Debates of Nov. 1st, 2022

Opposition Motion—ArriveCAN Application Performance Audit

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by taking the time to read the motion the Conservative Party moved today:

That, given that, (i) the cost of government is driving up the cost of living, (ii) the Parliamentary Budget Officer states that 40% of new spending is not related to COVID-19, (iii) Canadians are now paying higher prices and higher interest rates as a result, (iv) it is more important than ever for the government to respect taxpayer dollars and eliminate wasteful spending, the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a performance audit, including the payments, contracts and sub-contracts for all aspects of the ArriveCAN app, and to prioritize this investigation.

Is anyone else getting that déjà vu feeling today? It is actually “déjà vu” in both official languages. Yes, it is déjà vu, because, once again, here we have a member of the Bloc Québécois rising in the House to ask the Liberal government questions about contracts awarded to party friends, contracts so redolent of collusion that even amateur detectives can identify it in their sleep.

We have just lived through an unprecedented event in our time. The government tried, in good faith, to react to the unknown. Is it any surprise that, in this situation, the age-old reflexes of the Liberal Party of Canada resurfaced? It is illegal but, after all, “a friend is a friend”.

What did the government do? It did the same thing it always does when it does not know what to do: It threw money at the problem, hoping that it would go away. The federal government's management of the airports at the start of the pandemic was shamefully inept. Let us not forget that the City of Montreal had to send its own staff to tell people arriving in Canada that they needed to be careful about bringing in COVID-19. The government did not act quickly enough. It spent untold amounts of money on a shiny new app. It contacted two friends of the Liberal Party directly to take charge of the situation. After all, “a friend is a friend”.

GC Strategies patriotically answered the call. The company said that of course it would help make Canadians safer in these troubled times and that it would find subcontractors capable of coding the app for a modest middleman's fee of 15% to 30% of $9 million.

What were these people thinking? When I worked in the private sector, if I had suggested taking such a big cut simply for acting as an intermediary, I would not have kept my job for very long, but “a friend is a friend”.

I have had the opportunity to work in the private sector, providing institutions in developing countries with training on contracting integrity. I worked in Mexico, Central America, Brazil and Palau, where we helped the finance department improve their contracting process. In any self-respecting country, contracts are awarded only after a rigorous process that prevents cronyism. Obviously, that is not the case in Canada.

In the interest of justice and fairness, the Bloc Québécois believes it is important to ensure that no one profits off of the COVID crisis. As the people of Terrebonne are facing the rising cost of living, it goes without saying that the government's contract-awarding process must be transparent. However, there have been many indications that the process for awarding the ArriveCAN contract was problematic. First of all, GC Strategies was handed an untendered contract. It was actually the government that reached out to the firm, which has only two employees. They did not develop the app, but rather acted as intermediaries for which they made a profit of between $1.3 million and $2.7 million. That is a pretty hefty fee just to be an intermediary.

This is somewhat reminiscent of several other questionable contracts that have been awarded by this same government. Between 2017 and 2020, under the Trudeau government, WE Charity was paid $120,000 across at least five contracts—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that we do not mention other members by name in the House.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for reminding me.

Under the Liberal government, WE Charity was awarded at least five contracts worth $120,000, as well as $5.2 million in grants and contributions. WE Charity received a $19.5-million untendered contract to administer and distribute $9 billion in student grants. It was revealed that the Prime Minister’s mother and brother received $250,000 and $32,000, respectively, for speaking at events organized by WE Charity between 2016 and 2020. Moreover, the daughters of the former minister of finance also work, or at least they did at the time, for the charity, one paid under contract and the other in a volunteer position.

Let us bring up another relatively recent event, although some people like to say that they were in high school when it happened. Okay, I was in high school, but it is still “recent” in terms of Canadian history. Everything is relative, but it is important to keep a cool head when governing, which is not the case here.

History always sheds light on the present. Let us remind the Liberal government of one of its most typical episodes, the sponsorship scandal. Frightened by the tie in the 1995 referendum on sovereignty, the Canadian government responded with a massive visibility campaign aimed at making Quebeckers believe that they could not live without the federal government’s assistance, support and money. It spent a fortune to blanket Quebec in Canadian flags and, because, after all, a “friend is a friend”, contracts were awarded to major Liberal donors, who hastened to return a large portion of their profits to the Liberal Party’s election fund because “a friend is a friend”.

Let us look at what has been done in Quebec. Once again, the Liberal Party is the poster boy for incompetent crisis management. The list is long and includes the airport and border control sagas. At the height of the crisis, the Government of Quebec asked the federal government to implement airport controls to limit the spread of COVID‑19. As I said, the federal government did nothing. Instead of dealing effectively with the borders during the height of the crisis and following up on the isolation of travellers, the government developed its dysfunctional app too late.

The Government of Quebec also developed and launched a vaccine control app, which cost a lot less than the federal one because it used simpler, QR-code technology. For $9 million, the equivalent of what the intermediaries earned, not those who created the app, the Government of Quebec launched a simple and effective app that was used by every business in Quebec.

I propose that we take stock at this point.

First, a pandemic hit the whole world. As usual, the federal government did not know how to react, even though the Auditor General had already presented a report warning the government that it was not prepared for a pandemic. The Auditor General had done that work just after the H1N1 crisis. The government's disastrous lack of pandemic preparedness had already been noted, but nothing had been done.

Then, hoping to avoid an even worse public relations situation, the federal government called on GC Strategies to find people able to create an app for managing airport traffic.

Ultimately, not only did that app cost a fortune, but it also had intermediary fees, suggesting that the Liberals never forgot their good old modus operandi. To recap, in Quebec, our vaccine passport app, which involved literally every business and individual, cost $9 million. As we know, however, a friend is a friend.

The Bloc Québécois supports the motion before the House today for two reasons. First, the money that Canadians entrust to their governments must be spent wisely, and it seems very possible that that was not the case with ArriveCAN. More importantly, and I hope my Conservative colleagues are listening to me right now, the pandemic was and still is a formidable preparation for future crises, first and foremost the climate crisis.

While the Conservatives do everything they can to ensure that it comes even sooner and the Liberals do nothing, that climate crisis is getting closer every day. When it hits us, the federal government will not be able to justify its usual ineffectiveness by saying, teary-eyed in apologetic tones, that a friend is a friend.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member would agree with the following statement: A friend is a friend indeed; however, only when it serves Liberal greed.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could generalize and use the term federalist because, in this case, some Conservatives were involved in the sponsorship scandal. However, it does seem to be more of a Liberal pattern in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, on many points I would disagree with the member opposite. I would suggest that Canada did exceptionally well when going through the pandemic. We had a team Canada approach and it made a difference in a very real way. If I was allowed another hour, I would be more than happy to amplify every one of those points.

With regard to the whole issue of awarding contracts, hundreds of millions of dollars went out. There is no doubt about that. Members try to give the false impression that Liberal businesses were the only beneficiaries, when we had literally thousands of contracts going out. I can assure the member that they were not only for Liberal entrepreneurs, Conservative entrepreneurs and New Democrat entrepreneurs. I would suggest that even some Bloc entrepreneurs might have received some of these grants. To paint with a broad brush puts a negative image on all politics, no matter what political party one belongs to.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was looking forward to answering that question.

I find it impressive that a member would dare state without evidence that people from the Bloc Québécois may have benefited from the crisis. I will simply provide two figures: a little over $50 million and $9 million. I think we can agree that such a large discrepancy should not happen within a large, unified country.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the member for Terrebonne.

Naturally, she focused on the ethical dimension, including when she referred to the sponsorship scandal. I think she could have also referred to the WE Charity scandal, in which a billion-dollar contract was awarded to friends of the Prime Minister. There is also the famous respirator contract granted at the time to well-known Liberals without a call for tenders.

With ArriveCAN, we do not know who the contract was awarded to or how it was done. However, we know that the government will create a new program through Bill C‑31, which has just been passed. That program will give $600 cheques to people who receive dental care. However, it would seem that the government again needs private companies. Once again, they will need to contract out.

The government systematically contracts out to the private sector, but every time, it seems to benefit friends of the Liberal Party in particular. What does my colleague think about that?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that issue.

It is mind-boggling: All public services are dysfunctional. On the immigration file, there was a major revolution and no one is answering the phone anymore, even when MPs try to call. Do we really need to revisit the passport issue? I think everyone is still in shock.

At the same time, it is true that, whenever there is something important, it is contracted out. Does that not show a real management and leadership problem in the Liberal Party?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, the call to help out during the pandemic was heard strongly.

I am wondering if the member would comment on some of the businesses in her province that did not get even a sniff of Canadian procurement during the pandemic.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the list is too long. I do not have enough time to list all the people who have benefited from contracts.

It is important to remember that we are here to talk about the awarding of a clearly questionable contract. We still agree on one thing, although we think the wording could have been a bit less populist.

We agree that it is important, for the credibility of all politicians, to remember that the government managed the crisis well, but particularly that none of its friends were able to benefit financially from those contracts.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to the opposition motion before us.

I think everyone in the House would agree that one of the most important responsibilities of the government, which some would say is a sacred responsibility, is stewarding public funds and ensuring that every single dollar is spent in the best interests of Canadians, that the government gets maximum value and that public contracts do not excessively line the pockets of private companies. That is why the motion calling for the Auditor General to conduct an audit of all aspects of the ArriveCAN app is so important and why Canadians should rightly be concerned.

There are a lot of different aspects we could talk about. We could talk about the fact that this app erroneously sent over 10,000 Canadians into quarantine and put them in jeopardy of $750,000 fines, or we could talk about the delays ArriveCAN caused at the border, something that was of great concern both to travellers and border officials. It made people struggle, especially people who did not have access to the technology. However, the focus of today's motion, and appropriately so, is on the decisions the government made around procurement to spend millions of dollars on private IT companies to develop and maintain this app.

The biggest concern is the lack of transparency around the cost of development and maintenance, and there are a number of things we know. First of all, we know the original estimate for developing the app was $80,000, and we know that somehow development and maintenance ballooned to $54 million. We also know the government paid an IT staffing firm here in Ottawa nine million of those dollars. This is a firm that has no office, has only a handful of staff and did not actually do the work, but rather assembled a team of contractors and took a 15% to 30% commission. They were making millions of dollars off this.

Finally, we know that when CBSA was asked to produce a list of all the contractors involved in the development and maintenance of the ArriveCAN app, there were a bunch of errors in that list. The original list included companies that had nothing to do with the ArriveCAN app, and when they saw their names on the list, they had some pretty serious questions for the government. A company called ThinkOn Incorporated and Ernst & Young were among the companies that had nothing to do with it and were quite confused by the fact they were being implicated. I appreciate that CBSA has promised to provide a full list and get to the bottom of these irregularities, but there are enough questions here that this motion to have the Auditor General conduct a full audit is very much warranted.

I also want to talk a bit about the broader questions this issue has brought up. There is a real question here about whether the government's overall approach to outsourcing is delivering good value for Canadians or whether it is simply lining the pockets of companies that have figured out how to maximize their returns from the system of government procurement.

We have heard concerns expressed by some of the public sector unions. They have shared with us that they believe IT companies are intentionally underbidding on government contracts. When they underbid on government contracts, it makes it very difficult for the government to assess whether it is in fact better value to outsource the contract to the private sector or whether better value is had by keeping that work in house with the government's own team of IT professionals. What happens after these companies underbid on the contracts is that the contracts start and they are able to have the contracts reopened.

While I am pausing, I note that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Courtenay—Alberni, something I have been reminded of by my colleagues several times yet somehow have forgotten.

The reopening of these contracts then allows the government, on a discretionary basis, to jack up the value of those contracts again and again so that the total value at the end, when everything is said and done and all the dollars are added up, is many times higher than the original estimate for the work. This is something we need to get to the bottom of, and I think that is an opportunity the motion presents.

Here is the trend when it comes to government outsourcing. The Globe and Mail reported in January that the government outsourced $11.8 billion of work in the 2020-21 fiscal year. That is up 42% from 2015-16. It is a pretty alarming increase. In 2020-21, the federal government spent $2.3 billion on IT contracts, compared with only $1.9 billion on its own government IT workforce. One public sector union has filed 2,500 grievances related to outsourcing.

There is something wrong with this picture. We need to ensure this decision, which some people call the “make or buy” decision, is informed by the best information and that it is always done with the public's best interests in mind. Getting good value for taxpayers' dollars for the public resources that our government is charged with stewarding is the primary and only concern of that process.

I want to mention that, thankfully, the government operations committee is working on this larger topic right now, and I want to point out the good work of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. It is looking at this broader question of whether the Treasury Board's guidelines, which are supposed to inform this make or buy decision, are doing a good enough job, are doing what they are tasked with doing and are ensuring that the public interest is protected.

Finally, I want to turn to one of the things I heard in the House yesterday, which I think is one of the unfortunate aspects of this debate over the ArriveCAN app. There is a common trope around IT work that I believe is neither accurate nor particularly helpful. Yesterday, we heard a Conservative member rise in the House and claim that ArriveCAN “could have been created by a bunch of pimply faced teenage hackers over a weekend using a Commodore 64.”

I hear my colleagues laughing. I agree that the quote is humorous, but it is an unhelpful stereotype and I will tell colleagues why. I used to work in IT as a website developer, and I came across the stereotype that we should not pay good money for IT work and for tech products. After all, these are things that our brother's cousin's nephew can do at home for fun. These are sophisticated technology products that are being developed, and IT workers in our country are among the most creative, the most sophisticated, the most sought-after and the most valuable assets we have. When we allow these tropes and stereotypes about IT work to persist, I think we really do them an injustice and potentially risk the future of the new economy that is so important in our country.

In conclusion, Canadians deserve to know that their taxpayer dollars are being managed responsibly. The irregularities around the ArriveCAN app raise serious questions and we need to get to the bottom of them. There is a larger question of whether the government's approach to outsourcing delivers value or whether it simply enriches its private sector friends. I hope through this debate and through the investigations and audits that follow we can get answers to those questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that over the last couple of years there has been a lot of new money and government expenses as a direct result of the pandemic. I think a vast majority of Canadians would look at the need for the government to step up during the pandemic as absolutely critical. In fact, the federal government spent somewhere around 80% of all the new money going toward fighting the pandemic compared to provincial expenditures. There does need to be a sense of accountability, but over the next coming days, weeks and months we will see more accountability in how some of that money is being spent.

I understand that OGGO, one of our standing committees, is already looking into the matter at hand. Could I get the member's thoughts in regard to the importance of standing committees and the roles they can play in ensuring more accountability?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the member's earlier point, I do not think any scenario really justifies shovelling money off the back of the government truck willy-nilly without the accountability that Canadians expect. We have seen in the past very worrisome and concerning instances where that has occurred, such as the WE Charity scandal and the Phoenix pay system, where we are hiring consultants who are hiring other consultants and the whole thing becomes a total debacle.

As to the role of committees, absolutely committees can help us get to the bottom of this. I think the work that OGGO is doing is very much complementary to what this opposition day motion calls for, and I look forward to the outcome from both.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the government's intention to keep using ArriveCAN given all the access problems users have had, all the bugs in the software and the fact that travellers will likely stop using it.

What does the member think of the government's intention to keep using this app?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is one that we have been dealing with at the transport committee, and it is an important one.

Not many people can argue that technology in the travel sector has not made our travel sector more efficient and more productive. I think that we will see that role of technology increase in the future; I believe it is inevitable.

I would say two things. First, we need to ensure that we keep accessibility in mind and that people who do not have access to technology have accommodations that work for them. The second is that we need to be consulting closely with the people who are currently performing the roles that technology is meant to complement or replace, ensuring that we understand the role they are playing in our travel sector and that we are supporting them in their work.

If those two things are done, technology applications can have a place in our travel sector, and we certainly heard that from different parties, whether it be airports or others.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, since the government has the ability to develop its own apps, and we have seen that already with other apps during COVID, why does he think the Liberals decided to go outside of government for this app, and elaborately do so with a bill of $52 million?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I knew the answer to that. I am hoping that is one of the things the Auditor General will help us get to the bottom of, and I am very interested in what those findings might be.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a long history in civic leadership, including in procurement.

I am wondering what reflections the member might offer on the importance of restoring public accountability and trust with the government through having a procurement process that brings to light all the different steps along the way, including when a project such as this goes from $80,000 to $54 million. At what point should there be off-ramps and at what point should the red flags have been raised for the government as this project went out of control?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question really gets to the heart of it, because public trust is the essential ingredient in the governance of our country. If the government does not have the public's trust, it cannot perform its important role. When there are questions around transparency, when the public starts to feel the government is wasting public money, it erodes public trust at a time when we cannot afford that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the motion regarding the ballooning costs of the ArriveCAN app.

In a time when too many Canadians are struggling just to make ends meet, it is critical that the government ensure we have sound stewardship of tax dollars. I share the concerns of Canadians and frontline CBSA officers that the ArriveCAN app has cost way too much and delivered too little.

Last week at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we heard from the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union that frontline service workers were never consulted on the development of the app or any of the more than 70 updates that were required.

While the government continued to pour money into ArriveCAN, frontline workers were forced to deal with the fallout of a glitchy app on top of a severe staffing shortage. This has had a huge demoralizing impact on the mental health and the moral of CBSA officers.

At committee, I supported a study to provide more transparency to Canadians, which they deserve, about the costs associated with the ArriveCAN app. I also pushed the committee to go further. I believe the ArriveCAN debacle is part of a larger systemic issue of the government increasingly hiring expensive consultants, who hire expensive consultants, with no regard for delivering the best value for Canadians.

That is why I tabled a motion, which was supported unanimously at OGGO, to request that the Auditor General conduct a performance audit on outsourcing policies and practices more broadly.

Earlier this year, the Globe and Mail reported that since the 2015-16 fiscal year, government spending on outsourced contracts had increased by 41.8% under the federal Liberals, reaching $11.8 billion in the 2020-21 fiscal year alone. This trend started under the previous Conservative government and continues to cost Canadians today.

All too often, outsourced contracts seem to balloon and cost more than if public service workers were tasked with the same work. The Treasury Board has provided guidance on preparing estimates to help departments with “make-or-buy” decisions, as well as policies on the planning and management of investments that require departments’ decisions that demonstrate best value and sound stewardship. However, it is not clear how these policies are applied in practice or what oversight is involved.

A broader performance audit by the Auditor General, as I proposed and as was supported at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, could provide important insights to Parliamentarians on questions. How often are departments' cost estimates exceeded for outsourced work? What happens when a department gets an estimate wrong? How are lessons learned and shared across departments?

I want to highlight the concerning transparency and accountability issues that arise in relation to outsourced contracts.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada recently told the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates that “The procurement process to contract out work favours corporate secrecy over the rights of Canadians to know how funds are spent and how services are managed.”

Our access to information regime is broken and it is extremely difficult for Canadians to get a full picture of how funds directed to the private sector are being spent. This is a perfect example of what we are talking about today.

It is also extremely difficult for public service workers who become aware of mismanagement related to outsourced contracts to raise the alarm without fear of reprisal. Canada’s whistle-blower protection regime has been called among one of the worst in the world and cases like the Phoenix pay disaster and the ArriveCAN app show how there are real costs to the Canadian public when public service workers cannot speak up.

The blame for Canada’s ineffective whistle-blower protection regime lies with both the Conservative and Liberals parties.

David Hutton, a whistle-blower protection expert and senior fellow at the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, recently wrote in the Hill Times that when the member for Carleton, then-minister under the Harper government, introduced federal accountability legislation in 2006, “he claimed repeatedly that it would offer 'ironclad' protection, and indeed it does—but for the wrongdoers, not for whistleblowers or the public.”

Since the Liberals came into power, they have failed to remedy this situation. Instead, they have sat on a unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for over five years. That report recommended sweeping legislative reforms to Canada’s whistle-blower protection law. As the Liberal government bounces from scandal to scandal, it seems to have no interest in improving protections for whistle-blowers who could shine a light on government wrongdoing or mismanagement of public funds. This is critical to the transparency for which we are calling so Canadians can trust their government.

In addition to the transparency and accountability issues that I am talking about, the government’s increasing reliance on outsourcing raises concerning equity issues that warrant discussion.

In 2018, the UN special rapporteur on poverty and human rights discussed privatization as a cause of poverty while still costing governments more.

In 2019, the Standing Committee on Human Resources tabled a report on precarious work, recommending the government, “[review] human resources policies and budgeting practices to ensure that they incentivize hiring employees on indeterminate contracts.” It is critical that the government stop the precarious work and incentivize hiring people full time.

Further, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has written about the interplay between outsourcing and gender equity, stating:

In IT, lucrative contracts are doled out to a male-dominant industry that has notoriously struggled with gender equity. While at the same time, lower paid and precarious temporary service contracts are disproportionately filled by women. The majority of temporary workers become trapped in a cycle of persistent temporary work, defined by low pay, few if any fringe benefits, and high risk of unemployment and labour force exit.

While the government will say it is forced to rely on the private sector to deliver IT services because of skill shortages within the public service, it is ignoring in-house talent and failing to invest in building further institutional capacity in a way that promotes gender equity, and I will also say failing to work with public institutions to tap into that expertise and knowledge that lies in our public institutions, including higher-learning institutions.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has filed more than 2,500 grievances where work was outsourced rather than assigned to existing expertise in the public service. In the last fiscal year, the government spent $2.3 billion on information technology service contracts compared to $1.85 billion on its own IT workforce. If the government is truly committed to building a strong and inclusive public service, it is essential that it maintain and build in-house IT capacity.

The government’s increasing reliance on outsourcing is not only undermining efforts to promote equity, but it is also costing Canadians more. Although it is difficult to get information on outsourced contracts, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada shared with me the following alarming examples: “one IT Technical Architect at National Defence cost Canadian taxpayers over $359,000 per year in a contract that was renewed for over 8 years. The equivalent public servant (including their pension) would have cost $147,876 – saving over $1.5M”; and “Another example: Shared Services Canada has spent over $14M over the past five years on 3 resources and posted a contract tender extension for another four years. Three public servants (including their pension) over the same five years would have cost $1,855,476 – saving over $12M.”

It is not just in IT that we are seeing these increased costs because of reliance on outsourcing, but also in other areas like cleaning, grounds maintenance, health care and access to information.

While I agree that Canadians deserve transparency on the ArriveCAN app, they deserve much more. They deserve transparency on the true costs and risks of outsourcing public services. I hope all members will agree that a broader examination of outsourcing by the Auditor General is warranted and is in the best interest of Canadians.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that New Democrats are calling for greater accountability with the arrive scam debacle, however, I am still troubled by the fact that they continue to prop up the Liberal government.

Does the member know if the words “transparency”, “accountability” or “ethics” are in the confidence and supply agreement?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here every day, calling on the government to do the right thing and provide support to Canadians.

What we have are gatekeepers from the Conservatives and the Liberals protecting big corporations that are having record profits. Every day we are standing up for Canadians. Today, we are calling for transparency when it comes to outsourcing. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are the champions of outsourcing. It is their friends. They are highly paid consultants hiring highly paid consultants. This is their history. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.

We are here to fight for the people.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the NDP will be voting in favour of this motion. The first clause in the preamble says, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living”.

Could the member comment on what cost of government he thinks is driving up the cost of living?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will just start with the government financing oil and gas. It makes these huge investments in industries that had $147 billion in profit last year, and here the government is subsidizing building the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is skyrocketing out of control.

Outsourcing is built into this whole regime. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. It could all be going to help improve the lives of Canadians, so they could get access to medicine, housing and things they actually need to live.