Today, we will discuss the ArriveCAN scandal, a controversy that shocked Canadian taxpayers and raised serious concerns about government spending, transparency, and accountability. This case highlights critical issues within federal procurement practices and serves as a powerful example of why reform is urgently needed.
Overview
The ArriveCAN scandal has drawn national attention to longstanding issues in Canada’s federal procurement system. At the center of the controversy is GC Strategies, a small consulting firm that received over $19 million in contracts related to the development of the ArriveCAN app, a pandemic-era tool that ended up costing taxpayers more than $60 million.
This case has prompted urgent questions about value for money, the role of intermediaries, and the systems meant to safeguard public funds. It highlights how gaps in oversight, transparency, and competitive procurement can erode trust in government contracting.
What Was ArriveCAN?
ArriveCAN was introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic as a mandatory app for travelers entering Canada. Its purpose was to streamline the collection of health and travel information, reduce physical interaction at border crossings, and support public health compliance.
While the concept was straightforward, the cost of the app quickly escalated. Initially a basic digital submission tool, ArriveCAN grew into a much larger project with ongoing updates, new features, and multiple departments involved. Over time, the total cost exceeded $60 million, far more than many experts believe was necessary for a tool of its kind.
Who Is GC Strategies?
GC Strategies is a consulting firm based in Ontario, reportedly composed of just two full-time partners. The company operates not as a technology developer but as a staffing intermediary. It identifies and hires subcontractors, often independent IT professionals, to fulfill project roles on behalf of the federal government.
Since 2017, GC Strategies has received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts, most of them in the form of task authorizations or sole-source arrangements. Much of this work involved sourcing talent for federal technology projects, including ArriveCAN.
What Went Wrong?
One of the core concerns in this case was the limited transparency around what GC Strategies actually delivered. The firm did not build the ArriveCAN app itself. Instead, it provided subcontracted personnel to do the work, charging significant markups over what those individuals were paid.
Government officials have acknowledged that they relied heavily on GC Strategies to supply tech talent quickly, especially during the urgency of the pandemic. However, the absence of detailed oversight and the lack of open competition meant that costs ballooned with little justification. In many cases, there were no public tenders or evaluations of alternative vendors.
Moreover, multiple IT professionals who worked on the app have come forward to say the app could have been developed for a fraction of the cost, raising alarms about how the government evaluates value and monitors spending in complex IT projects.
Investigations and Political Fallout
In response to public criticism and investigative reporting, several government bodies launched inquiries. The House of Commons held committee hearings. The Auditor General announced an official review. The RCMP began looking into whether any criminal activity had occurred.
A number of public servants involved in the procurement process were suspended, reassigned, or placed under review. Media scrutiny intensified. The case has since become a symbol of broader concerns about inefficiency and a lack of accountability in federal contracting practices.
Systemic Challenges Exposed
The ArriveCAN case has revealed deep-rooted weaknesses in the federal procurement system.
- It showed how lack of transparency can obscure whether Canadians are receiving value for money. Without clear documentation of what was delivered and at what cost, it becomes impossible to judge performance or hold suppliers accountable.
- It revealed how the overuse of intermediaries such as GC Strategies can inflate costs and dilute responsibility. While subcontracting is not inherently problematic, relying on firms that simply broker talent without adding technical value creates unnecessary layers and expenses.
- It highlighted how limited competition undermines innovation and efficiency. When contracts are awarded without a fair bidding process, better-qualified or more cost-effective suppliers are excluded. That can drive up prices and reduce the quality of outcomes.
Finally, the case pointed to weak contract oversight. Once contracts are awarded, federal departments must actively monitor performance and spending. That clearly did not happen here.
Lessons for the Procurement Community
For government entities, the lesson is clear. Stronger internal controls, transparent pricing structures, and more rigorous evaluation mechanisms are essential. Agencies must reduce their reliance on intermediary firms, enforce compliance with procurement rules, and open more opportunities to competitive bidding.
For vendors, the message is also important. Ethical contracting matters. Marking up subcontractors while providing little direct service undermines long-term credibility and trust. In a post-ArriveCAN environment, vendors will likely face more scrutiny and should be prepared to demonstrate real value, not just brokered relationships.
Conclusion
The ArriveCAN scandal involving GC Strategies is not simply a story about one company. It reflects broader structural vulnerabilities in how the Canadian government manages large-scale IT procurements. Addressing these issues will require reform, accountability, and a renewed focus on value for public funds.
✅ At BidWatch, We Believe in Safeguarding Integrity
We work with ethical vendors who want to win government contracts the right way by understanding the rules, submitting compliant proposals, and delivering real results.
👉 Contact us today if you want one-on-one guidance or support with registration, documentation, compliance, and competitive strategy.
- BidWatch Canada Team