Evidence of meeting #134 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Genuis, I've stopped the clock.
Ms. Khalid, you can take exception.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
My point of order is specifically with respect to following a procedure that you have outlined and Mr. Genuis is not continuing to follow it. I would appreciate if you could ensure that Mr. Genuis does follow your ruling.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
That is not a point of order. I made my ruling. I think it was one the committee would broadly agree with.
Mr. Genuis has the floor. If he wants, he can now...it's his comment.
Your side will have an opportunity to respond to Mr. Genuis afterwards and whoever does that can address it. Then that person will have the floor, and I will do my best to keep Mr. Genuis from interrupting that person.
Mr. Genuis, you have the floor for four minutes and just under 30 seconds, please.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
We have seen throughout how Ms. Khalid has been repeatedly unruly and trying to disrupt this investigation into Liberal corruption. I think that's revealing, but I'll press on here.
Ms. Daly, you talked about being under investigation. When did it become public that you were under investigation?
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. The fact that Kristian Firth would have named you in the House of Commons might suggest he had access to information about whether you were under investigation or it might not, but it underlines the strangeness of the fact that he named you, a relatively more junior employee.
Now, we have an internal investigator at CBSA who's investigating the same situation. That internal investigator reports within the CBSA hierarchy and up to the minister. They're not independent. That's one of the concerns that we've raised, the lack of independence for this investigation. That investigator reports to people who they might well potentially be investigating.
Just for clarity, is this the same person who's investigating you as well?
As an Individual
No.
There are two things. There was the witness request from Michel Lafleur, who was the CBSA...I think he's an executive director over there of the investigations unit. The second is another director of the special investigations unit at PSPC. However, the letter to me, from both CBSA and PSPC, indicated me not adhering to the procurement code of conduct for both agencies.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
Going back, in Cameron MacDonald's testimony at the end of last year, he said, “On August 28, 2023, I received a letter from Minh Doan telling me that Minister Marco Mendicino wanted someone's head on a platter....”
Minister Mendicino wanted someone's head on a platter. Based on what we've heard today, Ms. Daly, it does look like someone has proposed your head to be the one on the platter. Now, for all I know, you may have done things wrong—I don't really know—but you are relatively junior compared to most of the officials who have come before this committee.
Unlike many other officials, you were not given gifts, hospitality, anything like that. While Kristian Firth lavished senior government officials who were involved in decision-making with all kinds of apparent gifts, and presumably he had reasons for doing so, he gave you nothing. You were the beneficiary of none of this hospitality. Then he out of the blue accuses you of being the one involved in discussing technical requirements on April 17. The whole thing looks very odd, frankly, very rotten. We're continuing to try to get answers on this corruption scandal. Minister Mendicino wants a head on a platter. What we're looking for is answers, and yet, people who are frank and try to give answers seem to be subject to retaliation.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose a motion in light of the fact that we haven't gotten agreement to do these things more consensually. The motion is:
In light of the testimony and evidence provided by Diane Daly, the committee order the production of the recording which Ms. Daly referenced in her testimony and call the following people to appear before the committee on ArriveCan and particularly to respond to the new information Ms. Daly has presented: Lysane Buldoc, Tom von Schoenberg, Arianne Reza, Kristian Firth, and Erin O'Gorman.
I will send the slightly revised version to the clerk.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Genuis, I believe you already have a translated copy, but you have made some changes to it. Could you please send that in right away?
I'm going to send it right away, Ms. Shanahan.
I'm going to suspend for a few minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'm bringing this committee hearing back into session.
The motion has been sent around.
Mr. Genuis, do you want to speak to it briefly? If not, I'm going to turn to other members who have signalled a desire to speak to it.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, Chair, I'll make a few comments about it. Thank you for the opportunity.
This is a motion following Ms. Daly's explosive testimony today. It seeks to invite people her testimony implicates or addresses to come before this committee and respond to the important points she made. It's also about seeking material information that we need as part of our investigation.
Here is the context as I see it. What are we trying to do here at public accounts?
This committee is looking for the truth. We want to get accurate information to get to the bottom of what happened in the arrive scam affair. We clearly have different members or factions within the senior public service who are criticizing each other, accusing each other of lying, of covering up information, of trying to cover people at the political level, etc. We have these very serious accusations flying back and forth between senior officials within the Trudeau government. It's all a mess. Money has been wasted. There are accusations of intimidation, of cover-up, of reprisal that this committee has to get to the bottom of. This compounds the concern about the arrive scam affair itself, the tens of millions of dollars that were spent, the broken system of government contracting, but also the lying, the corruption, the cover-ups, the reprisals and the accusations back and forth between different officials to that effect.
Ms. Daly has had the finger pointed at her. She has come back and provided a number of points to counter that, including evidence about various senior officials and things they have said to her. Also, she has referenced a recording—a lengthy recording—involving her and people who were investigating her. I think that recording is critical for us in understanding whether or not she's faced intimidation, the tone of that, the expectations. What she has told us as a committee is that she was expected to point the finger at Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano. When she didn't do that, that led to a kind of aggression and pressure. We need to hear that recording to get to the bottom of whether or not her testimony in this regard is credible.
Here's how I see the process having unfolded. On November 7, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano were before OGGO. At that time, they delivered critical testimony of the government. They called leading government witnesses liars. They gave scathing testimony. They identified that as part of the response to the ArriveCAN affair, Minister Mendicino had been seeking someone's head on a platter. He wanted someone's head on a platter. Later that month, these two—Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano—got letters indicating further investigation for bad behaviour, right after their committee testimony strikingly, and they were later suspended without pay.
Ms. Daly was brought in in December. She was, according to her testimony, asked to point the finger at Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano. She said no. Later that month, they started investigating her. Now you have another public servant, a third, who's under investigation, who appears to be brought under investigation in the same month where they were refusing to play ball with the government's narrative. This raises big questions.
On February 12, the Auditor General put out her scathing report on the arrive scam affair in which she said, among other things, that GC Strategies worked with government officials discussing the specifications of a contract they would then bid on, and obviously, that's a problem.
Kristian Firth came to OGGO on March 13. He refused to say who he sat down with, which officials were being referenced in the Auditor General's report. He was so committed to refusing to give that information that he was called to the bar of the House and admonished in order to give responses.
This brings us to late April, April 17. At that point, he readily gave the name of Diane Daly, a relatively junior public servant who already was under investigation, although he's not supposed to know she's under investigation.
The whole thing begs the question: Why did Mr. Firth give Diane Daly's name at that point? Maybe, after having covered up for so long, he finally decided to do the right thing. That's one explanation. He just decided at that point he was going to do the right thing. Another possible explanation is that Mr. Firth had decided to support the Liberal government's efforts to pin the blame for the arrive scam fiasco on a few officials while absolving others; that he was supporting efforts to help achieve Mr. Mendicino's sought after head on a platter by facilitating efforts of some in government to point the blame at other senior officials and effectively try to cauterize the wound to keep the discussion from actually digging all the way through to the answer. This really exposes a sharp division among senior public servants about who is responsible.
For what I think are obvious reasons, I am deeply suspicious of anything and everything that Kristian Firth has said in committee, in the House and in public. I certainly don't think we should take at face value his claims about Ms. Daly. I think we need to investigate them further, which is why, in the interest of answering the questions we need answered and in the interest of getting to the truth, I put forward this motion to bring in key witnesses who can respond to Ms. Daly's testimony, and to also get that recording.
I think this should be a fairly simple matter. This is about getting to the truth. These witnesses and that recording will allow this committee to get to the truth: Was Ms. Daly, in fact, someone who was deeper into this than her testimony suggests, or are other people within this Liberal government trying to point the finger at her to protect themselves from blame splashing back on them?
We want to get to the truth, and this motion will help us do that.
Thank you, Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
I am going to turn now to Ms. Shanahan.
I also liken myself to the European football referee. The clock is ticking here.
Ms. Shanahan, you do have the floor. There's no limit to how long you have to speak, but if you get my hint, I would like to hear from people before the clock does run out.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Chair, your hint is well taken. Thank you very much.
I was looking forward to my speaking slot in this meeting, but here we are speaking to this motion. I would like to refer to the talk of a narrative, that it's a Liberal narrative and a government narrative and so on.
I'm wondering if the witness is aware.... She is an experienced civil servant. I was going to ask her how she felt about her testimony, which is heartfelt and has been very detailed, and of which I still have questions regarding some of the responses, dates and conversations that don't seem to line up. I was looking for clarity on those responses, yet I wonder how the witness feels about her testimony being used to basically be a Twitter feed for members of the official opposition.
I say that if that's the case, and if the witness's name is dragged into that kind of partisan narrative, I would deeply regret it if that were to happen. I think the witness, as an experienced civil servant, can see what has been going on here today.
That being said, regarding this motion, it is one that I also have difficulty understanding, because the public accounts committee is not an investigative body. We're certainly not an investigative body doing deep dives into wrongdoing. That is the work of the Auditor General. We review the reports of the Auditor General, and then we go into detail about those reports, which is what we have been doing here, even though at many times, actually, it's quite redundant in the testimony that we hear and the hearings that have been called for.
This topic, and what we have heard today from the witness, is already part of an internal investigation. I would be very reluctant, and I wonder if the witness feels the same way, for us to interfere with that investigation. I don't know how it would be helpful.
As for Kristian Firth, who has not appeared before this committee, though we've seen much of his testimony both in OGGO and in the House, I'm not sure what else we can get from him.
It's very weird that we are here today and it's very bizarre to be going down this rabbit hole and subjecting, quite honestly, the witness, who has been forthright, to being accused of not being forthcoming in her testimony here today.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
Ms. Daly, those questions are all rhetorical. Once we move a motion, we debate the motion, and questions are not posed to the witness.
On that, because I am running out of time, I do want to thank you, Ms. Daly, for your testimony and participation in relation to the study on the report on ArriveCAN. You can send any information that was requested from you today that you agreed to surrender to the clerk. Any questions you might have about how to do that can go to the clerk as well.
Ms. Daly, thank you. You can remain there, or you can gather up your things and excuse yourself if you like. The choice is yours.
In the meantime, I'm going back to Mr. Desjarlais for some comments on this motion, again recognizing that we are pressed for time.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I'll attempt to be brief.
I agree with the motion. Before Ms. Daly leaves, however, I was wondering if you could pose a question on behalf of our committee for us to enhance this motion.
In the testimony that was presented today, several times Ms. Daly mentioned a very credible problem within the public service that I feel our committee could largely get answers to related to the TBIPS program, that verified list and whoever operates that list and how a two-person company in a basement like GC strategies could have even gotten onto a list of preferred contractors. Ms. Daly's testimony did highlight that as a credible issue related to the ongoing systemic corruption that does exist.
I'd like to see if we can get a friendly agreement by the mover to include—I'm not trying to exclude; I'm trying to include—another representative in the list of witnesses. If Ms. Daly has a recommendation as to who that person is or otherwise, I would just ask the clerk to include the highest-ranking public servant in the TBIPS program to also bear witness to our questions, if that's possible.
Mr. Chair, that's my first point—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'm going to address that, and I'll come right back to you, Mr. Desjarlais.
Ms. Daly is here. She's heard your request. If she would like to submit something in writing, I will allow that, but I'm not going to turn to her because that violates the debate on the motion which is where we are now. Ms. Daly, should you wish to respond to Mr. Desjarlais' question, you can do so overnight in writing if you like.
Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor, please.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleagues for their time today and they're good questions. I'd implore that we vote in favour of this motion. There are reasonable grounds to suggest there is more information that's been brought to light that requires proper testimony and proper questioning, particularly of those witnesses who have not yet been present. I recognize there could be some debate among my Liberal and Conservative colleagues as to the list itself, but I implore you to ignore the obvious issues that could be presented, both in schedule and time, to having that many witnesses present. I do in fact think, for the purpose of good governance and our role here in public accounts, there is credible reason for us to invite these witnesses again.
I want to mention that the amendment I'm requesting is a friendly amendment. I think Mr. Genuis would agree that having a representative from TBIPS would be important to the continuation. That was part of the included information that was made by the testimony today. Ms. Daly did present, and fairly presented, a very credible and important assertion that there ought to be relevant investigations as to how groups like GC Strategies and others could even have been made a preferable contractor. I find credibility in that question and I think it's worth us asking TBIPS in order for us to better understand how, in fact, GC Strategies got through the door.
My hope is that we can find unanimous consent to do that.
Mr. Chair, I seek your advice as to whether or not we could do that by way of consent of the mover, rather than having to have an amendment and a debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Normally I would perhaps say yes, but there's a time constraint I am under, and I would like to hear from Madam Sinclair-Desgagné.
Ms. Khalid, you have a question, but I was communicating with Madam Sinclair-Desgagné online. She put her hand up. I'd like to finish with her, and then I'm going to adjourn the meeting because I am out of time.
In the meantime, Mr. Desjarlais, you can consult with Mr. Genuis.