ArriveCan flop casts shadow over future projects, experts say

Some experts say the ArriveCan flop is eroding public trust in the federal government's ability to develop tax-funded programs in an accountable manner, putting the feasibility of Canada's "digital government" agenda at risk.

Earlier this week, Auditor General Karen Hogan released a damning report on the pandemic-era border tool, telling Canadians it was impossible to know its final cost because of poor financial record-keeping.

Her report said the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Public Services and Procurement Canada "repeatedly failed to follow good management practices in the contracting, development and implementation of the ArriveCan application."

"This is probably the first example that I've seen such a glaring disregard for some of the most basic and fundamental policies and rules," Hogan told the House public accounts committee on Monday.

Hogan waits to deliver her report on Monday in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Concern for future projects

Sahir Khan, vice-president of the University of Ottawa's Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, cited a raft of other federal projects aimed at digitizing government.

"It's worth talking about while there's still chances to make adjustments," he said.

Khan said projects with well-publicized difficulties "will chip away at public confidence," and said those concerns are compounded because the Liberal government is in its third term.

"Any government in its third term will naturally be subjected to a lot more rigour around expectations of rigour and execution," he said. "You're beyond the kind of aspiration and hope that a first-term government has."

Proponents of digital government initiatives say they'll make public services more accessible at a lower and more standardized cost.

"With the track record of large IT projects with the government, it actually challenges public confidence in that agenda," Khan said. "Because every major project then becomes subject to this kind of risk."

That heightened risk of a public relations nightmare could make the federal government more reluctant to embark on these major IT projects.

First Phoenix, now this

The ArriveCan mess comes as the troubled Phoenix pay system that created a massive backlog of payroll transactions approaches its eighth year. Launched in 2016, Phoenix resulted in many federal employees going unpaid for long periods of time, getting paid less than expected or being overpaid.

"Politically, there's no winning it for them anymore, and the public suffers because you're not going to get modernization of services, we're not going to get a lower cost structure. And that's why this stuff actually really matters," Khan said.

Amanda Clarke, an associate professor of public policy and administration at Carleton University, said Canada has "real deficiencies in technology management."

"It's not easy to then track the relationship between how much we spent on a given project and what you actually got out of it, what the public value was," she said.

Clarke said Canada needs build more in-house expertise so it has a sufficient core of talent to engage outside vendors, and must also establish smarter procurement rules.

Outside contractors criticized 

Khan also raised concerns over the level of outsourcing the federal government does.

The auditor's report on ArriveCan found CBSA depended heavily on third-party contractors to develop the app, and cited that reliance as a major factor in its ballooning costs.

For example, the report estimates the per diem cost for external ArriveCan contractors at $1,090, while the average daily cost of an equivalent internal position is $675.

"You should be consulting for specialized skills, you should be consulted for technologies and solutions that are outside the public service. But you shouldn't be outsourcing just for bodies," Khan said.

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada president Jennifer Carr agrees, calling the ArriveCan debacle a "textbook example of everything that is wrong with the government's outsourcing practices."

"When we rely on contractors, when we don't do the expertise in-house, we lose that institutional knowledge," she said.

"That means that every time that something needs to be fixed or needs to be adjusted, we have to go to the contractor, or the consultant who worked on that project."

Carr said if the federal government wants to ensure value for taxpayer money, then the work should be carried out by the public service because "they are the ones that are going to be focusing on delivering that reliable service and those programs that the Canadian public depends on."