Public Accounts Committee on Jan. 25th, 2024

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

Yes, please.

Good morning, Mr. Hayes. Thank you for your attendance.

The Auditor General, on October 12, 2023, in a recess week, appeared before this committee. Unfortunately, her testimony was cut short when the Liberal-NDP coalition brought a motion to adjourn the meeting after it was revealed that neither the government nor the CBSA had informed her that the RCMP were investigating allegations of misconduct with the CBSA. She in fact learned about it only after reading a news article in The Globe and Mail.

With that in mind, have the Prime Minister and his government been open and transparent by releasing all documentation as requested by your department?

[Andrew Hayes]

We make our requests for information directly to the departments and agencies involved in our audits. We have received the responses that we expected from those agencies and departments. We have not identified concerns regarding our access to information in this case.

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

I understand that with respect to the CBSA, approximately 30,000 pages are yet to be delivered to committees. It's in the translation process. Were you aware of that? Has that been factored into your report?

[Andrew Hayes]

Our audit is relating specifically to ArriveCAN. My understanding is that the study by other committees might be broader than just ArriveCAN. I'm aware that the committees have requested information and that some of that is outstanding, but it's not for me to comment on the process for that.

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

Your office has a mandate that when you uncover some element of criminality, you are to refer that to the RCMP. Is that correct?

[Andrew Hayes]

When we identify issues that could raise the potential of criminality, we do identify for the RCMP—

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

Did you uncover any issues with respect to criminality involving ArriveCAN?

[Andrew Hayes]

At this point, I think that would be a question that the Auditor General would be best positioned to answer on February 12. I can tell you that, as you mentioned earlier, we became aware that the RCMP was already informed of a matter by the Canada Border Services Agency. That obviously is a different scenario from the normal one for us, where we conduct an audit and decide at the end whether or not to bring in the RCMP. They were already aware of the allegations.

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

At the government operations committee level, we have seen unprecedented levels of misinformation being shared by government officials—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

On a point of order, Chair, why are we bringing in information from another committee? This is the public accounts committee. Can we deal with the public accounts mandate? It's about relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's hardly a point of order. Mr. Brock has the floor and is welcome to reference any information. In fact, the letter sent by Mr. McCauley, who is a member of this committee, to the OAG specifically references information from that committee.

I will allow Mr. Brock to continue with his line of questioning.

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

While my Liberal colleagues don't want to shed any sunlight with respect to these allegations, the Conservative Party certainly does.

CBSA officials appeared at government operations and deliberately misled the committee. The biggest outstanding issue is this: Who was responsible, and who chose GC Strategies, this two-person consulting company that performed no IT work and received $11 million of taxpayer money towards the ArriveCAN total expenditure, clearly receiving the taxpayer-funded lottery in the process of doing absolutely nothing? This is a hot potato. It's kryptonite to the government. It's kryptonite to government agencies.

Were you able to determine, sir, with the documentation that you received, who was responsible, what department was responsible, for choosing GC Strategies?

[Andrew Hayes]

Again, the Auditor General would be best positioned to describe the findings of our audit on February 12. The scope of the audit is about the ArriveCAN app, though.

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

Yes. Thank you.

Has the government or the CBSA informed you that two whistle-blowers who came forth at committee two weeks ago were actually suspended without pay. They are Cameron MacDonald and Mr. Antonio Utano, who both worked for the CBSA. Were you informed of that by the government?

[Andrew Hayes]

I am aware of that. I cannot recall whether or not I first found out from the government or whether it was in watching the committee hearings. It was around the same time. I am aware of that situation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You're done? Okay.

Mr. Genuis, you have just under two minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Sir, thank you for being here. I am very concerned about your ability to access information from public servants in conditions where those public servants have been subject to intimidation.

With that in mind, I want to briefly move the motion that:

The committee report to the House its grave concern about apparent reprisals against witnesses following their testimony on the ArriveCAN app.

This is critically important for the integrity of the kinds of investigations that parliaments can undertake.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Is this a notice of motion, or is it the moving of a motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm moving the motion. It's on the matter at hand, and I'm moving the motion.

I think the committee will, hopefully, be able to dispense with this quickly.

Here's a very quick review of the facts, Mr. Chair. We had explosive testimony at the government operations committee from Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano about what happened in the context of the ArriveCAN scandal. When that testimony occurred, it was surprising and shocking what they were able to reveal in response to questions the members asked. In particular, they identified that a number of other public servants either lied directly or were not honest and forthright with the committee. They responded frankly and directly to questions that were asked in that regard.

After their November 7 testimony, later that month, they received letters saying that they were subject to an investigation. While that investigation is still ongoing, these public servants have been suspended without pay. It's an incredibly unusual step that public servants would be suspended without pay in the middle of an investigation into their conduct, when no findings have even been reached, and that they would be informed of that investigation immediately after they provide frank testimony to a parliamentary committee. This speaks to the ability of public servants to be able to provide, without fear of intimidation, honest answers to important questions that are asked. It speaks to the right of parliamentarians to actually get the information we need to get to the bottom of the ArriveCAN scandal. Of course, many parliamentarians and parliamentary committees—and the public—have been seized with this scandal, it's true.

An amount of $54 million was spent on the ArriveCAN app. It was spent through a two-person company with no IT expertise. Nobody wants to own up to giving this company this contract, a company that, again, does no IT work, subcontracted all the work and got a big payout in the process. Nobody in the public service wants to own up to giving it that contract. Now, when we have two public servants who come and give frank testimony, they are subject to disciplinary measures immediately after that testimony, before an investigation has even taken place.

This is gravely concerning, and I believe it is designed to send a message to public servants that they should shut up and not reveal the truth to committees. That is not a message we want sent.

I hope that this committee would consider supporting this motion to report to the House its grave concern about apparent reprisals against witnesses following their testimony on the ArriveCAN app. If members are serious about getting to the truth and if members are serious about really finding out what happened here, then we need to have a situation where the Office of the Auditor General gets all the documents that it requires and where public servants are free to speak without threats or intimidation. I would hope that members would support this motion to say that if we are going to get to the bottom of this, we need public servants to be free to speak without threats, reprisals or punishment for coming to committees and answering the direct questions of parliamentarians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have a speaking order in place. Hands went up quickly.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for not being there in person, but I'm fighting a nasty flu bug.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. McCauley, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Just so everyone knows, the motion has been sent to all of your accounts as well—if you did not hear Mr. Genuis say that, but I think we all did—if anyone has questions.

We'll go back over to you, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks very much.

I am in support of this. I am quite concerned about the issue around retribution against the whistle-blowers, having been on the OGGO committee for over eight years, where we've been pushing for whistle-blower protection, with no action from this government.

I am extremely concerned, especially about some of the details of this case, specifically. Here we had the president of the CBSA telling us she did not provide documentation to the CRA or PHAC that led to the suspension of Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano. It was apparently a mere phone call to these departments.

You'd think they would have provided a whole document and package and investigated. No. It was a mere phone call, and then immediately these gentlemen were stripped of their security status and, therefore, despite both being on medical leave, basically constructively dismissed and put on suspension without pay and without any investigation into it.

It is a very clear sign of a government exacting its revenge on whistle-blowers.

We saw this before with the CRA, when it famously went after whistle-blowers. The case came out about two years ago. It actually went to court. We had whistle-blowers who had brought forward issues of sexual assault, harassment and abuse, and the CRA fired people.

This is ongoing issue with this government.