+34
Canada's anti-money laundering regulator withheld supplier names from 100 contracts worth more than $26.7 million over five years, citing Information Act regulations. Procurement Ombud Alexander Jeglic says contracting information should be transparent by default, while former Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick questions the rationale for the redactions and the agency's lack of justification.
'Contracting information should be transparent by default, with only limited' exceptions, says Procurement Ombud Alexander Jeglic, while ex-Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick questions the 'flimsy' rationale that disclosing supplier names in 100 contracts could compromise FINTRAC's work.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada says it can redact contracts due to regulations under the government's Information Act. Canada’s financial crimes agency wiped out the supplier names in 100 contracts worth more than $26.7-million over the last five years—the only government agency to do so without providing justification—raising questions about the organization’s compliance with government rules and oversight mechanisms.analysis of the government’s contracting database reveals that, since 2021, three federal organizations—Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada , National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and Public Health Agency of Canada —redacted the names of suppliers in 105 contracts, with FINTRAC accounting for all but five.
Those 100 contracts amounted to $26.68-million doled out by Canada’s independent anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulator, according to searches of the federalas of Sept. 29. In the same period, the agency awarded 394 contracts where it disclosed company names, worth a total of $48-million, which means roughly one in five contracts FINTRAC redacted names of its suppliers.by email he “strongly believes that contracting information should be transparent by default, with only limited and specific exceptions in accordance with legislation and policy.
” Jeglic would not comment on FINTRAC’s redactions as his office has not conducted its own review, but said it will “capture in our database for potential use in establishing reasonable grounds to conduct future reviews. ” Ottawa has a policy that mandates departments and agencies to publicly disclose contracting activity worth more than $10,000 on a publicly availablein statements that “as a high-security organization” it conducts its procurement activities in accordance with the government’s procurement policies and oversight requirements, and noted in some cases disclosure “could reveal details about FINTRAC’s technology environment, infrastructure, or security controls.
”Feds decide not to recoup $34-million spent on ineligible ‘green slush fund’ under investigation, Conservatives call it an ‘admission of gross mismanagement’she’s not in a position to comment on specific contracts as her mandate does not extend to reviewing compliance with the“Currently, there is no oversight. That means that no authority has been established in the act to ensure that institutions are abiding by, for example, their obligation to publish at all, to do so in a timely manner, or to provide everything that they are required to provide ,” Maynard said by email.
Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard appears before the House Access to Information Committee on Feb. 9, 2026. Government records normally show a wide range of key contracting details from the type of goods and services procured, to the original and total price of the contracts. This includes the name of the suppliers—the company or individual that provided the goods and services—which FINTRAC redacted in the reviewed period.
Federal procurement rules allow institutions to withhold such data when they deem the disclosure could pose risks to national security, public safety, or in cases related to law enforcement. However, when a department redacts parts of contracting details, the reason behind that decision is typically explained in the disclosure’s comments section. So far in 2026, FINTRAC has redacted the companies tied to six contracts worth $10.3-million, marking a jump in value from the six procurements in 2025 worth $2.2-million.
That’s also an increase over the $898,350 spent on 18 contracts in 2024, but on par with the $10.2-million awarded to redacted contracts in 2023, though it was spread to quadruple the contracts, at 25. In 2022, the agency awarded 23 such contracts worth $1.6-million, and 24 contracts worth $1.3-million in 2021.
The majority of these procurements were related to software technologies, information technology and telecommunications consultants, management consulting, and other professional services, according to an analysis of commodity codes included in the contracts. However, some contracts also include expenses that would not initially appear to be confidential items, such as office furniture, computer printers, and training fees, which are generally not considered as sensitive purchases.
, which FINTRAC said its Access to Information and Privacy office uses to determine what information can be released or withheld. there is no requirement to disclose the specific exemption for which the redaction was made,” reads an Aug. 27 statement by spokesperson Mélanie Goulette Nadon.
“Certain vendors and rendered services are redacted from proactive publication as their disclosure would give rise to the harms expressed at sections. ” In a previous Aug. 21 statement, the agency said its primary goal is to minimize any likely threats that could compromise its operations.
“In some cases, disclosing the identity of vendors that provide specialized software, goods, or services could reveal details about FINTRAC’s technology environment, infrastructure, or security controls. Such information could be used by criminals or other malicious actors to identify potential vulnerabilities and target FINTRAC’s systems, undermining our ability to safeguard the information within our control. ” FINTRAC reports to the finance minister, but is also obligated to comply with Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat administrative directives.
An Aug. 13 TBS statement said that heads of government institutions—in this case the CEO of FINTRAC—are accountable for the administration of the Act within the institutions under their purview and for monitoring compliance.
“Their responsibilities include making decisions on disclosing information that is subject to exemptions under the Act in a fair, reasonable, and impartial manner after considering all relevant factors for and against disclosure, the relevant provisions of the Act, and any applicable jurisprudence,” spokesperson Rola Salem said by email. Former Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick questions why the name of suppliers that provided services to FINTRAC would compromise the agency’s work.that FINTRAC’s argument to redact the names of suppliers looks “flimsy and unpersuasive.
” “How would making the names of suppliers available compromise the organization’s ability to do their actual investigation and enforcement work? Especially after the contract had been completed. Why wouldn’t they be posted at some point afterwards? ” Wernick asked.
“How could it impede the ability of the department to negotiate a good price and terms? On the contrary, opaqueness only helps poor performance by vendors escape consequences. Opacity also makes it harder to detect excessively cozy relationships between buyers and vendors. ” Matt Malone, an assistant professor at University of Ottawa whose research focuses on the way law protects secret data, toldthat “government institutions have taken as a license to redact titles, amounts, and other information.
” “The redactions themselves may be warranted, but the lack of oversight and review are not,” he said, arguing that the information commissioner’s mandate should be expanded to include proactive publication of federal contracts.
“As things stand, that is a striking gap in the law. As redactions on the Open Government website are becoming too common, Canadians need to be assured they are properly applied. ” Malone underlined the long-standing issue of contracting information published on the government’s publicly available database “is often wrong and sometimes missing.
” “The Carney government has shown no desire to fix these bugs in the proactive disclosure system,” said Malone, author ofthat when the rationale for redactions is not explained in publicly available data, it is hard to determine which specific provision of the Act—if any—might have been applied in each contract as well as measuring the legitimacy of those decisions.she has recommended the government “move to an open contracting model, which would require disclosure of more information than is currently required. ” She also noted she’s previously recommended that “oversight be put in place, and that her office would be well positioned to provide it.
”to the TBS review of the Act in June 2025, Maynard suggested amendments to add an independent review mechanism to Part II, which governs the proactive publication of data by federal institutions. That mechanism “would help ensure that institutions meet their obligations under the Act and would provide greater accountability and transparency in the proactive disclosure regime,” her office toldJeglic noted departments are responsible for ensuring that any limits on disclosure complies with applicable legislation and policy, including reporting obligations under the government’s “In certain cases, there may be legitimate reasons why certain contract information is not publicly disclosed, including national security, intellectual property, or privacy considerations,” he said.
Procurement Ombud Alexander Jeglic holds a press conference in the National Press Theatre on July 8, 2025. Thalso found multiple cases where a FINTRAC-issued contract’s original value and total value were not the same.
The government’s database revealed multiple entries where amendment values in redacted contracts were not counted towards the total value, leading to a large discrepancy in the total cost of all contracts analyzed for this story.by FINTRAC awarded competitively in July 2024 had an original contract value of $339,000, but records show that after multiple amendments to this contract—now set to end on March 31, 2027—the total price tag has mushroomed to $10.1-million. This contract was awarded by Public Services and Procurement Canada on behalf of FINTRAC.
Records show that this contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for information technology and telecommunications consultants’ services. The history of contracts marked “redacted” in the federal database goes back to 2016 when only one contract was redacted, again by FINTRAC. The number of such contracts gradually increased until 2019 where nine contracts where suppliers names were wiped out.
The peak was 2020 when 32 contracts were redacted, 25 of which were awarded by FINTRAC and six were awarded by PHAC. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency redacted details in four contracts, all in 2023, worth a total $703,224—out of the 130 contracts it has awarded over the years. The agency’s procurement notes show two were for “guard services,” one for security program upgrades, and the other for “acoustical testing.
” One redacted contract worth $89,976.34 for medical supplies awarded by PHAC in January 2021—during the pandemic—explicitly notes an exemption was applied to this contract underadding that the vendor name is not disclosed to support Canada’s economic interests and the government’s negotiating position. PHAC redacted the records of six contracts it awarded in the 2020-21 fiscal year, for a total of $63-million, all of which were for emergency medical supplies.
PHAC came underProcurement records show that these contracts were “withheld from a previous public disclosure to support Canada’s economic interests and the negotiating position of the government,” and that an exemption was applied based on Sec. 18 of the Act.
“The vendor name is not disclosed to support Canada’s economic interests and the negotiating position of the government,” reads that exception. While in PHAC’s case, the absence of contracting information was explained, media reports and independent watchdog audits have revealed over the last few years that there are multiple cases where departments failed to disclose details in accordance with the federal procurement rules.
“Contract information was not proactively published for many ArriveCan-related contracts. For 41 per cent of the contracts reviewed, the original contract or one or more contract amendments were not available on the Open Government website, which runs counter to the government’s commitment to transparency and strengthened accountability within the public sector,” the ombud wrote at the time.
Get Fridays: Hill Life & People NewsletterBy entering your email address you consent to receive email from The Hill Times containing news, analysis, updates and offers. In 2024, FINTRAC’s then-chief technology officer Janak Alford worked with PSPC officials, and recommended the department test an AI tool called mPersona to help resolve the numerous problems with the Phoenix pay system.
It was later revealed that the tool was created by a company called Symaiotics which was owned by Alford, who had not disclosed his ties with the company. According to PSPC, Symaiotics never received government contracts and the tool was only used for a short period of time and for free.
However, once the officials were informed of Alford’s involvement with the business, PSPC terminated the relationship with FINTRAC regarding the use of mPersona, according to a May 2024 departmentalrequests for an interview at the time, but a statement to that newspaper from his company Symaiotics said, he “has never obtained nor sought to obtain any government contracts,” and that Alford “fully disclosed all details” about his company to FINTRAC.
‘ questions about FINTRAC. According to his LinkedIn profile, Alford moved from his CTO role at FINTRAC in July 2024 and worked as a chief AI officer in government—his page does not disclose which department—for three months, eventually landing as a deputy minister in Alberta, where he reports leading technology and innovation for the provincial government since October 2024.
, the agency’s former deputy director of intelligence, of sharing sensitive financial intelligence with an employee, and conducting an unauthorized search on a former director and CEO of the organization. MacKillop was terminated from his job in May 2024.
Poilievre’s move to appoint candidate in Brantford makes high-stakes byelection more ‘challenging’ to win, says former Conservative MP McColeman: ‘that’s really the gut punch’ Trump’s a ‘tough hand to play,’ but Carney should not accept any trade deal that’s ‘politically difficult’ to sell in CanadaFeds ‘should run as fast as’ they can from Alto project, say opposition MPs, as PBO estimates construction alone could cost $113-billion
FINTRAC Contract Transparency Supplier Names Government Procurement Information Act
Canada Latest News, Canada Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
G7 to Release 100 Million Barrels of Oil and Diesel After Prices SoarThe Group of Seven wealthy democracies will release 100 million barrels of oil and fuel products, starting with substantial amounts of diesel, to bring down record high prices.
Read more »
G7 to release 100 million barrels of oil in attempt to tame soaring fuel pricesOTTAWA — Canada and its fellow industrialized countries in the G7 agreed Friday to release 100 million barrels of oil and fuel products in the coming weeks.
Read more »
G7 to release 100 million barrels of oil in attempt to tame soaring…National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views.
Read more »
G7 to release 100 million barrels of oil reserves as diesel prices surgeWatch G7 to release 100 million barrels of oil reserves as diesel prices surge Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca
Read more »