Evidence of meeting #102 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 audit.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Okay. You would agree with me, Mr. Hayes, that it really has nothing to do with ArriveCAN per se but the handling of contracts related to another software company out of Montreal by the name of Botler.
5:50 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
What I would say about the preliminary document, which I'm hesitant to call a statement of fact because there are still procedural things—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Our understanding is that the individuals against whom allegations have been made have not responded yet, so at this point in time we consider that document to be preliminary and are not really relying on it as an authoritative document.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I just want to focus. This really had nothing to do with the ArriveCAN app per se, but was a secondary issue. That secondary issue was also referred to the RCMP.
I just want to be abundantly clear with you, Ms. Hogan. In my view, there was absolutely no legal impediment preventing you from examining any sort of criminality or any suspicions regarding criminality, because your audit on ArriveCAN was really not the focus of the RCMP, as confirmed by the Liberal bench numerous times, and the RCMP are not investigating ArriveCAN, or rather Botler, and the internal investigation likewise.
My question for you is very simple.
Take that away. Take the RCMP away. Take the internal investigation away. You have a mandate, I believe, that if you uncover or have any suspicions regarding criminality, you must report that to the RCMP. I believe Mr. Hayes shared that with me at an earlier appearance.
Take those two concepts away. Given the gross breach of trust by public officials, elements of fraud and forgery, were there any red flags, any suspicions, that you would have deemed to be appropriate to report to the RCMP?
5:50 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
This was a bit of an unusual situation. They way you described it is absolutely correct. If we found evidence that caused us to believe that law enforcement should be involved, we would refer a matter to the RCMP.
In this situation, I didn't have to turn my mind there, as the RCMP was already potentially looking at a matter relating to contracting from the CBSA, so I met with the RCMP. I talked to them in generalities about our findings, because our report had not yet been made public. I said to them that once it was made public, if they would like to have access to our file to see our evidence, they should send me a production order.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
At this point you did not specifically refer any allegations to the RCMP.
Is that correct?
5:50 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's correct, because, as I said, they were already investigating a—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I understand.
In light of what we heard today, which is that GC Strategies has been billing—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Brock, that is our time. I'm sorry.
Mr. Sousa, go ahead for five minutes.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again, Ms. Hogan, for being here today and providing us with some insight into some of the things that are very worrisome for all of us.
You mentioned that there was no indication of the capabilities of certain contractors to do the work, yet ArriveCAN was established. Substantive and very complex issues were dealt with. Millions of Canadians were affected, and border crossing measures were taken. To your admission, this actually improved information exchange in order to support the process.
The indication of capability may not have been there, but are the results positive? Did it accomplish what it was intended to?
5:50 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
In our 2021 audit, in which we followed up on border measures, we did highlight that the ArriveCAN application improved the quality of the information that was collected from travellers and enhanced the timeliness of the government's follow-up.
I should note that they still did not follow up with two-thirds of travellers, but it was still an improvement from at the start of the pandemic.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I agree, and the alternative would have been worse.
The other thing you mentioned was that because it was a pandemic and because of the urgency provided to the civil service to try to get this out quickly, that is no excuse for the lack of reporting or lack of accountability.
The impossibility of reconciling these matters has to be resolved. Procurement has taken steps to remove the delegation authority that you just mentioned, enable better e-based enablement for those contracts, and also provide for the cost basis of the bid so we have a better understanding as to why they're creating the price they're putting forward. That gives us a bit more transparency and a bit more understanding.
Another colleague asked if this is the worst you've seen.
I don't think you were the auditor when they were looking at the G8 legacy infrastructure fund. Eighty-three million dollars were approved, and then $50 million were asserted to the funds that were allocated through the ministers.
I think the headline was “no accountability”, and procurement wasn't followed by the Conservatives at the time. Here's an indication of a procurement that involved elected officials in the disposition of $50 million in funds to the G8 in Huntsville and one of the ministers at the time from the Conservative benches.
This did not happen here. Were any elected officials engaged in your review?
5:55 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
As I said earlier on, there wasn't a good governance structure set up. That governance structure would normally include good oversight and briefing. While we saw evidence that the deputy minister was aware, I saw no formal documentation to show that a briefing was done either at the political level or to the deputy head in a formal way.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Did you see decisions on contracts made by elected officials?
5:55 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We saw a lack of documentation for some of the most basic decisions being made, like why GC Strategies was selected or why a sole source was used. I mentioned in my opening statement that what we didn't find is concerning.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I understand what you didn't find. I'm trying to see if you found any indication, which you haven't, from what I can tell in your response.
Really, there is a lack of information that we should be more aware of.
Do you think it's appropriate during an investigation, be it with Botler by the RCMP or on another issue, that elected officials should engage with witnesses, given that this is what you do?
5:55 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It's not up to me to comment on what elected officials should do. I would tell you that I would not want to interfere personally with an investigation or impede in its impartiality or objectivity.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Because of the integrity of the investigation....
You read the public statement of facts or the interim statement of facts. Do you think it's appropriate for that to be divulged publicly during this period of time?
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I think that's a question that has to be looked at in context.
I believe, if I understand correctly, that the preliminary statement of facts might have been shared with the committee by one of the individuals. If that's indeed true, that's their personal information that they can share. That's a question more for the committee than for us.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I understand, but I'm just asking you, personally. Given that there's an investigation, given that we have some sensitivities, given that there are a number of things we're trying to do, if you were the investigator trying to determine this, would you find that to be an interference with your work?
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
As an investigator, I would be doing everything I can to maintain the integrity of my investigation and recognizing that I would not be the source of putting information out there. However, the other people who are being investigated have their rights as well.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Vignola is next, please, for two and a half minutes.