Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)), Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I trust everyone had a very happy Thanksgiving.

The committee is meeting to discuss—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Yes, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

On the original audio, we're getting the French translation coming in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I thought you were worried about my Thanksgiving wishes.

Hang on a second, please. We'll look at this.

I'm told that we'll correct this. I'm going to ask for a temporary suspension until we correct the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I call the meeting back to order. Thank you to the technicians for quickly and astutely getting this straightened out.

As I've indicated, this is meeting number 33 of the standing committee. We're meeting here to discuss a request by four members to undertake a study of the development cost of the ArriveCAN app. This discussion will be in public. In the second part of the meeting, the committee will meet in camera to discuss committee business.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Regarding the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to make sure we maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether participating virtually or in person.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

With that said, we had a request last week pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). I will now turn the floor over to Mr. McCauley, who gave the notice of motion on Friday on this subject, to move his motion.

Mr. McCauley, go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to read the motion that we put on notice. It says that the committee undertake a study of the development of the ArriveCAN app, with a focus on the costs to develop and launch the app; that the committee dedicate a minimum of six meetings to the study; that the committee produce a report and report its findings to the House; that the committee send for all documents related to the planning, contracting and subcontracting of the app development....

I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

There were certain revisions. I think what you may be reading is an earlier version than the one that was actually put on notice.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think it's the most recent one I have.

[The Clerk]

I mention that simply because the version that had gone out to the committee members mentioned that the documents were to be in an unredacted format.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Forgive me. I'm reading off the wrong form. I'll start again. I apologize. I'm new at this. It has only been seven years on this committee.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the development of the ArriveCAN app, with a focus on the costs to develop and launch the app; that the committee dedicate a minimum of six meetings to the study; that the committee report its findings to the House;

that the committee send for, in an unredacted format, all documents related to the planning, contracting and sub-contracting of the app development and launch, including all requests for proposals (RFPs), all documentation related to the contractors and sub-contractors, that the committee send for a breakdown of the costs incurred by GC Strategies for the ArriveCAN app, and a list of all contractors and sub-contractors involved in the development and launch of the app;

that these documents be provided to the clerk of the committee in electronic format no later than noon on the 10th business day following the adoption of this motion; that federal departments be required to submit documents in both official languages; that the clerk of the committee be instructed to transmit all documents received to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel (OLCPC) and that the OLCPC be asked to make redactions that pertain to personal information and that the clerk of the committee publish the documents redacted by the OLCPC on the committee's website;

that the committee invite the following witnesses, in addition to any further witnesses the committee may consider relevant to appear: Minister Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister Patty Hajdu, Minister Marco Mendicino, Minister Bill Blair, Minister Helena Jaczek, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Public Safety Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, GC Strategies, Richard Hyatt, Founding Partner and Fellow at the Rotman School of Management's Creative Destruction Lab, Zain Manji, Lazer Technologies, TribalScale, Fahd Ananta, Roach Capital, Gautam Lohia, Apply Digital CEO, Nick Van Weerdenburg, Rangle CEO;

that if departmental officials appear alongside a minister, that they would also be required to appear on a second panel separate from the Minister; and, that these meetings be televised if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

Is there anything further?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think it's important, considering the massive costs of this program and the controversy around ArriveCAN.

The massive cost is $54 million. We've seen that a couple of tech companies have stepped up and recreated the app for what they said would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not $54 million. They would do it over a weekend.

It also goes into some of the further studies we're looking at on outsourcing government contracts.

Canadians are appalled that in Edmonton we have veterans on the streets having to go to food banks, yet somehow there's $54 million for an app that the experts are saying could have been done for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's very important that we see how this debacle—for lack of a better word—has happened, how a company with almost no employees received such a large contract and was allowed to subcontract out so many times to so many different companies, how the process happened, and how the costs overran so much. Also, who authorized the continuing cost increases for this app? Canadians deserve to know how the government is spending its hard-earned tax money, and why $54 million.

This reminds me of a book I am reading now called Victory on the Potomac. It's about U.S. defence reform. It talks about $650 hammers and $1,000 toilet seats. This reminds me of that issue. Canadians deserve to get to the bottom of it.

I hope the rest of the committee will support this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I see that Mr. Housefather's hand is up. I'm assuming he wants to add to the debate, as opposed to dealing with translation issues.

Mr. Housefather, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's correct. This time the translation is not going over the original audio, so I was able to hear everything my colleague Mr. McCauley said.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to move an amendment to Mr. McCauley's motion, and then I'm going to speak to the amendment.

I propose to amend the motion:

1. That the first paragraph of the motion be modified by changing the word “six” in the third line to “two” and deleting all words in the third line following the word “study”;

2. That the second, third and fifth paragraphs of the motion be deleted;

3. That the fourth paragraph of the motion be modified by replacing the paragraph with the following:

That the committee invite the following witnesses:

Public Services and Procurement Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada

Public Safety Canada

Canada Border Services Agency.

That after hearing from these witnesses the committee will determine whether other further meetings are required and the witnesses the committee considers relevant to appear.

Mr. Chair, I have provided the amendment to the clerk in both official languages.

As soon as you're ready, Mr. Clerk, I'm happy to speak to my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

To all members, that amendment has been sent out to you at this point in time. Mr. Housefather, just give us a second to get that information out and then I will ask you to comment on it.

I'm assuming everyone has received the amendment. We are now discussing the amendment as proposed by Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by saying that I do believe the committee should look into ArriveCAN because of all the publicity that's come out over the last week.

I don't agree that we need to consider what may be a molehill a mountain and start with six meetings, and drag in five ministers and all of the people who were involved in the disruption contest to try to recreate the app, when that has literally nothing to do with the creation of a complex and secure app.

I think the right way to go about this—because we have to take very seriously Canadians' concerns about what is alleged to be a high cost—is to bring in the four departments that are involved. These four departments can provide their understanding of what happened, the contracts and whether or not the costs were what they are being speculated to have been. Then the committee can decide, once we've heard from the people who were actually involved in these contracts, whether or not we wish to go further and ask for documents to be produced and other witnesses to appear.

Obviously, many people out there don't feel that those who created an app over a weekend were doing something that is consistent with developing this type of an app that the government had millions of people use. So now we want to hear from those people who don't agree. This is really a group of people.... It is on their wish list to hear that the app was too costly.

I don't believe that's a fair way to begin, but I am willing, after two meetings and after we've heard from the departments, to go further if that is what the committee is willing to do because the departments have been unable to satisfy us with what they have come forward with.

I do want to say, though, based on what I've already undertaken to do since I first heard these costs, that I come from this industry. I want to look at what I already know to be misleading information related to the numbers Mr. McCauley cited. Whether the number is $54 million or $52 million, which has been cited, one thing is clear: $25.377 million, or $25,377,165 that is being included in this figure, comes from a competitive contract that was awarded earlier this year, on May 16, 2022. The requirements were for the services of a contractor to maintain and support various CBSA applications, which would include ArriveCAN but also many other IM/IT applications.

This contract was awarded more than two years after ArriveCAN went live. This contract covers many different CBSA services, not just ArriveCAN. Yet somehow this $25.3 million is being lumped into the cost of the development of ArriveCAN. So right away we can see that the number being used is clearly incorrect and highly inaccurate.

What we seem to have found is that the cost to develop the first version of ArriveCAN was approximately $80,000. Subsequently, there were more than 70 updates done to ArriveCAN. The 70 updates were done because, at various times over a two-year period, the regulations changed and travel was different, so ArriveCAN had to be adapted. Those 70 updates over the two-year period cost a total of $8.8 million.

So if you're looking at the cost of development of ArriveCAN, as opposed to multiple other direct and indirect costs of different things—for example, different apps that Public Safety has out there; telephone support lines that handle calls for Canadians seeking help with this app and other apps; the support for accessibility requirements for those with disabilities, meant to enable people who are visually impaired to use the app; the necessary level of security when dealing with a program that handles Canadians' personal information and touches on border security; costs associated with coordinating with provinces, territories and other countries to verify that the provided proof of vaccination was authentic; indirect support, maintenance and upgrades of this and other apps....

All of these numbers are being thrown in and out all together. They don't relate to the costs of the development of the app, which to the best of my understanding at this point, if you're looking at direct costs, was $80,000 for the first version that was launched. It was $8.8 million for the 70 subsequent updates.

I want to say that the officials we would bring in would be much better placed to deal with this than I am. It is important to hear from them, so that they can answer the committee's questions—and I'm sure they will be tough—and Canadians' questions as to the direct and indirect costs of the app.

I do have to say, Mr. Chair, that one thing we need to be careful about, again, is not creating mountains out of molehills or mountains out of hills. At this point, we don't have the necessary information to throw out the numbers that are being thrown out. To the best understanding that I have at this point, they are inaccurate.

I also want to talk about the issue—because I do come from this industry—of a primary contractor versus subcontractors. In this case, there was one primary contractor. The Government of Canada engaged one company to do this work. That company subsequently won the competitive contract that was awarded earlier this year for the $25.3 million that I mentioned, which related to going-forward support and maintenance for this app and many other Public Safety apps. That primary contractor cannot be conflated with the specialized people it used to develop the app.

We contracted with one party. Many companies in this industry don't just keep employees forever. They have certain work that rolls in at certain times. They have a small number of employees who go out and seek work and manage the work, but then they handle specialized subcontractors, usually individuals who are hired to work on the projects that they secure. They go and get the people who better understand the area of the app they're asked to roll out.

For example, here, privacy and international privacy law would be very important to understand because you're getting vaccination proof from many different countries. You need specialists to write the documentation and specialists to link this to the back office of the CBSA for security. You need usability for our people, to be able to have millions of people on different iOSs using the app on different platforms.

Here we had one company that hired 23 people as subcontractors to help it deal on its contract with the Government of Canada. That is not unusual in this industry. Anybody who's involved in this industry will tell you that this is very common. I wanted to deal with that misconception, Mr. Chair.

Finally, I also want to deal with a third misconception, which is that you can create an app over the course of a weekend that is identical to an app that people are creating, like ArriveCAN, which has serious back-office requirements, like password lookup, passport deals and airline flight timetables across borders and jurisdictions.

When you're dealing with an app like this, you have training, documentation and a requirement for language—not just translation, but finely checking the wording to make sure it complies with regulations. You have procurement and licensing. You have deployment. You have parallel development platforms for testing the next version. You have source code repositories. You have backups. You have physical alternatives if the digital one goes down. It has to work in many degraded conditions. You have to have user testing on a wide range of phones and system language settings. This includes testing scanners and the QR codes that you scan on arrival and long pauses while someone finds their flight number while in line.

This is not the same as just copying every interface and screen from the existing app or the navigation fields of every drop-down. It's an entirely different process, and anybody who is involved in the industry will tell you that this is sort of like you've built a house and you added on at some point, with the help of different architects, 70 different rooms, which are the updates to this app, and then you—multiple times—redesigned and rewired the house, and then somebody comes and takes a picture of the house. That's sort of what the hackathon could be compared to, and it's not fair to compare an apple to an orange.

Mr. Chair, just based on what I understand related to how this works, my recommendation again is, let's call in the departments. Let's have the experts from the departments in two meetings—from all four departments—explain to us exactly what they did, exactly how they contracted and exactly what costs are directly related to the development of the app and which are indirect or not associated with the app.

Then, the committee can, at its discretion, based on what we've heard, determine whether further meetings are required, whom we need to hear from and what documents we need to get, but let's do it with the full and clear understanding of what actually happened, versus lots of hypotheses, lots of speculation and lots of numbers being floated around that do not seem to me to be accurate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. I appreciate that.

Again, just for clarification so that everyone is aware, we are debating the amendment at this point in time.

I have Mr. Genuis first, and then I have Mrs. Vignola.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll just be 90 seconds on this. I think we need to get to a conclusion on it.

I will say that I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Housefather. I would have more sympathy for his arguments if the Cadillac price had gotten a Cadillac product.

I think it's pretty clear from what we're hearing from constituents that the performance of the app was disastrous, and that, for me, is an important factor to take into consideration. People who should not have been told to quarantine were told to quarantine, and then were in this weird limbo of having done everything right but being ordered by a glitch in a piece of technology that was extremely expensive.... The price should be commensurate with the quality. For me, that's an important factor.

I would also say that the motion my colleague put forward initially sought to recognize two important principles. One is ministerial accountability for the actions of their departments, and the other is the value of hearing from outside expertise. I agree with the principle that we should hear both sides on this subject. One side is outside expertise that may be critical of the actions of the government, and the other side is that of ministers accounting for the decisions of the government. To call not ministers but public servants, and not to call outside experts, means that we are respecting neither of these principles, that we're not hearing both sides and that we're not able to ask questions of those who are ultimately accountable for those decisions.

I think this amendment misses the opportunity to hear from external experts, who are supposed to be more neutral on the question, and it gives a pass to ministers, who should be accountable for the decisions they are accountable for.

On that basis, I don't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Next is Mrs. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Always with a view to reaching consensus between all parties and reconciling each party's vision, so as to remove politics and partisanship, I agree to a minimum of two meetings to start.

I would suggest meeting next with senior officials from the Department of Public Services and Procurement, the Public Health Agency, the Department of Public Safety and the Border Services Agency. I would add to the list Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony of GC Strategies. If possible, I would like us to request a list of contractors and subcontractors, the list of requests for proposals, the unredacted breakdown of expenditures, with supporting invoices and a list of actual contracts.

I believe that's a happy medium between what was originally requested and the amendment that was proposed. We could agree on those aspects, which I have in writing and can send to the clerk so that he can word them appropriately. That's what I propose, without much ado. It's important to know what it's about.

I always base the questions I ask witnesses on documents that we have received, to keep the questions fair and relevant and get the facts right. Call me a doubting Thomas if you will, but I do like to get a visual aid so I can have a complete record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola. Are you proposing an amendment to the amendment? If you have it in writing, we can give it to the clerk. Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, it's not really a subamendment. She's making some proposals to your amendment. I'm going to ask the clerk to read that out to you, so we can see if you're comfortable accepting it as your amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Vignola moved to keep the two meetings and four witnesses listed in Mr. Housefather's amendment, but to add the two witnesses from GC Strategies. She would like to see the committee require production of the list of contractors and subcontractors, the breakdown of expenditures, the list of contracts, the requests for proposals and all invoices.

I move that the deadline for obtaining these documents be established. Would it be the one in the original motion?

I therefore ask Mrs. Vignola what deadline she would like to set for submitting the documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mrs. Vignola, the question is about the deadline. Is the proposal that you have similar to what was in the original motion, or do you have a different time frame? Is it still noon on the 10th business day?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I tend to agree with the 10th business day deadline.