44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 1, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/1/22 10:49:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.
I would have to agree with the previous questioner on this. ArriveCAN was basically doomed from the start, because the government was requiring all Canadians re-entering Canada to use it. They did not have a choice. It assumed one had a cell phone, and it assumed one had the tech savvy to use the app. Many people did not.
I have a riding with six border crossings in it, and I had numerous complaints about how it failed people and sent them into quarantine when they should not have been sent into quarantine. Now we hear that it cost a ridiculous amount of money.
My question is this: Given that the government has spent more money in the last year on hiring IT consultants than it has spent on its own in-government IT workforce, will it really make sure that it builds a good IT workforce that we can depend on, that we have control over and that we have transparency on, so we can get things done with a good, moderate amount of money and have control over that?
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 10:52:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it would seem that the debate today is all about ArriveCAN, and it should be, because the questions are very good.
The app was, first of all, mandatory, so I find it interesting that the minister bragged about how many people downloaded the app. They had to download the app; they did not have an option.
The real question is the $54 million that it cost. We already know payments were made to companies who did not even know they got paid, and that all this money was lost. Will the government actually audit the money that was spent and figure out, number one, why it cost so much more than it should have cost for what it did, and number two, where all this money went that nobody knows about? Who got rich on this?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:41:17 a.m.
- Watch
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.
1397 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:52:14 a.m.
- Watch
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?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 3:17:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek is quite concerned about the cost of the ArriveCAN app. I wonder if she is also concerned about the $21 billion it is expected to cost for the Trans Mountain pipeline, the expansion of a leaky pipeline in the midst of a climate emergency; and the $17 billion more in a loan guarantee from just a few weeks ago. Could the member comment on that?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 3:43:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the member opposite.
The first part is about the fairness of the app. There are many Canadians in my riding, such as seniors, who do not have Internet, email or access to the app. More importantly, I have an Amish community, which does not use phones, does not have Internet, does not drive and does not vote. They are now facing a quarter of a million dollars in fines as a community. Does the member think that is fair, or is it discriminatory against those Canadians?
As to the second part, he talked about the efficiency of the app, why it cost $54 million and its effectiveness. The Ottawa bureau chief of The Globe and Mail said the day before yesterday that when he was going through customs, where there were huge lineups, he asked about the ArriveCAN app and the long lineups. The border officer laughed and said the app is irrelevant so he should not bother using it. Does the member have anything to say about that?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 3:46:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to attempt to answer the question by the hon. member for Drummond. My interpretation may not have been working. I am not sure if it is just mine or that of other colleagues. I did not get the interpretation, but I think I understood the question.
With regard to the cost of the app, which many members have asked about, we can look at the full cost and operation of the app over the two years, with the many upgrades, the service call centre, the adjustments that were made, the number of professionals involved, the storage of data and so forth. Obviously, given the measure that was introduced, we cannot look at the microcosm of just the app itself.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 4:03:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns with today's motion is the first line, which asserts, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living”. This runs counter to a recent paper from the University of Calgary. It was found that in Canada, since the second quarter of 2021, three-quarters of inflation has been driven not by government spending but by supply-side challenges, for example by disruptions in food crops internationally.
Can the member for Kings—Hants comment further on this?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 4:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has been on my mind is whether any other countries around the world have something like the ArriveCAN app. I checked. At least among our peers in the G20, not a single one has an app like this, not Germany, South Korea, India, the U.K., South Africa or Japan. I will not name them all, but there are 20 of them.
The exception is Canada. We have this app that cost $54 million, an app that Canadians did not need and cannot afford. Could my hon. colleague comment on the fact that we spent $54 million on something that was apparently not necessary in the eyes of our G20 peers?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 4:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech. My goodness, I never thought I would have the opportunity to ask him a question in the House, but today I do.
My colleague spoke a lot about the importance and the cost of ArriveCAN, the app that was created during the pandemic and represents a one-time expenditure. The Bloc Québécois does agree that this expenditure should be looked at, but it is a one-time expense.
I believe that we have already raised this issue with the Conservatives, but what I find fascinating is that, just last week, the Conservatives voted against our motion, which would have saved the government money every year. That $70 million is not a one-time expenditure, it is an annual recurring one.
Is there a double standard? Could my colleague comment on that?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
