PACP Committee Meeting

    Good morning, everyone.

    I now call this meeting to order.

    Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

     Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, but I believe everyone is in the room.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, the committee resumed consideration of the report on the Canada Revenue Agency contact centres, of the 2025 fall reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

    I'd like to welcome our two witnesses. Thank you for appearing in person.

    We have the Honourable Wayne Long, Secretary of State, Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions. I understand he'll be offering some brief remarks.

    Accompanying him today, from the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Jean-François Fortin, deputy commissioner. Nice to see you as well, sir.

    Mr. Long, you have up to five minutes. We'll then begin our rounds of questioning.

    Thank you.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, fellow parliamentarians. It's wonderful to be here.

    I am blessed to be in my 11th year as a member of Parliament for the beautiful riding of Saint John—Kennebecasis, which most of you know now butts up against your chair's beautiful riding of Saint John—St. Croix. We share the same city.

    In all truthfulness, committee work is so important to Parliament. I sat on committee, in particular HUMA, for the better part of 10 years. I want you to know how much I appreciate the work you do. It's important to Canadians.

    We're here to talk about our 100-day plan. We're here to talk about the CRA. I will start by saying that I was given the privilege to be secretary of state for the CRA. I was sworn in on May 13. I'll certainly say that it's been a wonderful privilege to serve Canadians in this role.

    We around this horseshoe, this table, have all heard from Canadians who have come into our offices or called our offices about the CRA and concerns they had with getting a hold of the CRA, wait times and what have you. I knew that, obviously, from being a constituency MP before I was sworn in. I was certainly aware that there were some challenges with the CRA with respect to the frustration level of Canadians wanting to have calls answered.

    Very shortly after I was sworn in, I became more acutely aware of what I call the problem resolution service. I call it the PRP. It is the urgent service that, when Canadians come in to a constituency office, members of Parliament have so they can call to elevate and deal with urgent cases. The wait times were off the charts. They were long.

    The first thing I did as secretary of state for the CRA was to work with the deputy commissioner and, obviously, the commissioner. We focused on exactly what was going on, and we reallocated more resources to the PRP. There are, give or take, 125 people who look after the PRP and look after that MP line. We allocated another 50 to 60 people to that.

    We took action quickly. I would say, as a result, that we have the PRP under good control, back within its times of a response within five days and a resolution, one way or the other, within 15 days.

     My background is small business. I've run small businesses, some sports business and some other businesses. I believe in accountability, I believe in focus and I believe in results. What this showed me was that, if we went in and identified a problem—we all knew what that problem was—focused on it and put the proper resources to it, we could have success.

    To me, that was a good sign, but we also knew that it was a symptom. There was a larger problem of service delivery. Again, we all heard it. It's not news to anybody around this table that constituents were coming in saying they were waiting forever for the CRA.

    On September 2, Minister Champagne and I tasked the CRA to launch a 100-day plan to focus on what's going on, what we could do to address it and how we could fix things. For the record, we also did write the chair of finance. I know this is PACP, but we also wrote the chair of finance to offer to appear. We were proactive. I believe in accountability. I was sworn in on May 13. I'm accountable. The buck stops with me.

    We wanted to institute the 100-day plan. The plan has four pillars. Increasing the ability to answer calls is first and foremost. It's hard to believe, but there are 30 million calls to the CRA each year.

    Number two was to expand digitalized self-service options to reduce the number of calls. Maybe people can unlock their accounts online without calling. Maybe they can register for the CCB without calling.

    Third was to address call drivers upstream and head off problems before people need to call or need to go online.

    Fourth was to accelerate service modernization.

    Obviously, we saw the Auditor General's report. It looked at a previous period, i.e., backwards from spring. We thank her for that report. However, at the time that report was released, we were already focusing on addressing issues that were kind of in that report. We're almost there. Every day on my whiteboard, I cross something off. I had seven, I had six, and we're one week out.

    I'm looking forward to the 100-day plan's ending, but I'm also looking forward to day 101, and forward five years. We are working on a three- to five-year plan. I am excited about that. I believe we're on the right track. We have a wonderful relationship with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the president of the union, Mr. Marc Brière. We're going to continue to strive to be better and offer the service that Canadians expect and deserve from their CRA.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to take questions.

    Thank you very much, Secretary Long.

    Our first round will consist of three members, for six minutes each.

    Mr. Deltell, you will be the first speaker. You have six minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, colleagues.

    Welcome, Secretary of State.

    As you said earlier, you were elected in 2015, so we are in the same class. I have seen you the last 10 years as a very important member of Parliament on the government side, without having a portfolio, but now you have one.

    My first question is a direct one.

    You mentioned that, when you were appointed secretary of state for the Canada Revenue Agency and financial institutions, you had some major challenges ahead of you. You even got a little emotional when you recalled your appointment last May.

    You served as a government member for 10 years, and for 10 years, we saw the quality of service at the CRA drop dramatically. When people call the CRA, they are given the wrong information four times out of five, and the wait time is twice as long as normal. That is what the Auditor General said in her most recent report.

    How is it that, during your 10 years as a government MP, your government let the situation deteriorate so terribly for all Canadians?

    Thank you, MP Deltell. Not to butter you up at this committee, but I have a lot of respect for you. We sat on committees together and I appreciate the work you have done on behalf of Canadians.

    To answer that question, I was sworn in on May 13. I believe in accountability. You saw me put my hand up. I believe in looking forward. I really believe that you can learn from the past, but I was responsible for the CRA from May 13 forward. That's why we've tasked the CRA to come up with a 100-day plan. We've reallocated resources. We're focusing on hot spots, if you will.

    Therefore, the past is the past to me. I'm worried about the future. I'm very confident and I think the 100-day plan is showing really good results. When we started the 100-day plan, MP Deltell, we were at basically 34% of calls being answered within 15 minutes. We've more than doubled that now. I think we are showing amazing progress.

    This again shows me that if we take accountability, we focus, we really lean in and “put the shoulder in”, as I like to say, on things that are wrong and ask what we can do about them and how we can fix them, we can have results.

    Sorry—

    Just to finish this off, I'm looking forward. That's why we've tasked the CRA beyond the 100-day plan. The 100-day plan is great, but it's a band-aid. I want to go past that.

    I'm not looking at the past. I'm not really here to speak about what happened and when. I'm here to speak about what happens from now and into the future.

    What the Auditor General said is nothing new. That is the major problem. There was a report in 2017 that said exactly the same things. However, when you were a government MP, your government did nothing.

    What do you think about the former member for Gaspésie who served as the Liberal national revenue minister for over seven years and did nothing to remedy the situation at the CRA?

    Again, with respect, I can't speak to the direction of the CRA before I was sworn in—

     Was she a good minister or not, yes or no?

    Yes.

    Okay. That's your style.

    Let's come back to what is happening today.

    This is the first time that we have had a secretary of state for the CRA. However, the finance minister was responsible for the CRA.

    Since you have been in your position, how many cabinet meetings have you attended and how many times have you made executive decisions?

    As secretaries of state, we come in and out of cabinet meetings. I've been to many cabinet meetings. My focus is on the CRA and financial institutions as secretary of state.

    I have regular meetings with the commissioner and deputy commissioner. I've developed a great working relationship with the president of UTE, Marc Brière. To me, it's about creating the right culture.

    I come from a bit of a hockey background, too. The culture starts at the top. The accountability starts at the top. Again, we have good dialogue and we identify problems. My focus is on fixing what I see in front of me.

    Are you an executive decision-maker or do you have to refer to the Minister of Finance who has the final word? Do you have true executive responsibility, yes or no?

    Yes.

    How many decisions have you made since you've been secretary of state?

    Is that with respect to the CRA?

    Yes.

    There have been some decisions I've made.

    How many times have you attended a cabinet meeting? As secretary of state, you're not part of cabinet.

    No, that's not actually true. I do attend cabinet meetings.

    Yesterday, we asked the cabinet secretary some questions and he told us that secretaries of state can only participate in cabinet meetings when issues related to their responsibilities are being addressed.

    As a secretary of state, you are not a member of cabinet.

    What's the difference between—

    That's true, yes.

    —between the minister and you, as secretary of state?

    I'm sorry. I'm not clear on the question, MP Deltell.

    I will ask you a simpler question.

    You said earlier that you have experience running a small business, which is very interesting. You also said that the CRA must treat small businesses fairly.

    Why, as we have seen in various reports, did the CRA let Brookfield get away with not paying the $5 billion in taxes it owed to Canadians?

    My focus is on the CRA. My focus is on making improvements to the CRA. If you are referring to an individual tax case, I'm not going to comment on an individual case.

    These are not small potatoes. We're talking about Brookfield.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Deltell. I am sorry, but your time is up. You will no doubt have an opportunity to come back to these questions later.

    Mr. Housefather, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I know that my friend Mr. Deltell is well aware that we cannot discuss an individual's or a business's CRA account with the minister in public. It is a matter of confidentiality. We do not want to cause a lawsuit here in committee. It would be a bad idea to ask the minister that.

    Wayne, I'm very happy to see you in this role. I've been a big fan of yours for the last 10 years, having worked together with you on a number of issues. I think it's great that there is a business person in this role who looks at the CRA as a business that has to run well for Canadians. I know you have the gumption to do that. This new government has put someone there who actually will fix problems in the CRA that existed long before 2015.

    The report, as my colleague Mr. Deltell said, is quite damning. As you would imagine, there have been problems we have both faced as MPs for year. In fact, I'm shocked.

    Sometimes, I get calls from constituents telling me that Revenu Québec provides far better customer service than the CRA does. I have told several successive ministers that, so I'm very happy that action is being taken.

    Talk to me about how your tone from the top is going to fix the problems at the CRA.

    Thanks for the kind words. It's good to see you, Anthony.

    I do believe the tone gets set from the top. I believe very much in culture. I'm not a status quo guy. I like to challenge, and I'm constantly looking for improvements, and, obviously, improvements in service. I always go by the adage, “To stand still is to move backwards.”

    I know you referenced the Auditor General's report. We accept the report and we accept the Auditor General's findings. We will learn from that, but let's be clear: The Conservatives in particular were focused on the 167 calls where there was 17% accurate information given.

    Let's back up on that.

    CRA receives 30 million calls a year, and 80% of those calls are tax file-related and the other 20% of those calls are general inquiries. The Auditor General herself said that in the 80% of tax file questions, there was 90% accuracy, but they focused on the general inquiries. There were 167 calls—that's all that was made. The CRA itself does 100,000 samples per year. Accuracy was basically 90%.

    I would argue that 167 calls isn't the best sub-sample. I would also say to Canadians who are watching this today to call your CRA. They're world-class public servants. There are great people in the call centres. They are giving accurate information. I don't want Canadians to think they're not giving accurate information, because they are.

    Again, we accept the Auditor General's report. It was 167 calls they made. I think I'd take the 100,000 sample over 167 any day, so I want Canadians to know that they do get timely, accurate information from the CRA.

    I agree with you. When it came to specific questions asked related to an individual's own tax filing, the rate of success found by the Auditor General was substantially higher than for the general questions that were asked.

    With respect to the general questions, I assume there's also been enhanced training and a look at the documentation that CRA officers are provided on the phones to enhance their ability to answer general questions. Is that correct?

    For sure.

    Nobody at the CRA goes into work wanting to give bad information or not wanting to answer the phone. The world-class workers there basically were leaned on heavily through COVID; I don't know where Canadians would be without those people at the CRA who delivered those services.

    Sure, they want to get timely information, but we need to set them up for success too. We need to make sure we have the right allocation of people in the right places. We need to make sure we extend the contracts for 770 workers. We're going to reallocate resources to the hot spots.

    Again, the Auditor General's report is one of those ones where we accept the findings and we learn from them. We're going to continue to strive to be better, and we are showing amazing progress so far in the 100-day plan.

    Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

    You have 30 seconds, sir.

    I'm not going to get very far in 30 seconds, so thank you very much.

    You can try a short one if you want.

    Who's going to win the Stanley Cup this year?

    The Boston...no, I'd better not say Boston.

    The Toronto Maple Leafs.

    Montreal is the right answer.

    Order.

    It's obviously going to be the Habs.

    Mr. Lemire, you have six minutes.

    When I was watching the games, I thought Owen Nolan scored a hat trick, but that is a whole other debate.

    Mr. Long, thank you for being here today. In my opinion, a minister's role is obviously to be accountable to Parliament and to answer committees' questions. I'm glad you're here. I know you are quite formidable in question period; however, we really felt it was essential for the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to be here. I am counting on you to pass the message on to him. I saw him this morning. He was with the Assembly of First Nations, but he should have made himself available to be here.

    In budget 2024, your government committed to invest $336 million over two years to maintain staffing levels in call centres and make them more effective. However, you still needed a 100‑day plan, so one has to wonder what that money was used for.

    The 100‑day plan is a prime example of short-sighted management. People are hired in a time of crisis and put on the phone lines with very little training. Tax rules are very complex and it takes a long time to understand them. People cannot be trained to the required level in so little time. We are talking about fixed-term contracts rather than longer-term hiring. That is a problem because we are not giving workers the opportunity to gain a sufficient understanding of the subject matter. They are just being thrown into the job. That explains why people are getting so many wrong answers. Normally, it would take two or three years to train someone for this job. The government is using short-term strategies rather than maintaining expertise over the long term.

    Why would the government rather cut public service jobs to save money rather than providing Quebeckers and Canadians with quality service?

    We strive to offer Canadians quality service. I think that, by and large, the CRA has done a very good job.

     I can't speak to allocations or resources in the past. I am a business person and I came from the business sector. There are times when you have so many resources and you allocate them, whether it's to the PRP, the business tax call centres or the consumer tax call centres. There's always a moving target. Where do you put your resources and how many resources do you hire?

    Let's not forget that the CRA drives our government revenue. The CRA collects revenue. We are always focused on making sure that we have the optimal number of people there to offer service to Canadians—that's number one—but also to go out and make sure that we have compliance and audits, and so on and so forth.

    I'm more concerned about where we are now. There was, obviously, a lack of response. We were down to 34%. We've extended contracts for 770 contract workers, give or take. We are reallocating other resources now from other spots. I think the results are very promising.

    I understand that your question was about budget 2024-25, but I'm more focused on budget 2025 and moving forward. I'm holding the CRA to account. We have a great working relationship. We're changing the culture and we're going to be accountable. We're going to set goals and we're going to try to live by those goals.

     Again, it's always a moving target. We have the T1 adjustment season. We're just coming up to the tax filing season now. There are always going to be hot spots, but now we're focusing. We know these things are coming. They aren't a surprise to anybody. We know the tax season is coming and we know the T1 adjustment season is coming, so let's make sure now that we have the proper resources allocated to lessen those bumps in the curve, if you will. Working with the deputy commissioner and the commissioner, I am very confident that we're going to overcome those and we're going to have smoother sailing moving forward.

    Part of that, if I can finish, is the three- to five-year plan. Again, I come from a business background. I've sat and presented to many boards on many issues. If you don't know where you're going, you're not going to get there. I want to make sure that we have a plan for where we want to be in three years and in five years. I want us to be the gold standard in the G7. I know we can get there.

    I'm really excited about our new system. We're changing from IBM to Bell moving forward. I think the future is very promising for the CRA.

    Thank you for your answer and thank you for sharing your views in your opening remarks. The 100‑day plan is important, but what comes after that is more important. I want to emphasize how important it is to keep the new CRA hires around for the long term. They need to be able to see their job as a long-term thing.

    I want to ask a question that was raised by Claude Flamand, president of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue local of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The fact that the CRA has decentralized its offices is a good thing. It is good for the regions, and we thank you for that.

    The number of employees at the CRA's call centres has decreased by more than 2,000 people. As a result, the service standard is no longer being met. In 2022-23, the CRA had over 7,000 customer service employees and it met the service standard.

    Since then, Canada has experienced a demographic boom. Of course, we called for more services as a result of this major increase in the population, but after that the government made staffing cuts.

    I am concerned about all this coming and going by employees. In 2015, the CRA had 40,059 employees. In 2024, it had 59,155 employees, so there was an increase in personnel. The government hires, and then it makes staffing cuts, hires and makes cuts.

    Will your plan give some continuity, maintain jobs and ensure that there are no staffing cuts? Let's remember that staffing cuts mean cuts to services.

     The ask of the CRA through COVID, I think, was something that most Canadians will never forget. We did have to obviously add a lot of employees to the CRA to deliver COVID benefits to Canadians. Clearly, moving through the COVID era, there was a downsizing. Again, to me, it's always a bit of a moving target. What's the right number or the wrong number? In the end, you see where the hot spots are. There are service standards. If we fall below those service standards, we need to know why. Should there be a reallocation?

    I'm very confident that it's not just about the number of employees but also about the systems they are working with. It's about changing, transitioning from the IBM system to the Bell system. It's going upstream and looking at hot spots. It's helping Canadians so that they don't have to call. Like I said, there were 312,000 Canadians who actually had to call the CRA to get their accounts unlocked. Just that in itself—

     Thank you, Mr. Long.

    I gave you Mr. Housefather's time from earlier to allow you to give a fulsome response.

    Being in our second round now, I am going to keep the time close because I'd like to get a third round in.

    Mr. Kuruc, you have the floor for five minutes please.

    Thank you.

    I'd like to say thank you to all the witnesses here today.

    I'm going to start by tackling this. There is theory, and then there is reality.

    In theory, Secretary Long has already stated that the CRA is operating at a “world-class” level, with “smoother sailing moving forward”, and he agreed that the former minister did a “good job”.

    Now we're going to get into the reality part of things where there was a scathing Auditor General's report. In Secretary Long's own words in September, he said, “We hit rock bottom. It can't get much worse than it is now.” I'd call this below rock bottom.

    I'd like to just say that there's theory, and then that's the actual reality. What I find a bit concerning is that Secretary Long was disputing some of the Auditor General's reports. Simply, do you agree with the Auditor General's reports, yes or no?

    I accept the reports.

    My question was this: Do you agree with the reports?

    I accept the report. I can offer—

    Again, sir—

     —a counter to that—

    Excuse me, sir. It's my time. I'd like to get back to....

    I understand you accept the report. We all have to accept the report. My question is very clear, sir. Do you agree with the Auditor General's report referring to the CRA?

     Nobody wants to receive a report where they're challenged. Certainly the workers take it personally. I know—

    Sir, again, in September you said, “We hit rock bottom. It can't get much worse than...now.” I'd call this below rock bottom. Then you said “world-class” and “smoother sailing moving forward”, and you agreed that the former minister did a “good job”. Then you disputed the report.

    Again, I would like to ask you this: Do you agree with the Auditor General's report?

     I accept the report.

    Sir, that's not what I—

    I can offer—

    With all due respect, I do respect your position as secretary. You've been here for 11 years and you are a gentleman. I do like your opening remarks that you would take accountability and that you're forthright. But please, sir, do you accept the Auditor General's report, yes or no?

    Yes I do accept it.

    Thank you very much, sir.

    Now do you agree with the report?

    You just asked me if I accepted it.

    You said yes. We have now established that you accepted it, so you don't need to say you accepted the report.

    That's what you asked me. I agree with you that I accept it.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Do you agree with the Auditor General's report?

    Look, there are different recommendations in the report.

    I assume you've read the report?

    Yes, I have, sir, and I assume you've read the report too.

    Hon. Wayne Long: So, to me—

    Ned Kuruc: It's my time, sir, and with all due respect, do you agree with the Auditor General's report, yes or no? Please answer the question.

    I accept the report.

    Sir, that's not the question I'm asking. To be quite honest with you now, there's giggling and we were having a good time talking about hockey. This is a really serious question and I'll tell you why. I haven't got to the other point and I'd love to get more time on this.

    As you know, sir, I have people coming into my constituency office and they're not happy. There is a Globe and Mail article that just came out that says that on disability tax credits, the CRA is still behind three to six months.

    We've had enough kidding around. Do you agree with the Auditor General's report, yes or no, sir?

    I have a different view of the report. It's really not a yes-or-no question to be honest. I have a problem with its using a sub-sample of 167 calls.

    Therefore, you do not agree with the report?

    I just don't accept her findings on that one.

    Do you agree with the Auditor General's report, yes or no?

    I don't accept the report.

    Do you agree with it?

    Some of it yes, and some of it no.

    Fair enough.

    You have about 30 seconds, Mr. Kuruc.

     Disability tax credits should take two months. Is that correct? Is that what the 100-day plan is trying to achieve?

    Yes, right now we're at 10.5 weeks and it should be eight.

    And it's moving forward—

    I'm afraid that is it for the time.

     I'm going now to Ms. Yip for five minutes, please.

     Secretary Long, it's good to see you here and I appreciate your comments about accountability, and also your enthusiasm in your answers here today.

    Thank you. I'm privileged to be here.

    For the benefit of the Canadians watching, you've talked a bit about the 100-day plan. Could you just elaborate on exactly what the 100-day plan is?

     I sure can.

     The crux behind the 100-day plan is really to drive focus on the challenge the CRA was facing. As I said in my opening statement, we've all heard and we've all lived constituents coming into our offices and complaining, “I've been waiting on hold” and “I've been waiting for hours” and so on. As you know, we don't want that. They don't want that. The CRA employees don't want that.

    Minister Champagne and I sat down with Commissioner Hamilton and the deputy commissioner and said, “Look, let's come up with a focus. Let's lean our shoulder into where we see problems.”

     Number one was, let's increase the ability to answer calls. That's obviously the low-hanging fruit, I like to say. Let's make it better when people call. How do we do that? We allocate more people to it. We extended contracts to 770 people, give or take, and signed them up to drive the number up. Thirty-four per cent were getting answered within 15 minutes. Right now, we're up. We're double that. That's number one.

    Number two was to expand digital service options. Let's encourage people to do things online that otherwise they'd sit on a phone for and be frustrated. Like I said before, that's about being able to unlock your account, or being able to make a payment or being able to register for the CCB.

    Another thing that I think holds great promise—and we've seen it in our offices through IRCC— is call scheduling. I am a big fan of call scheduling. I saw in our offices in years gone past with some of our teammates on hold when trying to get hold of IRCC. Now, people go in and book a time. IRCC sees it. The person on the other end knows when they're going to call. They can be better prepared. The right person can call with the right information. Call scheduling is huge, I think. We are doing a trial with it right now with the disability tax credit. I think it's showing great promise.

    Number three, let's look at call drivers upstream. Let's see what we can do to prevent people from having to do any of those things.

    Number four is the modernization; let's accelerate that. I'm really excited by that one, by the way. We are transitioning from IBM to Bell. The IBM contract was for 10 years and was signed in 2015 or 2016, I believe. We're now transitioning to Bell. We talk about accelerating modernization. I was always under the impression we were going to do that in early 2027, but we're ahead of schedule.

     As the deputy agreed, we're going to actually transition to Bell in 2026. Thirty million calls go through that system. Imagine a more modern system with AI, flexible: a system that is going to be that much better than our old system. IBM has done a good job, but we're transitioning to a new system.

    I'm really encouraged by focusing on those things. I go back to my hockey life. If things aren't going well, we're going to haul in the coaches and the general manager and we're going to ask what's wrong. Is it in the dressing room? Is it here? Is it there? What's wrong?

     That's what we're doing now. I'm a small business guy at heart. That's where I came from. Again, I'm certainly not treating this as a small business, but we're identifying the problems, we're addressing the problems and we're going to hold people accountable for fixing them. That's what we're doing.

    You only have five seconds for a super quick question.

    Have the responses to the business calls improved? Is that part of the 70% or do they have their own statistics?

    On the business calls, that would be their own statistics.

     I toured a business call centre a few weeks ago and talked to the union members there who are answering calls. They're doing a great job. I actually might ask the deputy commissioner for clarity there. Is—

     We'll have to come back to that. I'm sure you'll be given the opportunity, but we're over the time.

    Okay. That's no problem.

    I wanted to give you an opportunity to answer, at least, but I'm sure this will be picked up again and you'll have that opportunity.

    Mr. Lemire, you have two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Long, you are a former hockey club president. You use hockey metaphors. I will do the same.

    I know that I am putting you on the defensive, but citizens are caught in a trap. They have reminded us of that many times.

    The other problem is that the referee is only giving penalties to one side. The referee who does that for the government is the Auditor General.

    It is clear from what you said and from my colleague Mr. Kuruc's clever remarks that you are rejecting most of the Auditor General's report, when it is her role to raise these issues to defend the rights of citizens who have been harmed by your services.

    The commissioner of the CRA, Bob Hamilton, downplayed many of the allegations against the CRA, noting, as you implied earlier, that 130,000 calls had been monitored for quality assurance purposes. He did not understand what the Auditor General was saying or how she had come to that conclusion. According to a May 2025 La Presse article, some employees, who wished to remain anonymous, had indicated that service quality and training at the CRA were inadequate.

    What exactly in the Auditor General's report are you rejecting? As members of this committee, we need to understand that.

    I think it's quite clear. The issue I had with the Auditor General's report—and we do accept the report—is the use of a subsample of 167 calls to paint the whole of the CRA as if it provides bad information.

    Number one, they weren't tax file-related. They were general inquiries. Here's a case in point: If somebody called and said, “This tax season ends on the 30th, but the 30th is a Sunday”.... Monday is the first. If they said, “the 30th—the Sunday”, that would have been deemed inaccurate information.

    Again, it pained me to see Canadians getting a message that the CRA is giving bad information. “Don't call the CRA. You'll never get through to the CRA.” That's just not the case. We're at a point, right now, where mid-70%-plus people are being answered within 15 minutes. That's a fact. That's happening, and they are getting accurate information.

    The Auditor General has a responsibility to keep us on our toes and other government agencies on their toes. Nobody likes to see a report like that, but we take it, learn from it and improve.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Stevenson, you have the floor.

    Go ahead for five minutes, please.

    Thank you, sir, but five minutes is not nearly enough. I could take all day with all the questions I have, having been in public practice for 26 years.

    I have a few problems with some of the things you've said, but let's start with the very first part. My colleague here was going on about the report. Let me redefine that: You said that you accepted some of the findings.

    Do you accept the recommendations the Auditor General has given you?

     I would say, by and large, yes.

    Okay.

    You also said, earlier, that “the buck stops” with you. We've had—

    It does from May 13 on.

    I know. I won't hold you to account for all the problems in the past, but you said that your previous minister was a good minister. I would differ on that too.

    Let's go back to one thing that was stated in a previous committee meeting. They said that there's a difference between what the department does, what agencies do and who's responsible for that.

    Going forward, would you say that you will be the one responsible for all the decisions at the top and for making certain decisions the CRA makes?

    There was a difference there, in what we are doing.

    There's obviously the ministry side and the agency side. I'd argue that it's at arm's length. We have a wonderful working relationship with the commissioner and deputy commissioner. We work together. We prioritize. They present us with options and plans, but Commissioner Hamilton is responsible and—

     Okay, that's—

    —runs the CRA. I think we all know that.

    CPAs always, every year, have to have so many hours of professional development, and I've gone to many of these things, and the number one thing that has always been said the last few years is that, if you actually get through and get on there and then.... Yes, you may have changed it now for the timing, but we're in the slow season, the slowest part of the year, so the proof will be in the pudding when we come into the spring.

    It will, yes.

    One thing they always say is that the absolute first thing you do is write down that agent's ID number so you can go back because, nine times out 10, we will phone back two hours later, and we'll get a different answer. That's always to make sure that we get the right.... If we don't get an answer we like, often we'll phone back and get a different person, and we will get a different answer.

     I think you're going to have to have some training on that end of it. One thing that the Auditor General said—and we've gotten some different information from the department versus the Auditor General on this—is how they calculate how much training there is for these people in the call centre.

    Have you allocated more time and resources to training the agents who are taking the questions?

    Clearly the CRA's employees are trained, allocated and shifted around, and they go from this department to that department, and obviously the training regime is key. You know, it may take a few days. It may take a few weeks but, if I can, I will turn this over to the deputy commissioner to comment on the training regime.

    Training is an important part of our operations. Every time we hire new people, they go through several weeks of training. There is also continuing education, as you mentioned, for—

    I know what has happened. I'm just—

    Yes, we will continue to improve the training and to pay close attention to it. We will continue to not only properly train our people but also to use technology and tools that will enable them to—

    Okay, I'm going to run out of time here. I want to get to one more point that I have.

    One thing you said you were really excited about was the feature modernization. I would say that it's been more of a problem, for example, for a sole practitioner dealing with farmers who may be in their 80s—

    What is your question, Mr. Stevenson?

    What are you going to do in this modernization for those who are not technically able to...? You've eliminated paper filing for GST and brought in huge fines for those elderly people who don't have a computer. How are you going to address those people who are getting fines with regard to that?

     The shift to modernization to the new system, from IBM to Bell, is a challenge. It's necessary. We all know—I'm showing my age here—that AI is a bigger and bigger part of our lives, but there's always going to be a healthy, well-staffed, vibrant call centre for Canadians to call and get a response. I think the fact that we've increased from 34% to over 74% in these 100 days, 94 days to be clear, is a very successful number so far.

    That doesn't help their filing—

    Thank you very much. We're going to move on now. You'll have a chance to come back.

     Mr. Long, later on you'll be able to pick up if you like as well.

     Mr. Osborne, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Long, when I first got elected, we were noticing some calls from constituents with concerns. That has improved considerably, I would say, as a result of your 100-day plan.

    I know that Ms. Yip asked you about your 100-day plan. You talked, earlier in your opening remarks as well, about continuing with improvements and where you see the agency in the future. I'm just wondering if you need a little more time to elaborate on the improvements to the agency and where you see it going in the future.

     I thank my Atlantic caucus colleague for the question.

     The CRA drives our country's revenue. The CRA sometimes has a stigma attached to it that it's the tax people, and we don't like to call them; or, when they're calling us, we believe that it must sometimes be bad news, and so on and so forth. You have that. Then, on top of it, you have people calling who may not want to call, but then they're on hold for an hour, an hour and a half or longer.

    As members of Parliament, we all heard it; we all saw it; we all lived it. That was long before I was given the privilege of even being sworn in. I was just a good old constituency MP doing my thing, and I knew there were problems.

     Shortly after that, with the immense privilege of being sworn in as secretary of state—obviously, I'm the CRA guy—I was hearing from members of Parliament about how long people are waiting for the PRP. It should be five days for a response. It should be 15 days for a resolution. Well, it wasn't five days. It was 35 days, so I was like, “Oh, my. Okay.”

    They say that the problems will always bubble to the top, so we said, “Okay, we have a problem here.” Minister Champagne and I sat down with the commissioner and the deputy commissioner. We said, “Look, we know we have world-class public servants. We have great people there. They don't want to give bad service. They don't want to give delayed service. They want to answer the phone, but we have a problem here.” We said, “Look, let's really focus. Let's lean into this.”

    We came up with the 100-day plan. We meet. We get updates. I think, for the first time in a long time, we have some direction. We know where we're going. We know what we're focusing on. We know what to identify.

    The first thing we said was, “People are waiting too long, so let's reallocate people.” We extended the contracts of almost 800 contract employees, kept them on the phones and reallocated some resources here and there. We saw those numbers go up. Now 74% to 75% of calls are answered within 15 minutes.

    Then we said, “Let's look at other hot spots.” The deputy commissioner came back to me once and said that there were, I think, 312,000 people calling who just wanted to get their account off hold. I said, “Let's try to fix that. Let's see if we can do that online. Let's look at other things that we can do to prevent people from having to call. Let's educate Canadians as to what they need to call about. Let's get more people on MyCRA. They can do more work on MyCRA.”

    I'll never be satisfied. It's just my nature. I'm always going to be looking for improvements. I'm always going to be saying, “This is great. Our 100-day plan is almost done. I deem it a success,” but I'm looking at day 101 to 1,500 here. I'm looking at where we're going, what we're doing and what can we do to offer Canadians good service.

    Canadians deserve to have good, timely service. They deserve to get their refunds. They deserve to have accurate information, and we're embarking upon that.

    As I say, I think it shows that if you create a good culture, if you say you're accountable and responsible for this from May 13 on.... I'm going to hold you and the commissioner accountable. We're going to work together. We're going to work with the union. We're not going to work against them. We're going to work with Marc Brière and UTE to find solutions.

    Thank you.

    Your time is up, Mr. Osborne.

    That's a good place to stop. I'm just trying to squeeze in more rounds.

    In the third round, I'm going to truncate the times.

    The government and official opposition members will have four minutes, while Mr. Lemire will have only two minutes.

    Mr. Deltell, you have four minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Secretary of State, I want to come back to two somewhat worrisome things you said earlier.

    First, you said that the former minister did a good job. Are you serious, Secretary of State? The Prime Minister removed her from cabinet and the people of Gaspésie removed her from the House of Commons. Do you realize that you are the only one defending the indefensible?

    I think anybody who serves—anybody who's elected and comes to this place and sits in our House to represent their constituents—tries their best. I think we're all in this together. We're all representing Canadians. Some of us have been given the privilege of serving in cabinet or as secretaries of state or parliamentary secretaries—or on committees, for that matter. I try to look at everybody as a person who's trying their best. I know you do too. I'm not prepared to ever say that somebody didn't do a good job. I think the responsibility of people who serve in cabinet or have ministries is immense. I think the weight on them is heavy. I'm not here to judge somebody on whether they did a good job or bad job.

    That's fine. The Prime Minister made his choice—that's fine—and the people of Gaspésie too. That you still defend the indefensible is sad, Mr. Long, let me tell you that.

    This is nothing personal to the person who was there. The Auditor General was very strong on the results after this administration. Even you said that. May I remind you what you said? You said, “We hit rock bottom. It can't get much worse than it is now.” I would call it below rock bottom.

    That was harsher than what the Auditor General said, so why can't you clearly state that you agree with the Auditor General's findings?

    No, I don't think that at all. I think I've been known for saying what I think at times, sometimes to my credit and other times to my detriment.

    The Auditor General report was at a period before I was sworn in. I was sworn in on May 13. I think it's clear; maybe I could have used a better choice of words, but in the end, things were not good, and I acknowledged them as such. When the Auditor General report said that 17% of Canadians were getting accurate information, I accepted it. I may say, well, hold on, here, like I said earlier—

     Do you agree?

    MP Deltell, I'm focused on what I can control. What I can control is my input, my direction and my plan for the CRA from May 13 on.

    If I may suggest—

    We can talk about the past, but I'm focused on the future. I'm focused on building a CRA and being part of a team that is a gold standard in the G7.

    If I may suggest, Secretary of State, keep the wording you had as a member of Parliament, as you did for the last 10 years. You said, “We hit rock bottom. It can't get much worse than it is now.” I would call this below rock bottom. That was a member of Parliament who spoke. Keep that language, not the language of an unacceptable situation.

    Thank you very much.

    I always like to end with a statement by a government member, so I will give Mr. Lemire the floor for two minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Auditor General's report, which we understand you are not very fond of, also draws attention to a systemic problem with call centre agents' performance evaluations. An employee can get a passing grade on their evaluation if they adhere to their work schedule, go on their breaks at the right time, hang up quickly, answer questions very quickly, behave well, or do not get upset, communicate well and abide by the CRA's policies, even if they do not give accurate answers, which is true in 80% of cases, even though you disagree with that statement. If the employee does all of those things, they will get a passing grade and will therefore be eligible for promotions, among other things.

    I think that is a problem. The CRA's performance evaluations prioritize the operating framework rather than the accuracy of responses. The employee is being evaluated on whether they can end calls quickly, for example. That likely explains the problem that we are experiencing with regard to accuracy of responses and quality of service. People have to call back several times, which increases the volume of calls on the line.

    Mr. Long, will the major reform you wish to undertake at the CRA include such necessary changes to employee performance evaluations?

     I would say, yes, regarding employee evaluations. To your point, there are certain weights given to certain things. Should they and could they be adjusted? Yes.

    If it's okay, I will turn that over to the deputy commissioner.

    I would just like to add that, every time we are the subject of an Auditor General report, we seek to take advantage of that opportunity to improve things.

    In this case, one of the things we want to improve is the accuracy of responses. We want to focus on that during training, but we also want to put more emphasis on it in employee evaluations to ensure that it becomes a bigger priority.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you.

    Our final speaker is Ms. Tesser Derksen.

    You have the floor for four minutes. Thank you.

    Thanks so much, Mr. Chair.

    Secretary of State Long, thanks for being here and for providing substantive answers and information to questions. You can relax a bit. I'm not going to try to pressure you into providing impossibly simplistic answers to very complicated questions.

    Like you, I acknowledge that there were serious problems in the past. I acknowledge there's a way forward. I want to talk to you a little bit about the way forward, specifically with respect to beyond the 100 days. What's the plan to continue modernizing?

    More specifically, I'm interested in the dialogue you may be having with other ministries regarding AI or government transformation.

    We do obviously work with other ministries. Driver Inc. would be a prime example. I think we're certainly all aware of the one. We work with Transport. We work with ESDC. We continue to work with other ministries.

    What I'm most excited about is.... What was our chatbot? Was it Charlie the chatbot? Well, the chatbot has now been replaced by a more advanced, GenAI chatbot. I think those of us who buy things online have all seen it. Sometimes the chatbot comes in with “if you have questions, you can ask” or so on and so forth. A really quick example is when we bought some blinds at our house from a company. This chatbot came in and it was incredible. You can just type and it gives you answers.

    The more efficient...the more information and the better AI chatbots are, the less people will have to actually stay online or actually call the CRA. I really am excited about the transition from the IBM system to the Bell system. We may be testing it a little, but we're going to start testing it within the next few months. I think it holds great promise.

    We get 30 million calls. On another note, we get 75 million visits through digital per year. That's the volume that comes in to the CRA. Imagine a system that's modernized, that has more AI involvement and that Canadians are going to be able to call. They're going to be able to get information. They may be diverted to another site where they can actually get the information without staying on hold and so on and so forth.

    I take it from my old jobs.... I used to be in aquaculture and hockey and so on and so forth. I believe that if we have a three-year to five-year plan, we can actually really lean in.

    Again, I'm driven by results, so I want to see us really become much more modernized. It's not always about putting more people in call centres. We will make sure we have the right number of people to give the level of service that's acceptable—a good level of service for Canadians.

    It's also about equipping those people, number one. A three-year to five-year plan, to me, can also make it much easier for Canadians. It can inform Canadians and drive Canadians away from phoning to more online services and more digital services. We're identifying hot spots now. We're doing the call scheduling pilot with the disability tax credit.

    I have one thing on the disability tax credit. One of the members mentioned the delays with that. The gateway to the Canada disability benefit was through the disability tax credit. You had to register for that to get the Canada disability benefit. Once you registered for that, you could also go back 10 years. There were a lot of resources tied up there for a lot of time, but we are driving that down. Like I said earlier, we're at 10 and a half. The standard is eight.

    I tasked the commissioner and the deputy commissioner with a longer outlook. Minister Champagne and I want to see where they want to go. I believe in a plan because if you have a vision and a plan, you can work the plan. We can put metrics in place and we can hold people accountable.

    Thank you, Secretary Long.

    You look like you're having some fun. I'm happy to open up for more questions. Do you have a little more time?

    I have to go.

    I understand that. I appreciate you time and the extra time you gave us this morning.

    It's no problem.

    I hope you will report back to the colleagues that when they come to PACP, they're treated fairly by the opposition chairman.

    I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and for coming in today in relation to the study of the report on the Canada Revenue Agency contact centres, of the 2025 fall report of the Auditor General of Canada. The witnesses are excused.

    I will suspend this meeting so we can go in camera to pick up some committee business and report line by line.

    Thank you very much. This meeting is suspended.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]