Government Operations Committee on Nov. 14th, 2023

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I would take that as no, you did not have that conversation with Mr. MacDonald, specifically talking about the penalty box.

How often did you meet with Mr. MacDonald on ArriveCAN?

[Minh Doan]

You'll see evidence that in the early days.... When I say early days, I do mean days. It starts on the 22nd. You'll see emails on the 23rd. Emails start at seven in the morning and end at 11, and then would start at seven in the morning again. We would talk all the time.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Did you talk to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's your time, I'm afraid.

Mr. Garon, go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Doan, you were the chief information officer at the time. If I understand correctly, you were informed one morning that a mobile app was needed. You decided to choose a hybrid solution rather than contract out the work entirely. Once that decision was made, it was no longer your responsibility, but that of the procurement officials. However, no one contacted you to give you any feedback. Afterwards, it was through the media that you learned the name of the firm selected.

What you're telling us is that even though you weren't personally responsible for awarding contracts, your opinion was never sought, even though you were the chief information officer. You were never asked for your opinion on which companies could carry out a contract and which did not.

Is that correct?

[Minh Doan]

Thank you for the question.

First, I want to be clear: I did not learn that we were working with GC Strategies through the media. Second—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

My question was about the procurement process.

As chief information officer, you made a policy decision, but you never heard about it again. The contract was awarded by procurement officials, so it was their fault, in your opinion.

I don't know if you or Mr. MacDonald are telling the truth. However, there are good reasons, if only circumstantial, to think it's Mr. MacDonald. It seems that you exercised very little power despite the position you held.

[Minh Doan]

There's a reason why tasks are delegated to the executives who report to me. If I have to be involved in every decision, at every level, and in every contracting process, nothing is going to happen in government.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Doan, since the beginning of the meeting, you've been telling us that the circumstances were exceptional and that it was necessary to act quickly. However, you justify what happened by invoking normal circumstances.

Isn't it normal for you to be called upon in extraordinary circumstances?

[Minh Doan]

As has already been mentioned, the first version of the application cost $80,000. Personally, I don't think I should be consulted on something that cost $80,000 and was developed in four weeks.

As was mentioned at this committee on November 7, I was informed that this was the way to go, and that's the way I went. I trusted Mr. MacDonald, since he had been given certain powers in order to speed things up.

I would like to remind the committee that, at the time, the ArriveCAN app was not my sole responsibility. It's a fairly simple application, which replaces paper-based processing. At the time, between 1,200 and 1,400 employees reported to me. Many had contracted COVID‑19 and had to go to the hospital. Because of that, there were backlogs. That's what happened. Certain powers needed to be delegated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Doan. I'm afraid that is our time.

Mr. Johns, you have two and a half minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Doan, are you saying that because you don't follow sports, you don't know what it means when a company is put in the penalty box?

[Minh Doan]

That's not what I said. What I said was that I don't follow sport very much. However, that doesn't mean that I'm not familiar with that expression. That said, there's a difference between knowing an expression and using it regularly.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It was alluded to that Deloitte was in the penalty box. We can come up with whatever we want—sidelined, pushed out, on pause. Why? Why was Deloitte on pause?

[Minh Doan]

The CBSA was in the middle of a major project. If memory serves, it was over $400 million; do not quote me on that, but it was in the neighbourhood, to give you an idea. It was a major IT project to modernize its revenue collection. It was a managed service, and the system integrator was Deloitte. That major project had a lot of difficulties. There were difficulties around time, scope and costs.

Now, to be fair, with my 25 years of experience, all major projects in IT have difficulties. It doesn't matter which partner it is. It doesn't matter if it's outsourced or insourced. The difficulties—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Why are they all not in the penalty box? Why is everybody else not in the penalty box? Why was Deloitte specifically in the penalty box?

[Minh Doan]

Again, I don't remember using the term “penalty box”. We were working with them on a major project. From a major project perspective—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

On a $400-million project, you'd think you would have a really good idea of what they were doing wrong. I mean, why were there cost overruns? Why was it taking too long? If you're punishing them, they've done something wrong. What did they do wrong?

[Minh Doan]

I don't know who punished whom. There was no punishment involved. With these major projects the problems are joint. It could be around business requirements. It could be around changing scope. It could be that it's taking some time because the technology has evolved. It's not necessarily one party. In my experience, it's usually both parties who need to sort through it and negotiate it and make change requests as well.

I don't know who said they were being punished—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Typically, you don't punish or put a company in the penalty box, especially a company that size on a project that size, without something going on.

This is really a big problem for this committee. We can't get straight answers from anyone, it seems, on the questions we're asking. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this—just some straight goods.

Can you tell me anything that this committee should be aware of on why Deloitte was in the penalty box or pushed out or whatever you want to come up with?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid that is our time. Perhaps you can get back to it in your next round, Mr. Johns.

Mr. Duncan, you have five minutes, please.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doan, at the beginning of my comments here, I just want to remind you of the swearing of the oath you took here this afternoon. A witness who refuses to answer questions or fails to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House. In many rounds now, we've been asking some basic questions and not getting answers. We've been getting skating around it.

I'm going to try to build on what Mr. Genuis said earlier. The words you're using very specifically are that you “picked a technical direction”, but Mr. Genuis did ask you about this in a previous round. Again, when you made the decision to go in-house with a hybrid model, can you confirm that you were completely unaware, in that hybrid model, of who those outsourced contracts may be with?

Yes or no, did you know that GC Strategies or anyone was involved at that time?

[Minh Doan]

Thank you for your question.

The testimony and the evidence support what I'm saying. Nowhere does the hybrid option mention GC Strategies. No document or email mentions GC Strategies.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Here's the thing. You made a decision to go with an in-house model, a hybrid blend as you call it, and picked a technical decision. You had no clue who would actually be working on the project. You're telling Canadians that this is the case, and that you made a decision worth tens of millions of dollars of sole-source contracts. You said, “We'll do it in-house. It doesn't matter who the outside contractors are.”

Wasn't that even a thought for you, when making a decision one way or the other, that you might want to know who it is?

[Minh Doan]

I've said it previously, but I will repeat it. It was not a multi-million dollar decision. It was not a $54-million decision. It was a decision to have one application up in six weeks, to replace a piece of paper, that cost $80,000. I trusted my DGs, who were delegated to do these things, to get it done. Mr. MacDonald got it done.