Evidence of meeting #98 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Great. Thank you.
Lastly, is there anything that you personally would have done different in this situation in hindsight? You know, hindsight is 20/20; if we could look back and fix things. Would you personally have done anything different as the acting president?
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll start with a bit of a joke: I would wish that I never opened up the president of the Public Health Agency's email asking for an app.
2:40 p.m.
A voice
So do a lot of Canadians.
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
That said, we were moving very quickly. Everybody was making their best efforts to respond to the Public Health Agency's requirements here to get this information. I'm grateful for and very proud of what the agency did during that period of time.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
Can I ask a question of both our witnesses, just very briefly? Minh Doan has said that he is proud of the ArriveCAN app. Is that your position as well? Are you both proud of the ArriveCAN app?
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll start.
Yes, I'm very proud of the app. If I may, I would just expand on that a little bit.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I don't have a huge amount of time, so give me your—
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll be very quick.
The future of travel, and many countries are doing this, is all reliant on an application of this nature. Getting advance information on people is critical to the border functioning—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
My question was about the ArriveCAN app specifically, but thank you for your response, Mr. Ossowski.
Go ahead, Ms. O'Gorman.
2:40 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
We continue to use it on a voluntary basis. About 300,000 travellers a month are using it.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
It worked. It performed. It did its job. There's a separate question relating to—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It's just a yes or no: Are you proud of it?
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay.
I'll go back to my previous line of questioning.
Ms. O'Gorman, I think you understand that when it comes to issues of conflict of interest, public servants have to avoid the reality and the appearance of conflict of interest. I think a similar principle would apply to professional retaliation. It's important to avoid the reality and the appearance of people facing professional retaliation for speaking to this committee. By analogy, sometimes the horse's head is in the bed just because it's a convenient place to put it, but more often than not, it might be interpreted as a message.
We had at this committee, on November 7, Mr. MacDonald testifying that you and CBSA lied about who was responsible for choosing GC Strategies. Twenty days after that, they received a letter saying they were under investigation. This was a new letter to them. About a month after that, they were advised that you had made the decision that their legal fees would not be covered.
You can tell us that this was not professional retaliation for their testimony before the committee. Whether it was purely intended as retaliation or not requires us to assess your motivation, which is something that's obviously difficult to do externally. But don't you think it obviously looks like retaliation, and would likely have the effect of chilling public servants who would otherwise be interested and willing to come before this committee to give honest and frank testimony? Doesn't the fact that so shortly after their testimony, you made the decision to pull the support for their legal fees, and they received a letter saying they were under investigation, which led to their being suspended from their jobs without pay, have at least the appearance of professional retaliation against them and their careers as a result of testimony they gave to the government operations committee?
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. Let me just interrupt.
Mr. Sousa, do you have a point of order?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Yes. If Mr. Genuis could just step back a bit.... It's very staticky when he speaks so close to the mic.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
My question was for the witness.
Go ahead.
2:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
I'm not retaliating against anybody. I'm trying to find out what happened.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Do you think it looks like retaliation that these events that had severe negative implications for their careers happened to occur immediately following their testimony before this committee?
2:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
I'm confident that all decisions that were taken were taken by the accountable people.
You referenced legal fees—
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm confident that you're not answering the questions, though. This isn't my first committee hearing and this isn't your first committee hearing. My question was the following. Would you not agree that this looks like a scheme to retaliate and punish public servants who were critical of you, your leadership and others within CBSA?
2:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
You're suggesting that it is, and I'm telling you that I'm not retaliating against anybody.