Organization of the Agency

Does the Agency have an internal accountability framework and model that specify the functioning of the Canada Revenue Agency ( CRA)?

• The CRA has a unique governance structure characterized by a governance triumvirate:
  • minister fully accountable to Parliament for all aspects of the CRA’s operations and administration;
  • Board of Management responsible for overseeing the organization and administration of the CRA, the management of its resources, services, property, personnel, and contracts, and the development of the Agency’s corporate business plan (CBP); and
  • commissioner, who has a dual accountability, being responsible for the day-to-day management of the CRA under the Board's oversight, and also accountable to the minister for the administration of program legislation.
• The CRA has six corporate committees, made up of senior managers [assistant commissioners (ACs) from all branches and regions]. All of the corporate committees are chaired by the commissioner. The main decision-making body is the Agency Management Committee (AMC), which is made up of the commissioner and all Headquarters (HQ) and regional ACs.

• Canada Revenue Agency Act
• CRA Board of Management Governance Manual (including Committee Charters)
• Board and Committee Work Plans
• Strategic Planning Meetings – Agendas and Minutes
• Corporate Committee Protocols

Are accountabilities of executives aligned with corporate plans, priorities and Board objectives?

• Executive performance agreements translate into action the priorities and deliverables identified in the CBP and the Clerk of the Privy Council’s priorities for the Public Service of Canada, as well as address performance gaps noted in the Agency's annual report (AR).
• Each year a list of mandatory commitments is developed and distributed to all members of the Executive Cadre (EC) in the form of a foundation table and accompanying Guidelines to Complete EC Performance Agreements.
• Once all performance agreements are completed at the senior executive levels (AC, deputy assistant commissioner and director general), those, as well as a sample of all other EC agreements, are analyzed. The goals of the analysis are to: ensure compliance with the foundation table; ensure the commissioner's commitments to the Board and the Clerk of the Privy Council (PCO) are well supported; and perform a quality assurance review, specifically to ensure commitments and performance measures are clear and assessible.
• There was sufficient alignment of ECs’ performance commitments with corporate plans, priorities, and Board objectives in 2008-2009.

• AC Performance Agreement Matrix Comparison Chart
• Guidelines to Complete EC Performance Agreements 2008-2009
• Planning Placemat
• Performance Agreement Analysis

Are accountabilities of executives aligned with corporate plans, priorities and Board objectives?

• In 2008-2009, all EC performance agreements were to be completed by June 15, 2008. Performance pay for the previous year was withheld in the absence of a completed agreement for 2008-2009. Of agreements, 88% were filed on time and 96% were filed within one month of the deadline.

Strong

STRONG

Consideration should be given to assessing the effectiveness of horizontal management throughout the Agency.

• For 2009-2010, emphasis is being placed on continually improving the quality of performance measures in agreement guidelines.
• The due date to receive all 2009-2010 EC agreements is being advanced two weeks to May 30. This is in order to have all management performance agreements in place as close as possible to the beginning of the fiscal year, since MG agreements typically cascade from EC agreements.
• A flow chart will be shared with the Board outlining the EC performance management process.

Acceptable

Opportunity for improvement

Attention required