One Comment About Taxation – The Auditor General’s Report About Canada  Revenue Agency Call Centres

As you’re reading this, it is day 58 or so of the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) “100-Day Plan” to try to improve its call centres. 

 

The development of a plan was announced by Minister Champagne on September 2, 2025 after releasing a statement on X saying it was apparent that the CRA was not meeting appropriate service standards for Canadians. That statement was hardly a revelation given the deeply entrenched issues that CRA has had with its call centres. As long as I’ve been practicing – 30+ years – it’s been hard to get through to speak to an agent. But recently it has gotten noticeably worse.

 

The CRA has been updating Canadians on its progress on the 100-day plan through a dedicated webpage. Some of the improvements are commendable but to suggest that the CRA’s systemic problems can be solved in 100 days is laughable. It will take much more time to make necessary and sustainable improvements.

 

The Taxpayer’s Ombudsman agrees in a statement that it released late last week. It commends the CRA for progress to date but commented “…with some processing delays far exceeding the CRA’s usual service standards, it is unlikely that the CRA will reduce the backlog to a sustainable level by the end of the 100-day period. A longer term commitment and adequate resources will be necessary. By reducing its processing delays, the CRA could reduce the number of calls it receives and reduce wait times for taxpayers.”

 

And now we know why the Minister directed the CRA to come up with a 100-day plan. Timing, as they say, is everything. Last week, the Auditor General released its report on the findings about its audit of CRA call centre performance. It’s obvious that the Minister and CRA had received an advance copy of the report and wanted to get ahead of its findings and recommendations. It’s very damning.

 

Some highlights:

 

1. “In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the agency received more than 32 million calls…To handle these enquiries, the agency relied on a workforce of about 4,500 agents as of March 31, 2025.”

2. “In our 2017 audit of call centres, the [CRA’s] service standard was to have its agents answer calls within 2 minutes, 80% of the time. However, to achieve this standard, the agency blocked a high number of calls…For the month of June 2025, the agency indicated that only 5% of the calls were answered within 15 minutes.”

3. “Between 2023–24 and 2024–25, the number of contact centre agents was reduced by 22%…As of May 31, 2025, there were 3,530 agents compared with 4,547 on March 31, 2025 and with 5,837 on March 31, 2024.”

4.  “…in fall 2024, the agency reintroduced call deflection, which redirected calls to the self-service option…without giving the caller the option to speak to an agent. For…2024–25…approximately 8.6 million calls were deflected.”

5. “Through our testing of non‑account-specific or general questions, we found that in the area of individual taxes, only 17% of the answers provided were accurate…”

6. “We also found that limited time was dedicated to improving accuracy and completeness through quality evaluation feedback and coaching. In 2024–25, the agency reported over 130,000 hours spent on quality evaluations which resulted in only 2,200 hours of coaching, feedback or training—under 30 minutes per agent annually.”

 

Again, this is a scathing report.

 

The highlight in #5 above has been getting the most attention by media – only 17% of the answers were accurate – and indeed that is concerning. However, to be fair, Canadians need to first understand that the CRA is not in the business of providing tax advice. They are in the business of administering our complex taxation statutes.

 

Second, it’s a stretch to think that the CRA call centre agents are expected to know answers to income tax questions that are posed to them on the telephone. The AG report does not disclose the questions that were asked. Were they “simple” questions? Difficult? In the tax world, there are not many “simple” questions and in this age of instant gratification, to put the CRA to a standard of answering questions on the spot is debatable. Even seasoned tax professionals like me cringe to answer questions on the spot. If you’re a tax practitioner that is comfortable with that, well, peace be with you.

 

Notwithstanding, the answer to improving quality answers and service is training agents much better. It is shocking to me that agents receive only 30 minutes of annual training (#6 above). Tax is one of the most complex subjects known to man. To have only 30 minutes of annual training to administer such complexity is foolish. That must improve and it can easily be done.

 

Combined with better training, the most substantive thing that can be done is for Canada to make a real effort to simplify our overall tax system. That’s easier said than done and would require a political commitment for overall tax reform that is long overdue.

 

I’m on record saying that the answer to improving CRA’s call centres is not to add to their already bloated headcount. I stand by those comments. Having said that, the information disclosed in #3 above is concerning. Why would CRA have reduced the number of call agents when volumes were increasing and standards decreasing? Seems counter-intuitive to me. Obviously, there is a “right” number of agents that should be taking the calls and the CRA needs to get back to that “fit”.

 

I’m also on record about what I think the CRA should do within its 100-day plan. It includes implementing callback queues and a scheduling system, the setting of hard service standards, expansion of the dedicated telephone service for income tax professionals, ensuring independent oversight and, as highlighted above, train its team members better.

 

The CRA must do better. There are 43 days left for the CRA to prove it’s serious about improving service to Canadians – not just deflecting responsibility like it deflects calls.

 

One Comment About Leadership – Leaders,  Are You Keeping it Civil?

 

Civility is in short supply these days – especially online. Social media has created a swarm of keyboard warriors who confuse personal attacks with argument and cleverness with cruelty.

 

I’ve always tried to live by some golden rules when I speak or write publicly:

 

• Be informative;
• Understand what I’m sharing;
• Rebut arguments – not people;
• Be blunt but thoughtful (I don’t do sugarcoating); and
• Never accept the status quo just because “everyone else is doing it.”

 

I don’t have a perfect track record, but I work hard to follow these rules daily.

 

Still, because I don’t toe the line and I call things as I see them, I often get attacked. Not debated -attacked. Some people respond with personal insults or ideological slurs designed to shut down discussion. I’ve been called names, labeled, and dismissed in all sorts of creative (and not-so-creative) ways. Thankfully, I have a thick skin but it’s still not ok.

 

It’s amazing to me how many people think they’re being clever by using juvenile slurs like “CONs” (for Conservative supporters) or “Libtards” (for Liberal Party supporters). It’s shallow. Don’t do it.

 

Recently, some have taken to calling me “Maple MAGA.” I assume it’s meant to paint me as some Canadian knockoff of the U.S. MAGA crowd – anti-establishment, distrustful of legacy media, and unfiltered in style.

 

Sure, I call out media bias, and yes, I speak bluntly. But unlike the worst of MAGA rhetoric, I like to think my work is grounded in facts, sourced carefully, and structured intellectually. I’m not here to lob grenades for effect – I’m here to launch well-aimed arrows when necessary.

 

Calling me “Maple MAGA” isn’t a clever insult. It’s a lazy ideological shortcut used by people who can’t engage with the content. Instead of addressing my argument(s), they try to lump me into some convenient bucket so they can dismiss me outright.

 

That’s not debate. It’s intellectual laziness.

 

I’ll never claim to be the smartest guy in the room….there’s always someone smarter.  If you think you are, you’re probably not. Respectful debate matters. Personal attacks and ideological name-calling don’t add anything – they just reveal that you’ve got nothing else.

 

So, here’s the test: can you disagree with someone without calling them a name or slapping on a label? Can you make a point without hiding behind hashtags and slogans? If not, you’re not debating – you’re just making noise.

 

And if you get satisfaction from insulting others, maybe it’s time to look in the mirror. That’s not normal behaviour – it’s a sign of something deeper, and you might want to talk to a professional about it. It’s a lousy way to go through life.

 

If you’re a leader and you’re engaging in this kind of behaviour, do better. Your team, your audience, and society deserve more than juvenile insults and shallow thinking.

 

They deserve good leadership.

 

One Comment About Economics – Spending, Taxes,  Deficits and Debts Need to Go Down

 

Last week, Dr. Jack Mintz wrote a thoughtful article about how government spending, taxes, deficits and debts need to go down. If you’ve been paying attention, this is exactly the opposite of what Canada has been doing for the last decade. And with pundits expecting a deficit approaching $100 billion for this current year, it certainly is cause for concern.

 

Dr. Mintz’s article discusses a report that the International Monetary Fund recently released about government revenues, spending, deficits and debts and how Canada fares comparatively against its peers. Jack provides comments about numerous statistics from the report and the fact that the IMF states that governments should promote growth expenditures and control other costs.  Some quotes from the article:

 

But in four other respects the IMF document is disappointing:

 

First, it doesn’t make tax reform a priority. Countries need to lower their tax rates, broaden their tax bases and rely less on the more damaging types of taxes — all of which will be hard if, as the report recommends, industrial policy gets tax subsidies. A simpler, fairer and more efficient tax system could have an enormous impact. It’s no surprise that the U.S. has outgrown Canada and Europe over the past decade. A big bang tax reform like the U.S. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lifted the economy. Imagine if Canada doubled the federal GST to 10 per cent to help finance big cuts in income taxes for all businesses and individuals.

 

Second, the IMF doesn’t stress that over-the-top regulation is harming growth in many countries, including Canada. Getting mining projects approved takes years. Even small projects like a health clinic or Toronto’s LRT line can take a decade or longer. We don’t need more public-sector projects. We need to take the shackles off businesses and let them get on with building.

 

Third, the IMF recommends spending more on some public services but offers no advice on how to improve public performance. Australia has an independent commission to monitor the performance of state-owned enterprises; we should, too. If we do spend more public money, how do we make sure doing so improves performance, instead of just raising pay and eroding standards (as we have seen lately in the OECD PISA tests, where Canadian student scores have been falling).

 

Fourth, despite the IMF’s kind words about industrial policy, governments do not need to be involved in business at all. (Someone please tell Donald Trump, who has the U.S. government investing in semiconductor and mining companies.) Do we really still need government monopolies in education, health care and infrastructure? Our problem isn’t too little growth-promoting public investment. It’s too little private enterprise providing choice and competition.

 

Over the past decade, as our deficits, debts, taxes and regulations have all grown, our real incomes have not. We chug along like a tugboat while other countries cruise by us like ocean liners. What we badly need is less, not more government.

 

I totally agree.  Obviously, I’m partial to his first comment about tax reform – given my expertise – and his comment that we need less government not more. All of his comments are wise and I cross my fingers that the government will follow his wisdom.

 

I’m not holding my breath though.

 

Bonus Comment – Quote Often MisAttributed to the Greek  Philosopher, Socrates (But  Actual Source Unknown), About Debating

 

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

 

Absolutely agree!  Leaders – and others – don’t be the loser.

 

Hope you enjoyed this edition of 1-1-1. If you’re not already part of the In the Mood Network, now’s the time. Please sign-up today.  Whether it’s through consulting, coaching, speaking, or writing, my work is about planting acorns: deliberate, principled actions that challenge the status quo and grow into something far bigger. The goal? Bold reform. Stronger foundations. And a country that values hard work and common sense.