44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 27, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/27/24 11:46:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, we do agree because we want to get to the bottom of the matter.
A committee could look at everything that has been done with large companies, but the members would drown in the sea of hundreds of thousands of pages of contracts that we do not necessarily have the training to understand. We need to call for a public inquiry. We need outside people who are trained to do this kind of work to come in and get to the bottom of the story.
As I mentioned, and as my colleague said, ArriveCAN is just the tip of the iceberg. We do not know where taxpayers' money is going, and that is shameful.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:33:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to remember that the Auditor General stated in her report that this was the worst she had ever seen when it came to glaring mismanagement, the lack of documentation and, ultimately, undermining value for money for Canadians.
I sat in on all the meetings on the study on ArriveCAN. It has been extremely difficult to get access to documents. This is something the Conservatives are committed to doing, which is why we have put forward this opposition day motion.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:49:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, a few days ago, the Conservative leader mentioned that the Bloc and the NDP voted with the federal government to support ArriveCAN.
Mr. Luc Thériault: Why did you not denounce it?
Mr. John Williamson: For three years now, we have been saying—
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:50:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I said myself three years ago that we needed to put an end to ArriveCAN and that it did not make sense. Now we are seeing that it was very costly.
It is not up to me to explain how the Bloc Québécois, the NPD or the Liberal Party votes. We are going to ask why they voted to support this program.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I pointed out, and will reinforce, that three standing committees have been looking at the ArriveCAN issue. Different internal departments have been looking at it from day one when it was first discovered. There are also at least two, going on three, independent offices of Parliament that investigated it and provided reports. They are looking into the matter on an ongoing basis. The House is deeply engaged on the issue, and we, like me and the member opposite, want answers and will continue to push for answers until we ultimately get the answers we are looking for.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:53:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
As members of the House, we share a profound duty to ensure that public funds are used effectively and for the public good. This principle is paramount, especially in times of crisis, when swift action is necessary and resources are stretched thin. The COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges requiring urgent and innovative responses. Among them was the development of the ArriveCAN app, a tool swiftly implemented to manage the risks associated with international travel during the pandemic.
It is crucial to recognize the context in which ArriveCAN was developed. It was a period marked by uncertainty and the urgent need to protect public health. ArriveCAN was instrumental in mitigating the spread of the virus by international travel. By simplifying the submission of travel and health information for individuals entering Canada, it made a substantial contribution to our efforts to manage the pandemic effectively.
Drawing from my background in IT consultancy and project management, I aim to provide a nuanced perspective on ArriveCAN, which may not have been shared in the House as of yet. I will focus on three aspects: the development process, cost avoidance and its true valuation.
I will start with the development process. In addressing the development cycle of ArriveCAN, it is important to highlight the extraordinary circumstances under which the application was developed. Traditionally, a development life cycle spans several sequential phases over approximately nine months to a year. These sequential phases are complete business requirements, looking at scope finalization, solution design and solution development, doing testing and piloting, and rolling out and supporting. The total requirements were 177 different functionalities that the app had to do.
However, given the urgent demand created by the pandemic, we shifted to a rapid, agile methodology, progressing on a requirement-by-requirement basis. As the requirements kept evolving and the number of stakeholders, such as the provinces, PHAC, the World Health Organization, security and data protection put extra requirements on how this application was evolving, this approach allowed us to dynamically integrate new requirements as they emerged, ensuring the app was continually updated and adapted to respond to the evolving pandemic situation. This agile development strategy not only expedited the app's rollout but also ensured its flexibility and responsiveness to public needs. This type of development, by virtue of the fact that requirements come at different stages rather than all being identified up front, leads to an increased cost of development.
I do not want to justify the $60 million, because I think there is a lot of room for improvement on that. Nevertheless, through our discussions and the examination by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, it has become evident that there are concerns regarding the financial management and procurement processes of the ArriveCAN app. While these concerns are valid and demand our attention, it is essential to contextualize the financial aspects of the app within the broader scope of pandemic management and the digital transformation.
It is also crucial to discuss the cost savings or cost avoidance facilitated by ArriveCAN. Replacing the traditional paper-based system, the app presented a significant advantage in terms of cost-efficiency. The estimated cost of processing each paper transaction was $3 per transaction. Taking into account that this app was used over 60 million times, this would total anywhere from $120 million to about $180 million in potential cost savings.
If we look at even the lower end, the $120 million, that is twice the amount that was spent on ArriveCAN. This figure underscores the financial prudence of the ArriveCAN project, highlighting how technical innovation can lead to substantial savings in public expenditures, especially in a time of crisis.
Lastly, on the topic of valuation, it is essential to differentiate between the cost of developing an app and its market value. If we consider an e-commerce application with 18 million users and 60 million transactions, facilitating billions of dollars in monetary transactions, I would ask any member of this House what its valuation would be.
683 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:22:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have been saying for several weeks that the RCMP is looking into ArriveCAN. This is largely because senior CBSA officials sent documents to the RCMP and asked the RCMP to look into the matter.
There are several investigations under way. We will continue to be available and to give these authorities all the documents and information they need.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:23:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be impressed with some information that has been known in the public space for many weeks.
The RCMP have confirmed, previously, that they are looking into the circumstances around ArriveCAN. We have total confidence in the RCMP to do this important work.
I will remind the Leader of the Opposition that the president of the Canada Border Services Agency referred these questions, proactively, to the RCMP. We will continue to do whatever we need to do to co-operate with the national police force and every other ongoing investigation.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:49:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not only will the government co-operate with the RCMP at every occasion, but it was also the government that referred a number of these cases to the RCMP. My friend has just realized what the RCMP confirmed some weeks ago, which is that it is looking into the issue of ArriveCAN.
Our government thinks it is important that the Auditor General's report be followed carefully, and we think it is important for parliamentary committees and other investigations to determine the facts of the issue before we throw mud around the House of Commons.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 3:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the whole ArriveCAN affair is completely unacceptable, and that is why the work and the investigations continue.
As for tax havens, of course, they are equally unacceptable. I can assure the House that we have a competent team that is well equipped to carry out the necessary investigations on any file whenever there is any doubt.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 3:32:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize what I talked about during the first minutes of my speech.
I talked about the fact that the ArriveCAN application could not have been developed for $80,000, but it should not have cost $60 million either. We talked about the paper cost of this application. Had we processed 60 million transactions, it would have cost $180 million. We talked about the valuation of an application as such. If it were an e-commerce application, transactions at the transactional level, it would have been hundreds of millions of dollars.
This perspective is vital in understanding the true value of ArriveCAN. The app's development cost, while substantial, represented just one aspect of its overall contributions. The efficiency, safety and economic benefits it delivered during a critical time offers a more comprehensive picture of its value to Canada and its citizens.
Our commitment to rectifying the identified shortcomings in the ArriveCAN project extend beyond mere acknowledgement. The departments are actively implementing measures to enhance the procurement and project management practices to prevent such discrepancies in the future. These efforts are crucial in restoring public trust and ensuring that taxpayer funds are utilized effectively and responsibly.
We recognize that there is more work to be done. The journey toward improving our procurement processes and ensuring the efficient use of public funds is ongoing. However, it is important for Canadians to know that these steps toward corrective action are not merely planned; they are already in motion.
As we move forward, we will continue to support the ongoing work of investigators and auditors. We welcome their recommendations and are committed to implementing them to strengthen our procurement practices further. The Government of Canada remains resolute in its pledge to uphold the principles of accountability, transparency, process integrity and value for money in all its endeavours.
Let me reiterate our unwavering dedication to learning from the ArriveCAN experience. Our goal is to ensure that our responses to any challenges are both effective and aligned with the prudent management of public resources.
342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 3:50:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It always seems as though I am rising when my friend and colleague is speaking.
One of the things that really strikes me about the ArriveCAN app and all that has gone wrong is that the Liberals seem to be saying there is nothing to see here as they have done absolutely everything, yet the key thing they did was the doubling of outsourcing. The second thing is that the Liberals have failed to spot this. There should have been a glaring red light saying stop and yet here we are today with this motion.
First, will he be supporting our motion? Second, how can we trust the Liberal government in light of those things?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:23:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and since October 2022 we have been studying the issue of ArriveCAN, with its tens of thousands of pages to read. It is fascinating.
A notice of motion was introduced about Coredal Systems Consulting, which had the same owners as GC Strategies. I wonder how many other businesses we should be looking into.
Does my colleague think that the system that was exposed through ArriveCAN might be even bigger and more widespread than we might think?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:26:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. It will be my pleasure to share my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.
I have some prepared remarks, but first I want to provide a bit of context for those who might be listening. I want to go into a few details about the motion that is before us today. In terms of context, we are going to be talking about the ArriveCAN app. For members of the public who might have forgotten, the ArriveCAN app was a key tool in protecting Canadians during the pandemic as we went travelling.
As we have come out of the pandemic, sometimes I think we have forgotten how intense a time it was and how historic a time it was. Literally, the world shut down on March 15, 2020. Professor Adam Tooze, Columbia University, wrote a book called Shutdown. He said that the first half of 2020 was historic; 95% of the world's economies suffered a simultaneous contraction. He said that had never happened before. Three billion adults were furloughed from their jobs or tried to work from home, and that had also never happened before. The sum of lost earnings just in the first months of the pandemic was $10 trillion U.S., more than a tenth of the global GDP.
The global economy was shut down, and the Canadian government was trying to grapple with what COVID-19 was, how we were going to keep Canadians safe, how we were going to ensure that people would be able to pay their bills, how we could protect Canadians, and how we could help our small and large businesses, our societies and our cities. That is what we were consumed with at the time.
People will recall that we were moving quickly and making lots of decisions, because we had to move quickly. The regular processes we had in place were not followed all of the time. A lot of the decisions around the ArriveCAN app happened during this time. It is important for us to remember that context.
The motion before us is an opposition day motion. Basically, it is asking for a lot of documentation around the ArriveCAN app to be tabled here in the House of Commons, in terms of the decision-making. There is also a portion about recouping all of the funds that were paid to develop the ArriveCAN app.
I will not be supporting the motion. The reason for that is that there are already a number of independent investigations under way right now, and we have to allow time for those investigations to be completed. They are being done by outstanding, independent organizations. Also, we have already heard from the Auditor General, and there are already a number of steps being taken. I believe there are some recommendations from the procurement ombud. I will go through a couple of those items right now.
CBSA has committed to implementing every recommendation set out by the Auditor General's report, as well as by the similar report by the procurement ombud. In addition to all of these independent reports, CBSA is also conducting an internal audit to assess the procurement practices. Where specific allegations of misconduct have been made, CBSA has launched an investigation that is still in process and has referred all allegations to the RCMP. A lot of work is under way. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is also looking into it. It is right for all of these investigations to be under way, particularly when there are concerns about anything that we are doing from a procurement perspective.
I am now going to move into my prepared remarks on government procurement.
The federal government is committed to ensuring that the procurement of goods and services is done in a fair, open and transparent manner, and, crucially, in accordance with policies, regulations, guidelines, trade agreements and procedures. Legislation, including the Financial Administration Act, along with Treasury Board policies, establishes clear requirements for the administration of government, including for contracting activities.
The Financial Administration Act sets out the requirements needed when the government is making public disbursements, which include contracts. For example, section 32 requires that funds be available before entering into a contract. Section 33 deals with ensuring that payments are lawful charges against the appropriation and that the appropriation is not exceeded.
The Treasury Board Secretariat, through the office of the comptroller general, provides government-wide direction to support the implementation of mandatory Treasury Board policies related to financial management and the management of assets and acquired services. The Treasury Board sets the administrative policies for federal procurement, guided by the principles of fairness, openness, transparency, competition, and integrity, all while ensuring best value.
For example, its directive on the management of procurement lays out the expectations and requirements that departments and agencies must follow so their procurements are managed in a way that supports the delivery of programs and services to Canadians. It is also managed in a way that will demonstrate the best value and in a way that is consistent with the Government of Canada's socio-economic and environmental objectives. This framework supports the management of procurement so it is fair, open and transparent.
There are also clearly defined responsibilities for government departments when conducting procurements, including those for services. First and foremost, government departments and agencies are expected to maintain the integrity of the procurement process and protect government spending from fraud and unethical business practices. This is done through internal processes and controls and through dedicated procurement professionals and effective mechanisms for the disclosure of any wrongdoing.
Second, government departments and agencies are responsible for clearly defining the intended outcomes of a procurement, including operational requirements, expected benefits and how those outcomes align with the government's strategic direction and total costs over the life cycle.
The Government of Canada has clear rules and controls in place to ensure contracting is done in an ethical manner and upholds the values and ethics of the public service. In the public service, like elsewhere in society, when governing rules are broken, there are consequences and corrective measures are taken. Just as getting best value is built into the contracting procedures, so is accountability for the spending of public money. For instance, all proposals are required to be reviewed through a conflict of interest lens and evaluators are required to recuse themselves for real or possible conflicts.
There is also the code of conduct for procurement, which sets out clear expectations for vendors and their subcontractors in the areas of human rights, labour standards, conflict of interest and environmental responsibility. That means the government is committed to upholding and promoting the high standards and values Canadians expect, and the same is expected from vendors and their subcontractors.
I would also remind the House that the government's integrity regime serves to hold suppliers accountable for misconduct. The integrity regime helps foster ethical business practices, ensures due process and upholds the public trust. Public trust is gained through transparency. That is why government contracts over $10,000 are publicly disclosed on the open government portal, so Canadians are better able to hold the government and public sector officials accountable. The name of the company, the value of the contract and a description of the work are all publicly available.
In conclusion, I want to assure everyone in the House, and indeed across Canada, that the government takes all concerns regarding contracting and consultants seriously. The Government of Canada has a strong framework of rules to direct how procurements need to be conducted, and it is constantly looking at strengthening and clarifying those rules. It also offers guidance and training to employees to ensure they know, understand and obey these rules.
I talked about trust earlier, and that is certainly the foundation of any public institution. It is crucial for Canadians to trust their public institutions. It is also vital for them to trust the employees who support those institutions. Furthermore, it is essential they trust that any procurement conducted on their behalf is done ethically, fairly, openly and transparently. Upholding that trust is vital to any public institution in this country.
The federal government is committed to ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly in a way that provides value for Canadians, and it will continue to advance the priorities of Canadians.
1415 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:55:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, working with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, commonly called the mighty OGGO, is a pleasure.
We have ArriveCAN, where there seems to have been some slip-up. I understand that the situation required fast action, but at some point, the slip-ups keep happening. We have ArriveCAN. Before that it was passports. Before that it was the WE Charity. Before that, it keeps going, it was Phoenix. The reason is always the same: We have to move fast, we have to work, we have to get going.
At some point, do we not need to stop, look around, shift the focus to people's qualifications and put down the rubber stamp?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:59:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from OGGO, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I think if we have three OGGOs in a row we will have an OGGO hat trick.
I rise to speak on ArriveCAN. As it has consumed my life for the last year, why not continue to speak about it today on our opposition day motion?
ArriveCAN to me seems to be a symbol of our government's inability to do procurement right and how the procurement practices of the government have descended into chaos. ArriveCAN we know is a hot mess. We have heard of tens of thousands of emails having been deleted and records lost or perhaps not even kept in the first place. We do not know the final cost of ArriveCAN and there are too many opinions out there as to what it actually cost, whether it was $80,000, $6 million, $60 million or, as the Auditor General has said, we do not have the records to actually say what the final cost is.
We have heard of many updates to the program. There were 177. At the same time, we have also heard from the Auditor General and PHAC that the updates were not tested before being rolled out to the public. Of course, we heard of the 10,000 people who were sent into quarantine in error because it apparently was not tested. Whatever the cost was, $6 million, $60 million, one would think it would have been tested. At the same time, we also heard from bureaucrats in the CBSA who said that everything was tested, so we have a problem here. We cannot get a straight answer on what went on with ArriveCAN.
I will note that the head of PHAC, when asked about the testing, commented that it was too busy to test it. I can see Air Canada doing that without testing, but can members imagine any other company coming out with an important update that affects the lives of people without testing it? Apparently, the government did not. Again, the problem is that we have not received a straight answer.
Getting back to the ArriveCAN set-up, we heard that there were 177 updates. We knew things were changing during the pandemic, but we did not have 177 changes to help people who were coming across the borders, or 177 different ways to identify whether they had been vaccinated or not. It seems to be that the problem was with the procurement process for all of these changes, each one costing more money, willy-nilly done by PHAC or an order in council from the government without any thought to the consequences.
As I mentioned in a previous question to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for public works, we heard the procurement ombudsman talk about bait and switch. If people want to know what bait and switch is, the easiest way for me to explain it is this. Basically, companies promise a higher level of services to the government and then substitute a lower level. Perhaps it would be like someone going to a speaker's service to hire a speaker for an event. The service promises to have the Leader of the Opposition come and therefore will charge a certain amount, but perhaps the member for Edmonton West shows up. Even if the speech is not as good, the client would still have to pay the full amount. That is what is happening and the procurement ombudsman has stated that this bait and switch program is systemic throughout the government.
We also heard how it started as a program within the Public Health Agency of Canada and then transferred over eventually to the CBSA. The program transferred over the work, but it did not seem to transfer over the accountability. All we get is finger-pointing. We have seen people blaming GC Strategies for bidding on and receiving the work. We have blamed Dalian and Coradix for getting the work. When I say “we”, I mean the system, the government. We have blamed directors general within the CBSA saying that they were responsible for procurement even though that was not their role, and that they were responsible for the contracts even though it is the chief financial officers who signed. We heard today that the system is to blame.
Do members know that we have not heard from the government who is to blame. What about the ministers? I have to ask: Where was the Minister of Health in all of this when PHAC was spinning out of control and flashing money at the system without any thought to the taxpayers?
Where was the Minister of Public Safety when all these problems were going on with CBSA? Where was the Treasury Board president when, through the supplementary estimates process, money was added? The Treasury Board would have had to approve that submission to begin with. Where was the Treasury Board president to ask where the government was to take responsibility, instead of blaming the contractors or the people within the public service?
I want to read a quote from pm.gc.ca, PM meaning the Prime Minister. This is from the website:
Open and Accountable Government sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada’s system of responsible...government. This includes the central tenet of ministerial responsibility...individual and collective....
This is right from the Prime Minister's website. Anyone can google it right now. It is about ministerial responsibility, yet we have none with this. We have $60 million, perhaps more, perhaps less, spent without a single minister asking once why we were spending so much money, or why we were not testing this program. We should have had several ministers step up when 10,000 Canadians were sent into quarantine in error. They should have followed up and asked why we were not testing it before it was rolled out. Not a single minister stepped up and apologized. Instead, we have public servants being scapegoated, contractors being blamed and a system being blamed, but there is nothing from the ministers.
We also heard how PSPC, in its role as procurement officers for the country, pushed back against CBSA for some excessive things in this program. When CBSA thanked them for the advice but still went ahead with that misguided process, PSPC just shrugged and said that it was nice and that it did its part. Doing its part by simply saying it does not like something and walking away shows that PSPC is not taking its role seriously.
This brings me back to a similar issue with CBSA and PSPC a couple of years ago with the Nuctech scandal. Nuctech is basically the Chinese screening version of Huawei. Worldwide, it provides screeners controlled by the PRC, and CBSA decided it was going to put those machines in every single one of our embassies around the entire country. They are machines that, once they had screened people, would send that information to the Chinese government.
PSPC actually stepped in and said that it was a security concern and that it should not be done. CBSA plowed ahead and did it anyway. Again, we have to ask PSPC what its purpose was if it was not going to stop them and enforce these rules. Funny enough, when it came up at OGGO, when we stepped in and brought this to light, the government's response was to hire Deloitte to do a contract to study the Nuctech issue.
There was $250,000 outsourced to a management contractor, and it came up with a 24-page fluff report basically stating not to buy sensitive security tech equipment from despotic regimes. Thank heaven for Deloitte, and thank heaven for that $250,000. Think of how many contracts could have gone to Putin or to Kim Jong-un without the Liberals' and Deloitte's $250,000 to say not to buy sensitive security equipment from despotic regimes.
It is clear that the Liberal government does not care about taxpayers' money. It is clear that PSPC, CBSA and the ministers are not doing their jobs to follow the rules, to protect taxpayers' money, to ensure that the rules are followed and that we actually have value for money.
The Conservative government will fix this. We will ensure the rules are followed. We will axe the tax. We will build homes. We will fix the budget. We will stop crime. We will fix procurement in this country.
1434 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 5:11:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the ArriveCAN situation is a disaster.
In my colleague's opinion, rather than blaming the system, should the government not be questioning whether it is itself responsible or even incompetent?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
