Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

One of the things I found bizarre was about Charlie the chatbot—which is a great name. You said, “We found that Charlie provided accurate answers in only 2 out of the 6 questions we asked it, while the other public web-based conversational artificial intelligence tools answered 5 out of 6 questions accurately.”

How is it that the government's specialized tool for the CRA is worse than the average tool that anyone can access anywhere?

[Karen Hogan]

It's an excellent question to ask the Canada Revenue Agency. Charlie the chatbot was only populated with general personal income tax information, so when we asked questions about business taxes, it had a hard time because of how it was designed.

It's about whether or not they plan on expanding that and completing the population. I think that would be a great question for the Canada Revenue Agency.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Definitely. I'm sure we'll all ask it.

That's in paragraph 36, and you said the recommendation for it was in paragraph 43, but there's nothing that I found in the recommendations that seemed to suggest they needed to revise this tool. You talked in general about how they need to make information more available, but should they change this tool? Should they eliminate Charlie the chatbot and find another conversant chat tool that will do a better job, or is it simply a matter of them needing to upload more information into this existing tool to allow it to have more comprehensive answers?

[Karen Hogan]

Our recommendation really focused on improving the accuracy and timeliness of responses. It's not right for me to say to the Canada Revenue Agency they should eliminate or enhance Charlie. That's a management decision.

No matter what tool they choose, they have to consider that some Canadians want self-service and some want to speak to an agent, so they need to improve the quality and responsiveness of both.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree with that. Personally, I totally prefer not talking to a person. I prefer getting information online, but I get that there are people like your dad, and probably my parents, who want to talk to an agent.

Can I go to the cybersecurity report for a second? One of the things that, again, baffled me was the number of federal organizations that are not subject to Treasury Board policies and are thus not required to implement all of the cybersecurity services the government offers. For example, you found that 43 federal organizations, representing 36% of all federal organizations that are not bound by Treasury Board policies, are not using CSE's cybersecurity defence sensors.

Isn't it deeply problematic that we have federal government organizations that are not availing themselves of the tools the government makes available to protect us from cybersecurity attacks?

[Karen Hogan]

Who's required to use these sensors is a question of policy. The defence sensors are really strong and have proven to be effective. I think what's important is that it's not the only layer of defence. The sensors are a layer you put on top of the cyber-defences you already have.

Out of the 119 organizations that don't have to use it, you're right that about 64% of them are. They've opted in and seen the value.

One of the gaps that we've highlighted is exactly this. Having this fragmented approach to cyber-defences puts the government somewhat at risk. Any good cyber-defence is about having as many people as possible feeding it. If everyone reports potential phishing attacks, all you're doing is improving and bolstering the defences. If the whole federal family partook in it, we would improve the defences of the Government of Canada's networks and systems.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I totally agree.

I have one last question, Ms. Hogan. Did anyone from any of these departments that chose not to use the tools provide a good reason for why they didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to use them on top of what they already had?

[Karen Hogan]

We asked a few of the organizations that weren't using it—some of the departments and agencies, and some of the Crown corporations—and they gave us a few reasons. The first, for some, was that it might potentially impact their independence. For example, if you're a Crown corporation, there's the need to stay at arm's length from the government. They were also concerned about the limited ability to customize these sensors to meet their needs. They also had concerns around the support and maintenance that might be offered by Shared Services Canada.

What I can tell you is that the Office of the Auditor General is one of the most independent organizations in the government. I have cyber-defences and use the sensors on top of those, because I believe every Canadian expects every federal organization to do everything it can to protect their personal information or information about the government.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I totally agree.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Ms. Hogan, with regard to recruitment for the military, you raised the issue of diversity.

Do you have any data on recruitment among francophones?

[Karen Hogan]

We do not have this data, as I do not believe it is collected by the Department of National Defence.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you have any data on recruitment in Quebec compared to other provinces?

[Karen Hogan]

I’m sorry, but we don’t have that information.

I suggest you contact the Department of National Defence. That would be the best place to get that information.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Canadian Armed Forces recruitment office closed in 2015. My brother was in charge of it, and I salute him. At one point, there were more than 120 members of the forces in the region. Since then, it has been neglected. Even the headquarters of the 9th Engineer Squadron is now in Montreal.

You don’t mention it, but would it be normal to have regional recruitment centres be closer to the places where recruitment is taking place? In your report, you say that you found that only one in thirteen candidates was recruited. Perhaps the problem lies in the form of communication.

Rather than relying on a website, would it be more effective to have face-to-face exchanges where guarantees are offered and people are treated as individuals?

[Karen Hogan]

Attracting people to the Canadian Armed Forces is not a problem. Thousands of people apply every year. However, only one in thirteen people begin basic training.

There are several reasons for this. For example, it could be the processing time for applications. Even if people apply in person, they still have to wait for their application to be processed afterwards.

What is more concerning, in my opinion, is the fact that the Department of National Defence does not know why people drop out of the process. It cannot change it if it does not know why people are dropping out.

I do not know if Mr. Lombardi would like to add anything.

[Gabriel Lombardi, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

I just want to mention that it wasn’t only in Quebec that the number of recruitment centres was reduced a few years ago, but across Canada.

So that would be a good question to put to the Department of National Defence.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I believe there is a direct link between the presence of a recruitment officer to liaise with potential recruits and the likelihood of those recruits enlisting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mr. Deltell, who is allowing me to take some of his time off the top.

I would like you to have a chance, Auditor, to make some comments on the follow-up program for first nations. This document is remarkable because it is so unique. Could you please explain to the committee why you felt it necessary to table such a document, which is outside of the regular audits that your office normally tables for Parliament?

[Karen Hogan]

I think this was me trying to lead by example and do something different. I felt that, instead of coming back after many years and following up on a topic by saying that many of our findings remain, or reissuing recommendations, I would stop and take a look at six audits in important areas that impact first nations communities. These are things that most Canadians take for granted, such as having access to safe drinking water, health services and good dental care.

I wanted to make a point, mid-mandate, of seeing whether any progress had been made, so that, hopefully, by the time I get to the end of my 10 years, I can talk about how the government has rethought its approach to interacting with first nations communities, and whether this has resulted in some meaningful change. If we remember that the goal of Indigenous Services Canada is to transfer everything to first nations communities, they need to start thinking about different ways to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor for three and a half minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hogan, since you tabled your document in the House of Commons, there has been a lot of reaction across Canada. Your report highlights a major problem that affects the most vulnerable people, such as our seniors and low-income individuals who do not have access to an accountant who knows the rules and regulations by heart, like Mr. Stevenson. In short, your report highlights major flaws in the Canada Revenue Agency. First, when you call, four times out of five, they don’t provide the right information, and that’s when you reach an agent. In fact, last June, in 95% of cases, we were unable to reach one.

What message do you want to send to Canadians in this regard?

[Karen Hogan]

I hope Canadians see that I understand their frustration.

In our tax system, while taxpayers are responsible for filing their tax returns, I think it’s very reasonable for them to expect to be able to speak to Canada Revenue Agency agents in a timely manner and receive accurate information.

Given the money that is spent on communication centres, Canadians expect better from the Canada Revenue Agency.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

How can we explain such a decline over the last 10 years? It has always been a concern, but not to this extent. How could things have declined so dramatically in 10 years?

[Karen Hogan]

I think we should still acknowledge that improvements have been made since 2017, such as the fact that callers can know where they are in the queue. Even if, during my audit, that information was not always accurate, people could still choose to use self-service options or to stay on the line, which is better than the situation was in 2017. In addition, answers to certain questions have improved. However, the answers to basic and general questions about taxation are not yet accurate. In my opinion, the cause of this problem is a lack of tools and a lack of emphasis on the importance of providing accurate and comprehensive answers. It comes from the agency's culture and from how agents are evaluated.