William Stevenson

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague was at one point a visitor to the public accounts committee when some of the military generals were there. I specifically asked this question then, and I am wondering if he can comment about it. The Liberals said they want the F-35, but it has changed multiple times, and now they are delaying again. If the procurement process is so bad that it is [more]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today on behalf of fellow chartered professional accountants and other tax preparers who are concerned about how the Canada Revenue Agency authorizes its tax representatives. The petitioners point out that the CRA has moved to an online-only system, through “My Account”, creating real barriers for Canadians. Seniors, those with disabilities and those [more]

I'll let Mr. Redekopp go.

Yes.

I'll go to Mr. Gallivan or Ms. Graham. On the “light touch”, is that part of your, as you said, plan of action that's to be completed in 2026? Is the light touch being addressed, as maybe that it's not a good process going forward?

I have several questions. Most of them have been partially answered, so I'll try to be succinct on these. The first one will be for the Auditor General. When you found those fraudulent cases in your audit, did you see any pattern within those cases that linked them to specific institutions?

Was it all the same one, or were there different names that were...?

I will just emphasize that, in the past, the Auditor General has stated to us that her priorities are always weighted by the House versus what the committees say. The public accounts committee is not exactly like some of the other committees, but I would say that it's still important for us to keep that in there—to have that value and to emphasize its importance for the Auditor General.

With those numbers, was there any indication of an agency or an individual who was promoting this to say, “Come to Canada through this student path”? Is there no real link between the individual cases?

We had discussed earlier that there was a doubling of the number of people in your department. By the sound of things, it's not that you needed more staff for your plan of action, because now you're doing the 100% follow-ups on those, but you didn't do it before. Was that a choice by the department, or was that indicated before? Was it that they'd save some money and this is how they planned on [more]

If you have numbers—and if you don't, you can get back to us later—can you tell me, as a percentage, how many people in your department and in your process are actually focused on just investigating the claims versus the administration of the rest of your program?

When you get to the bottom of those and you find somebody who should fail the system and get kicked out, are you doing a data dump to the other departments to say, “Here are all the individuals”? Is that part of your action plan?