July 29, 2026
Summary
In the first article of this series, I reviewed the three other Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) programs designed to help low-income Canadians file their returns to get the benefits to which they are entitled. I concluded that they were nowhere near as impactful as the CVITP.
This second article is divided into two sections. This first section of the article examines the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) stated contributions to poverty reduction within its 2023–2027 Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) and evaluates these claims through the findings of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG).
The article begins by situating the CRA’s SDS within the broader Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) and the Federal Sustainable Development Act. As of 2025, 102 federal organizations were required to produce SDSs aligned with the FSDS, which for the first time is structured around the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG1—ending poverty—has led to a Canadian Indicator Framework target of reducing poverty by 50% by 2030 relative to 2015. Federal departments must therefore identify measurable actions that contribute to this target, specify starting points and performance indicators, and report annually on progress.
Out of 99 federal entities that produced SDSs for 2023–2027, only five identified actions contributing to SDG1: Finance Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, Statistics Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and the CRA. The CRA listed five actions, all categorized as “investments to reduce poverty.” These include improving processing times for Canada Child Benefit (CCB) applications, enhancing client support for CCB recipients, expanding the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP), delivering the Benefits Outreach Program (BOP), and issuing Non‑Filer Benefit Letters to encourage low‑income non‑filers to submit returns.
The OAG assessed each action and found significant shortcomings. Two CCB‑related actions were deemed not measurable, as they focus on processing efficiency and client satisfaction rather than poverty reduction. The CVITP action was measurable and met its target, but the CRA’s target was unambitious and did not include the number of returns filed, despite listing it as a performance indicator. The BOP action lacked time‑bound targets and clear aims, making it not measurable. The Non‑Filer Benefit Letter initiative met its target historically, but the CRA discontinued the program in 2025 without acknowledging this in its SDS.
The article highlights several concerns. The CRA’s focus on the CCB is too narrow, given the wide range of income‑tested benefits relevant to poverty reduction. The CRA ignored longstanding OAG concerns about inadequate CCB coverage‑rate data. The CVITP is misclassified as an “investment” rather than “working with partners,” despite relying heavily on 3,500 community organizations and 19,000 volunteers whose contributions far exceed CRA’s financial support. The BOP’s awareness‑raising activities do not directly reduce poverty. And the Non‑Filer Benefit Letter program’s effectiveness is questionable.
The OAG’s overarching conclusion is stark: the CRA failed to link any of its actions to SDG1 or the Canadian poverty‑reduction target. Its recommendation urged federal organizations to adopt measurable, outcome‑oriented indicators and report results transparently. The CRA’s response focused narrowly on improving indicators for one action, sidestepping the core issue that its actions are not meaningfully connected to poverty reduction.
In the second section of this article, I return to the OAG’s general comment – that the CRA failed to link its actions to the FSDS target for reducing poverty – and answer the question: what actions could the CRA be reporting on which are clearly linked to the FSDS target?
In the first article of this series, I reviewed the three other Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) programs designed to help low-income Canadians file their returns to get the benefits to which they are entitled. I concluded that they were nowhere near as impactful as the CVITP.
In the second article of this series, I look at what the CRA says it is doing to reduce poverty, the results of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) review of this, and then I provide some suggestions for improving the credibility of the CRA’s claim to be supporting the government’s efforts to reduce poverty.
Although the federal government’s 2018 poverty reduction strategy cites the CVITP as the CRA’s contribution to achieving the government’s poverty reduction targets, the CRA’s 2023-2027 sustainable development strategy elaborates on the CRA’s efforts to support poverty reduction.
A bit of background may be helpful in understanding why the CRA has a sustainable development strategy and why that strategy includes details of the CRA’s work on supporting poverty reduction.
Background
The Federal Government Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) is linked to the Federal Sustainable Development Act. By 2025, some 102 federal government organizations fell under the Federal Sustainable Development Act. This means that they are required to prepare sustainable development strategies which support the FSDS. The FSDS for 2022-2026 is, for the first time, aligned with the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The OAG states that “The government’s guidance for preparing departmental sustainable development strategies expected federal organizations to identify links and describe how they contribute to the targets of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the Canadian Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals.” [i]
The focus of the OAG audit is on the first Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) and FSDS work in support of SDG1 which is on poverty reduction. The UN’s SDG1 target is that “By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions”.[ii] The related Canadian Indicator Framework target for SDG1 is “By 2030, a 50% reduction in the rate of poverty, compared to the 2015 level”.
The Canadian Indicator Framework target for SDG1 comes directly from the federal government’s 2018 Poverty Reduction Strategy. So federal organizations are required to prepare sustainable development strategies with measurable actions that contribute to meeting the poverty reduction target as set out in the FSDS.
The OAG noted that:
“Under the 2022–2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy’s poverty reduction goal, the government committed to taking actions through 3 implementation strategies supporting the poverty reduction target:
- improving the measurement of poverty
- making investments to reduce poverty
- working with partners to reduce poverty”[iii]
“…the organizations were expected to outline how they would measure progress against their departmental actions by indicating:
- a starting point from which to measure progress
- a target to be reached by a certain date, when available
- a performance indicator to measure outcomes and output progress against their stated aim”[iv]
Federal organizations were then to implement the plans and, ideally, meet the targets set out in their sustainable development strategies for supporting the FSDS poverty reduction target.
Finally, entities were required to report on their progress toward advancing the poverty reduction target.
Ninety-nine federal entities produced sustainable development strategies for the 2023-2027 period. Only five have actions that contribute toward achieving SDG1. These include Finance Canada (with 2 actions), Indigenous Services Canada (2), Statistics Canada (2), the Canada Revenue Agency (5) and Employment and Social Development Canada (6).
CRA’s five actions contributing to poverty reduction
Here are the five actions that the CRA included in its SDS as contributing toward SDG1, all of which the CRA considered investments to reduce poverty:
| ACTION | PERFORMANCE INDICATOR | STARTING POINT | TARGET | CRA PROGRAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ensure timely processing of digital and paper Canada Child Benefit (CCB) applications | Percentage of notices and payments issued to CCB recipients within 8 weeks (digital) or 11 weeks (paper) of receiving recipient`s application | 2023 to 2024 will be the base year | Meet standard 95% of the time | Canada Child Benefit (CCB) |
| 2. Ensure recipients obtain the support and information they need to receive the CCB in a timely manner, and to know the avenues of redress when they disagree with a decision on their benefit eligibility | Percentage of respondents satisfied with overall benefits experience | 2023 to 2024 will be the base year | 75% respondent satisfaction on annual survey | CCB |
| 3. Continue to collaborate with community organizations to support free volunteer-based tax preparation clinics for individuals with a modest income and simple tax situation | Number of tax filers helped Number of returns completed | 2023 to 2024 will be the base year | Help 690,800 tax filer individuals for the 2023 tax year | CVITP |
| 4. Ensure the vulnerable segments of Canada’s population (adults 65 and over, housing insecure individuals, Indigenous peoples, modest-income individuals, newcomers, persons with disabilities, and students) are provided with information about the benefits and credits to which they are entitled, and are aware of the support available to help them file their tax returns | + Page analytics + Level of participant awareness + Survey/satisfaction poll results + Number of people helped | 2023 to 2024 will be the base year | + Maintain page analytics + Maintain 77% average on level of participant awareness + Maintain survey/satisfaction polls on number of people helped (rolled up with regular outreach numbers) | Benefits Outreach Program |
| 5. Contact Canadians with lower income who are potentially eligible for tax benefits but have not yet filed an Income Tax and Benefit Return. This provides an opportunity to reach a segment of the Canadian population that is not usually targeted by Non-Filer Program strategies due to low or no tax recovery potential with a positive and service-oriented message to promote the benefits of filing, rather than the traditional compliance approach | Percentage of taxpayers (benefit recipients) who filed as a result of targeted CRA Non-filer Benefits Letters issued | The Non-Filer Benefit Letter initiative was launched for the 2016 tax year with 260,061 letters issued to taxpayers in which 21,532 (8.2%) taxpayers filed after the letter was issued | Annual 10% taxpayer filings | Non-filer Benefits Letter Program |
Results of the OAG audit for the CRA
The OAG audit “focused on whether the selected federal organizations contributed to meeting the poverty reduction target in the 2022–2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy by providing measurable departmental actions and by achieving expected results for these actions and whether they reported the results achieved.”[v]
Here is what the OAG had to say about each CRA actions to date:
| ACTION | CRA PROGRAM | OAG OBSERVATIONS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | CCB | Targets not met |
| 2 | CCB | Targets not met |
| 3 | CVITP | Target measurable and met |
| 4 | Benefits Outreach Program | Targets not measurable and not time bound. The first target (regarding maintaining page analytics) does not include a specific aim |
| 5 | Non-filer Benefits Letter Program | Target measurable and met |
Additional observations
The OAG does not question the specific actions and targets. I do.
ACTIONS 1 & 2 (related to CCB)
These two actions are linked to one single benefit. This is way too narrow as there are many benefits that are relevant to reducing poverty. And while this benefit is important for families living in poverty, it is targeted exclusively to these families.
The focus of these two actions is on improving the efficiency of the CCB application process and client satisfaction levels. It is difficult to see how these two actions support poverty reduction.
Instead, the focus of CRA’s actions related to the CCB could have been on its coverage rate. The OAG has previously expressed concern about the CRA’s inadequate understanding of the CCB coverage rate across Canada.[vi] Given this, it is surprising that it did not address the issue of improving the CCB coverage rate.
ACTION 3 (related to CVITP)
This action item simply gives targets for individuals assisted by the CVITP (and not for returns filed by the CVITP, despite this also being listed as a performance indicator). As I have previously written, the CRA has a recent history of identifying unambitious targets for the CVITP that can easily be met or surpassed.[vii]
The CRA does not classify the CVITP as “working with partners to reduce poverty”, despite collaboration with some 3,500 community-based organizations across Canada as being key to the delivery of this program. Instead, it classifies the CVITP as “making investments to reduce poverty”. While this misclassification is a minor point, it is important to note that the financial investment of the 3,500 community-based organizations and the monetary equivalent of the time spent by their 19,000 volunteers to deliver the CVITP significantly exceeds the CRA’s grant program in support of the CVITP. (It also represents a much greater financial burden for many of these organizations’ budgets.)
ACTION 4 (related to Benefits Outreach Program)
Focused on raising Canadians’ awareness about benefits, this action does not, by itself, reduce poverty. The CRA does not examine if its targeted awareness raising activities lead to any increase in access to benefits. Again, it is difficult to see how this action supports poverty reduction.
ACTION 5 (related to Non-filers Benefits Letter Program)
I have already written about the dubious efficacy of this program.[viii] In any event, the CRA shelved this initiative in 2025 and stopped reporting on it.
OAG’s summary finding
Damningly, the OAG noted: “… we found that the Canada Revenue Agency did not link any of its actions to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal targets and related targets of the Canadian Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals.” [ix]
Its recommendation to the five federal organizations, including the CRA, stated that they should “ensure their sustainable development strategies provide departmental actions that include relevant performance indicators that measure outcomes or outputs and measurable targets. They should also ensure to report the results of their contributions to the achievement of the federal poverty reduction target according to their strategy time frames.”
In its response to the OAG’s recommendation, the CRA focused on creating relevant performance indicators for its fourth action item. By doing this, the CRA totally avoided the OAG’s main point, made above, that its actions were not linked to the FSDS target. And the CRA gave no indication that it had cancelled the program that represented its fifth action item.
What next?
I want to come back to the OAG’s fundamental objection to the actions identified in the CRA’s sustainable development strategy in support of poverty reduction. Is there a way that the CRA could link its work to the UN’s SDG1 and the related target in the Canadian Indicator Framework for SDGs? I believe so. That is the subject of the second section of this article.
[i] Paragraph 42
[ii] Here I am referring specifically to SDG1 target 1.2
[iii] Paragraph 17
[iv] Paragraph 18
[v] Paragraph 13
[vi] See the OAG’s report on this subject as well as my discussion of this report.
[vii] See this article for the most recent example of this. For the broader context, see this article.
[viii] For details, see this article.
[ix] Paragraph 44