Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.
I am grateful to finally have the opportunity to correct the mistakes, omissions and falsehoods that have been voiced at and by this committee, and in the newspapers, over the past number of weeks.
The first one is with respect to my summons. I readily accepted the committee's invitation to appear, as I did last year, when I was the first to show up and testified for over two hours. I told the committee that because of parenting responsibilities this week, I could be available for one hour, but the committee preferred the two hours I'd be available the following week. I was portrayed as a reluctant witness who was playing hard to get. This is actually far from the truth.
Without this opportunity to appear here today, GC Strategies would continue to be bound to the confidentiality agreement with Botler that was conveniently presented to me for signature right before it started feeding the media with information. It wasn't out of choice that GC Strategies remained silent after learning of the numerous allegations made by Botler, especially being on the other side with contradicting information.
I welcome the opportunity to again explain my business and the contracting processes for government departments that have existed for several decades. The system has outsourced many contracting functions to the private sector. I was not around when this practice was established, but presumably the belief was that a competitive private sector could operate better than an increased bureaucracy.
The system provides that only qualified private sector vendors can bid on and receive government contracts. Becoming a qualified private sector vendor is not easy or quick. Many checks for security and reliability are required. GC Strategies has been a qualified vendor since 2015. There are between 600-700 such qualified vendors in Canada, competing on a daily basis to provide services to government departments and agencies.
These vendors range from very large companies that do work in-house to smaller vendors, such as ours, that put teams together on a case-by-case basis. This competitive system forces qualified vendors to continually deliver quality services at competitive rates, or they would simply not be able to secure work.
Because we rely on teams on a case-by-case basis, it is imperative that we cultivate relationships with service providers and advance their interests. However, we also need to maintain connections with departments to understand their needs and understand where the market is heading.
That is my business, and I'm proud of it, as I'm sure all other vendors in Canada are proud of theirs. You may not like the system that is in place. You might think the government can do the job better itself. You may not respect our work, and that is your right.
I, like all people running a business, make mistakes. We try to learn from our mistakes, but, in all honesty, we'll likely make more. GC Strategies made a mistake by sending the wrong version of the resumé, which ended up being submitted to the Government of Canada for the task authorization; however, this regrettable mistake was not intentional, and it in no way determined the awarding of the contract.
In short, the CBSA had pre-qualified the owners of Botler to do the work, as they were the only two resources with knowledge of their software. Botler was approved before any resumé was submitted or a task authorization created. This is all relevant to the specific events surrounding Botler.
Botler was a client I recruited because I thought it could fill an important need for the government's compliance with Bill C-65. I thought its specific product would be useful for many departments. I spent the better part of two years working with Botler and introducing it to various departments. The CBSA was one of them, but there were many more. I was even working with Botler to get it qualified as a vendor, so it could fulfill contracts directly, eliminating the need for vendors like GC Strategies.
The Botler pilot was delivery based, so Botler would get paid only when it delivered. It delivered the first two deliverables and was then paid everything it was owed. At no time did GC Strategies ever receive money for those deliverables that we did not immediately pass on to Botler.
Botler stopped delivering what was required of it, and the CBSA terminated the contract. I was asked to gather from Botler all new work that was done prior to termination and submit that to the CBSA for a review and payment. Nearly two months passed. At that point, Botler submitted the remaining four deliverables, along with an invoice. The deliverables were then submitted to the CBSA, and they were not approved. The documents were unreadable, and once a version came through that could be evaluated, the CBSA determined the work to be substandard, and it refused to pay.
That leads us here today.
Let me be clear. The Botler pilot project was in no way connected to ArriveCAN. GC Strategies made no money whatsoever after working with Botler for two years, including the pilot. GC Strategies, Dalian and Coradix each had their own individual contracts to complete work on ArriveCAN. At no point did GC Strategies work with or act as a subcontractor on Dalian or Coradix's contract for ArriveCAN. All work done for the ArriveCAN app by GC Strategies was done using our own contract.
Thank you.
