Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Beginning our fourth and final round is Mr. Brock.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Let's recap for Canadians some of the important details of this scandal.

We have former minister of public safety Mendicino, who was quoted as saying that he wanted someone's “head on a platter”, in terms of who chose GC Strategies. We have Minh Doan, a former senior executive at CBSA, who deleted four years' worth of emails three days after an ATIP requesting information on GC Strategies was received by the CBSA.

We have the highest level at both CBSA and PSPC involved in what was supposed to be an independent investigation. We've had senior officials, appointed by our very own Prime Minister, come to these committees and mislead, if not outright lie to, committee.

We have all the hallmarks of a cover-up and scapegoating going on in front of us. I say that because I'm mindful of Ms. Hogan's—the Auditor General's—comments that there are multiple layers of responsibility here.

However, I guess I can ask anyone at PSPC. Has anyone has been suspended or fired in relation to the mishandling of the ArriveCAN scandal, yes or no?

[Arianne Reza]

We can speak only to the PSPC department.

Nobody has been fired—

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

That doesn't surprise me at all.

What we have are two individuals, two mid- to lower-level individuals at CBSA—Cameron MacDonald and Antonio Utano— who have been scapegoated by the CBSA into accepting responsibility for the multiple problems exposed by this at least $60-million scandal, according to the Auditor General. It could be substantially more, but because of the abysmal paperwork at the CBSA and PSPC, she could offer only a guesstimate.

Therefore, those two individuals have been suspended and, at one point, suspended without pay. No one else has been suspended. No one else has been terminated. No one else has been outright fired for their incompetence in handling this particular scandal.

I want to spend some time on Minh Doan.

Ms. Hogan, were you made aware, prior to the release of the ArriveCAN report, that there were four years of missing emails from a senior CBSA executive, Minh Doan?

[Karen Hogan]

Yes, my audit team was made aware of the fact that there were emails that were no longer recoverable. I think there are many reasons that emails aren't available.

My fundamental view is that a contracting file should be complete, and a public servant should ensure that everything that needs to be maintained is in the contracting file, not in transitory documents and emails.

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

If I can stop you right there, Minh Doan testified at committee. He lied several times at committee and claimed, given his senior level and his experience with computers, that he had to change the battery on his laptop and, mysteriously, four years' worth of emails disappeared. Therefore, he was unable to confirm, through documentary evidence, that he and he alone made the ultimate decision to hire the pariah GC Strategies, which fleeced the taxpayer to the tune of almost $60 million.

As the Auditor General, do you view the act of the deletion of emails to be a policy breach by the CBSA?

[Karen Hogan]

Yes, I think if emails are of value to government business, they should not be deleted. They should be, in fact, saved to demonstrate due diligence and accountability.

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

In the normal course of your duties as Auditor General, would you view that as rising to the level of suspicion—which is your mandate—of criminality, warranting a referral to the RCMP to investigate Minh Doan?

[Karen Hogan]

I think the situation with ArriveCAN was unique. The RCMP were already investigating the branch at the CBSA and many of the actors. That's why I did not make any referrals. However, we have been co-operating with the RCMP, and we will continue to do so.

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

Have you co-operated to the extent of raising suspicion about four years' worth of emails being deleted by Minh Doan, someone whose specialty is computers and who would have the responsibility, as one of his mandates, to preserve that level of evidence? Have you made that referral to the RCMP, yes or no?

[Karen Hogan]

Out of respect for the ongoing investigation and the RCMP, I would prefer not to comment on the conversations we've been having with them about ArriveCAN.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

That is your time, Mr. Brock. I understand that we'll come back to you.

Following up is Mr. Erskine-Smith.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thanks very much.

I want to follow up on Mr. Brock's questions, to some extent. I have to be honest that I share the concerns around the deleted emails. I think it's outrageous that emails are deleted and it's not possible to recover them. Similarly, I think it's outrageous that you have apparent kickbacks to civil servants who are responsible for drafting the terms of an RFP in close contact with the very company that ultimately is awarded that procurement and that contract.

The frustration I have is that there are fingers pointed one way and then there are fingers pointed the other way. Multiple internal investigations have been undertaken here. I asked the Auditor General questions, but maybe I could get procurement's perspective.

Deputy Minister, you and your team have presumably done a deep dive to see what happened here. When I ask who's culpable, I don't just mean who's responsible for signing the document. Ms. Hogan sort of said, well, the executive director is ultimately responsible. Yes, sure, but culpability is to assign blame. It's not who is responsible for signing on the dotted line but who is to blame for what happened with ArriveCAN.

[Arianne Reza]

That is a very difficult question to parse out. The Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman report did not find the smoking gun of who. I have gone before OGGO committee and indicated that I authorized two of the first contracts. I did it based on a very strong rationale. I've submitted that paperwork to both committees. We spoke earlier about the fact that I used to be at PSPC. Certainly, when I saw the request for, I think, $2-million and $4-million contracts each to keep the border open, so that Canadians would have access to critical supplies at the time and to protect the frontline officers, who literally are the first point of interaction, these were things that were on my mind when I looked at that rationale.

I certainly did ask why this company had been chosen. The response back was that CBSA had worked with them and that CBSA had knowledge of them. I took that at face value. What have I learned? Next—

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

I'm sorry. That is appreciated, but sitting where you are today, not at the time when you were signing off on it in the first instance, but where you are today, with the benefit of hindsight, the benefit of internal investigations and the benefit of a mountain of testimony and evidence along the way, who is to blame for ultimately having a contractor who inflated their work and cost the taxpayer an insane amount of money for what was ultimately rendered?

[Arianne Reza]

As I think you alluded to in some of your commentary, a lot of investigations are ongoing. I am not well placed to provide any further views, because I cannot speculate on it.

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

From a procurement perspective, are there investigations under your authority that are ongoing?

[Arianne Reza]

Here I'll turn to Catherine.

[Catherine Poulin]

Since we received a preliminary fact-finding report from CBSA, many actions have been taken by the department. As was previously mentioned by both the deputy and my colleagues, we have looked into some of those findings. We mentioned that some companies have been suspended from the procurement processes. Some companies have lost their security clearances in the process.

It's also important to mention that many of those investigations are not completed yet. It's an important process to complete an investigation and to wait for those final findings.

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

I appreciate that. Just on that, you were able to take some remedial action on the basis of the preliminary fact-findings.

Is there any basis to assign blame to individual civil servants responsible, who participated in the procurement process for ArriveCAN, on the basis of those preliminary fact-findings?

[Catherine Poulin]

It would be premature to conclude if we have not completed the investigation.

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

That's fair. It's premature.

When can we expect the investigation to be completed?

[Catherine Poulin]

I can speak only to what we are doing at PSPC. I'm sure you are aware that the main investigation is under the responsibility of the CBSA. At PSPC, we have some internal investigations, one of which is covering a departmental employee. We are in the final stage of that investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

That is the time.

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

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

Ms. Poulin, thank you for that clarification.

You said you didn't suspend anyone, which surprised me, because that contradicts what Diane Daly said when she came to testify before the committee. She said she received an email telling her that she was on administrative leave.

It would be semantics to say that an administrative leave is not the same as a suspension. I want to be very clear about that. You did in fact suspend an employee who may be the subject of an investigation at PSPC.

Is that correct?