I'm sorry.
Your co-operation here is greatly appreciated. After several meetings, we're still trying to unpack and piece together what has taken place here.
What we as a committee have learned, from my understanding, is that ArriveCAN isn't under investigation, but allegations from Botler about a tender to build a sexual harassment app are now being reviewed. While the total $55 million cost of ArriveCAN and its 70 updates reflect development, updates, information security, data management, cloud services, the app also saves three dollars per traveller when compared to the old paper system. We learned that it was actually cheaper and it was done in record time under the circumstances.
Botler's principal issue here is a contract between themselves and Coradix and Dalian. Botler was to conduct a six-month proof of concept for their software at the CBSA, with the potential for broader government use. Payment issues arose. Botler claims to have received only two installments, totalling $112,000, of the promised $336,000 for their software configuration work.
We've heard numerous allegations of individuals misleading this committee, from public servants to Botler themselves. This is where we're at right now.
My first question is to Mr. Mills.
At the heart of this situation is a dispute between a subcontractor and a federal government supplier, which began with claims of non-payment. How often would you say that PSPC hears from subcontractors in similar situations or in a dispute with contract holders? Is this common or rare? Can you expand on this?