Two federal officials who were suspended a month ago after revelations emerged about the ArrivalCAN application's ballooning costs were eager to defend their reputations when they appeared before a parliamentary committee on Thursday.
Cameron MacDonald, deputy minister at Health Canada, and Antonio Utano, director general of information technology at the Canada Revenue Agency, both denounced a witch hunt carried out in particular by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).
Both men worked for the CBSA when it was developing the mobile application that was launched at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure increased screening at the borders. However, they assure that they do not have the authority to sign contracts or approve budgets.
“It is an attempt to scapegoat us,” Mr Utano said during his appearance before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Budget Estimates.
I am someone who wants to stand up for my rights and I try hard to state the obvious.
Because the two men were suspected of mismanaging the development of ArrivalCAN, they were suspended without pay while an investigation into the application's exorbitant costs is ongoing.
According to the latest report from the Auditor General of Canada, the bill for the ArrivalCAN application would be more than $59.5 million.
GC Strategies received the lion's share of the contracts signed with the CBSA, an estimated $19.1 million. No solid justification was provided for the selection of GC strategies, found Auditor General Karen Hogan.
“No budget allocated”.
According to Mr MacDonald, the estimated initial cost of the application was $400,000, not $80,000 as the Conservatives claim. It was the prototype that cost $80,000, he said.
But there were constant changes and everyone had their own requirements, MacDonald continued. We not only had to deal with the health department, but also with the other IT departments as well as the travel and trade sector.
“From my perspective, no budget has been allocated for the development of the ArrivalCAN application,” he added.
For his part, Mr. Utano estimated that the application itself cost between $12 and $13 million, excluding the associated costs related to data storage, setting up a Service Canada call center, etc.
“I really want Canadians to understand what it costs to digitize paper documents in the timeframe we had,” MacDonald added.
An attempt to “politicize” the matter.
In his opening statement, Antonio Utano, who previously worked for the RCMP, accused the CBSA of punishing him for exposing the lies of senior agency officials on the matter.
The CBSA has acted unfairly and continues to act in bad faith. […] Isn't it ironic that those who point fingers have the dirtiest hands?
Mr. Utano also condemned the comments of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who recently claimed that it was obvious that the rules had not been followed in the development of the ArrivalCAN application.
There was an attempted cover-up, Mr. Utano said, accusing the CBSA of withholding certain information.
For his part, Mr MacDonald condemned an attempt to politicize the issue. “I was shocked to hear the premier say that there will be consequences when there is an ongoing investigation and we haven't even been contacted by the RCMP who are leading the investigation,” he added. That doesn't make sense to me.
“As our internal investigation is ongoing and to protect its integrity, we are unable to comment on this matter,” the CBSA responded in a message sent to Radio-Canada.
In its report, the Auditor General of Canada accused several federal agencies, including the CBSA, of flagrant failure to comply with basic management practices related to the ArrivalCAN application, from design to implementation.
One of the most striking facts emerging from its 33-page report is that it is impossible to determine the actual cost of the application due to several missing documents.
However, the Auditor General could not say whether these documents were deleted or whether they never existed.
In January, a report from the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman found that in around 76% of contracts, the resources proposed in the winning bid failed to deliver work.