting initiatives across the province.

In terms of how those contracts were let, you’ll know the procurement process is one that, as a minister, I don’t get involved directly in. I would say to the member, though, that in terms of how the resources got allocated…. Under the previous program, the one we’re under now, 49 percent of the money went to the profit-making companies and 49 percent went to non-profits. Under the new system, 57 percent of the dollars will go to non-profits, 39 percent to the profit sector and 4 percent to a public institution. We’ll be watching this moving forward, but we think we’ve found the balance.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: In fact, I’m interested to hear that the minister suggests that the balance has been found. You know, it’s ironic that this government is actually increasing unemployment through its Work B.C. contracts as communities across B.C. lose their non-profits. So to think that the balance has been found…. If the balance that has been found is increasing unemployment and money going to multinationals, I would suggest that the minister may want to have a look at his file a little closer.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30 years or more. The statistics we heard from the minister are simply not accurate, because they do not reflect the 25 percent of money that is no longer required to flow through.

Local non-profits have community connections and must reinvest any profit they achieve. Major for-profit multinationals lack community connections and do not have to locally reinvest profits. Government is now using public dollars to connect international companies that have no on-the-ground service to the local communities in our province to provide those services.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. What was the justification for a process that has no requirement anymore for bidders to demonstrate any flow-through to local community organizations?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member again for the question. In fact, this was a two-step process. It was required, under the request for qualifications, where bidders qualified to go forward to the proposal stage…. There was, in fact, a request for information regarding their connection to community. From that qualification process, up to four bidders were able to go forward in the RFP process for each of the catchment areas. So in fact, what the member has talked about did occur there.

The reality is that what we got told in this process…. I spoke to service providers who said: “We are seeing less people, but the people we’re seeing need more of our time.” So we’ve structured a program here that very much allows those service providers now to deliver extended services so that the people who really need the support, the people who aren’t seeing employment now, have a greater opportunity for that.

It fits in as a critical piece of the poverty reduction strategy that we’ll be moving forward. We’re looking for the opportunity to give persons with disabilities, to support women escaping violence, to support recent immigrants, so that they get opportunities at employment they’re not seeing today.

I’m confident this program will give us those opportunities. I’m looking forward to its success.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing my concerns about the botched rollout of the BC NDP’s speculation and vacancy tax.

Since that time we have continued to receive a high volume of feedback, including thousands of emails, many scores of phone calls and numerous in-person visits to our constituency office. Many have expressed frustration about the tax, particularly the difficulty in making contact with government to speak to a live person about the specifics of the tax and its potential exemptions. We have received countless reports that the phone number provided to the public leaves people on hold for hours. This is unacceptable.

In fact, my own staff attempted to phone this number to get clarification about the tax and gave up after being on hold for 90 minutes. This is unacceptable.

The fact is, there are myriad nuances in the various situations affecting the people to which the tax may apply. My office is doing the best we can to help out, but I can tell you that our frustration levels are very high as we believe it is inexcusable for the government to have introduced this new tax measure without ensuring that adequate resources are present to help people navigate through its complexities.

Some of the most frequent concerns regarding the speculation and vacancy tax expressed to my office are listed below:

1. Privacy of Information

• Concern has been expressed about private information that is required to complete the declaration form, including having to provide a Social Insurance Number.

We have been advised that the government requires personal information such as Social Insurance Numbers to confirm that homeowners claiming the personal residence exemption do meet the requirements. In addition, the personal information provides confirmation of how much a person must pay if they do not qualify for an exemption.

2. Security of Information

• Given the recent highly publicized breaches of security experienced at major corporations and governments across the globe, concern has been frequently expressed about security of private information and risk of it being compromised.

We have been advised that the information collected through the government’s eTaxBC application is encrypted upon entry and masked. As a result even government employees cannot access the information without specific authorization.

3. Use of Information

• Concern has been expressed about how personal information will be used by government and for what purpose, now and in the future

We have been advised that the personal information collected under the Act is protected in a manner consistent with the BC Government’s Information Security Policy, Federal Security Standards and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

4. Access to timely information

• We have been advised of, and experienced directly, excessive wait times on the phone to speak to an agent for clarification of the tax and eligibility for exemption.

The government has provided information on its website regarding the application of the Act and the various categories of exemption available to homeowners. Many of our constituents have found the website lacking in almost every way. The explanations are not clear and there are very few concrete examples to examine.

For instance, in order to claim a Personal Residence exemption the website says a person must be “… a Canadian Citizen or permanent resident of Canada who’s a B.C. resident for income tax purposes …”. If one of the owners had to move for work related purposes the website says the parties could claim for 2 principal residences if both were still in BC. However, the website is silent about situations where the spouse has had to move out of the province or country for work and is therefore no longer a BC resident for income tax purposes. There is a section regarding the situation if a person lived in the property and had to move out of the province. That section says an exemption could be claimed. However, that section directly contradicts the original section which says the applicant has to be BC resident for income tax purposes.

This is just one example of the many problems people are facing. Attempts to resolve issues by phone are stymied by an incomprehensible and contradictory website and the completely inadequate resources the government provided to deal with public inquiries.

And there are two issues we are still struggling to get answers to.

i) Appeal

• What process is in place to appeal the tax

Update: since publication of this blog we have been informed that you can “appeal” by writing to the Ministry or the Minister outlining your situation and requesting an appeal; that will trigger the appeals process.

ii) Cost to taxpayer

• What is the cost to the taxpayer to administer this tax

I will continue to raise the concerns I am hearing with government to ensure that people are able to get the information they need. In particular, I will press government to take action to improve the accessibility and timeliness of information and make sure people can reach speculation and vacancy tax agents on the phone who can answer their question. Thank you for your patience. You are not alone in your frustration.

Today I rose during Question Period to call on the BC Government to initiate a full scale public inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia. The purpose of such an inquiry is to remove the investigation from partisan influence, protect the public interest and restore public trust. The B.C. Green Caucus does not ask for this lightly. However the financial impact money laundering has had — and that it continues to have — on the province is staggering: the federal Ministry of Finance estimates the problem at least $1 billion annually.

Over the past two weeks, my colleagues Adam Olsen, Sonia Furstenau and I have been using Question Period to explore what government is doing to deal with British Columbia’s money laundering scandal. The responses to our questions suggest that while the government has been doing a good job on a variety of fronts, we should bring the investigation into one, independent public inquiry.

We believe that there is enough evidence now to warrant the provincial government starting down this path, without waiting for more reports. Future reports still outstanding can feed directly into an inquiry. We further believe that the terms of reference for the inquiry must be broad enough to address money laundering, organized crime networks, the real estate market, the opioid crisis, and the links between them.

An independent public inquiry is the best course of action because inquiry commissioners can have the power to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony. Furthermore, it can run parallel to any criminal investigation as was done in Quebéc with the Charbonneau Commission.

We are joined in the call for a public inquiry by the cities of Victoria, Richmond, and Vancouver, more than 76% of British Columbians, Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West, the BC Government Service Employees Union, and several petitions signed by thousands of British Columbians.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my question period exchange with the Attorney General. I also append a copy of our media release.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Please let me start by thanking members of opposition and the minister for canvassing such an important issue and having the dialogue that led to some very informative answers that we can take back to our constituency. I thank you for the questioning there.

A recent article from the Vancouver Sun pointed out that the scale of money laundering happening here in British Columbia is still unclear. A report last year from the Paris-based financial action task force indicated that $1 billion a year was laundered through a “massive” underground bank in British Columbia that served Mexican cartels, Asian gangs and Middle Eastern crime groups.

Illegal gambling money, drug money and money derived from extortion was laundered in British Columbia to supply cash to Chinese gamblers. Yet, our government continues to take a reactive approach to money laundering. There is a deficit of public trust in our province, and the people of British Columbia deserve a government that will take a more proactive approach to this issue.

My question to the Attorney General is this: will the minister introduce the public inquiry into money laundering in British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question and all members for the tone of the Legislature today. I think it’s great.

In terms of the member’s question about the approach that the government is taking, we were clear from the very beginning about why we have taken the approach of doing reviews into money laundering versus a public inquiry. We can move faster. We can get the information we need, and we can stop the activity that is actually taking place in British Columbia. We saw that in the casino file. We were able to stop the activity of bringing bulk cash into the casinos very quickly as a result of a review. A public inquiry takes longer to get to those kinds of results.

But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the same questions that the member has about who knew what when, what kind of accountable should there be and the kinds of questions that can be answered through a public inquiry. What it does mean is that we need to take action to stop the activity as quickly as we can. The member knows that Dr. German is currently working on questions related to horse racing, luxury cars and real estate. I can tell the member that Dr. German is already uncovering some very disturbing information that’s causing government to take action and enabling us to take quick action. I’m very grateful for Dr. German doing that kind of work for us. But that does not exclude the possibility of a public inquiry.

I thank the member for making his party’s position very clear on this issue and all British Columbians, frankly, who have written to me about this issue to express their interest in a public inquiry as well.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for the answer to the previous question.

While I do appreciate the response I received, the question I’m left with is: how many reports and news stories do we need to be written to convince this government that more resources are required to solve the problem? This government needs to develop solutions, not wait for them to arrive on their doorstep and waiting for other reports to articulate them.

Last week the Attorney General made reference to the fact that one of the top five transnational criminal organizations in the world was getting tax credits from Advantage B.C. A criminal organization getting tax credits in British Columbia to launder money is absolutely unbelievable. It’s an unbelievable allegation. It’s clear that government doesn’t yet understand the scope of this issue and that one or two reports is not enough.

In order to get to the root of this problem, we need an independent approach that can address the broad scope of money laundering in our province.

Previously, the Premier stated that he prefers prosecution over public inquiry. However, transparency watchdogs and lawyers who are experts on transnational crime have called for a public inquiry. That’s the only way to effectively deal with this problem. A public inquiry along the lines of what occurred in the Charbonneau Commission can run in parallel to criminal investigations that may or may not be ongoing.

Again, my question is to the Attorney General: when will the minister institute a public inquiry on the issue of money laundering in our province?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of pieces about the member’s question. One is in relation to prosecutions. The member knows that the federal prosecution fell apart. It was expected to go to trial. It didn’t. It was ultimately stayed just before it was going to go to trial. Those materials are being reviewed by provincial prosecutors right now to determine whether or not our independent prosecution service will be bringing charges in relation to those materials. That’s ongoing.

A public inquiry, itself, will not result in criminal charges. It provides accountability. It provides the public with transparency into what took place — who knew what and when. It is a political accountability tool, but it is not a prosecution tool. So just to draw that important distinction. Now, that’s not to say it doesn’t have an important place in the tools of accountability of government. It’s just to say that it has that limitation.

The work that we’re doing right now is not reactive. We’re out there. We have experts on this issue. The Minister of Finance — I mean, she cancelled Advantage B.C., right? That is the program that gave the tax credits to Pacman. I mean, we are taking the steps that are needed. We’re getting the experts to provide advice. We’re actually taking steps — the Ministry of Finance on the beneficial ownership registry, so we actually know who owns property, an important tool for police and for tax authorities. We have Peter German out there, working on important issues so that we can take action in relation to those other areas that I told the member about. We’re taking a lot of action on this.

As I said to the member and as I would say to all British Columbians, that does not mean — and the Premier has been very clear — that we have ruled out a public inquiry on this issue. It just means that we’re taking these steps and these necessary steps first.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus Calls for Public Inquiry into Money Laundering Scandal
For immediate release
February 26, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –The B.C. Green Caucus calls on its fellow MLAs to stand united in calling for an independent public inquiry into the issue of money laundering, which has strong ties to the province’s housing affordability and opioid crises.

“We are calling for an immediate public inquiry into money laundering in BC so to remove the investigation from partisan influence, protect the public interest and restore public trust,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party. “The B.C. Green Caucus does not ask for this lightly. However the financial impact money laundering has had- and that it continues to have- on the province is staggering: the federal Ministry of Finance estimates the problem at $1 billion annually.”

The province made international headlines last year when a report by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force, a body of G7 member countries fighting money laundering, terrorist financing and threats to the international financial system, was leaked to the press. The report highlighted B.C. money laundering activities, of which the province admitted it was not fully aware.

“An independent public inquiry is appropriate as it can have a broad scope, functioning outside of partisan influences or criminal jurisdictions and extensive enough to include all senior public officials and elected members of the Legislature. Public inquiry investigations can involve interviews and oral testimony, and commissioners can have the power to subpoena witnesses. These investigations get to the heart of the complexity of what exactly happened and how it was allowed to happen.

“Although inquiries are not courts, they often exist alongside criminal investigations-such as the Charbonneau Commission in 2011- supplementing those criminal charges with real, actionable recommendations to identify, reduce and prevent such events from happening again. This is something purely punitive criminal charges do not address.

“The BC Green Caucus is not alone in its call for an independent public inquiry into the issue of money laundering  in BC. We are joined by cities of Victoria, Richmond and Vancouver, and more than 76 percent of British Columbians polled last year support an inquiry. The chorus grows daily.

“An inquiry of this nature will take time, but so too did this money laundering scheme with evidence going back at least a decade. And the financial repercussions of a skyrocketing housing market and the devastating impacts the of opioid epidemic on the health and wellbeing of British Columbians will possibly span many years into the future. We owe it to ourselves and our children to investigate the links between money laundering, real estate, drug trafficking, and organized crime.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
250-882-6187, macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today the National Energy Board released its Reconsideration report for Trans Mountain Expansion Project.The report concludes that:

“report concludes that Project-related marine shipping is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on the Southern resident killer whale and on Indigenous cultural use associated with the Southern resident killer whale. The NEB also found that greenhouse gas emissions from Project-related marine vessels would likely be significant. While a credible worst-case spill from the Project or a Project-related marine vessel is not likely, if it were to occur the environmental effects would be significant. While these effects weighed heavily in the NEB’s consideration of Project-related marine shipping, the NEB recommends that the Government of Canada find that they can be justified in the circumstances, in light of the considerable benefits of the Project and measures to minimize the effects.“

As noted in the press release reproduced below, this process was about ‘getting to yes’ from the very beginning – it was set up to fail to protect the public interest. The federal approval of this project was always political. The BC Green Caucus continues to strongly believe that this project is not in the interest of British Columbians.

Media Release

Investing in fossil fuel infrastructure misguided, spells end of Southern Resident Killer Whales
For immediate release
February 22, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party, expressed profound disappointment at the National Energy Board’s report released today, which recommended the Federal Government approve the Transmountain Expansion Project.

“This process was about ‘getting to yes’ from the very beginning – it was set up to fail to protect the public interest. The federal approval of this project was always political. The BC Green caucus has been clear that this project is not in the interests of British Columbians.

“B.C. needs to be in control of our own environmental review process, to make sure it is objective and evidence-based. We cannot rely on the Federal government. The province should terminate the equivalency agreement with the Federal government, and conduct our own environmental assessment for this project. We must do all we can to ensure that our environment is protected from the costs of this project.

“Investing in 20th century technologies that are known to contribute to our 21st century challenges is irresponsible and short-sighted. The negative impacts of this project on BC are unacceptable. BC would shoulder massive environmental costs, while gaining little economic benefit. A spill would be devastating to our environment, our coastal economies and our tourism industry.

“BC’s economic future lies in the innovative, creative industries that are leading global economic growth, not the sunset industries of yesterday. The world is transitioning to the low-carbon economy, with or without us. Innovator super-powers like Germany and China are investing heavily in the economic opportunities that arise from this transition.

“The federal government must prioritize growth sectors instead of wasting billions investing in fossil fuel companies that are quickly becoming obsolete.

“The NEB found that there would be significant impacts on BC’s already endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. Is the federal government ready to justify to Canadians why it is willing to herald the death knell of this iconic species?

The report also found that there would be “significant” greenhouse gas emissions from the expanded marine vessel traffic alone.

“It is unbelievably misguided to build more fossil fuel infrastructure at this critical juncture in our history. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to begin the immediate transition to the low-carbon economy.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M202: Election Amendment Act, 2019 designed to limit the number of terms a person could be elected as an MLA. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path.

Below I provide the full text and video of my introduction of the Bill.

You’ll see from these that the BC Liberals were heckling me throughout my introduction and the Speaker had to intervene. When First Reading was called, a fair number of BC Liberals shouted “Nay” to proceeding with the bill and so I called for a standing vote. The BC Liberal house leader Mary Polak walked up and down her caucus benches trying to figure out who voted Nay. With the exception of Ralph Sultan, the BC Liberals collectively denied saying “Nay”. They then voted in favour of First Feading in the standing vote (reproduced below).

Ralph Sultan deserves a lot of credit for standing up and following through with his Nay vote. The other BC Liberal MLAs (whose names I will not mention) denied they voted Nay to their house leader and showed that they were nothing more than principle-less sheep unwilling to vote their conviction.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Election Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now. I’m pleased to introduce the bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2019. This bill is designed to set term limits on elected officials in the B.C. Legislature. If enacted, this bill would limit MLAs to 12 years or three terms. In addition, an individual could not be nominated for re-election if they had already served eight years as a Premier.

The introduction of term limits would ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path. The general public have become cynical about politics and career politicians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the member.

A. Weaver: I thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s remarkably disrespectful during an introduction of a bill to hear the chatter coming from the opposite.

The general public….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: If ever you needed demonstration that this bill needs to be enacted, it is here today shown before us by the behaviour of the members opposite.

The general public have become cynical about politics and career politicians. Voter turnout is on the decline. By introducing term limits, certain elected officials will be freed up to think about the long-term consequence of their decisions, rather than just their re-election goals. It will ensure a continued rejuvenation of this Legislature.

I feel, frankly, that we’re still fighting the Cold War in this chamber. We’ve got politicians who’ve been here on both sides of the House since the 1990s. When the same players continue their never-ending dance of dysfunction, British Columbians all lose.

Text of Introduction

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill put forth by the Leader of the Third Party.

Motion approved on the following division