(Ottawa) Although it cost nearly $60 million, ArriveCAN costs three times less than paper, defends the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Significant cost overruns surrounded the development of this controversial application which is little used today.
” I think that’ArriveCAN provided good value for money. I do not believe that it was the best value for money for the taxpayer,” admitted its vice-president of the Directorate General of Control, Jonathan Moor, in a parliamentary committee on Tuesday.
MEPs are still trying to shed light on the financial fiasco surrounding the development of the application. Four CBSA officials were called to testify at the House of Commons government operations committee.
The Press revealed Tuesday thatArriveCAN is now only used by 13% of travelers. It is still used to make customs and immigration declarations in the ten major airports in the country, but it is no longer mandatory since the lifting of health measures at the border in October 2022. The CBSA plans to also deploy it to land border crossings as was the case during the pandemic.
The annual cost to maintain it is $3 million to pay for cloud technology services that store user data and technical support, Moor said.
The total cost for developing the app is nearly $60 million, according to Auditor General Karen Hogan’s report released last month. More than 60 million people used it during the two and a half years it was mandatory, according to the CBSA. So that’s the equivalent of $1 per user.
“This compares to more than $3 per person for the paper system,” the official argued. At the start of the pandemic, it was believed that an object infected with the COVID-19 virus such as paper could transmit the disease.
He added that the app had been effective in allowing the Public Health Agency of Canada to enforce the mandatory quarantine that was then imposed on international travelers arriving in the country.
It remains thatArriveCAN could have cost less, he admitted. The development of the application was outsourced to several staffing companies, such as GC Strategies and Dalian, who subcontracted the work to IT freelancers earning a juicy commission in the process. Contracts awarded totaled 19.1 million for GC Strategies and 7.9 million for Dalian, according to estimates by the Auditor General. The two firms, each with two employees, disputed these figures.
The Auditor General reported questionable practices such as approving incomplete invoices and authorizing tasks that did not contain any tasks.
“We learned a lot of lessons there [de cette expérience], but we were in an emergency situation, Mr. Moor justified himself. We overused subcontractors, something we would have done less of if we had more time. »
He explained that the administrative error was not determining a cost center with a code separately for ArriveCAN from the first year of the project, which meant that other operational expenses ended up being included in the cost of the application.
The official indicated that the CBSA was reviewing all invoices to determine whether it had overpaid. He promised to try to get her back if it turns out she was overcharged by her suppliers.
Steps have been taken to strengthen the contracting process within the CBSA. Key personnel were required to complete four courses on procurement rules, a committee was established to review all contracts and task authorizations exceeding $45,000, and a new program was developed to ensure proper financial record keeping .