Evidence of meeting #105 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you for that. I appreciate that explanation.
Mr. Utano, you just said something that piqued my interest. When you talk about curating a proposal, who is responsible for curating a proposal?
11:40 a.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
As far as roles and responsibilities go, I can tell you that as the acting DG or DG, we don't have the responsibility to write RFPs. We don't write RFPs. We don't do evaluations of submissions, and we don't select—
11:40 a.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
It's done in collaboration with the team. There would be technical authorities and others involved in that.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Can you tell me who was responsible for signing off on the second contract awarded to GC Strategies for ArriveCAN?
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Maybe I'll start with that.
GC Strategies met with the commercial branch and travellers branch—I wasn't part of it—and they did what they call a “technical bake-off”. There were two companies showcasing their technology. I believe the commercial branch chose GC Strategies and wrote a justification for a national security exemption. That justification went to the CFO, Jonathan Moor, who then wrote a letter to PSPC seeking approval for the national security exemption.
I provided this evidence to all committee members.
That letter actually states that they had a preferred vendor who had done work with Transport Canada, hence the commercial ties.
We took that on because we were the IT team, but the genesis of the second contract was additional scope to tie into ArriveCAN that came from the business line.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you.
Who was responsible for signing off on the third contract awarded to GC Strategies? As a follow-up, who would be responsible for documenting all of these contracts?
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
To try to answer your question as quickly as possible, the third contract was for accessibility. I believe it was also done under the national security exemption banner, which provided PSPC and the CBSA with availability to do a sole source.
The reason GC Strategies was chosen for the third contract was kind of like if you were adding scope to a kitchen renovation: You're not going to hire a net new contractor to come in, but you have to have a new contract for it. That's what PSPC said. The original two didn't have that in scope, so we needed a third contact.
I hope that answers your question.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
February 22nd, 2024 / 11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, thank you to both Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald for joining us here today.
Regarding the preliminary statement of fact, did you authorize your counsel to share the preliminary statement with any MPs prior to Mr. Lafleur's appearance?
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Not in full—no, sorry. Is that prior to Monsieur Lafleur's appearance the first time or the second time, sir?
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
I don't remember the date I received a copy of the preliminary statement of facts, to juxtapose it against Mr. Lafleur. Once I received the preliminary statement of facts, I made sure my counsel had it. In and around that time, I believe a committee member asked for information surrounding it. I know that both Mr. Utano and I said that it was acceptable, and we agreed that certain elements could be shared.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
When you appeared last, you told the committee that this started off as a replacement for pieces of paper that cost about three dollars each. When we think about the $40 million in transactions on ArriveCAN, I like to think of it as an overall cost saving for the Government of Canada. Do you still stand by that past statement?
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
I was surprised that the AG didn't have an element of that in her report.
I think all factors regarding the value of the app need to be considered. As I've said, GC Strategies brought in some really good consultants, and they did a good job of building the app while I was there.
The fact of the matter is, she did express that it was taking more than the quarantine time to get provinces the information. There was also a cost to doing that.
From my vantage point and having a background in understanding how to count, I would say there was definitely a cost avoidance. I can't say there was a cost savings, but had they stayed on paper, it certainly would have cost more than ArriveCAN did.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
From your testimony, you didn't have a model to follow when you built ArriveCAN. As you know, this software app is not what the government usually purchases, which is commercially off the shelf, readily available to industry. In those cases, IP ownership is retained by the developer, but in this case the IP is retained by the Government of Canada.
Does the rapid development and IP ownership represent value, in your eyes?
11:50 a.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
President O'Gorman came in and testified that they did not throw away non-recoverable engineering costs in developing it. They're using it today. They're processing 300,00 passengers per month. That's what I believe the testimony was.
The intellectual property belongs to the Government of Canada, and that was absolutely by design because we eventually want to get to the point where we—and when we say “we”, it's our staff—have the capabilities and ability to develop and work with this technology moving forward.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. MacDonald, I want to quickly go back just one more time to the preliminary statement of fact. When you found it acceptable to share it with members of the committee, which member did you share it with? Who reached out to you or your counsel? Was it our chair or...?
11:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
No. Mr. Brock reached out a couple of times and asked for information to have insight.
Maybe I'll just make sure the committee is aware that our door was open to anybody and it remains open, so if anybody would like to speak or know more about what's going on, I'm happy to and I think Mr. Utano is. Some of that information is very personal—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Can you please provide or share the timeline of when you received the request and from whom you received the request, from among members of this committee, and dates, if you can recall? Maybe share that in writing, please.
