Border Employee Confused by Admonishment from ArriveCan Contractor Implicating Her
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) employee Diane Daly states that she is puzzled about why ArriveCan contractor Kristian Firth mentioned her during April parliamentary committee hearings regarding the ArriveCan investigation, as she played no part in setting the contract criteria.
“I did not have an in-person meeting with Mr. Firth and only communicated virtually due to the pandemic,” Daly explained during her testimony in front of the House Public Accounts Committee on Aug. 7.
“My responsibilities were administrative, involving coordinating information for various stakeholders. I don’t recall discussing IT requirements with Mr. Firth,” she added.
When questioned about the government officials GC Strategies collaborated with to establish criteria for ArriveCan, Firth mentioned Daly’s name as one of the employees involved.
Daly also raised concerns about GC Strategies’ “very poor documentation, submission errors, and delays in resolving the errors.” She mentioned dealing with Firth regarding inaccurate invoices.
Encouraged to Provide False Testimony
During her opening statement to the committee, Daly expressed that she had been restricted from speaking the truth for quite some time and feared losing her job if she did so to MPs. She disclosed that some of her superiors at the CBSA instructed her to provide false testimony to an internal investigator, leading to her placement on administrative leave.
Utano and MacDonald stated that their supervisor Minh Doan chose GC Strategies to work on ArriveCan, while Doan denied these claims and accused the two men.
Daly informed the committee that she did not witness Utano or MacDonald engaging in any suspicious activities and could not confirm if Doan was responsible for selecting GC Strategies.
She also mentioned that senior management and political employees had been inciting conflicts among federal government workers to fabricate false allegations and divert investigations, likening it to making a malicious 911 call against a colleague.
“My job is at risk for what I observed, not for what I did,” she concluded.