From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Canada’s Auditor General found that government procurement rules were not followed in creating the ArriveCAN app.

Canada’s Auditor General revealed that the former Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau failed multiple times by violating contract procurement rules to create ArriveCAN, its controversial COVID travel app.

In a report released Tuesday, Auditor General Karen Hogan noted that between April 2015 to March 2024, the Trudeau government gave out 106 professional service contracts to GC Strategies Inc. This is the same company that made the ArriveCAN app.

The contracts were worth $92.7 million, with $64.5 million being paid out.

According to Hogan, Canada’s Border Services Agency gave four contracts to GC Strategies valued at $49.9 million. She noted that only 54 percent of the contracts delivered any goods.

“We concluded that professional services contracts awarded and payments made by federal organizations to GC Strategies and other companies incorporated by its co-founders were not in accordance with applicable policy instruments and that value for money for these contracts was not obtained,” Hogan said.

She continued, “Despite this, federal government officials consistently authorized payments.”

The report concluded that “Federal organizations need to ensure that public funds are spent with due regard for value for money, including in decisions about the procurement of professional services contracts.”

Hogan announced an investigation of ArriveCAN in November 2022 after the House of Commons voted 173-149 for a full audit of the controversial app.

Last year, Hogan published an audit of ArriveCAN and on Tuesday published a larger audit of the 106 contracts awarded to GC Strategies by 31 federal organizations under Trudeau’s watch.

The report concluded that one in five contracts did not have proper documentation to show correct security clearances. Also, the report found that federal organizations did not monitor how the contract work was being performed.

‘Massive scandal,’ says Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre said Hogan’s report on the audit exposed multiple improprieties.

“This is a massive scandal,” he told reporters Tuesday.

“The facts are extraordinary. There was no evidence of added value. In a case where you see no added value, why are you paying the bill?”

ArriveCAN was introduced in April 2020 by the Trudeau government and made mandatory in November 2020. The app was used by the federal government to track the COVID jab status of those entering the country and enforce quarantines when deemed necessary.

ArriveCAN was supposed to have cost $80,000, but the number quickly ballooned to $54 million, with the latest figures showing it cost $59.5 million.

As for the app itself, it was riddled with technical glitches along with privacy concerns from users.

LifeSiteNews has published a wide variety of reports related to the ArriveCAN travel app.

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Canada’s road paint rules are fading fast—along with public patience

The short paint story that’s actually a big deal

Across Canada, road crews are repainting more often, spending more taxpayer money, and—ironically—emitting more carbon. Why? Because of a federal regulation aimed at reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in traffic paint. The change sounds technical, even trivial. It’s not.

In warm months—from May 1 to October 15—Canadian regulations now cap VOC content in road marking paint at 150 g/L, down from 450 g/L the rest of the year. The reason? To reduce smog formation during periods of high air pollution risk.

But the real-world consequences are showing up fast. Paint doesn’t last. Lines fade. And in rural areas without streetlights, that’s not a minor annoyance—it’s a serious hazard.

This isn’t just a quirky tale of bureaucratic overreach. It’s part of a larger pattern where well-intentioned environmental policy drifts into untested technocracy—implemented with little transparency, consultation, or regard for operational impact.

Municipal leaders, from Halton Hills to Brazeau County, are speaking up. First responders and firefighters are reporting crashes tied to disappearing lane markings. Yet the federal stance remains firm: the air must be cleaned—whether or not the paint adheres.

And here’s the kicker. These seasonal VOC limits? They’ve been in place since 2012 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. But what’s new is a 2023 proposal to tighten VOC limits even further, aligning Canadian standards with California’s most aggressive targets. According to the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association (CPCA):

“Canada is now expected to meet these same low VOC limits in the proposed regulations expected to pass in 2024… If passed, the outcome will mean a loss of products for Canadians, a high cost of reformulation for businesses, and minimal or no improvement in air quality.”

Let’s be clear: these proposals have not yet been enacted. But the direction is unmistakable—and it’s raising alarms in industries that value both environmental responsibility and real-world functionality.

On environmental policy, we’ve crossed a line—ironically, one you can’t see anymore because the paint wore off.

The same pressure groups lobbying against Canadian resource development are now campaigning against VOCs in coatings. And once again, Ottawa is listening—without due consideration for trade-offs, unintended consequences, or operational feasibility.

Environmental rules must pass a basic test: Do they deliver measurable public benefit without causing disproportionate harm or risk? In this case, the evidence suggests the answer is no.

If new paint regulations increase taxpayer costs, degrade road safety, and achieve little to no net environmental gain, what exactly are we doing?

We all want to live in a cleaner world. But climate stewardship does not mean blind acceptance of every restrictive measure wrapped in green.

It means balancing outcomes, respecting evidence, and listening to those who are affected on the ground. A policy that forces municipalities to paint more often, at higher cost, with lower durability, is not sustainable by any definition.