Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, I can take that one.

My understanding of the plans of the U.S. Navy—and they are always subject to change—is that they plan on flying the P-8s into the mid-2060s. I have information that is different from what was indicated in the question. I'm not aware of the dates that were shared in the question.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I guess I'm just looking for what the long-term sustainment plan is.

Wouldn't a more modern and environmentally friendly Canadian-made aircraft with an abundance of ongoing support in parts be a more prudent procurement than something that will sunset only a few years after delivery? These environmental concerns are real. I'm hoping you can answer them.

[Bill Matthews]

I think again, with respect to the sustainment and the lifespan of the P-8 assets, our understanding is that it has a long run ahead of it into the mid-2060s.

From a sustainment perspective, generally speaking, the more assets that are in service, the more readily available sustainment parts are. If you're dealing with a common fleet that is shared with allies, you generally have more ease of access to supply chains. We're feeling it on the CP-140 right now. As allies have divested, we have found it more and more challenging to find parts. You need a sustainment plan for sure. Ms. Gregory here has already talked about the potential economic benefits. My rule of thumb is that having common fleets amongst allies is a good risk mitigation measure for sustainment.

On the environmental question, we're going to have to come back to you, because regardless of the decision made, those are outstanding questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

Before we go to Ms. Kusie, I'll let the witnesses know we've passed a motion in this committee that when you are getting back to us with any documents or information, we have a three-week time limit. I'll ask you to watch for that.

Also, before we go to Ms. Kusie, colleagues, if you don't mind, I'll ask three questions that I promise you will be very quick.

Can you let us know who did the third-party assessment?

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

It was Avascent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay.

Was the Kawasaki P-1 considered at any part of this process? I realize there's more expense on that. Did they respond to the RFI?

[Simon Page]

Yes, they did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, but it wasn't considered.

Who was the other one in the CITT dispute? Was that the Glock versus Sig Sauer issue, or was that a different one?

[Simon Page]

It was the pistol replacement project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Wonderful.

I told you it would be three very quick questions.

Ms. Kusie, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I want to thank the witnesses very much for being here today. I think this has certainly shed a lot of light on the process. I certainly hope that it will help the government in their deliberations as they come to the best decision for Canadians.

I'm going to take a moment now to bring forward a motion that I had put on notice earlier. I know that we as a committee had come to the conclusion that we were scheduled to complete the ArriveCAN study in very short order—in fact, I know that we were going to be moving to the line-by-line study even as soon as this coming week—but I believe that new information has come to light on the ArriveCAN situation that as a committee we just simply cannot ignore.

I will read to you a communication from Ms. Dutt, of Botler, to former CBSA executive director Antonio Utano. She writes, “I wish I was reconnecting under better circumstances. Due to ongoing issues with a supplier, DALIAN Enterprises Inc., in joint venture with Coradix Technology Consulting Limited, and their subcontractor, GC Strategies Incorporated, Botler AI no longer feels comfortable working or associating with any of the above-mentioned parties in any capacity moving forward.

“We were approached by Kristian Firth of GC Strategies in early November, 2019, who informed that his client, the CBSA, asked him to reach out to us regarding starting proof of concept. After confirming that GCS did have business with the agency on Buyandsell, Botler began initial groundwork and monetary investment for the project from November 2019 onward. The contract for the project was finalized between the agency and DALIAN in January 2021 and has been riddled with issues that have been flagged repeatedly by both Botler's team as well as teams within the CBSA since.

“From the onset in 2019, we were informed that GCS would be the supplier of the vehicle, would act as the intermediary between Botler and the agency, for which they would charge an additional percentage fee on top of our quoted fees of $350,000 Canadian, plus applicable taxes, for the proof of concept pilot. In late 2020, GCS informed us that the contract would have to pass through another company that he knew. After repeated requests, we finally received the attached email, entitled 'FYI from GCS'. The value of Botler's contract had been cut by $16,000—$336,000—with no explanation provided as well as the agreement between GCS and DALIAN, also attached. At no point were we consulted by either DALIAN or GCS regarding the terms or any aspect of this contract, and we never have provided our consent to the existing terms, which don't even specify our company's name.

“All the deliverable milestones and dates specified have been arbitrarily assigned without consultation with Botler. This has already caused headaches and wasted unnecessary time for both the CBSA and Botler's teams. CBSA's HR project liaison has also raised concerns over the contracting. After we completed the ninth month of formal work, Botler has yet to be paid a cent, whereas Coradix received the first payment for Botler's work 67 days ago and have submitted another invoice for payment. Both GCS and Coradix have tried to pass Botler's invoice on to the other party and are non-responsive to follow-up. Please find the attached respective email threads.”

Now we have allegations of identity theft, forged resumés, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price-fixing and collusion, all with senior bureaucrats and three contractors, one who was in front of us during the ArriveCAN investigation within this committee. We can't even verify the validity of the report because we were lied to during testimony.

Subsequently, my colleague Larry Brock uncovered that the AG was made aware of the investigation from The Globe and Mail prior to her testimony being shut down.

I know that my opposition colleagues share this concern and I want to thank my NDP colleague for the honour and responsibility of moving this motion after he indicated his intention in the Globe and Mail article to move a similar motion and to work with fellow Conservatives and opposition colleagues. I know that everyone on this committee is a dedicated and honourable parliamentarian who wants to get the truth for Canadians.

Our concerns began simply in an effort to get value for the money of Canadians and to get value for taxpayers' money, but unfortunately, it has come to so much more than this. We must now get the truth for Canadians.

We cannot conclude our ArriveCAN study. We must continue our pursuit of the truth.

With that, Chair, I am moving the following motion today:

That the committee postpone the deadline for recommendations on the ArriveCAN study in order to extend the study for an additional four meetings in light of the recent reports that the RCMP is investigating allegations of misconduct by three companies involved in the development of the ArriveCAN app. Over the course of the four meetings, the committee will hear testimony that includes, but is not limited to, the following witnesses regarding the investigation, the evidence and its findings, and that the testimony heard during those meetings be included in the final report on the ArriveCAN Study, and recommendations be accepted up to a week following the final week of testimony:

Ritika Dutt, Botler

Amir Morv, Botler

Kristian Firth, GC Strategies

Cameron MacDonald, Former CBSA Director General

John Ossowski, Former President of the CBSA

Sergeant Kim Chamberland, RCMP

Erin O'Gorman, President of the CBSA

Minh Doan, Former CBSA Vice-President and CIO

Antonio Utano, Former CBSA Executive Director

Vaughn Brennan, Consultant

Jeremy Broadhurst, Chief of Staff for the Minister of Finance

David Yeo, Dalian Director

Anthony Carmanico, Dalian Director

Anita Anand, President of the Treasury Board

Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Dominic Leblanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee, for your diligent consideration of this motion. Thank you all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Ms. Kusie.

The motion was put on notice a week or two ago. It was October 6. We are making printed copies in case you've lost emailed copies.

Starting the speaking list on the motion, I have Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First I want to thank my Conservative colleague for doing the heavy lifting on this.

We expressed that we were going to put forward a motion. This motion is sound. I think it covers the bases.

Obviously, we want to work together on this. We need to get to the bottom of it. We clearly didn't get to the bottom of it in the last rounds of having these witnesses before us. We want to make sure that this never happens again, and getting to the bottom of this is going to help us make recommendations.

I want to make a couple of quick alterations. I think we have a common agreement here in Parliament that we don't drag in chiefs of staff. We have ministers come and appear before the committee, so I'd like to move that we strike out Jeremy Broadhurst, the chief of staff for the Minister of Finance. I think we have enough ministers here to answer the concerns we have.

I'd like to add Mark Weber. He's the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union. We had him here before. I think he's going to have a lot more to say, given these revelations that we've seen and learned of.

I want to thank Bill Curry from The Globe and Mail for the important work he's done. We wouldn't be learning about a lot of this without Bill Curry. It's pretty sad that this hasn't come through the public service and that they're not catching these things and doing due diligence to mitigate this from happening.

I'd like to move that we remove Jeremy Broadhurst and add Mark Weber.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If I can interrupt, I understand what you're saying about Mr. Broadhurst. There is a part where we can add other witnesses, so we don't need to name Mr. Weber specifically.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'd like to put him in. I'm just moving a quick amendment to remove Jeremy Broadhurst. Hopefully it's a friendly amendment and hopefully Ms. Kusie will support that and add Mr. Weber.

I'm moving an amendment to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Does anyone want to speak on the amendment?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I would accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay.

(Amendment agreed to)

It is so moved. We'll take Mr. Broadhurst off and add Mr. Mark Weber, who I think graced us with his appearance earlier.

Does anyone else wish to speak on this motion?

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

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

I too would like to thank my colleague for her diligence in bringing forward this motion upon the revelations that we read in Mr. Curry's article. It's long, and there's a lot there. I think that when we first started this study, we absolutely believed that we weren't getting to the bottom of the story. I want to say to my colleagues that if you take a look at the article, you will see that there is a comment made that Ms. Dutt “questioned why the agency did not appear to take action in response to their first warnings — delivered in September, 2021 — and only moved [on the issue] after receiving their second report once ArriveCan had become a major public controversy” last fall through this committee. I think we did some good work. I think it absolutely shone a light on some things.

The last comment I would make is that at the end of this article, she is quoted again as saying that she understands that “speaking out could mean their federal funding will dry up and they are taking a big risk without knowing how it will turn out.” She said:

This is about something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from...hardworking Canadians who are already struggling financially, that is given and spent through contractors through improper means. And I think that Canadians have a right to know what’s going on with their hard-earned money.

I'll leave it there and again thank my colleague and all my colleagues on this committee for the work that we've done and hopefully will continue to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm tagging into this study, and I'm certainly interested in learning more about what transpired. It's certainly something that I've heard a lot about from constituents.

My question would simply be this: Given the cabinet shuffle that occurred, would it be prudent for the ministers to appear, or would officials really suffice because they have more of an understanding of what actually occurred during their time? I'm putting that out there for discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Vignola, do you have your hand up? No? Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Ministers are responsible for decisions that are made in their departments, period. We should call the ministers responsible for the department to account for the decisions made by the government, by their predecessors and within their departments. That's the proper form—always.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Johns is next.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'll just add that they can bring their staff.