I claim that we have come to a period in the history of our country when we must decide once and for all which shall prevail, profits or human welfare.

— J.S. Woodsworth, March 14, 1922

How about just making profits from welfare?

That’s the latest and lowest plan from the British Columbia Liberal government: to privatize welfare, contracting out service delivery to corporations whose profits will come from increasing misery for the poor.

In an unannounced and, to date, unreported move, the Ministry of Human Resources issued a fast-tracked request for proposals on November 29. The competition, which closes today is to provide an “alternative service delivery model” for welfare that would be fully implemented by July 2002.

And the government’s “Questions and Answers for Media Inquiries” guide for communications staff, leaked to The Georgia Straight, shows the ministry anticipates major controversy over its decision.

Anti-poverty activists, social policy researchers and the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union (BCGSEU) are all alarmed at the Liberals’ move and their apparent intention to quickly privatize welfare.

“If you’re making a profit on people’s despair, it’s open to abuse. It’s another way of punishing the poor,” says Marsha Drake, spokesperson for End Legislated Poverty. “A private company is not responsible to voters. The money will go to profits, not people in need.”

The RFP, found on the BC Bid Website, makes clear what the government wants:

Demonstrated experience in a senior role on projects in other provinces involving alternative service delivery models, such as downsizing, outsourcing of traditional public sector services, negotiations involving partnering with the federal government, creative financing or public-private partnering, privatisation, or similar objectives in designing or implementing alternative ways to provide government social service programs.

And in another key tip-off to the government’s intentions, a bold-faced instruction reads: “Note that it is mandatory that the proposed team for Phase 1 must include at least one individual who was a key participant in a social service reform project in another province.”

Could this other province be Ontario or New Brunswick perhaps, which have significantly privatized their social service sectors in controversial decisions opposed by anti-poverty activists? And could those “key participants” possibly be employees of giant international consulting firm Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, which was involved in both privatization efforts?

Michael Goldberg, research director of the Social Planning and Research Council (SPARC), says the tight timeline for implementation may indicate that the contract winner has already been determined, with the RFP merely a formality. And if the winner is indeed Accenture, expect strong opposition to their program.

A report issued last year by the National Union of Provincial Government Employees (NUPGE) doesn’t pull any punches. “What US multinational is stealing money from Ontario’s poor?” the report asks, saying much of the company’s $16.3-billion profits in 1999 came at the expense of the poor and public employees around the world. (Coincidentally, Accenture is also one of the key bidders on pending privatization of three BC Hydro components. Enron)

And expect a high-tech, big brother approach to welfare. “Andersen (now Accenture) is especially excited about its Orwellian vision of the future, something they call ’self-service government,’” writes NUPGE. “Using multi-media kiosks, fingerprint ‘smart cards’ and call centre techniques, Andersen envisions a day when government will employ very few people, relying instead on computerized service and decision-making.”

SPARC, which recently released a study called “Falling Behind” that shows that the basic needs of British Columbia’s poorest citizens are already not being met and that argues welfare rates should be increased because current payments only cover 45 to 65 per cent of living costs, is concerned that privatization of welfare can only make things worse.

“They’re going to make money from denying people welfare — that’s one way a company would make money,” Goldberg says. “And where do you go to complain about a private firm denying you welfare?”

Clearly anticipating negative public reaction to privatization, the ministry’s questions and answers guide gives strong hints at what is to come:

Q13. There may be big, multi-national firms bidding. Is this the start of an “Americanization” of B.C. welfare?
A13. No. An important component of the selection process for bidders will be their experience in Canadian jurisdictions.

Privatization will not save money, if Ontario is any example. Ontario’s provincial auditor delivered a scathing report in 1998 on the welfare changes, stating that:

We continue to question the achievement of value for money for taxpayers from this agreement … This project is failing to deliver the replacement technology and functionality required for administering the Income Supports and Ontario Works programs economically and efficiently within the timetable planned.

Ontario’s auditor raised concerns that the $180-million paid to Andersen Consulting was more than double the original estimates of $50- to $70-million, that one project manager was paid $575 an hour and that Andersen employees wage rates had jumped 63 per cent since the contract was signed. The controversy led the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union in October to call for a forensic audit.

The NUPGE report also cites Andersen Consulting cost overruns and failures to meet contractual obligations in several other jurisdictions, including New Brunswick and Texas.

BCGEU president George Heyman told the Straight that his union is deeply concerned about the government RFP and sees both potential job losses and an attack on the social safety net.

“Our front line workers know that those in need are already suffering from too few benefits and services,” Heyman says. “To now undertake a dangerous experiment with privatization that has been proven an expensive failure elsewhere is simply wrong.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the profits of poverty are simply too rich for the Gordon Campbell government to resist.