Our 2006-2007 Results

Introduction

The Canada Revenue Agency exercises its mandate within a complex framework of laws enacted by Parliament, as well as by provincial and territorial legislatures. The CRA collects over $300 billion annually on behalf of Canada, the provinces[Footnote 1] (except Quebec), the territorial governments, and the First Nations governments. The CRA also delivers income-based benefits, credits, and other services that contribute directly to the economic and social well-being of Canadians. In short, no other public organization touches the lives of more Canadians on a daily basis than the CRA.

In addition to the administration of income tax and benefit programs, the CRA administers sales tax for three provinces, and verifies taxpayer income levels in support of a wide variety of federal, provincial, and territorial programs, ranging from student loans to health care initiatives. We also provide other services, such as the Refund Set-Off Program, through which we aid other federal departments and agencies, as well as provincial and territorial governments, in the collection of long-standing debts that might otherwise become uncollectable.

The following two strategic outcomes summarize the CRA’s contribution to Canadian society.

Strategic Results Chain

The CRA Annual Report to Parliament 2006-2007 is a comprehensive reporting of our results through the use of identified measures. Our assessment of these results is presented in a structured way (see Strategic Results Chain).

This results chain illustrates the different levels of results the CRA seeks to achieve. At the higher levels of the chain, it becomes more increasingly challenging for us to directly demonstrate our influence. The lower part of our results chain shows the expected results that we work toward in order to influence the strategic outcome measure results above. Building on our achievements against our expected results, we use our strategic outcome measures as indicators of Canadians’ behaviour to assess whether we met our strategic outcome.

Beginning on , we assess each expected result for each of our Program Activities and rate our results against the key indicators and targets set out in the CRA’s Corporate Business Plan 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. Since our key expected result, “Reporting non-compliance is detected and addressed”, spans several of our Program Activities, the illustration of our results chain does not exactly match the CRA’s Program Activity Architecture shown on .

In addition, we use our results chain to identify gaps and address the relevancy of our results measures and indicators. Over the coming years, we intend to take further steps to add indicators that will help improve our ability to support our conclusions about whether we have met our strategic outcomes.

This report includes a section devoted to Agency Governance ( ). This section has been designed to highlight the achievements of the CRA’s Board of Management and report on our human resource, information technology (IT), and other key management strategies that have a significant impact on CRA results.

Strategic Results Chain

The CRA results contribute to two of the Government of Canada’s strategic outcomes:

• Federal organizations that support all departments and agencies, and
• Income security and employment for Canadians.

¹ As the number of benefits-related requests for redress is negligible, the workload is handled under Tax Services Appeals ( PA 5).

Spending Profile - Program Activities by Strategic Outcome

Human Resources

Agency Link to the Government of Canada Outcomes

Spending Profile

Of the $3,625.8 million total authority, CRA’s actual spending totalled $3,405.1 million, resulting in $220.7 million unexpended at year-end. After adjusting for technical items such as a Treasury Board (TB) directed lapse of $37.1 million for all of the CRA’s CPP/EI activities, an under-expenditure of $500,000 related to the Charities contribution program, and a TB-directed $15.4 million reversal of payments to the Department of Justice in 2006-2007, the remaining $167.7 million is available for use by the CRA in 2007-2008. This amount is within 5% of the total authority.

Rating Our Results

We use qualitative and quantitative indicators to determine the results achieved in terms of our strategic outcomes and expected results. Survey results, statistical sampling, and operational data inform our assessments. Although we have made progress in developing robust indicators for each of our strategic outcome measures and expected results, we need to make some of them more concrete and measurable.

We also rate our strategic results and those of our program activities in terms of whether the targets identified in our Corporate Business Plan 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 were met, mostly met, or not met. The table below, Results Ratings, defines these terms. Where additional indicators are needed to fully report on our strategic measures or expected results, they have been included.

Our targets identify the percentage or degree we expect to attain for a performance level. Where targets are numeric in nature, they are listed beside each indicator. Targets identified at the program activity level are established by CRA managers through analysis of affordability constraints, historical performance, the complexity of the work involved, and the expectations of Canadians. Development of, and adjustments to, performance and results targets can be a challenging exercise. In some cases, our targets may not reflect recent factors that could have led to adjustments to them. To address this, during 2006-2007, we undertook a formal review of our targets related to our Strategic Outcome measures; changes resulting from this review are reflected in our Corporate Business Plan 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 .

Results Ratings

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

[Footnote 1] In 2006, the governments of Canada and Ontario signed a memorandum of agreement to transfer the administration of Ontario corporate income tax from the Ontario Ministry of Revenue to the CRA. We will also administer other taxes on corporations--the capital tax and special additional tax on life insurers--on a cost-recovery basis. This initiative will increase the harmonization of the tax systems in Canada, reduce compliance costs for businesses, and reduce administration costs for governments.

Date modified:

2007-11-01