Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
To your first paragraph the bolded paragraph does not state that no businesses cases or justification was prepared. It just states people saw this large funding initiative and so tied their projects to it as there is less scrutiny on each individual scope. The bolded section could accurately be describe every major project I have ever worked on.
|
At this point we don't know if business cases or justification was ever prepared in these cases because there is little to no document, backup, or contracts which some just had vague references to ArriveCAN and approved as ArriveCAN expenses (as per the auditor general's report). In itself a separate group piggybacking on a larger project if warranted is not cause for concern if justified (as you correctly stated), but in any situation of such there is supposed to be a paper trail and business case.
The auditor general's report is found here, bolded emphasis.
https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/E...1_e_44428.html
Quote:
1.18We found that financial records were not well maintained by the Canada Border Services Agency. We were unable to determine a precise cost for the ArriveCAN application because of poor documentation and weak controls at the Canada Border Services Agency. We estimated that the application cost approximately $59.5 million.
1.19We found that 18% of invoices submitted by contractors that we tested did not have sufficient supporting documentation to determine whether expenses related to ArriveCAN or another information technology (IT) project. This made it impossible to accurately determine whether costs were attributed to the correct projects.
1.20Given the shortcomings of the financial records, we built up an estimated cost using the agency’s financial system, contracting documents, and other evidence. It is possible that some amounts attributed to ArriveCAN were not for the application. In some cases, the cost of contracts or task authorizations were specific to ArriveCAN; in others, details were missing or were of a general IT nature, and professional judgment was needed to attribute the cost to the application. Exhibit 1.1 shows the breakdown of our estimated costs for the main contractors at 31 March 2023.
1.21Canada Border Services Agency officials have expressed concerns that $12.2 million of the $59.5‑million estimate could be unrelated to ArriveCAN. We determined, however, that this amount was incurred under ArriveCAN task authorizations.Definition5 We also noted that a significant portion of these expenses were submitted to a parliamentary committee—the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates—as ArriveCAN expenses.
1.22We compared the estimate of $59.5 million with the amounts that the agency provided to the committee. We noted that in the information submitted to the committee, there were instances where costs that we determined were related to ArriveCAN were not included and where some other costs were incorrectly included. In our view, this was a consequence of the poor financial recordkeeping. For example, a resource listed in a task authorization could have worked on multiple projects, not just ArriveCAN.
|
Not exactly a glowing report, it was pretty much a free for all. We could likely attribute it to basic incompetence or bloat in normal circumstances if it was not for the 1500 deleted emails and the other aspects.