SoVote

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Nov/1/22 11:27:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to the opposition motion before us. I think everyone in the House would agree that one of the most important responsibilities of the government, which some would say is a sacred responsibility, is stewarding public funds and ensuring that every single dollar is spent in the best interests of Canadians, that the government gets maximum value and that public contracts do not excessively line the pockets of private companies. That is why the motion calling for the Auditor General to conduct an audit of all aspects of the ArriveCAN app is so important and why Canadians should rightly be concerned. There are a lot of different aspects we could talk about. We could talk about the fact that this app erroneously sent over 10,000 Canadians into quarantine and put them in jeopardy of $750,000 fines, or we could talk about the delays ArriveCAN caused at the border, something that was of great concern both to travellers and border officials. It made people struggle, especially people who did not have access to the technology. However, the focus of today's motion, and appropriately so, is on the decisions the government made around procurement to spend millions of dollars on private IT companies to develop and maintain this app. The biggest concern is the lack of transparency around the cost of development and maintenance, and there are a number of things we know. First of all, we know the original estimate for developing the app was $80,000, and we know that somehow development and maintenance ballooned to $54 million. We also know the government paid an IT staffing firm here in Ottawa nine million of those dollars. This is a firm that has no office, has only a handful of staff and did not actually do the work, but rather assembled a team of contractors and took a 15% to 30% commission. They were making millions of dollars off this. Finally, we know that when CBSA was asked to produce a list of all the contractors involved in the development and maintenance of the ArriveCAN app, there were a bunch of errors in that list. The original list included companies that had nothing to do with the ArriveCAN app, and when they saw their names on the list, they had some pretty serious questions for the government. A company called ThinkOn Incorporated and Ernst & Young were among the companies that had nothing to do with it and were quite confused by the fact they were being implicated. I appreciate that CBSA has promised to provide a full list and get to the bottom of these irregularities, but there are enough questions here that this motion to have the Auditor General conduct a full audit is very much warranted. I also want to talk a bit about the broader questions this issue has brought up. There is a real question here about whether the government's overall approach to outsourcing is delivering good value for Canadians or whether it is simply lining the pockets of companies that have figured out how to maximize their returns from the system of government procurement. We have heard concerns expressed by some of the public sector unions. They have shared with us that they believe IT companies are intentionally underbidding on government contracts. When they underbid on government contracts, it makes it very difficult for the government to assess whether it is in fact better value to outsource the contract to the private sector or whether better value is had by keeping that work in house with the government's own team of IT professionals. What happens after these companies underbid on the contracts is that the contracts start and they are able to have the contracts reopened. While I am pausing, I note that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Courtenay—Alberni, something I have been reminded of by my colleagues several times yet somehow have forgotten. The reopening of these contracts then allows the government, on a discretionary basis, to jack up the value of those contracts again and again so that the total value at the end, when everything is said and done and all the dollars are added up, is many times higher than the original estimate for the work. This is something we need to get to the bottom of, and I think that is an opportunity the motion presents. Here is the trend when it comes to government outsourcing. The Globe and Mail reported in January that the government outsourced $11.8 billion of work in the 2020-21 fiscal year. That is up 42% from 2015-16. It is a pretty alarming increase. In 2020-21, the federal government spent $2.3 billion on IT contracts, compared with only $1.9 billion on its own government IT workforce. One public sector union has filed 2,500 grievances related to outsourcing. There is something wrong with this picture. We need to ensure this decision, which some people call the “make or buy” decision, is informed by the best information and that it is always done with the public's best interests in mind. Getting good value for taxpayers' dollars for the public resources that our government is charged with stewarding is the primary and only concern of that process. I want to mention that, thankfully, the government operations committee is working on this larger topic right now, and I want to point out the good work of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. It is looking at this broader question of whether the Treasury Board's guidelines, which are supposed to inform this make or buy decision, are doing a good enough job, are doing what they are tasked with doing and are ensuring that the public interest is protected. Finally, I want to turn to one of the things I heard in the House yesterday, which I think is one of the unfortunate aspects of this debate over the ArriveCAN app. There is a common trope around IT work that I believe is neither accurate nor particularly helpful. Yesterday, we heard a Conservative member rise in the House and claim that ArriveCAN “could have been created by a bunch of pimply faced teenage hackers over a weekend using a Commodore 64.” I hear my colleagues laughing. I agree that the quote is humorous, but it is an unhelpful stereotype and I will tell colleagues why. I used to work in IT as a website developer, and I came across the stereotype that we should not pay good money for IT work and for tech products. After all, these are things that our brother's cousin's nephew can do at home for fun. These are sophisticated technology products that are being developed, and IT workers in our country are among the most creative, the most sophisticated, the most sought-after and the most valuable assets we have. When we allow these tropes and stereotypes about IT work to persist, I think we really do them an injustice and potentially risk the future of the new economy that is so important in our country. In conclusion, Canadians deserve to know that their taxpayer dollars are being managed responsibly. The irregularities around the ArriveCAN app raise serious questions and we need to get to the bottom of them. There is a larger question of whether the government's approach to outsourcing delivers value or whether it simply enriches its private sector friends. I hope through this debate and through the investigations and audits that follow we can get answers to those questions.

1288 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/1/22 11:35:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that over the last couple of years there has been a lot of new money and government expenses as a direct result of the pandemic. I think a vast majority of Canadians would look at the need for the government to step up during the pandemic as absolutely critical. In fact, the federal government spent somewhere around 80% of all the new money going toward fighting the pandemic compared to provincial expenditures. There does need to be a sense of accountability, but over the next coming days, weeks and months we will see more accountability in how some of that money is being spent. I understand that OGGO, one of our standing committees, is already looking into the matter at hand. Could I get the member's thoughts in regard to the importance of standing committees and the roles they can play in ensuring more accountability?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/1/22 11:36:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to the member's earlier point, I do not think any scenario really justifies shovelling money off the back of the government truck willy-nilly without the accountability that Canadians expect. We have seen in the past very worrisome and concerning instances where that has occurred, such as the WE Charity scandal and the Phoenix pay system, where we are hiring consultants who are hiring other consultants and the whole thing becomes a total debacle. As to the role of committees, absolutely committees can help us get to the bottom of this. I think the work that OGGO is doing is very much complementary to what this opposition day motion calls for, and I look forward to the outcome from both.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Nov/1/22 11:37:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the government's intention to keep using ArriveCAN given all the access problems users have had, all the bugs in the software and the fact that travellers will likely stop using it. What does the member think of the government's intention to keep using this app?

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/1/22 11:38:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is one that we have been dealing with at the transport committee, and it is an important one. Not many people can argue that technology in the travel sector has not made our travel sector more efficient and more productive. I think that we will see that role of technology increase in the future; I believe it is inevitable. I would say two things. First, we need to ensure that we keep accessibility in mind and that people who do not have access to technology have accommodations that work for them. The second is that we need to be consulting closely with the people who are currently performing the roles that technology is meant to complement or replace, ensuring that we understand the role they are playing in our travel sector and that we are supporting them in their work. If those two things are done, technology applications can have a place in our travel sector, and we certainly heard that from different parties, whether it be airports or others.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Nov/1/22 11:39:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the government has the ability to develop its own apps, and we have seen that already with other apps during COVID, why does he think the Liberals decided to go outside of government for this app, and elaborately do so with a bill of $52 million?

49 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/1/22 11:39:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish I knew the answer to that. I am hoping that is one of the things the Auditor General will help us get to the bottom of, and I am very interested in what those findings might be.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Nov/1/22 11:40:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a long history in civic leadership, including in procurement. I am wondering what reflections the member might offer on the importance of restoring public accountability and trust with the government through having a procurement process that brings to light all the different steps along the way, including when a project such as this goes from $80,000 to $54 million. At what point should there be off-ramps and at what point should the red flags have been raised for the government as this project went out of control?

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/1/22 11:40:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that question really gets to the heart of it, because public trust is the essential ingredient in the governance of our country. If the government does not have the public's trust, it cannot perform its important role. When there are questions around transparency, when the public starts to feel the government is wasting public money, it erodes public trust at a time when we cannot afford that.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Nov/1/22 11:41:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the motion regarding the ballooning costs of the ArriveCAN app. In a time when too many Canadians are struggling just to make ends meet, it is critical that the government ensure we have sound stewardship of tax dollars. I share the concerns of Canadians and frontline CBSA officers that the ArriveCAN app has cost way too much and delivered too little. Last week at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we heard from the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union that frontline service workers were never consulted on the development of the app or any of the more than 70 updates that were required. While the government continued to pour money into ArriveCAN, frontline workers were forced to deal with the fallout of a glitchy app on top of a severe staffing shortage. This has had a huge demoralizing impact on the mental health and the moral of CBSA officers. At committee, I supported a study to provide more transparency to Canadians, which they deserve, about the costs associated with the ArriveCAN app. I also pushed the committee to go further. I believe the ArriveCAN debacle is part of a larger systemic issue of the government increasingly hiring expensive consultants, who hire expensive consultants, with no regard for delivering the best value for Canadians. That is why I tabled a motion, which was supported unanimously at OGGO, to request that the Auditor General conduct a performance audit on outsourcing policies and practices more broadly. Earlier this year, the Globe and Mail reported that since the 2015-16 fiscal year, government spending on outsourced contracts had increased by 41.8% under the federal Liberals, reaching $11.8 billion in the 2020-21 fiscal year alone. This trend started under the previous Conservative government and continues to cost Canadians today. All too often, outsourced contracts seem to balloon and cost more than if public service workers were tasked with the same work. The Treasury Board has provided guidance on preparing estimates to help departments with “make-or-buy” decisions, as well as policies on the planning and management of investments that require departments’ decisions that demonstrate best value and sound stewardship. However, it is not clear how these policies are applied in practice or what oversight is involved. A broader performance audit by the Auditor General, as I proposed and as was supported at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, could provide important insights to Parliamentarians on questions. How often are departments' cost estimates exceeded for outsourced work? What happens when a department gets an estimate wrong? How are lessons learned and shared across departments? I want to highlight the concerning transparency and accountability issues that arise in relation to outsourced contracts. The Public Service Alliance of Canada recently told the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates that “The procurement process to contract out work favours corporate secrecy over the rights of Canadians to know how funds are spent and how services are managed.” Our access to information regime is broken and it is extremely difficult for Canadians to get a full picture of how funds directed to the private sector are being spent. This is a perfect example of what we are talking about today. It is also extremely difficult for public service workers who become aware of mismanagement related to outsourced contracts to raise the alarm without fear of reprisal. Canada’s whistle-blower protection regime has been called among one of the worst in the world and cases like the Phoenix pay disaster and the ArriveCAN app show how there are real costs to the Canadian public when public service workers cannot speak up. The blame for Canada’s ineffective whistle-blower protection regime lies with both the Conservative and Liberals parties. David Hutton, a whistle-blower protection expert and senior fellow at the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, recently wrote in the Hill Times that when the member for Carleton, then-minister under the Harper government, introduced federal accountability legislation in 2006, “he claimed repeatedly that it would offer 'ironclad' protection, and indeed it does—but for the wrongdoers, not for whistleblowers or the public.” Since the Liberals came into power, they have failed to remedy this situation. Instead, they have sat on a unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for over five years. That report recommended sweeping legislative reforms to Canada’s whistle-blower protection law. As the Liberal government bounces from scandal to scandal, it seems to have no interest in improving protections for whistle-blowers who could shine a light on government wrongdoing or mismanagement of public funds. This is critical to the transparency for which we are calling so Canadians can trust their government. In addition to the transparency and accountability issues that I am talking about, the government’s increasing reliance on outsourcing raises concerning equity issues that warrant discussion. In 2018, the UN special rapporteur on poverty and human rights discussed privatization as a cause of poverty while still costing governments more. In 2019, the Standing Committee on Human Resources tabled a report on precarious work, recommending the government, “[review] human resources policies and budgeting practices to ensure that they incentivize hiring employees on indeterminate contracts.” It is critical that the government stop the precarious work and incentivize hiring people full time. Further, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has written about the interplay between outsourcing and gender equity, stating: In IT, lucrative contracts are doled out to a male-dominant industry that has notoriously struggled with gender equity. While at the same time, lower paid and precarious temporary service contracts are disproportionately filled by women. The majority of temporary workers become trapped in a cycle of persistent temporary work, defined by low pay, few if any fringe benefits, and high risk of unemployment and labour force exit. While the government will say it is forced to rely on the private sector to deliver IT services because of skill shortages within the public service, it is ignoring in-house talent and failing to invest in building further institutional capacity in a way that promotes gender equity, and I will also say failing to work with public institutions to tap into that expertise and knowledge that lies in our public institutions, including higher-learning institutions. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has filed more than 2,500 grievances where work was outsourced rather than assigned to existing expertise in the public service. In the last fiscal year, the government spent $2.3 billion on information technology service contracts compared to $1.85 billion on its own IT workforce. If the government is truly committed to building a strong and inclusive public service, it is essential that it maintain and build in-house IT capacity. The government’s increasing reliance on outsourcing is not only undermining efforts to promote equity, but it is also costing Canadians more. Although it is difficult to get information on outsourced contracts, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada shared with me the following alarming examples: “one IT Technical Architect at National Defence cost Canadian taxpayers over $359,000 per year in a contract that was renewed for over 8 years. The equivalent public servant (including their pension) would have cost $147,876 – saving over $1.5M”; and “Another example: Shared Services Canada has spent over $14M over the past five years on 3 resources and posted a contract tender extension for another four years. Three public servants (including their pension) over the same five years would have cost $1,855,476 – saving over $12M.” It is not just in IT that we are seeing these increased costs because of reliance on outsourcing, but also in other areas like cleaning, grounds maintenance, health care and access to information. While I agree that Canadians deserve transparency on the ArriveCAN app, they deserve much more. They deserve transparency on the true costs and risks of outsourcing public services. I hope all members will agree that a broader examination of outsourcing by the Auditor General is warranted and is in the best interest of Canadians.

1397 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Nov/1/22 11:51:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that New Democrats are calling for greater accountability with the arrive scam debacle, however, I am still troubled by the fact that they continue to prop up the Liberal government. Does the member know if the words “transparency”, “accountability” or “ethics” are in the confidence and supply agreement?

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns

Nov/1/22 11:51:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are here every day, calling on the government to do the right thing and provide support to Canadians. What we have are gatekeepers from the Conservatives and the Liberals protecting big corporations that are having record profits. Every day we are standing up for Canadians. Today, we are calling for transparency when it comes to outsourcing. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are the champions of outsourcing. It is their friends. They are highly paid consultants hiring highly paid consultants. This is their history. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. We are here to fight for the people.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/1/22 11:52:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand that the NDP will be voting in favour of this motion. The first clause in the preamble says, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living”. Could the member comment on what cost of government he thinks is driving up the cost of living?

53 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns

Nov/1/22 11:52:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will just start with the government financing oil and gas. It makes these huge investments in industries that had $147 billion in profit last year, and here the government is subsidizing building the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is skyrocketing out of control. Outsourcing is built into this whole regime. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. It could all be going to help improve the lives of Canadians, so they could get access to medicine, housing and things they actually need to live.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Nov/1/22 11:53:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very detailed and technical speech. He has done the research. I am always very pleased when my colleagues provide information that can help us in our debates. I thank him very much. The premise of the motion today is somewhat naive. The Conservatives are saying, for example, that had the government not spent $54 million on the ArriveCAN app, it would have helped fight inflation in Canada. It is $54 million nonetheless. This morning, we learned something really interesting in the news. As we suspected, Canada is the second-biggest investor in fossil fuels in the G20. It spends $8.5 billion a year. Right now, food banks do not have enough money. According to a survey, 20% of respondents stated that they are having smaller meals and just over 30% stated that they are eating less healthy meals because they are less expensive in Canada. Does my colleague not believe that this $8.5 billion invested in fossil fuels would be put to better use helping people here in Canada right now?

185 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns

Nov/1/22 11:54:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that fits the whole story, the whole regime of the Conservatives and the Liberals. It is about them bailing out their friends, whether it be big oil, big grocery or the big banks. This is what they do. They do not want to go after them and make them pay their fair share. Instead, they leave Canadians hung out to dry. This outsourcing that we are talking about today is again part of their history and story. It is about their friends, these expensive consultants who hire expensive consultants. The Conservatives started the Phoenix pay system. It was supposed to save over $80 million a year. It has cost $2.4 billion. The Liberals are not innocent, but they carried it on. They kept going with it. It needs to end. We are going to be here to stop it and to fight for the Auditor General to come in and look at this. It needs to change. We are going to stand up for Canadians and make sure that Canadians get the support they deserve.

178 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Nov/1/22 11:55:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is doing a fantastic job on government operations, looking for accountability and holding the government accountable. What reflections does the member have on the importance of having a whistle-blower regime? With that, when public sector employees find waste or any kind of malfeasance, they would have the ability to step forward and be protected so that they would not have reprisals in their workplace.

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns

Nov/1/22 11:55:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this needs a deep dive, and it needs support from all parties. We need to work collectively on this. Right now, there have been 18 complaints out of 500 that have come through and made it to the commissioner to look at. Not one has made it to the tribunal. This is not okay. It is actually impossible to imagine that not one whistle-blower complaint would have gone through to the tribunal and been supported—

79 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/1/22 11:56:13 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

15 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Nov/1/22 11:56:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for New Brunswick Southwest. It is important that we are all able to speak to this important issue today and have as many voices as possible. Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis and the cause was made right here in Canada. The $54-million arrive scam is one of a litany of examples of how the cost of government is driving up the cost of living. The more the current Prime Minister spends, the more Canadians are finding things cost. We are seeing higher prices. Canadians are very concerned as they get that first fill-up of home heating fuel, propane or oil, or their first natural gas bill. When they look at that they see taxes on taxes. They see the carbon tax on there and they are concerned. What are these bills going to look like when they get a fuel delivery in January? What is the government doing to help control the expenses that Canadians have? Is it committed to cutting taxes? No, it is raising taxes. Is it committed to getting its spending under control. No, it is not. Is it being accountable for the spending that it has undertaken? That is what we are doing today. We want accountability. We want an audit. An audit is something the government should be able to vote in favour of. When we look at what was spent and look at the public accounts, 40% of the deficit spending the current government undertook was not related to the pandemic. It will say the Conservatives voted in favour of helping people who needed help during the pandemic. We are not talking about that spending. We are talking about the waste, the excess and the insider deals, and there was an awful lot of that. If we can believe it, when we read the public accounts that were published last week, every single minute of last year the government incurred more than $170,000 of new debt. That is staggering. If two income earners in a family were each making $40,000 to provide a living for their family, they could not put a dent in one minute of the debt the current government racked up that year. It is unbelievable. Because of that, Canadians are going to pay higher prices for everything. We know they are paying higher prices for their homes. We know they are now going to pay higher prices for their mortgages, on the interest they pay, as well as on credit cards and lines of credit. We know that rent is going up to $2,600 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver and to $2,300 a month for the same in Toronto. It is more important than ever that Canadians extract accountability from their government. For it to spend $54 million on this failed app is an egregious number, but I fear the number is much higher. We are hoping to find that out. It does not even know where all of that $54 million went. When members of the House asked the government for information, it came back and listed some of the contractors. However, there are tens of millions of dollars in subcontracts for which it is not willing to say who did the work or what work was done. Of the ones we do know, and the list was short, it claimed that it paid $1.2 million to a company that claims it did not do any of the work, nor did it get a penny for it. The government said that it was a mistake and that it was actually someone else. It is bizarre the government was so quickly able to say it made a mistake but did not know where the money actually went. When we are dealing in millions of Canadians' dollars, it is really important to know where we are sending the cheques. When it came to the support measures some Canadians needed, it was less careful. It sent cheques to prisoners, an an example, people convicted of crimes, and to people who did not need the help and who were gainfully employed, making great salaries with great benefits and great pensions. One needs to wonder why the Liberals were so cavalier with these particular millions. Did they go to someone with an inside connection? We have seen before that folks who appear on the Liberal list end up getting cushy order in council appointments and fat government contracts. I will remind the House of course that we saw a half-billion dollars try to get shovelled out the door to the Prime Minister's buddy at the WE organization, but Conservatives caught it. We saw when the Prime Minister was found to have broken ethics laws. He was happy to take a vacation to billionaire island, but we caught him. It is really about accountability. We found, through the work of members here and a referral to the Ethics Commissioner, that the Prime Minister had inappropriately interfered in the criminal prosecution of his buddies at SNC-Lavalin. This is another company that does quite well under the Liberals. Recently, while Canadians are facing this cost of living crisis, there is scrutiny about this $54-million boondoggle. I have talked to, face to face, dozens of CBSA officers, who signed up to protect our country and our borders and to interdict weapons smuggling, drugs and human trafficking, and they are getting asked to be IT support for an app that does not work. They did not find it enhanced their ability to keep Canadians safe. It slowed the lines down. It slowed the movement of people. They can look at a certificate. If the government demanded proof of vaccination, if that was its decision, misguided as it may have been, it could have done that and those customs officers could have verified those documents the same way they verify a passport, without a $54-million boondoggle with all kinds of pork to Liberal insiders. While that is going on, the Prime Minister jet-sets on one of his many travels and does it in style, of course, with a private taxpayer-funded jet and stays at the finest hotels and charges it to the taxpayer. One thinks he had to go to London and it was important he was there. What does one think a hotel room, one room, should cost for a night for a prime minister?

1088 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 122