Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 25th, 2024

[Lysane Bolduc]

No. She came to Tom and me, who were her superiors, to meet with us unaccompanied. At that meeting she asked whether she could be accompanied by her union to meet with CBSA investigators and, as we explained earlier, I welcomed it. I didn't know if she could or not. I needed to check into that, but I welcomed her suggestion. I looked into it. In fact, she was told that, yes, she could be represented at the meeting with the CBSA should she wish to. She chose to be accompanied by a family member instead. We looked into that too, and we found that it was acceptable to the CBSA investigators, so in fact she was accompanied by a family member.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is the time, I'm afraid.

To begin our fourth and last round, Mr. Brock, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

For the benefit of Canadians following this scandal, let's recap what's happening here. Diane Daly, a low-level, faithful public servant for almost 20 years, with no administrative or discipline record, gets investigated and suspended because she does not pinpoint Utano and MacDonald as being responsible for this $60-million boondoggle and—surprise, surprise—within weeks of her suspension you get asked to take on more responsibility.

Now, you say there's no extra pay with that, but it's a higher profile, and I'm sure you've been bonused. Have you been bonused, ma'am?

[Lysane Bolduc]

No. In fact, I have fewer employees in my new role, and—

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

Thank you.

Mr. von Schoenberg, you were responsible for signing off on ATIP A-2003-00431, requested by Cameron MacDonald, for emails sent and received from Diane Daly, Ms. Bolduc and you, regarding the keywords “CBSA”, “investigation”, “interviews” and any and all participation between December 11, 2023, to the present date, February 16, 2024. You, then, on February 19, 2024, provide an interesting commentary in your response from the PSPC—that the matter to which this relates, the investigation, could result in future litigation.

Therefore, Mr. MacDonald, through the legal channels of going through an ATIP, does not receive the information requested because you're protecting it. Why is the PSPC hiding documents that are legitimately being asked for, and who gave you that direction at PSPC?

[Thomas von Schoenberg]

No one gave that direction. The recommendation form is exactly that: a recommendation form. It's common to indicate that there could be potential litigation associated with a file when providing documents. It is the ATIP office within PSPC that makes the determination of what should be released or what should not—

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

Thank you. I call that obstruction of justice and deliberately withholding key, relevant information.

Now, for the benefit of Canadians, let's recap what has happened through this entire scandal. I know you're shaking your head because you don't agree with it, Ms. Bolduc, but this is exactly what happens. We have ministers denying any and all responsibility. We have a corrupt Prime Minister denying any and all responsibility for this boondoggle of $60 million. We have deputy ministers—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I know that our honourable colleague is a former prosecutor. He knows that using language like.... Corruption is a criminal offence. There's been no criminal investigation into the Prime Minister. I ask him to retract those comments, and if he wants to get into an investigation, we have two witnesses and he should get on with the questions as opposed to opining.

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

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Gentlemen, cease.

Monsieur Drouin, I try to maintain decorum. I also try to give members latitude. When I hear words in this committee that are permitted in the chamber, as the reference point, I let them go—by “the chamber”, I mean the House of Commons.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor again.

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

We have presidents and we have deputy ministers who have deliberately lied and obstructed our ability to get to the truth, and then we have two individuals who called out the lies—Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano—immediately suspended without pay.

Now that's been resolved—the pay issue—but they're still suspended because of the use of counsel. Then we have Diane Daly, who, again, does not corroborate or put in those missing pieces of the evidence that she referred to. Lo and behold, a 20-year career is in shambles, and now she's suspended because she's not towing Justin Trudeau's line that no one higher up than these low individuals was responsible for choosing Kristian Firth and GC Strategies.

How many other individuals are going to face similar fates?

No wonder no one wants to talk about the practices at CBSA. We heard from the CBSA union president, who talked about a culture of corruption at the CBSA because people are afraid to talk and call out the abuses of integrity. That's a real problem with the public service, and everyone is trying to protect Minh Doan, who deleted four years' worth of emails, crucial emails, 20,000 emails.

Was he suspended? No, he was not. He is on a leave. Everyone is trying to protect him. This is a massive cover-up, and this is inexcusable. Canadians are watching, and you two individuals are part of the cover-up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Turning now to Mr. Erskine-Smith, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm new to this committee, so forgive me for not being quite as certain as Mr. Brock.

Before I get to trying to figure this out a little bit on my own terms, I'd like to ask Ms. Bolduc just one last time, your involvement in this has been engaging with Ms. Daly on December 13 and December 14 and subsequent to that in the course of—in your words—assisting her or providing some support in the course of the investigation of which she was the subject.

Do you have any other involvement in GC Strategies, in ArriveCAN and in the investigations otherwise? Do you have any involvement?

[Lysane Bolduc]

Thank you for the question. No, I don't.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay. I'm interested.

Mr. Brock, I'm interested in.... You listed off some concerning facts there around deleted emails. I don't know enough about them, so I'm interested in getting to the bottom of that.

Garnett, you said there are two competing stories. That's a fair point. The idea that we have a low-level faithful public servant, though, is belied a little bit by what I've seen, but maybe I have it wrong.

I mean, I have seen.... You have Ms. Daly. She comes over. Her previous boss had been Mr. MacDonald. She gets pulled over when Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald are at CBSA. She gets pulled over into CBSA, specifically to help with procurement. She reports to Mr. Utano who reports to Mr. MacDonald—that's my understanding—and then Mr. Firth, who doesn't answer anything until he's called to the bar, who does he name? He names Ms. Daly.

For me to be comfortable with any of this, to clear anyone, I would have to have the emails between Ms. Daly and Mr. Firth. I would have to have the proposal that was in front of Mr. Doan and have a much more serious understanding of the communication between all players before the approval of GC Strategies was made. If we have that, let's go through it, but my understanding is that there are two investigations under way where the RCMP and others are able to get to the bottom of this in a way that we are unable to.

I'm deeply concerned with us levelling accusations. I don't know about Ms. Bolduc, but the idea that she pressured or threatened anyone.... Where's the evidence? Where's the proof? I'm deeply uncomfortable with threatening civil servants or suggesting that civil servants have engaged in something wrong without evidence, so I'm interested in a conversation between us committee members after the fact to discuss what comes next, what additional evidence we need and what additional witnesses we need. I'm not interested in hearing from additional witnesses who came in at the tail end of this.

If we're missing documents, if we're missing testimony, let's fill in the gaps, but let's also keep in mind there are ongoing investigations by people and organizations that have much more authority and time and resources to get to the bottom of this, and we should be, presumably, working to get to the bottom of this.

When there is a report, when there is a proper finding by an organization like the RCMP, then we follow up on that in a more serious way, but the idea of throwing accusations around without evidence to back them up, against civil servants who are coming before this committee, leaves me with significant concerns.

Mr. Genuis and Mr. Brock, where you have a storyline on Minh Doan, I look forward to you helping me fill in the gaps. I'm interested in it because, again, I'm new to this committee and I'm trying to fill in the gaps here. However, the idea that Ms. Daly was some low-level civil servant is belied by.... I just read the CBSA interview with her. It's belied by that.

You know, it would be helpful, I think, and instructive for us, instead of throwing accusations around, to constructively work together to get to the bottom of this.

That's my time. Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

For my questions, Ms. Bolduc, I will pick up from where I left off.

With whom did you have official or informal conversations about ArriveCAN? I am thinking specifically of the period from when the first witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, in October 2023, and the phone call on December 13, 2023, and the period from that call until when Ms. Daly appeared as a witness in January 2024.

[Lysane Bolduc]

I didn't have any, actually. At the time, I was director general of a sector that was not responsible for professional services. I was director general of a sector responsible for acquisitions involving real property and services. At that time, my time and attention were focused on that and not on ArriveCAN.

As I said, my connection with ArriveCAN was that an employee in my sector had previously worked for the Canada Border Services Agency. That is my only connection with ArriveCAN.

To answer your question specifically, I would say that I did not have any conversations with anyone from the time that witnesses appeared before the parliamentary committee and my meeting with Ms. Daly, and I did not discuss it after that either.

I became interested in the ArriveCAN issue and professional services when I was asked to join professional services.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That was in December, wasn't it?

[Lysane Bolduc]

No. I was asked to take on that new role in April 2024. That is when I really became interested in what was happening with professional services procurement.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

You weren't interested in what was happening in the other team, even after Michel Lafleur called you on December 13?

[Lysane Bolduc]

We were of course following what was happening in the committee, but in a general way.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

So you never spoke to anyone about it.