One Comment About Taxation – The “100-Day Plan” For Improvements to the CRA Call Centers – Is This All Politics?  My Suggestions For Improvements

On September 2, 2025, Finance and National Revenue Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne released a statement on his X account acknowledging concerns about the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) service standards.

 

The statement included comments that the “…service delays and access challenges Canadians are experiencing from CRA call centers are unacceptable.” He went on to say that he has directed the CRA to implement a 100-day plan “to strengthen services, improve access and reduce delays”. Such a plan will apparently include “…reallocating and adding personnel, piloting a new call-scheduling system, and expanding digital services, among other measures.”

 

The CRA’s challenges are numerous and well documented and include poorly trained auditors, issuing reassessments to taxpayers that are lacking in technical substance, slow adoption of digital platforms, poor access and the challenges of a workforce largely “working from home”.

 

Their massive growth in headcount in recent years has certainly not solved those issues. In 2015, the year the Liberal Party came to power, the CRA had 40,059 employees. In 2024, the CRA’s headcount was 59,155. That’s a staggering 47.7% increase in staffing in less than a decade. Recently it has decreased slightly but not materially.

 

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released its analysis of the Government’s 2025–26 Departmental Plans, noting that the federal public service is projected to hit 445,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 2024–25, an increase of more than 13,000 FTEs compared to the previous year’s plans. And of that bump, the CRA alone was responsible for about one-third.

 

The CRA says it will slowly trim their FTE headcount down to about 47,700 by 2027–28, but even if that goal is met that would be a 19% increase over a 12-year period, with very little to show in terms of better service for Canadians.

 

Yes, digital services provided by the CRA has certainly improved over the years but there’s much more to do. In addition, the CRA has added lots of helpful information to its website to assist with technical and administrative matters that deserve kudos. It also recently added an AI chatbot that performs ok with basic questions.

 

Notwithstanding, one of the most visible challenges to the average Canadian, and tax professionals, is their call-centers. The CRA acknowledges such challenges on their website. They even have a myth busting section about such calls with the following comments:

 

Myth: “The CRA does not answer the phone.”

 

Fact: We understand how frustrating it can be to wait for help. The CRA answers between 36,000 and 38,000 calls every day to support Canadians with their needs. When wait times go beyond an average of 30 minutes, we redirect calls to automated services to provide you with secure, easy-to-use options.

 

Myth: “Letting more people join the phone queue would mean more calls get answered.”

 

Fact: Call volumes currently exceed our capacity to respond. When we reach full capacity, we redirect calls to automated services. Think of it like a full glass of water: adding more doesn’t help, it just overflows. Letting more callers into the queue wouldn’t make it possible to answer more calls, it would only increase wait time and frustration.

 

So, basically, during high volume times, they won’t take your call.  And instead of trying to address the systemic issue about why their call volumes are so high, they provide an example of a full water glass.  Not good.

 

Challenges with CRA’s call centers are not new.  I have been practicing tax for almost 35 years and it has always been difficult to get through.  Lately, though, it has been noticeably worse.  Is it because the CRA doesn’t have enough staff or, as the Minister hinted in his statement, that “adding personnel” is necessary?  Well, my two cents is more personnel is not the sole solution as the experience of the last decade has shown.

 

Given the above, the Minister’s 100-day plan risks being little more than politics dressed up as progress. The call center problem is systemic and complex, and no amount of headcount shuffling or additions will fix it. That said, acknowledging the issue is a start but Canadians deserve more than vague promises.

 

If the government is serious, here are five obvious practical steps that could form the backbone of a 100-day plan:

 

1. Implement Call-Back Queues and a Scheduling System
   • End the “full glass of water” excuse. Allow taxpayers to keep their spot in line and receive a call-back instead of being dropped even if the call-back occurs on a different day (give the taxpayer the option for that). And get that scheduling system pilot well underway.
   • Direct routine questions to automation only when taxpayers consent.

 

2. Set Hard Service Standards
   • For example, set a standard of answering a high percentage of calls within the shortest period with the option of getting the callback or scheduled call as per above.

 

3. Expand the Dedicated Telephone Service for Income Tax Professionals
   • Presently, the dedicated telephone service for professionals is only for technical matters and not able to deal with account or other administrative issues for professionals’ clients. There should be a dedicated service for this.
   • In conjunction with this, make the represent a client process more efficient and quicker.

 

4. Independent Oversight
   • Establish a Call Centre Ombudsperson to review complaints and report publicly on performance and systemic failures.

 

5. Train New Hires Better
   • Unfortunately, it’s been too apparent that new hires of the CRA are not trained well.  That needs immediate improvement.

 

On the 100th day – December 11, 2025 – the CRA’s call center problems won’t magically vanish. But Canadians should at least see a realistic plan that includes the above and a comprehensive outline of expanded digital services that can be acted on quickly but empathetic to those who will never adopt digital tools.

 

Tax payers don’t need more “full glass of water” excuses. And we certainly don’t need this exercise to be more political theatre.

 

Progress, not perfection, is what’s expected on Day 100. Canadians are tired of getting soaked.

 

One Comment About Leadership – Even Old Dogs (And Leaders) Need Time to Adjust

 

A few years ago, my wife and I got a new Bichon-Shih Tzu puppy, Enzo.  Our 15-year-old Schnauzer – Max – had earlier passed away and we missed having a dog being part of our family. Enzo quickly grabbed our hearts and we’re inseparable.  He has gotten into quite the daily routine, and he certainly dominates our household. 

 

Enzo is a happy dominating soul. We thought he might enjoy a companion so we recently brought a new Bichon-Shih Tzu puppy home. He’s full of energy, curiosity, and chaos (as puppies are). What surprised me, however, was Enzo’s reaction. Normally confident, steady and full of dominant energy, Enzo became timid around the new arrival. He hung back, watched cautiously, and was hesitant to engage. It was almost like he was scared of the much smaller housemate.

 

At first, I thought, “Come on, Enzo – you’re the seasoned one. Show the little guy how it’s done.” But then it struck me: there’s a leadership lesson here.

 

When a new member joins a team – whether it’s an eager employee, a disruptive personality, or even a star recruit – it shakes up the dynamic. The leader, even an experienced one, may hesitate. Is that a display of leadership weakness?  In my opinion, no. That’s wisdom. Enzo wasn’t afraid. He was simply recalibrating. He used to be the dominant one in the house and now his “pack” changed overnight. He was figuring out where this new ball of fur – and him – fit into the revised order of things. Smart.

 

Good leaders don’t always rush to assert dominance. Often the best first step is patience: observing and learning how the new energy will impact the team. Leadership certainly is about strength and decisiveness but it’s also about adaptability and timing.

 

Eventually, Enzo will step back into his role. He’ll guide, mentor (in dog language, of course) and set the tone. But only after he’s taken the time to understand. That’s the lesson: leadership is as much about knowing when to pause as it is about knowing when to act.

 

If even a seasoned old dog needs time to adjust to change, maybe we should extend the same grace to ourselves as leaders. Leaders, don’t mistake hesitation for weakness. Sometimes, it’s the smartest move in the playbook.

 

 

One Comment About Economics – Our Country’s Financial Literacy Needs to Improve

 

As I’ve learned over the years, politicians rely on voters who are swayed more by emotion, gut instinct and catchy slogans rather than policy analysis.  Political scientists often refer to this cohort as “low information voters” and they can indeed swing elections.

 

The most recent example is the laughably empty “elbows up” campaign which the Liberal Party successfully ran on but, of course, has had zero success in keeping those elbows up.

 

Why can spoon feeding such laughable information to certain voters be powerful? Well, the fact is that understanding how government works along with its related finances is difficult. Having a basic understanding of economics, taxation, public policy, markets and accounting helps but unfortunately the vast majority do not have those types of education. Instead, most rely on what they consume – whether it’s what the media is feeding them, social media consumption or other sources.

 

Accordingly, many election campaigns and subsequent governing policies are not designed to appease people with high financial literacy. Instead, they are often designed to appeal to basic human emotions.  Especially fear and the desire for security. Fear can be a huge motivator with “Trump wants to take over Canada!” being a recent example. The desire for security is often appeased by spending initiatives or other candylike promised tax credits (“teachers get a tax credit!”, for example) so people feel like they are taken care of.

 

Accordingly, when many hear about billions being spent by government, or about the latest government deficit estimates, eyes often gloss over. Pleasant words like “investments” are used as substitutes for “spending” with terms like “funds” and “initiatives” commonly used to justify large spending sprees that appease the cohort’s desire for security.

 

In the meantime, the average Canadian struggles with trying to make ends meet while relying on our country’s infrastructure for basics like health care and education (both portfolios under provincial jurisdiction with large funding contributions being made federally). I think it’s fair to say that both our health care and education systems have room for significant upgrades. Ever been to the emergency room at your local hospital recently? You can often wait hours and hours. Or do you need an MRI? Wait times are atrocious.

 

Who wouldn’t like to see improvements? Resources, however, are not unlimited despite what politicians like to imply with their endless promises. As the old analogy goes, you can try to grow the pie or just slice it differently. If there are no extra resources – in other words, the pie is not bigger – allocating more to one initiative means taking them from another. The harsh truth is that without economic growth and disciplined fiscal management, governments are left playing a zero-sum game.

 

Canada’s economic growth and productivity has, frankly, been pathetic.  This has been true for at least the last ten years.  Our country’s economic problems did not start with the threats of U.S. President Trump’s tariffs or Canada becoming the 51^st State. Far from it. And, on August 29, 2025,Statistics Canada reported that our country’s real GDP was down 0.4% for the second quarter of 2025. Not good.

 

To grow our economy will take significant efforts by Canadians with policy help from our governments.  And by policy help, I don’t mean spending masked as “funds” or “initiatives”.  Instead, much help often comes in the form of “getting out of the way”. Undertaking comprehensive tax reform would be another good way to provide policy help.

 

Our economy would also benefit by electing governments at all levels that are financially literate and won’t mortgage our children’s future for political wins today.

 

For example, because of our government’s accumulated debt, government must pay interest and other costs to service that debt. For 2024-2025, our federal government paid $53.8 billion in such costs. To the average person, that number means nothing.  So, let’s explain that a little further. Of all the federal government revenues that it collects from Canadians in various forms of taxation, fees and levies, it spent 10.8% of such amounts on interest costs during that year (as recently published by The Fraser Institute). That amount exceeded what the federal government transferred to the provinces for health care ($52.1 billion) and childcare benefits ($35.1 billion) during that period.

 

What if the interest costs were zero? Or even cut in half? Well, there would likely be room for material tax relief for all Canadians, not a token 1% tax reduction that has been promised by the Carney government but not yet passed (even though the government blows its trumpet loudly like it has).  Significant tax reduction would have a meaningful impact on reducing the cost of living for everyone given the fact that taxes are the biggest expenditure – 42.3% of a family’s income – for the average Canadian family. Resources could also be reallocated to high pressure points like health and education as previously mentioned.

 

If Canadians improved their financial literacy, I predict the attraction to “feel good” politicians would diminish. Instead, financially literate Canadians would vote for politicians / parties who would treat their tax dollars with respect and in turn our country overall would be better off.

 

Governments don’t get a pass on basic arithmetic. Continued spending without a disciplined budget is unsustainable, no matter whether it’s labeled “operating” or “capital.” Every borrowed dollar must eventually be repaid usually through higher taxes or reduced services.  And increased debt inevitably means higher borrowing costs that crowd out priorities like health care and education.

 

As the renowned American economist Milton Friedman reminded us, “If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing.”

 

He’s right.

 

Canadians need to start planting acorns and that starts with intentional efforts to improve one’s financial literacy to see through political sugar-coating. Only then will Canadians grow the oak tree of prosperity – led by governments who finally treat tax dollars with respect.

 

Bonus Comment – Quote From Robert Baden-Powell – Founder of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides – About the Power of Reflection

 

“If you make listening and observation your occupation, you will gain much more than you can by talk.”

 

Leaders – pausing, listening and observing are powerful tools in your leadership tool-belt. Use them wisely.

 

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.