Government Operations committee  One of the reasons to do so is that the project we're discussing—the CBSA assessment and revenue management, known as CARM—was actually ongoing for some time prior to ArriveCAN. The process of establishment and some of the issues that precluded it from coming to be may be worth pursuing and understanding. Hence, we would suggest going back further to then identify more effectively what has been done in respect to it.

Government Operations committee  It was actually not a new initiative; it was introduced in 2010. It has nothing to do with ArriveCAN per se. It was something that was introduced. For us in this committee to have a better appreciation of what it's about, we have to go back to the beginning.

Government Operations committee  Despite all this extra spending—or maybe because of all the extra spending—Canadians are worse off. All we need to do is look at the example of the ArriveCAN scam and your own observations or concerns in response to a question I asked today regarding the increase in spending versus the performance of the public service. My question to you would be this: How will the cost of the increased debt that we have incurred as a result of this wasteful spending affect the government's ability to deliver services moving forward?

Government Operations committee  Giroux and your colleagues, for joining us today. The recent Auditor General's report on the ArriveCAN scam found that it was extremely difficult to follow the money. In her estimation, Canadians did not receive value for the money spent. We have the procurement ombudsman's reporting on an extreme lack of documentation throughout the procurement process and on interesting practices like bait and switch.

Government Operations committee  I think it definitely would improve accountability, further to your point. Throughout the ArriveCAN scam study, we've seen that there is significant missing documentation. Have you encountered this as you've been completing your studies in your role as head of the PBO?

Government Operations committee  What I'm hearing consistently from your reports and through your evaluation is, I think, also what we've concluded on this side of the table: The problems that we're seeing in the ArriveCAN scam are endemic throughout government. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Government Operations committee  The motion is: That the Chair report to the House that in light of the evidence of Darren Anthony, Chief Security Officer for GC Strategies, that he did not vet or review ArriveCAN subcontracts awarded by GC Strategies, and given that the Auditor General found “some resources that were involved in the security assessments were not identified in the task authorizations and did not have security clearance” as submitted by GC Strategies, and that the Canada Border Services Agency “was unable to provide any supporting documentation to confirm that work related to the security assessments were performed by 4 of the 5 resources listed”, the Committee calls upon the Privacy Commissioner to conduct an investigation of the ArriveCAN app, including the work of all contractors and subcontractors, and determine whether the privacy and personal information of Canadians was adequately protected, with a view to presenting a special report to Parliament.

Government Operations committee  No, I mean on ArriveCAN, on these contracts with ArriveCAN. How did those contracts come to be?

Government Operations committee  Can you explain to me how you're comfortable taking $1.25 million, but you're also very comfortable washing your hands of anything that has to do with ArriveCAN?

Government Operations committee  Mr. Firth, I'm interested only in ArriveCAN, because I'm trying to keep the focus on ArriveCAN. My colleagues want to go to the RCMP, or they want to go the other route, with Botler. I'm sticking with ArriveCAN. Basically, what I understand of the process is the fact that this was a closed bid and that the rate that was established for ArriveCAN—naturally, because there were not multiple bids—was the rate you had put in as a suggested rate to the Crown.

Government Operations committee  Actually, I remember from my previous testimony—when I was ridiculed and called “disingenuous” for not having the true cost of ArriveCAN—we discussed the fact that there were three COVID-19 pandemic contracts. There was not one that was solely set aside for ArriveCAN, so I can understand why it was hard for the Auditor General, with her also indicating that some of the task authorizations for ArriveCAN could have had resources doing no work.

Government Operations committee  Yes, but Botler was not part of the ArriveCAN project. Botler was completely independent from ArriveCAN and was actually before ArriveCAN.

Government Operations committee  No. The ombud said that 76% of the resources did not work on ArriveCAN. We can say that every single person we put forward who was caught up in a task authorization worked. Nobody we had did not work on ArriveCAN. Anybody we presented worked on ArriveCAN.

Government Operations committee  Again, they were never ArriveCAN contracts. They were all pandemic response contracts. There was not just one contract for ArriveCAN. It was in two of them. They were pandemic response ones as opposed to four ArriveCAN contracts.

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will use my time, Mr. Chair, to move a motion arising from this study on ArriveCAN, as follows: That, in light of the recent finding that Dalian Enterprises received $7.9 million in funding for its work on ArriveCAN while CEO David Yeo was an employee of the Department of National Defence, the committee call on Mr.