Government Operations Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2024

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

First of all, the Prime Minister never referred to two public servants; you talked about public servants, and there are many public servants. I think that is a little bit of a stretch.

Let's go back to the evaluation.

Thank you very much for tracking the cost for the year that you were there. At least we have a base to start with. The Auditor General also said that this application could have cost us as much as about $60 million. We also heard that the processing of paper applications or paper processing would have cost around $3. At 40 million transactions at $3 apiece, it's about $120 million.

If it's a $60-million application, that's $180 million just in cost avoidance, not valuation. Even if this application was topped at $60 million, we'd avoid potentially twice or three times the cost that the government would have incurred. If you look at it from a cost avoidance point of view, there was some value.

However, I'll ask you a question as a technical person. If there was an e-commerce application that had 18 million users and had anywhere from 40 to 60 million transactions within two years and helped facilitate transaction of goods in the billions of dollars, if we wanted to raise funds for that application and market it, what would it be valued at?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Give a brief answer, please.

[Cameron MacDonald]

It sounds like the member is actually questioning the OAG's report more than we are.

Frankly, we were looking forward to a section in the OAG's report about cost avoidance, if not cost savings, with respect to paper. It wasn't there. I don't question the OAG or her decisions; I just respect the fact that there was a cost to paper, and the app removed that. I agree with the member.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

How much would it cost? Would it be valued at $100 million, $200 million, $300 million...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're past our time, Mr. Jowhari.

Do you have a two-second answer?

[Cameron MacDonald]

I'm not an valuation specialist. It would be worth more than $60 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

We'll now go to our final round.

Mr. Brock, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

In her report, the Auditor General states that the CBSA's “documentation, financial records, and controls were so poor that we were unable to determine the precise cost of the ArriveCAN application.”

She further stated and opined that in her multiple decades of service to this country in the role of the AG, as well as in her audit work, she has never seen worse record-keeping in her life. That was attributable to the CBSA.

Were the two of you responsible for poor record-keeping, yes or no?

[Cameron MacDonald]

We did not have information management responsibilities, especially with respect to project management and invoices—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Utano, would you comment?

[Antonio Utano]

No, we were not responsible for overall financial—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

We all know that Mr. Minh Doan, the vice-president, is alleged to miraculously have had four years of relevant emails disappear, either by corruption or by intentional deletion. There has been some suggestion that this represents roughly 1,700 emails.

Is that figure accurate, or is it much higher?

[Cameron MacDonald]

The figure would be much higher. It would be in the tens of thousands.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Do you believe, sir, that there's an effort by political officials and senior management at CBSA and other departments to destroy incriminatory and problematic documents related to ArriveCAN, yes or no?

[Cameron MacDonald]

I would have no knowledge of anything political, but based on the state of affairs and observations by the AG, I can only assume that there's no way public servants would behave in such a reckless manner. It's just impossible.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Utano, what are your views?

[Antonio Utano]

I just want point out that there was a concerted effort to hold back information. That's what's concerning.

Whether it's through ATIPs, through access on the internal investigation or what's alleged about us, it's all being held back, and that's what's concerning.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm ceding my time to Mr. Genuis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have three minutes, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.

All of the different things that we're hearing are very concerning. I'm particularly concerned about the problems with all of the different allegations as part of this issue. I think we need to ensure there's a proper and thorough investigation.

With that in mind, Chair, I would like to move a motion in relation to a proper investigation.

I move:

That the committee report to the House its ask that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada investigate all the allegations of wrongdoing related to ArriveCAN, and report to the House by October 1, 2024.

Chair, this would allow for the important independent investigation we need to have from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada to get to the bottom of some of these allegations.

This would be an investigation by an officer of Parliament that is not at risk of interference and is not subject to the internal chain of command. I hope that there would be the support of this committee for this very simple proposal to ask the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada to investigate these allegations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I understand that the clerk has it and is sending it out to everyone right now. I will start a speaking list.

Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I can ask, while we wait to receive this motion—it's at least a much shorter one that we can really keep a focus on—if I am right in understanding that we are now asking a fourth independent group to launch an investigation.

The AG has completed her investigation. It seems there was a motion for us to go back and expand or launch another investigation much broader than that; I don't know where that's gone. We know that there's an internal CBSA investigation going on. Through media and through others [Technical difficulty—Editor] led to believe that [Technical difficulty—Editor] and who the participants are. Now we are asking for a fourth investigation to be launched.

Wouldn't it be more logical for us to wait for the outcome of the two investigations—at least the one that we know of and the other one that we've heard is going on—and get the result of them to be able to assess whether a fourth investigation is required? I don't know what the basis of such a request would be without the outcome of at least one known investigation and another one that's alleged to be going on.

Are we going to now task another group with getting to the bottom of this, which we do welcome, and then extend the number of meetings we'll have for ArriveCAN from unknown to extremely unknown, and from somewhat planned, we believe, to completely unplanned going forward? Why do we need another investigation when the outcome is not out yet from the ones that are ongoing or are believed to be ongoing?

At this point, without that, I'm not supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, sir.

We have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Brock and then Ms. Vignola.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry to see that this may not be as simple as I thought it would be.

Let me state what I think all members know: There are different officers of Parliament and different organizations with very different mandates. Obviously, we have the RCMP looking into allegations of criminal activity. I suspect we will hear from them at some point. There's the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General is acting as an auditor, with specific scope to look at a set of things related to money and value for money, processes, etc. We have the procurement ombudsman's report, which has a distinct mandate related to procurement.

The role of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, as an officer of Parliament, is to investigate wrongdoing and to investigate clearly allegations of problems in integrity in relation to people in government. We have allegations of reprisals against public servants following their committee testimony of the destruction of documents and of extortion. There are many serious allegations flying back and forth, with senior public servants accusing each other of lying to parliamentary committees. These are very distinct issues related to integrity within government. I think that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has the right mandate to investigate those specific issues and, crucially, has the advantage of independence.

We oppose efforts by some to bury this matter or to limit the scope of the investigations. There was a clear agenda, I think, on the part of the government to want to have this limited to an internal investigation that ultimately they can control. When we have an officer of Parliament responsible for making investigations into public sector integrity issues, I think that is a clear and appropriate way of getting to the bottom of this situation.

Look, if we wait until other reports are complete before this process starting itself at all, then we are just continually pushing off actually getting to the truth. I think it is right and responsible for this committee to ask for the support of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner as an independent actor, as someone with credibility and as someone who will look at issues distinctly different from those in the other reports.

Again, I hope this motion will have the support of colleagues. It's a simple, straightforward motion. There's no extraneous commentary in the motion at all. I think it's something that all members should be able to support to allow proper investigations to take place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Now we have Mr. Brock, followed by Ms. Vignola. Then we'll go back to Mr. Jowhari.