Evidence of meeting #105 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 cbsa.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you very much.
I have to move on.
Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to return to the somewhat astounding statement that Mr. Doan had suffered a “fake heart attack”. I don't think any of us would want such statements being made about our personal health in such a public forum.
I'm just wondering this, Mr. MacDonald: Do you have any medical expertise that would allow you to make that statement before committee?
February 22nd, 2024 / 1:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Perhaps I said something I shouldn't have, although what I do have is a Reddit article from a public servant who was with Mr. Doan a week before his testimony. They said that he was drunk on his butt, telling jokes and talking about ArriveCAN vulnerabilities. If somebody was that close to a heart attack—I do have a little bit of medical knowledge—I don't think that he should probably have been drinking to the point of being drunk on his butt.
I made the statement. If it's disrespectful, I take it back, and I apologize, in full and without reservation, to Mr. Doan for making it.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't think there's any dispute, Mr. Chair, that it is disrespectful. The question was whether it is a fact.
You seem to have taken great umbrage, Mr. MacDonald, at other people making statements that are not factual when they involve you. However, you've made a statement concerning Mr. Doan that I don't believe is supported by fact. What are we to make of this? Is this appropriate, given the context of this fact-finding exercise that we're participating in right now?
1:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Frankly, I just apologized, and I removed or tried to rescind my comment. I unreservedly apologize for making it. I can't do anything more than that.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's fair enough.
Mr. Chair, do I have a few more seconds here for another question?
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
I'm going to go back to the CBSA investigation and your reluctance to participate in it without the CBSA disclosing information prior to your participation. Do you know if it's CBSA policy to disclose information to interviewees prior to their interviews?
1:30 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
Maybe I can answer that.
We had not refused to participate. In fact, it was the absolute reverse. Second, the investigator was aware we were on medical leave when it was originally asked.
Third, what is against policy is not maintaining continuity of evidence and articulating that and sharing that information.
Fourth, I think disclosure is part of fairness and transparency, and that is part of the policy under the Treasury Board Secretariat.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you very much. That is your time.
We're going to Mrs. Block and then Mr. Jowhari.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to circle back to what actually brought us to today's meeting and go back to the fact that the subject of our study is ArriveCAN, notwithstanding your desire or your wish that Canadians would understand the challenges and the great work that was done on ArriveCAN.
I think that what is incredibly egregious to Canadians is the awarding of a contract to a two-person firm working out of their basement that had no IT experience and did no IT work. In fact, both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman raised serious concerns about this contract to GC Strategies. The procurement ombudsman stated that the requirements for that third contract were overly restrictive, such that only GC Strategies could win the contract, and the Auditor General in fact revealed that they were at the table when the requirements were being created.
I know that in your testimony you've said that you're a technical authority and not contracting authorities, and that what you do is sign for scope. I need to understand that, because while you stated on November 7 that you were never in a position to put contracts in place and make contracting decisions, you did sign off on funding and the scope.
My question to you is this: While you didn't have the ability to execute, did you have the ability to influence the scope and the request for proposals, in that you were defining what was needed? Was either of you involved in the discussions for the development of the requirements for this final contract with GC Strategies?
1:30 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
Maybe I'll take that one, because Mr. MacDonald was gone by that time.
What I can confirm is that I was not involved in the development of that RFP, the request for proposal. I was not involved in the requirements. There was a separate team of people who were involved in developing that. I haven't....
I'm sorry?
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
That answered my question. You were not involved.
I have another follow-up question. Where was the CFO in all of this? Again, in your testimony on November 7, Mr. MacDonald, you stated that the CFO is the contracting authority and is “responsible for expediting contracts”. When all of this was taking place, where was the CFO?
1:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Initially, the CFO was at the table. What we were not discussing was dollars and cents at every meeting, but every week we would be in front of deputies, in front of PHAC, and showing them screens about what was to be delivered. Most VPs were at the table with us.
When we needed funding to be able to put something in place, the CFO's organization would be the one to approve it and endorse it. Then it would be the CFO's procurement organization under, at the time, a place called “comptrollership”, that would do the reviews of all of the contracting and see what was going on.
At the EC table, which is the president and the VPs, there are, at a minimum, quarterly reviews of expenditures, forecasts and everything that's going on. It would be more appropriate to ask the CFO—and his team, frankly, since he has a large team that supports him—what was going on and where they were.
Certainly they were aware that we were putting contracts in place. He was the one who sent the NSC over to PSPC. Certainly, as we were expending funds, we continued the financial cycle. I reported when I left. I knew it was $6.3 million, because I was tracking all my expenditures. Those were all going to the CFO's organization to be rolled up in aggregate as part of the agency's overall financial position.
1:35 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
Can I add something to that?
1:35 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
I don't want to leave the committee with the sense that there were no discussions or governance; there were. The reason we were working 12- to 16-hour days was that there were ongoing meetings throughout every day, three, four or five times a week, usually three to four times a day—everything from low-level technical meetings to working with PHAC and their seniors and our seniors. There was so much going on, and it was a busy time. I just want to make it clear: Everybody was aware of what was happening. Decisions were being made at the most senior levels, and they were aware of the costs.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I understand that, and yet the Auditor General found that there was glaring mismanagement, a waste of taxpayers' dollars, and not enough evidence to be able to determine the cost of ArriveCAN.
Thank you.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. MacDonald, am I right in understanding that in one of your responses you talked about the Prime Minister in his response in an interview implicating you and Mr. Utano, and passing a judgment in an ongoing investigation? Did I understand that correctly?
1:35 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
We can go back to the opening comments, but with the Prime Minister opining in on this, it felt like it was, yes, directed at us.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Okay.
Let me read what I have been able to secure in the last hour. I quote: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday it's "obvious" contracting rules weren't followed during the development of the controversial ArriveCan app.” The Prime Minister called the application controversial and said the rules were not followed. That is something directly out of the AG's report, and in no way does it implicate you or Mr. Utano.
“Trudeau said that while the app was developed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, such projects still need to follow rules even in difficult times.” This is exactly following what the AG report also highlighted and in no way implicates you or Mr. MacDonald.
The article continued, “He said investigations are ongoing and there will be consequences in cases of public servants failing to abide by the rules.”
He did not specifically talk about any investigation. We all know and are aware of one that has to do with the CBSA, and the other one we have heard about is from the RCMP. He is saying any public servant failing to abide by that rule will be punished. Nowhere does it mention you.
What led you to believe that any of those three statements, which are basically available on media, implicates you or Mr. MacDonald in any way?
1:35 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
The PSFs were shared with OAG. The PSFs were based on allegations unfounded, untested, without context, and even saying no evidence.
What's leading me to say that is the—
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
The Prime Minister never referred to any of those. Why would you feel that it was done?
1:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
The reason, sir, is that if you watch the video, you see that the question was based upon two public servants being suspended. I'm not aware of any other public servants being targeted by the CBSA. I'm not aware of the CBSA or the OAG, or any other member of PSPC....
Actually, I think PSPC answered at the public accounts committee this week that nobody has gotten into any trouble for anything that's happened. I don't think it's a stretch to think that the Prime Minister was referring to us when the question and the genesis of it came down to the fact that there were two public servants who had been suspended from their job.