Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Canada Revenue Agency


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Section IV: Other Items of Interest

4.1 The Governance Structure

Board of Management

The Board is composed of 15 members of which, four members including the Chair, and the Commissioner and CEO are nominated by the federal government; one director is nominated by each province; and one director is nominated by the territories.

The following list shows the Board's membership as of March 31, 2008.

Connie I. Roveto, B.A., B. Ed., ICD.D
Chair, Board of Management
President
Cirenity Management
Toronto, Ontario

Camille Belliveau, CFP, FCGA
Executive Director
Groupe EPR Canada Group Inc.
Shediac, New Brunswick

Myles Bourke, B. Comm., FCA
Corporate Director
Chartered Accountant
Lethbridge, Alberta

Raymond Desrochers, B. Comm., CA, CFE
Partner
BDO Dunwoody LLP Chartered Accountants
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Gordon Gillis, B.A., LL.B.
Lawyer/Consultant
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Andr Gingras
Founder and Director
Andr Gingras et Associs inc.
Montral, Quebec

Robert J. (Bob) Healey, B. Comm., CFP, FCA
Corporate Director
Chartered Accountant / Management Consultant
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

James J. Hewitt, FCMA
Corporate Director
Penticton, British Columbia

Howard A. Leeson, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Fellow
Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy
Regina, Saskatchewan

Rod Malcolm, CA
Corporate Director
Iqaluit, Nunavut

Patricia J. Mella, B.A., B.Ed., M.A.
Corporate Director
Stratford, Prince Edward Island

James R. Nininger, B. Comm., M.B.A., Ph.D.
Corporate Director
Ottawa, Ontario

Stephen E. Rudin, MSPH, M. Ed., CHE
Health Care Consultant
Toronto, Ontario

Sylvie Tessier, B. Sc., M.B.A., P.Eng., ICD.D
Consulting Director
Sierra Systems
Toronto, Ontario

William V. Baker, B.A., M.A., ICD.D
Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer
Canada Revenue Agency
Ottawa, Ontario

Organizational Structure


Organizational Structure

As of March 31, 2008

4.2 External Service Standards in the Agency

We believe that providing high quality service facilitates compliance with Canada's tax system. To that end, we are committed to providing taxpayers and benefits recipients with service that is:

  • accessible;
  • prompt;
  • accurate;
  • fair; and
  • professional.

Our service standards state the level of performance that Canadians can reasonably expect to encounter from the CRA under normal circumstances. Service standards that are reasonable and that the CRA meets contribute to our efforts to promote compliance. Service standards that are consistently met also contribute toward increasing the level of confidence that Canadians place in government.

How we set targets

The CRA sets targets that represent the percentage or degree of expected attainment of an established standard. Targets are based on operational realities, historical performance, complexity of the work, and Canadians' expectations. For example, standards for front-end processing generally have shorter time frames and/or higher targets, while those requiring greater review and analysis have lengthier time standards and/or lower targets.

We review our standards and targets annually. This year, we introduced five new standards, two in the Tax Services and three in the Benefit Programs areas. Two existing standards were amended: the Charities telephone service was amended to be more consistent with other telephone services; and T2 processing targets were combined and the standard improved (historical results are therefore not available for this standard).

Overall results

Overall, we met or mostly met 37 of the targets measured in 2007-2008. Our performance dropped marginally this year due to difficulty in meeting Registered Plans' standards. This was a result of high staff turnover and subsequent training requirements.

Figure 7 Service Standards With Targets That Are Met and Mostly Met


Figure 7 - Service Standards With Targets That Are Met and Mostly Met
Data quality: Good

Challenges

We did not meet our target for the processing of Statements of Interim Payments. The decline in performance was related to the challenges experienced with the redeveloped GST/HST system and the consolidation of the sites where we print these statements.

In addition, we experienced difficulty in meeting our target regarding processing requests to authorize or cancel a representative during non-peak periods. We will review workflow efficiencies and the appropriateness of the standard in the context of the workload.

The decreased performance with respect to the GST/HST Visitor Rebates Program was due to the combined effects of the elimination of the program effective April 1, 2007, and the introduction of the Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive Program at the same time.

4.3 Responses to the Public Accounts Committee and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Action Plans – Item Listing

Tracking of actions to address the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

For supplementary information on the Agency's Responses to the Public Accounts Committee and the Office of the Auditor General, please visit: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_lpf_e_932.html

Benefit Programs and Benefit-Related Services Delivered by the CRA

Five Federal Benefit Programs
  • Canada Child Tax Benefit
  • Universal Child Care Benefit1
  • Goods and Services Tax / Harmonized Sales Tax Credit
  • Children's Special Allowances
  • Disability Tax Credit
[Footnote 1] On behalf of Human Resources and Social Development Canada

 


18 Ongoing Benefit Programs for Provinces and Territories
1st Year
  • British Columbia – BC Family Bonus
1996
  • British Columbia – BC Earned Income Benefit
1998
  • Alberta Family Employment Tax Credit
1997
  • Saskatchewan Child Benefit
1998
  • Saskatchewan Sales Tax Credit
2000
  • Yukon Child Benefit
1999
  • Northwest Territories Child Benefit
1998
  • Northwest Territories – Territorial Worker's Supplement
1998
  • Nunavut Child Benefit
1999
  • Nunavut Territorial Worker's Supplement
1999
  • New Brunswick Child Tax Benefit
1997
  • New Brunswick Working Income Supplement
1997
  • Nova Scotia Child Benefit
1998
  • Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit
1999
  • Newfoundland and Labrador – Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement
2001
  • Newfoundland Harmonized Sales Tax Credit
1997
  • Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit
1999
  • Ontario Child Tax Benefit
2007

 


Eight One-Time Payment Programs
Tax Year
  • Ontario Home Electricity Relief
2006
  • Energy Cost Benefit program (federal)
2005
  • Alberta 2005 Resource Rebate
2005
  • Nova Scotia Taxpayer Refund
2003
  • British Columbia – BC Energy Rebate
2001
  • Alberta Energy Tax Refund
2001
  • Ontario Taxpayer Dividend
2001
  • Relief for Heating Expenses program (federal)
2000

 

46 Data Exchange and Data Transfer Services
  • Twenty-three income verification data exchanges with provinces to support programs
  • Eleven NCB Supplement data exchanges with provinces and territories to facilitate calculation of social assistance
  • Four data transfers with provinces to support top-ups for CRA-administered child benefit programs
  • Two data transfers of income and child information to support administration of the Ontario Child Care Supplement and Quebec Family Allowance programs
  • Two data exchanges and transfers to support the new Nova Scotia Pharmacare program and to assist the ministre du Revenu du Qubec in the administration of the Quebec Income Tax Act
  • Four data exchanges and data transfers to support federal administration of EI Family Supplement, Canada Learning Bond, Additional Canada Education Savings Grant, and Guaranteed Income Supplement

4.4 Rating Our Data Quality

In conjunction with the performance results ratings, we also assign each indicator a data quality rating.

For each indicator we use consistent approaches in evaluating the information derived from our data collections systems and all other sources. We rely upon CRA managers to vouch for the completeness of the records for data integrity purposes (i.e., data belongs to the same category, is collected for the same period, and by the same method). We examine data for relevance, formulas for accuracy, and other factors that must be considered. We also use comparable information from prior years for the purpose of historical comparison, which often appears in the Annual Report. To ensure consistency, we perform the following tasks to verify that the information reported in our numerous reports is valid, reliable, and is accompanied by appropriate evidence:

  • Validation: This is a process of verification to ensure that the data meets the requirements for its intended purposes. We review and evaluate data for completeness and plausibility (accuracy, timeliness, interpretability, coherence). We also identify contact information, check calculations, confirm system reliability (verifying the source of information), and note and address any errors.
  • Data quality assessment: We apply a data quality checklist and review prior years' data to assess the quality of data for each indicator.
  • Electronic filing system: We store data in a database for easy reference and further analysis for other purposes.
  • Physical filing system: We maintain physical files of the evidence collected from all sources to provide validation and assurance that our data quality ratings are accurate and supported.

We always endeavour to use the most appropriate and reliable data when evaluating our results. There are mainly two data sources for the Annual Report: administrative data (normally communicated in aggregate or after some simple calculations are performed on them) and survey data. All data sources are validated for accuracy and a data quality rating of good, reasonable or weak as categorized below is applied to each indicator.

We believe that these three levels of data quality ratings provide a reasonable assessment of the reliability of the data. Generally, our data sources provide reliable information. In situations where the supporting data is too imprecise to draw firm conclusions, it is reflected in the data quality rating.

Data Quality Ratings


 
Data Quality Ratings
Good
Results rating based on management judgment supported by an appropriate level of accurate information (including management estimates) obtained from reliable sources or methods.
Reasonable
Results rating based on management judgment supported, in most cases, by an appropriate level of accurate information (including management estimates) obtained from reliable sources or methods.
Weak
Significant gaps in robustness of results information; results rating based on management judgment supported by entirely or predominantly qualitative information from informal sources or methods.