Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Doan, for your attendance today and your opening statement.
It would be prudent of me, sir, to remind you of a couple of things. I specifically asked that you be sworn for a reason. When witnesses attend at committee, there is a parliamentary privilege that, whether people are sworn in or not, it would still be considered a contempt of Parliament to mislead the committee by giving a false statement or false evidence or to refuse, unless related to cabinet confidences, to answer any questions or to fail to produce documents that the committee might require someone to produce.
That is generally what happens.
I specifically asked that you be sworn given the swirl of accusations that are flowing around from senior government officials as to who retained GC Strategies. You were sworn because now this attracts Criminal Code consideration.
I understand that you have a lawyer, sir, and it is very prudent for you to do that since there are provisions in the Criminal Code that penalize perjury, deliberately giving misleading evidence, which, if founded—if there's a finding of guilt and proof beyond a reasonable doubt—could land a witness in prison for up to 14 years.
You have both of those issues to contend with. I say that not to intimidate. I say that not to concern you. I say that not to force you to clam up and consider your instructions from legal counsel. I say that because, sir, I want to give you a safe place in this committee. There were a lot of accusations hurled at you by Mr. Cameron MacDonald, and I have some serious reservations regarding his truthfulness with respect to those accusations.
This is your opportunity, Mr. Doan, to finally set the record straight.
He, on a number of occasions, has accused you of.... Given his position as director general of innovation, this ArriveCAN app surely would fall within his mandate as an innovative product, but he's accused you of selecting GC Strategies.
You, on the other hand, sir, when you testified on October 24, 2023, not once—I counted—but on four different occasions over the course of that two-hour meeting, during questions from numerous members of this committee from all political stripes, claimed that you still don't know who ultimately selected GC Strategies. In fact, you even went so far as to say that you've been trying to find the answer for close to a year. You made reference to your team making that decision, but then your team consists of 1,600 employees. That doesn't make sense. Then you narrowed that down to potentially six directors general. I narrowed that down to Cameron MacDonald, who's largely responsible for innovation.
We have numerous competing theories as to who chose GC Strategies. I can understand and I think Canadians can understand why no one wants to take ownership. This is a two-person consulting firm that doesn't produce a product, that doesn't operate out of a bricks-and-mortar entity, that largely works out of a basement, and that has, over the course of a number of years but in relation to ArriveCAN, hit the taxpayer lottery of $9 million for doing nothing other than finding professionals to do the work. It's a pretty good gig. I bet there are millions of Canadians who would love that opportunity.
I can understand why you and others who've testified don't want to be attached to this particular company that is under police investigation.
I have about a minute and a half, sir. I'm going to have numerous opportunities to question you in the course of two hours, but I'm going to give you this opportunity to give me the straight goods.
Was Mr. MacDonald lying to this committee, as he's accused you of doing?
