Opening Statement before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
ArriveCAN
(Report 1—2024 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada)
20 February 2024
Karen Hogan, Fellow Chartered Professional AccountantFCPA
Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chair, thank you for again inviting us to discuss our report on ArriveCAN, which we released last week, on February 12th 2024. I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. Joining me today are Andrew Hayes, Deputy Auditor General, and Sami Hannoush and Lucie Després, who were responsible for the audit.
This audit examined whether the Canada Border Services Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Public Services and Procurement Canada managed all aspects of the ArriveCAN application in a way that delivered value for money. I will focus my remarks today on the role played by the Public Health Agency of Canada.
As I stated last week, problems in ArriveCAN’s design, implementation, oversight, and accountability began early on. Confusion between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency about their respective roles and responsibilities for the application led to an accountability void that persisted for close to a year and a half. Each believed that the other was responsible for establishing a governance structure, and neither developed or implemented good project management practices—such as developing objectives and goals, and budgets and cost estimates. It’s not clear to me how you can responsibly manage spending without a budget, or track progress without goals.
The Public Health Agency of Canada was the business owner of ArriveCAN until 1 April 2022. At that date, ownership and responsibilities for ArriveCAN were transferred permanently to the Canada Border Services Agency. In our view, the Public Health Agency, as the business owner, was responsible for establishing the governance structure.
Deficiencies in the Public Health Agency of Canada’s management of contracts contributed to our concerns about value for money. We found that the Agency awarded a professional services task authorization using a non‑competitive approach. We found no documentation of the initial communications or the reasons why the Agency did not consider or select other eligible contractors to carry out the work.
We also found that while the original contract included milestones with clear deliverables and pricing, it was later amended and replaced with less‑specific deliverables to allow for more flexibility. In addition, the Agency did not set out specific tasks, levels of effort, and deliverables for these contracts in task authorizations.
In support of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, the Public Health Agency of Canada should fully document its interactions with potential contractors and the reasons for decisions made during non‑competitive procurement processes.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.