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.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
I'd rather not weigh in on that. That's way too political for anything I'm involved with.
I'm concerned that we're not getting a fair fight and that information is being withheld that would allow us to defend ourselves from these egregious allegations.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
Mr. Bains, please go ahead, sir.
February 22nd, 2024 / 1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I want to go back to Botler.
Did you ask Botler to develop a pilot or do any other IT work?
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Thanks for the question.
This is the ironic part about Mr. Lafleur being the lead investigator. Mr. Lafleur was actually part of the vetting process for Botler when we decided on the scope.
The initial proposal was for them to do a feasibility study with six milestones and do a small regional pilot. HR and security decided against doing the pilot, which is why you'll see prior emails from me to Ritika Dutt saying that we want to do all of this. It was after their demo and the president's decision that HR came back and said that they only wanted to do the feasibility study, so that was what was contracted.
It was after the kickoff that Ritika Dutt wrote to John Ossowski directly—she didn't include me or Mr. Utano—and said that Justice Canada had approved this pilot and that they wanted CBSA to take it on. This is where they would monetize their Botler for Citizens to move into “Botler for workplace”. I think this is why they testified that they were going to make $28 million a year across the government. It was because they were trying to position their tool to be one for internal government workplaces and they would get paid on licensing.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
She wrote directly to the president of the CBSA, John Ossowski, even though he testified that he had no contact with her after the initial presentation. The ATIP doesn't lie.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
That's the funny part. If you look at their complaints and at their reporting, they did a lot of work. They were building things. They were building tools. They were doing configuration. However, they were hired to build six documents as part of a feasibility study, and that's it. We never hired them to do anything more.
If they engaged then-president Ossowski and had approval from the Department of Justice to do some type of public safety pilot or some work in configuration, it had nothing to do with the contracting that we had, and we were not aware of it whatsoever. That is why we've been so vehemently—
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
We're under the impression that they didn't do any work and they didn't get paid out. That was previous testimony.
Considering all the relationships that you indicated that they have, they didn't end up with anything, did they?
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
Our understanding is that they got paid for two of the six milestones.
Frankly, they testified here that they didn't know who Dalian and Coradix are, but they used Dalian and Coradix to obtain a line of credit so that they could build stuff. However, building something wasn't part of the feasibility study.
This is where Antonio and I are completely confused as to where Botler got direction and who they were working with. It certainly wasn't us. The scope from us was a feasibility study.
1:20 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
I don't have evidence, but I think there was an assumption from Botler AI that Mr. MacDonald and I were aware that this other initiative was going on, but we were not. It was unbeknownst to us. We were not part of those email chains.
When human resources asked us to stop the feasibility study—I'm calling it “project one”—they are the client, so we stopped it. What happened, I think inadvertently, is that we caused issues with this other project that we were not aware of. I think it explains why Botler is so angry.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
I do, 100%.
1:20 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
Yes.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
You suggested that Mr. Doan was not permitted by his seniors to select Deloitte for ArriveCAN because it was in a penalty box. I think you alluded to that again today.
You speculated that was due to a risk management project called the CARM project. Mr. Doan stated that this decision was more likely due to Deloitte's lack of cloud capability, while Mr. Ossowski did not recall directing anyone to not work with Deloitte.
I asked Mr. Doan specifically who made the decision. I think we've come to the point that he made the decision on ArriveCAN. I think we've uncovered that. Perhaps you can shed some light on that piece, sir. Can you give insight into why Deloitte was not selected for ArriveCAN?
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
I thank the member
I know that Mr. Jowhari is familiar with management consulting and IT. I welcome any member here to look at the two options that we have provided as evidence.
Nowhere in the Deloitte option does it talk about Deloitte's cloud. Nowhere in the Deloitte option does it talk about a completely outsourced option.
On the other option, where Minh Doan told this committee that there were no logos or no anything, there was a logo. It was Distill Mobile, which was subcontracted through GC Strategies.
I maintain that I was told—and so was the former chief data officer—that Deloitte was out of bounds and that they were in the penalty box because the CARM project was in the red. That's the truth, and it's also verifiable. I've already given this committee the names of the people who can verify it.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. I'm afraid that we have to move forward.
Ms. Vignola, you have two and a half minutes, please.
1:25 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I will repeat my question from earlier, to which I did not get an answer.
Should the Canada Border Services Agency be put under third-party management, under supervision, in order for things to be cleaned up and what's wrong to be fixed?
1:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, COVID and Pandemic Response Secretariat, As an Individual
That's a very good question. I have an opinion, but I'm not sure I'm in a position to answer yes or no to your question. There are definitely some very serious issues that need to be addressed.
Despite the testimony of the president and other people from the agency, from my viewpoint with some hindsight, I don't see how the issues are progressing toward a resolution. I don't understand the targets, the steps or the ways in which the CBSA is addressing these issues. So it is not up to me to answer yes or no to your question.
That's a very good question, though. I think it should be put to someone who has more experience in this area than I do.
1:25 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
If I understand correctly, the only thing that prompted this questioning was Botler's artificial intelligence and the so-called pilot project. There seems to be some confusion about each player's role. I'm a bit gullible. I can understand certain things.
I get the impression that, currently, based on a defence strategy that may be reasonable, an attempt is being made to create reasonable doubt regarding Botler's complaint.
Is that the case?
1:25 p.m.
Director General, Information Technology Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, As an Individual
We doubt, with respect to what the CBSA told them, the terms and conditions that they put on the table to participate in the investigation and share the report.
The other thing that's concerning, Madame, is that we have been asking for disclosure of these original allegations and we still have yet to receive them. We believe there are others in that letter that we have not yet become aware of.