The Fraser Health Authority's notice of intent to award a $170,071 contract to Douglas College is part of a pattern that’s common in public sector procurement, where contracts are awarded without a competitive bidding process. In this case, Douglas College has been selected to deliver specialized education in child and adolescent mental health and substance use for newly hired staff. The focus is on equipping staff with evidence-based practices to better address the mental health needs of young people in British Columbia.

At first glance, this may seem like a small contract—“peanuts” in comparison to larger projects. However, these small, unchallenged awards can add up over time, creating significant financial outflows that, cumulatively, contribute to inefficiencies within the system. The issue here isn’t necessarily the merit of the program itself but rather the lack of transparency in how the contract was awarded and the potential for this approach to lead to less optimal outcomes.

I’m not going to pretend I’m unbiased—far from it. After years of navigating the system and facing bureaucratic brick walls, I’ve lost any illusion that Fraser Health, or the broader healthcare structure in Canada, is functioning the way it should. I’m looking at the data, and it’s right here in front of me, clear as day. Yet, nobody seems willing to acknowledge the reality. They push their press releases and public relations campaigns about how they’re improving access to care, but for families like mine, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

I’ve watched my son, who has non-verbal autism, struggle because the services he needs are either underfunded or tied up in endless bureaucratic loops. Meanwhile, tax dollars pour into the pockets of healthcare executives and consultants. These people sit in their ivory towers, collecting six-figure salaries, while parents like me are left to scramble for whatever scraps of support are left. The system’s inefficiency is not just an inconvenience—it’s a daily reality for families dealing with developmental disabilities.

Take this contract that Fraser Health just awarded to Douglas College. On the surface, it looks like a small thing—$170,071 isn’t a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of public spending. But it’s one more example of how public funds are (maybe) being misallocated (and for sure no one really is looking or cares). Instead of that money going directly to frontline services, or hiring more therapists to reduce waitlists, it’s funneled into educational programs that, while useful, seem like a drop in the ocean of what’s really needed.

And the kicker? This is just one example. You can look at the endless stream of contracts, awards, and direct tenders, and you’ll see the same pattern: public money, quietly slipping into the hands of executives and administrative middlemen, all under the guise of improving care. But where’s the accountability? Who’s checking that this money is actually making a difference for people like my son? No one. It’s a paradox—the more the system claims to be helping, the less help we actually receive.

This isn’t just my opinion. The data speaks for itself, and anyone who’s willing to dig deep enough can see it. But the reality is, most people don’t want to address it. It’s easier to believe that the system is working than to confront the messy, frustrating truth that it’s broken beyond recognition.

So, let’s stop pretending everything’s fine. Let’s start addressing the glaring inefficiencies, the grift, and the gross mismanagement of public funds. Because if we don’t, nothing’s going to change—and the people who suffer the most will continue to be the ones who need help the most.

Accountability – Who’s Really Checking?

1. Internal Audits: These are supposed to catch inefficiencies and irregularities, but they don’t always uncover the full picture. Auditors can only audit what is made available to them, and they may not be able to question every small detail, especially in cases of direct awards where everything is technically “within the rules.”

2. Public Scrutiny: Ideally, public records and contract notices on platforms like MERX or BC Bid provide transparency. But these documents are filled with jargon and are often inaccessible or ignored by the general public. Most people don't have the time to sift through complex procurement notices, let alone understand the implications behind them.

3. Media and Whistleblowers: Sometimes, accountability comes from outside sources, like investigative journalists or whistleblowers. However, media attention is usually only attracted to big-ticket items, and smaller deals (like this $170,071 contract) can slip under the radar because they’re perceived as insignificant.

4. Political Oversight: In theory, elected officials should hold bureaucratic systems accountable, but this too often becomes complicated by conflicts of interest, lobbying, and political alliances. Direct awards, especially in education or health sectors, are rarely scrutinized at the highest levels because they’re seen as uncontroversial or well-intentioned initiatives. However, this is exactly where the grift can hide—in the mundane, everyday contracts that no one is watching closely.

Government and Accountability: A Paradox

The concern is largely around the paradox of accountability in government. Government institutions have layers of bureaucracy meant to protect against corruption, but the bureaucracy itself can obscure the very things it’s supposed to regulate. Contracts awarded without competitive bidding make it easy for spending to occur behind closed doors, justified under the banner of “expertise” or “efficiency,” even when these contracts might not provide the best value for taxpayers.

The Real Danger: Small Deals Adding Up

The most dangerous aspect of these small deals is that they’re easy to justify—$170,071 isn’t going to make headlines. But when this kind of awarding becomes common practice, the small sums add up to millions in public money that are being spent without competitive oversight, feeding into a systemic issue of waste. This happens in sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, where massive budgets allow small amounts to fly under the radar.

Direct awards, such as this one, bypass competitive processes that are intended to ensure taxpayers receive the best value for money. While Fraser Health likely justifies this decision by citing Douglas College’s expertise, there’s minimal public scrutiny over whether other institutions or providers could offer better or more cost-effective services. This kind of closed-loop contracting, where certain institutions are repeatedly favored, has been criticized for contributing to the grift culture in public spending, where funds are distributed without much oversight, and accountability is reduced.

In the broader context of Canada’s healthcare and public procurement systems, these smaller awards can be symptomatic of a larger issue. When public organizations frequently use direct awards, it can erode trust and create a culture of cronyism, where public funds are directed towards a limited set of providers without full public transparency. Moreover, this practice becomes a gateway to more significant expenditures over time, as these "peanuts" accumulate into larger financial commitments that escape proper oversight.

The problem isn't unique to this specific contract. It reflects a deeper structural issue within public procurement in sectors like healthcare, real estate, and infrastructure, where decision-makers operate with minimal public scrutiny, often leading to decisions that don’t necessarily serve the best interests of taxpayers. This is especially concerning when the outcomes—such as improvements in mental health services—may not align with the scale of investment being made.

In essence, while the Fraser Health Authority’s direct award to Douglas College might be justified on paper, it raises broader questions about transparency and accountability in how public money is spent—questions that deserve a closer look, especially in an era where public trust in institutions is increasingly fragile. opportunities for slipping things in unnoticed when it comes to these direct awards. This isn’t just about a one-off contract for a mental health education program; it speaks to a larger issue about accountability and oversight within government spending. The public procurement process, especially when it involves direct awards like this one, offers fertile ground for questionable practices because the normal checks and balances are either bypassed or downplayed.

The term “transparency” is often thrown around, but in practice, it’s easy for things to fall through the cracks. Government entities, like Fraser Health, technically have mechanisms for oversight, such as audits, public disclosure of contracts, and internal reviews. However, the reality is that these systems can be slow, bogged down by bureaucracy, and reliant on limited scrutiny unless someone from the outside pushes for answers. In many cases, the people responsible for overseeing these contracts are part of the same system that benefits from keeping things as opaque as possible.

When it comes to public spending, especially in large systems like health care, accountability and transparency often feel more like a paradox than a reality. The very structure of government procurement and contracting allows for opportunities to slip things in under the radar—small, seemingly innocuous contracts, like the one Fraser Health Authority issued, that add up over time and evade scrutiny.

Theoretically, there are several layers of oversight designed to prevent abuse in public spending—internal auditing departments, external auditors, government regulatory bodies, and public watchdogs. However, in practice, these mechanisms can be overwhelmed, underfunded, or too intertwined with the very institutions they are meant to oversee. In cases like this, the use of direct awards—where contracts are handed out without a competitive bidding process—raises red flags because there’s limited accountability. Without competitive bidding, it’s harder to ensure that the taxpayer is getting the best value, and it opens the door for cronyism or favoring certain institutions over others without public scrutiny.

The Issue of Accountability

In many cases, the same government bodies responsible for issuing contracts are also responsible for monitoring them, creating a conflict of interest. This results in a lack of independent oversight and minimal repercussions for wasteful spending or poorly executed contracts. Public agencies are supposed to file reports and make their actions transparent, but many of these reports are buried in dense bureaucratic language that the average person isn’t going to dig through. As a result, accountability becomes more theoretical than practical.

The Auditor General and Treasury Boards at various levels are supposed to provide some oversight, but their reach is limited. Even when red flags are raised, the process of investigation and rectification is often too slow and bogged down by bureaucracy. This slowness allows many contracts to slip through with minimal scrutiny. Moreover, these audits are usually after the fact, meaning they happen once the money is already spent.