Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 21st, 2024

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Do you think the DG would have or should have raised an alarm?

[Dominic Laporte]

It's possible that the DG did raise an alarm. We simply don't have the information to corroborate that fact.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

How do you not have that information? It seems like a credible—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, you will have another opportunity. We'll come back to you, I'm sure.

We turn now to Mr. Brock.

You have the floor for five minutes again.

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

Madame Poulin, I want to circle back to my last question to you. I set it up in terms of identifying various potential criminal charges that could be investigated. We've heard evidence directly from the source, Kristian Firth, who openly admitted to committee members that he actually altered, changed, résumés without consent, without permission of the résumé owners. That is a form of forgery. We've heard evidence of inflated invoices, again by GC Strategies. We've heard about subcontractors doing no work. We heard from the procurement ombudsman that 76% of subcontractors performed no work yet were still receiving government monies, taxpayer monies. As the Auditor General identified, there are probably thousands of pages of missing documents.

In fact, her point is that what's really concerning is what the audit does not reveal, which, in my opinion, is either incompetence or corruption. Given all of the red flags of criminality, fraud, forgery, obstruction of justice and breach of trust by government officials, have you made a referral to the RCMP based on all of the information you've heard to date?

[Catherine Poulin]

As you mentioned, we are gathering all the information that has been put in front of us. That includes what has been said in that committee. It includes the conclusion of the report from the Auditor General. It also includes what we have heard through OPO. We're gathering all of that information and we are analyzing it right now. We need to see if the allegations are supported by other evidence.

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

That's not your job, ma'am. With all due respect, that is not your job. That is the job of our professional law enforcement officers. Your job is that if you have a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, you report that to the legal authorities. Clearly you must have a suspicion of wrongdoing with respect to what's going on here with ArriveCAN. Yes or no?

[Catherine Poulin]

We are doing analysis, and as soon—

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

Do you have a suspicion, ma'am?

[Catherine Poulin]

—as we find evidence in our documents that is not covered—

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

That is not your job. You are not an agent of the RCMP. You are a public servant.

I'll ask the question again: After everything that I've identified and everything you have read in the AG's report, do you have a suspicion of wrongdoing, yes or no?

[Catherine Poulin]

We have sufficient suspicion to start—

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

Thank you. I'll move on.

Mr. Mills, I asked this question yesterday of officials at PHAC. You are speaking on behalf of your particular department. During the course of the implementation of the 177 different versions of ArriveCAN, were there regular and consistent communications between the deputy minister and the minister responsible for this portfolio? I have identified at least three ministers: Anita Anand, Filomena Tassi and Helena Jaczek. Were there regular and consistent communications between the DM and those ministers?

[Michael Mills]

During the first part of the pandemic, there were definitely regular communications between the deputy minister, senior officials and the minister regarding the Government of Canada's overall COVID response and procurements writ large in support of that response.

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

Were there regular and consistent communications with PCO, the Privy Council Office?

[Michael Mills]

There were regular interdepartmental meetings led by PCO to discuss the Government of Canada's response to COVID overall and procurements—

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

Most likely, the person at PCO you would have been speaking with was the Clerk of the Privy Council, who reports to the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

Is that correct?

[Michael Mills]

I would have to take back to what degree our deputies were involved in the interdepartmental meetings. Certainly a number of ADM-level committees were—

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

Okay.

For the Canadians out there watching this live or afterwards who are not familiar with PCO, which minister is responsible for PCO?

[Michael Mills]

The Privy Council Office ultimately reports to the Prime Minister.

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

Thank you very much.

Those are my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chen, you have the floor for five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

One of the common themes in the reports of the Auditor General and the procurement ombud is the lack of documentation. There was no written justification for many decisions. According to paragraph 1.69 of the Auditor General's report, there was a lack of specifics in task authorizations: “many of the task authorizations...several of which were co-signed by Public Services and Procurement Canada, did not include specific and detailed task descriptions and deliverables.” I believe the Auditor General called it some of the worst, if not the worst, bookkeeping she has ever seen.

What is PSPC, as the contracting authority, doing to ensure that this documentation will be appropriately managed moving forward?

[Michael Mills]

As I mentioned, we have issued direction to all departments and agencies that, going forward, task authorizations will no longer be issued under their authorities. Task authorizations will have to be issued under the authorities of PSPC. We'll have to ensure that when PSPC issues those task authorizations, they have much more detail on the specific activities and outcomes we're trying to achieve through the work contained in them.

There is a community of designated senior officials across departments. They are responsible for procurement. We are continuing to do engagement with that community to make sure they are aware of the new requirements. At the same time, we are also looking internally at training for all procurement officers to make sure they are more aware.

One of the things that have come to light from this part is the division of responsibility and the question of where the technical content of those task authorizations is to rest with the departments. I think that, in many cases, it has been different depending on the department. When we take this on, we will need to spend more time reviewing it and making sure that even from a non-technical perspective there is what we would say is reasonable clarity and consistency in the application of those task authorizations going forward.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

My understanding is that there is an e-procurement system that will potentially be helpful. Can you outline how exactly this will be of use?