Questions and responses 45th Parliament, 1st session May 26, 2025, to present

With regard to the restitution agreements being pursued by Public Services and Procurement Canada, as noted in deputy minister Reza's statement before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that "PSPC has been using data analytics to uncover a number of instances of individual subcontractors fraudulently billing the Government of Canada. We are currently in the process of seeking restitution to the Crown in these cases.": (a) since January 1, 2022, what restitution agreements has Public Services and Procurement Canada entered into, to recover funds from subcontractors who were found to have fraudulently billed the government, and what are the names of the companies or subcontractors involved; (b) for each agreement in (a), what was the total amount of restitution agreed to be returned to the government; (c) who approved each restitution agreement in (a), including the government title of the approving authority; (d) for each agreement in (a), what were the specific terms or conditions negotiated; (e) how many of the agreements in (a) have been successfully executed, and what was the total amount recovered to date; and (f) how many agreements were abandoned, cancelled or otherwise not executed, and what was the reason for each?

With regard to the income verification tool to combat mortgage fraud referenced in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement, and the statement that the Canada Revenue Agency would aim "to begin implementation of this measure in early 2025": (a) does the government remain committed to combatting mortgage fraud through a tool to verify borrower income; (b) what is the current status of the policy commitment, and how does the government intend to move forward on this policy, including key milestones for next steps and delivery; and (c) what is the Canada Revenue Agency's timeline for the implementation of this promised tool?

With regard to federal procurement: (a) how many cases of suspected invoicing fraud by Information Technology subcontractors have been submitted to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other law enforcement agency for investigation, since May 2024; and (b) for the cases in (a), which departments are involved?

With regard to restitution agreements related to overbilling or fraudulent billing practices in government contracts, as mentioned during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on November 6, 2024: (a) since January 1, 2022, what is the total number of restitution agreements that have been reached with suppliers or subcontractors; (b) what is the total dollar amount involved in these restitution agreements; (c) which departments, agencies, or Crown corporations, were involved in these agreements; (d) for each restitution agreement, what was the dollar value of the original contract associated with the overbilling; (e) what are the details for each supplier or subcontractor involved in a restitution agreement, including, for each, the (i) number of government contracts received prior to January 1, 2022, (ii) number of contracts received since the restitution agreement was reached; (f) who approved each restitution agreement, including the specific position; and (g) for each agreement, what were the specific terms or conditions negotiated?

With regard to the cases of suspected invoicing fraud by information technology subcontractors that have been submitted for investigation to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other law enforcement agencies, as referenced in the government response to Order Paper Question Q-105: (a) what are the details of all contracts and payments made to the companies and subcontractors involved in these cases since January 1, 2016, including, for each, (i) the name of the company or subcontractor, (ii) the total amount paid by the government, (iii) the specific government department or agency that made the payments, (iv) a summary description of the goods or services provided, (v) the file number associated with the contract or payment; (b) what is the total value of the funds involved in the suspected fraud for each of the six cases submitted to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and (c) what is the total value of the funds involved in the nine cases submitted to Public Services and Procurement Canada?

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and media reports that it paid out a bogus refund claim worth $5 million: (a) in each of the last five years, how many bogus or blatantly fake claims have been paid out that were worth (i) over $100,000 but less than $500,000, (ii) over $500,000 but less than $1 million, (iii) over $1 million; and (b) for each bogus or fake claim over $1 million, what was the approximate amount paid out?

With regard to the federal government’s oversight of Canadian financial institutions and the measures proposed in Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, sections 333–336: (a) what measures has the government taken since 2015 to ensure that banks compensate victims of fraud, particularly in cases where fraud occurred through methods clearly inconsistent with the customer’s typical transaction patterns or with the facilitation of bank staff or digital vulnerabilities; and (b) what legislative or regulatory changes, if any, is the government planning that would be comparable to the anti-fraud protections comparable to those enacted in Australia or the United Kingdom, such as mandatory reimbursement of fraud victims unless adequate safeguards are proven, binding authority for the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, or mandatory public reporting of violations?