Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2024

[Minh Doan]

Who he would have been talking to...in terms of what context?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You just said that you wouldn't expect him to meet with someone at her level; it would be somebody else.

Who would that other, appropriate person be to work on something like negotiating a contract or providing technical recommendations for this ArriveCAN?

[Minh Doan]

I think that what the OAG and others have shown, to answer your question, is that I don't know that there were a lot of appropriate contacts, but that's just based on what I've seen in reports in The Globe and Mail.

In terms of what I've seen in testimony and evidence, his usual contacts would have been more Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Bains.

We'll go to Mrs. Vignola for two and a half minutes, please.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to come back to what you said in the past.

How do you explain the fact that when Botler AI complained the first time by sending an email to Mr. Utano, Mr. Utano did not inform you of the situation? Given that he reported directly to you, he should normally have informed you about it, if I am not mistaken?

[Minh Doan]

Thank you for the question.

That goes back somewhat to what I have already said. The way delegation works is that different levels of the hierarchy can make certain decisions. We assume that in making decisions, people follow the codes and practices in place and, like good Quebeckers, that they apply common sense. When they learn something, they have to talk to me about it, as the boss, and tell me there is something happening. They can tell me, for example, “I'm handling the situation, but you should be aware of it,” or “I don't think I can handle the situation; I need your help.”

As I said, from what I have heard about Botler AI, efforts were made to conceal various things from me. In that case, the situation was never brought to my attention. Should that have been done? Knowing what I now know, yes, I think it should have been brought to my attention. I could have been told something like “Boss, I am dealing with the situation, but I need you to know about it, and if you want me to do something else, I will do it.”

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

In their testimony, Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald said they were victims of harassment or, at least, of being made scapegoats to protect other people, including you.

What is your reaction to those allegations and the fact that Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald are also accusing Botler AI of wrongdoing? What are your reactions to that testimony and the accusations levelled against you, and in relation to your management and your testimony?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize. I'm afraid there's no time left to respond, but perhaps we can get back to that in Mrs. Vignola's next round.

Mr. Bachrach, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just returning to this question of dinners and entertainment with ArriveCAN contractors, and getting back to Mr. Utano's response to Mr. Barrett at a previous meeting, he said, “The short answer is I was at one dinner, and that was disclosed to my boss, who was Minh Doan at the time. In fact, my boss was present.”

Mr. Doan, were you indeed present at this dinner with ArriveCAN, with at least one ArriveCAN vendor?

[Minh Doan]

I was at a conference in Washington, D.C., that was put on by Amazon Web Services for the public sector. I had approval from my superior to attend this conference, as was Mr. Utano. We were using AWS as our cloud service. At the end of the last day of the conference, it was presented to me that there would be a group dinner with the Canadian delegation, so myself and Mr. Utano attended that meeting with AWS. They picked up the tab. In the moment, I didn't push back, and because of this, I did not claim my meal for that dinner as part of my travel expenses.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Dinner disclosed as per the rules for disclosure...?

[Minh Doan]

Not.... It was part of a conference and at the end, a conference that I had approval to attend so I did not disclose that afterwards.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You had approval to attend the conference, but not to go for a dinner with an ArriveCAN contractor who subsequently picked up the tab for that dinner. I guess it seems.... If the rules are that you have to disclose when vendors buy you dinner and in this case, very clearly, the vendor bought you dinner—it happened to be at a conference, after a conference, actually—do you feel that you were acting within the bounds of the disclosure rules?

[Minh Doan]

In terms of the conference, it was something that I had approval for, but to answer your question, it is something I regret. Even in the context of a group setting as part of what was presented as a Canadian delegation, I should not have accepted that dinner, and I should have disclosed it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mrs. Block, please, for five.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Mr. Doan, you have appeared at this committee twice before, and unfortunately you have been evasive and have refused to clearly answer direct questions, and we're seeing that again today. This has resulted in you asserting falsehoods, which have been refuted since your last appearance by witnesses who have since attended this committee.

During your appearance on November 14, 2023, and again today in your opening remarks, you stated that in relation to the two options for ArriveCAN, “There was no company associated with the second option.” That's a quote from your testimony on November 14, in reference to the GC Strategies option, which I believe you reiterated again today.

However, Mr. Doan, we have been given the slide decks of the two options which were presented to you, both the Deloitte slide deck and the GC Strategies slide deck.

In what we can see on the Deloitte slide deck, there is no logo or anything to indicate which company is behind that option, yet you knew that it was Deloitte. On the GC Strategies slide deck, there was the logo of their primary subcontractor, Distill Mobile, yet you claim to have had no knowledge of which company was responsible for this option. Why did you lie to this committee at that time?

[Minh Doan]

In my opening statement, I was very specific that there were no mentions of GC Strategies. I did not say there were no company logos. I did hear testimony about this Distill Mobile.

I went back into the records after hearing that testimony. There are many versions of that particular deck that you spoke of that was developed in a very short period of time. There was, early on, Distill Mobile, which is not GC Strategies. Should I have known that Distill Mobile was the subcontractor, at that time, of GC Strategies? I did not.

Then you will also see in evidence, that I believe CBSA has provided, that subsequent to the different versions that were coming fast and furious, the later versions of that deck, the Distill Mobile logo mysteriously disappeared as well, but in my opening remarks, I did not say that there were no company logos. I specifically said there was not a reference to GC Strategies.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Correct, and I would suggest that is just an example of an evasive answer, which you could have provided at the time.

In your opening remarks or in response to a question earlier in this committee, you indicated that as the lead on this team, you “should have asked more questions”, that this was your team, that you take responsibility, yet it would seem that you continue to not take responsibility and to provide evasive answers to the questions that you are being asked.

During your appearance before this committee on October 24, 2023, you indicated that your hiring at Treasury Board was through a competitive process. You stated, “I was in the middle of a competitive process with Treasury Board.”

However, we have since learned from Treasury Board officials that you were not hired through a competitive process. We were told that you “came over at level”, and they clarified that it was non-competitive.

Again, you lied to this committee. You were given this new cushy job at the Treasury Board despite your failures at CBSA. I'm thinking that you must have had a pretty good reference. Could you share with us today who your references were for your move to the Treasury Board?

[Minh Doan]

Those were not my statements.

The question was, did I receive a non-advertised...? I did. I was an EX 04 as CIO at CBSA. I was in a process for an EX 05 with Treasury Board, and this can be verified. I was at the interview stage. That is when CBSA learned that it was an EX 05 process. They counter-offered with a non-advertised EX 05. This continues to be consistent with what I said last time. Then, when I moved over as the chief technology officer, it was a lateral move. It was not a promotion. It was a lateral move. I was already an EX 05.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I asked—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's your time, I'm afraid.

Mrs. Atwin, go ahead please.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Doan, for being with us.

I'd like to go back to the text message exchange Mr. Brock was referring to. I'd like you to expand, if you would be able to, on this idea about not being able to “throw phac under the bus” or “Ministers under the bus”, specifically the part about it being “hard to explain the complexity and cost of this thing without doing that”. Please, for the sake of all of us understanding, can you explain “the complexity and cost of this” and specifically what you were alluding to? Again, you don't remember this exchange, but I think you can read into it now that we would really like this information. Could you please explain that?

[Minh Doan]

Thank you for the opportunity.

As a matter of principle, blaming people without merit is not part of who I am. The last time I was here for two and a half hours, under oath, I still did not blame anybody.

In terms of the complexity of this application, there were 177 versions. There were, I believe, to memory, over 80 OICs. They were changing almost every four weeks, if not more frequently. Sometimes, the OICs themselves were changing up to the last minute.

As the technology team, we had to code, recode, adjust and test. I understand, from the OAG, that our testing wasn't sufficient on those time frames, but we had to respond to this.

It wasn't a question of the complexity and the cost of this being because of anybody. It was responding to the health measures, to the evolving pandemic, to the vaccines, to the mandatory random testing and to the different measures for excluded groups.

The context of that was that I needed to be able to explain why this application became so complex. No, it cannot be coded over one weekend for $25,000. It was very complex. It had different components. It had different measures. Changes were added to it at the very last minute. It's not about blaming anybody for that. It is the reality of my PHAC colleagues, of health and of the evolving pandemic, not only in the country, but also around the world as well.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

The last piece of that text exchange we have is that “I have to stay in my lane.” Were you receiving any pressures to say or not say anything with regards to the ArriveCAN app?