This page has been archived.
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.
In accordance with Treasury Board Secretariat's (TBS) MRRS Policy, the CFIA planning and reporting framework is based on strategic outcomes, a PAA and an associated governance framework. The PAA is aligned with the GoC outcomes and takes into consideration the impact of several factors – including the global and national environment, GoC priorities, CFIA strategic risks, its human and financial resource capacity, and outcomes of its past performance and related lessons learned.
This report highlights key accomplishments and reports on progress made in advancing the plans and priorities identified in the CFIA's 2009–10 RPP. Under each strategic outcome and program activity, performance is reported on special initiatives, risk mitigation strategies and ongoing activities, with a focus on expected results for Canadians.
Section 2.2 of this report describes performance information, including highlights, challenges, lessons learned and expected results for each strategic outcome measured against targets using compliance and other relevant performance indicators.
Given the complexity and inherent variability of the agriculture, agri-food, forestry and fisheries production, processing and distribution sectors, the approach to assessing compliance varies across commodity groups. The CFIA uses a variety of tools to monitor and promote compliance, including inspections, audits, product sampling and testing. The CFIA uses risk-based approaches that focus effort on the areas of highest risk. For example, the CFIA focuses its efforts on systems, processes and facilities that have the most direct effect on the safety of food. The resulting compliance rates indicate the extent to which regulated parties have adhered to requirements specified in the federal acts and regulations. Year-over-year compliance trends, when the broader environmental context is taken into account, are more informative in terms of the true performance in an area than the absolute compliance rate for any one year. For detailed information on the assessment of compliance, see Section 3.3.3.
Performance targets for compliance rates are qualitative or quantitative goals set by the CFIA that provide a basis for measuring the performance of regulated parties and the Agency toward achieving expected results. The targets in this report are for critical program areas and based either on historical averages of actual performance or on the expected results of effective programming (e.g. rate of industry compliance with regulatory standards). The CFIA has assessed the extent to which performance has met or exceeded established targets and provided analysis when performance has fallen below targets. Targets for programs that monitor activities are set differently than for programs that focus on specific areas of non-compliance. In terms of compliance rates, the CFIA considers performance within +/- 1% to be considered met.
In 2008–09, as part of a long-term process to improve overall performance measurement and reporting, the CFIA initiated the Performance Management Reporting Solution (PMRS) project, an Agency-wide management tool that will allow for better reporting and enhance performance monitoring and reporting at all levels. The Enterprise and Operational Reporting (EOR) system, an electronic data warehouse that integrates data from CFIA programs for use by the PMRS, was also launched. When fully operational, the PMRS will facilitate the production of corporate documents such as the RPP, the Performance Report and the Management Accountability Framework, and the PAA and its Performance Measurement Framework. In 2009–10, 16% of the programs were rolled out in the EOR system.
2.1.2.1 Data Quality
In 2009–10, a review was conducted of the methodology behind the Data System and Process Control table that used to appear in previous performance reports (PR). It was determined that the methodology previously used to assess the quality of the data and the resulting assigned ratings was no longer valid because it did not adequately reflect the current state of data control at the CFIA. As such, the Data System and Process Control table has been removed.
Consequently, to provide the reader with an understanding of the level of reliability associated with the performance indicator results found in this report, the CFIA has included a table outlining the various data quality checks that are in place for each performance indicator. The CFIA has identified nine general data quality checks that can be present during the process whereby raw performance data is collected, processed, and analysed to generate a final performance result. Table 2-1 shows which of the nine data quality checks are used in each of the data systems behind each performance indicator. This provides the reader with a clear sense of the data quality checks used to generate each performance indicator result.
It is important to keep in mind that the information found in this table provides a relative measure of the reliability of the performance indicator results. This means a data system with nine out of nine data checks in place should be thought of as more reliable than one with five out of nine data checks. It does not mean that a data system with five out of nine data checks in place is unreliable or that a data system with nine out of nine data checks is reliable. The reader should keep in mind that the performance indicator results presented in this report do go through a thorough internal review before they are published. Please note that the new approach used this year to improve the data quality discussion is an interim step in a longer term process. As such, the CFIA will continue to strengthen its data quality discussion in future performance reports.
Table 2.1: Data Quality Checks
Indicator Title | Source Documents available (Guides, Procedures, manuals) | Data is cross-referenced | Performance results are compared to previous years | System reports and results are consistent regardless of when they are generated or who generates them | Employees are trained to manipulate data | No 3rd-party data is used or 3rd-party data is provided in a compulsory fashion | Data is prepared at least once per year | Management Reviews results at least once per year | No new data system(s) used in 2009–10 | # Data Quality Checks Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extent to which inspected federally-registered establishments comply with federal food safety requirements | ||||||||||
Meat | √ | X | √ | X | X | √ | √ | X | √ | 5 |
Fish and seafood | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 9 |
Processed products | X | X | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | 6 |
Dairy | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Shell Egg | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 9 |
Extent to which domestic and imported food products comply with federal chemical residue requirements | ||||||||||
Meat | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Fish & Seafood | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 9 |
Fresh fruit and vegetables | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Processed products | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Honey | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Shell Egg | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Dairy | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Time taken to issue public warnings for Class I recalls | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Extent to which nutrition information on non-registered food products inspected is accurate | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Number of incidents of Avian Influenza that expand beyond the initial control zone | √ | √ | X | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
Extent to which the CFIA’s data indicates that foreign regulated animal diseases have entered Canada via specified regulated pathways | √ | X | √ | X | X | X | √ | √ | √ | 5 |
Extent to which the CFIA’s data indicates the spread of foreign regulated animal diseases that entered into Canada this fiscal year | √ | √ | X | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
Extent to which renderers and feed mills inspected are without any major deviations with respect to the Feeds Regulations and the Health of Animals Regulations | ||||||||||
Renderers | Not Reported in 2009–2010 | |||||||||
Feed Mills | Not Reported in 2009–2010 | |||||||||
Extent to which CFIA data indicates the entry and establishment of new and foreign regulated plant diseases and pests into Canada (listed diseases/pests in the Regulated Pest List for Canada) | √ | X | X | √ | X | X | √ | √ | √ | 5 |
Extent of change in the presence of regulated plant diseases or pests beyond the regulated areas | √ | X | X | √ | X | X | √ | √ | √ | 5 |
Extent to which Plant Health risks identified by the CFIA (within and outside Canada) are communicated to the affected stakeholders | Not Reported in 2009–2010 | |||||||||
Percentage of inspections of novel products that demonstrate compliance with the requirements and standards outlined in the respective authorizations for experimental purposes | ||||||||||
Plants with Novel Traits | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Novel Fertilizers | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Feed | No Inspections Performed | |||||||||
Veterinary Biologics | √ | X | X | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 6 |
Percentage of regulatory initiatives that meet publication requirements for publication in either Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II | √ | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | 7 |
Extent to which the net quantity, composition, labelling and advertising of non-registered food products inspected is accurate | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Extent to which certified food, animal and plant shipments meet the receiving country’s import requirements | ||||||||||
Food – Meat | √ | X | √ | X | X | X | √ | √ | √ | 5 |
Food – Fish and Seafood | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Food – Processed Egg | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | 8 |
Animal | No Data Available | |||||||||
Plant | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
As a contributor to the GoC's integrated approach to population health, the CFIA, in collaboration with federal partners and provincial, territorial and municipal governments, protects Canadians from preventable foodborne health risks and risks associated with animal diseases potentially transmissible to humans. In carrying out activities toward the achievement of this strategic outcome, the CFIA focused its efforts on the following two priorities:
While work under the program activities Food Safety and Nutrition Risks and Zoonotic Risks is primarily aimed at addressing the Foodborne Hazards and Zoonotic Outbreaks/Incidents risk areas9, it also benefits the other key risk areas noted above.
Percentage of 2009–10 Actual Spending: Strategic Outcome 1
The safety of the Canadian food supply is critical to the overall health and well-being of Canadians. The CFIA, in collaboration with federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal partners and organizations works to protect the overall health of Canadians by minimizing and managing food safety and nutrition risks.
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected results, performance indicators and targets for the Food Safety and Nutrition Risks program activity, and reports 2009–10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–2: Summary of Performance: Food Safety and Nutrition Risks
Expected Result: Risks associated with food, including nutrition, are managed within acceptable limits | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
245.5 | 276.5 | 270.5 | 2,795 | 2,838 | (43) |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly due to new funding for the Government of Canada Response to Listeriosis, the CEAP and the Growing Forward Program Suite. The variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 2,831 compared to Actual FTEs of 2,838, resulting in a difference of 7. |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Extent to which inspected federally registered establishments comply with federal food safety requirements |
≥ 98% compliance | Meat | 96% | Not Met |
Fish and Seafood10 | 99% | Met | ||
Processed Products | 99% | Met | ||
Dairy | 100% | Met | ||
Shell Egg | 99% | Met | ||
Performance Analysis: Meat Emphasis has also been placed on resolving problems before they occur resulting in enhanced communication and engagement with the meat industry. This includes guidance for both inspectors and operators of federally registered meat and poultry establishments which should also help the industry to improve compliance in subsequent years. Compliance Approaches and Methods: Three-year Trend Analysis: Fish and Seafood Dairy and Shell Egg Processed Products |
||||
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
||
Extent to which domestic and imported food products comply with federal chemical residue requirements |
≥ 95% compliance | Meat | 96% | Met |
Fish and Seafood12 | 95% | Met | ||
Fresh fruit and vegetables | 97% | Met | ||
Processed Products | 99% | Met | ||
Honey | 61% | Not Met | ||
Shell Egg | 97% | Met | ||
Dairy | 96% | Met | ||
Performance Analysis: Honey Compliance Approaches and Methods: Fish and Seafood Meat, Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, Processed Products, Honey, Shell Egg and Dairy Three-year Trend Analysis: Fish and Seafood Honey (2007–08, 84%; 2008–09, 76%) |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
|
---|---|---|---|
Time taken to issue public warnings for Class I recalls |
100% of public warnings for Class I recalls are issued within 24 hours of a recall decision |
100% |
Met |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
|
---|---|---|---|
Extent to which nutrition information on non-registered food products inspected is accurate.16 |
≥80% of food products inspected declare nutrition information, which is accurate. |
80% |
Met |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: (2008–09, 85%) |
Additional Information: |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-2, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Food Safety and Nutrition Risks PA:
Strategic Performance Analysis
In responding to the recommendations in the Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak, the CFIA has implemented changes to food safety programs and directives that are designed to improve and strengthen existing processes and procedures. The CFIA was the lead in addressing 25 of a total of 57 recommendations. As identified in the March “Progress on Food Safety” report17, the Government has made progress on all of the recommendations contained in the report of the Independent Investigator. The following are examples of progress made by the CFIA with respect to the 25 recommendations for which it is the lead Agency:
ENHANCING CFIA'S FOOD SAFETY CAPACITY
35 new meat processing inspectors in federally-registered ready-to-eat meat plants were hired between November 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. The 35 new inspectors are focussing on specific issues related to Listeria and other food pathogens at ready-to-eat meat establishments. These additional inspectors will result in an increase in the number of trained ready-to-eat meat inspection staff and it is expected that they will improve the management of risks associated with Listeria in ready-to-eat meats produced in federally registered establishments.*† The CFIA also developed capacity, through its Pulse-Field Gel Electrophoresis Centre, to routinely test food samples and to report virtually immediately to the provincial and federal PulseNet Canada members when its laboratories isolate foodborne bacterial pathogens. This new capacity has greatly improved Canada's ability to detect contaminated food products and identify laboratory linkages to human diseases related to consumption of these products.
* Please refer to the Inspection.gc.ca website for more information: www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/proge.shtml
† Please refer to Section 1.4.1.3 for more information on CFIA staffing trends
The CFIA is committed to continually strengthening its programs to maintain Canadians' high level of confidence in Canada's food safety system. In 2009–10, the CFIA achieved the following:
Within the context of the Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan (FCSAP), the CFIA is advancing initiatives that support the following: active prevention to better identify food safety risks, targeted oversight to enhance inspection of high-risk food sectors, and rapid response to problems when they occur (i.e. enhanced food recall capacity and improved tools to alert Canadians to food-related hazards). For example, in 2009–10, the CFIA achieved the following:
Benefits for Canadians
Managing and mitigating the spread of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans is important because it minimizes the danger to the health and well-being of Canadians. This involves work with federal, provincial and territorial partners and non-government stakeholders.
Performance Summary
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected result, performance indicators and targets for the Zoonotic Risks program activity, and reports 2009–10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–3: Summary of Performance: Zoonotic Risks
Expected Result: Risks of the transmission of animal diseases to humans are managed within acceptable limits18 | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
75.3 | 91.2 | 83.3 | 679 | 539 | 140 |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly due to new funding for the H1N1 Preparedness and Response and the CEAP, as well as funding received for the continuance of the BSE initiative. The Variance between Total Authorities and Actual Spending relates to lapsing funds in both BSE and Avian Influenza. The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 298 compared to Actual FTEs of 539, resulting in a difference of 241. This variance can be explained by the FTEs received during the fiscal year for the continuance of BSE. |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
---|---|---|
Number of incidents of avian influenza that expand beyond the initial control zone19 |
No expansion of the disease beyond the initial control zone | Met |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: |
||
Additional Information: Avian Influenza programming: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/avflu/avflue.shtml Animal diseases: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/disemalae.shtml |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-3, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Zoonotic Risks PA:
Strategic Performance Analysis
The CFIA continued to enhance systems to manage and mitigate the spread of existing federally controlled zoonotic diseases. In 2009–10, the CFIA did the following:
PROTECTING CANADIANS FROM BSE
The CFIA continued to monitor the level of BSE and the effectiveness of measures taken to control it in the domestic cattle population. Of 34,618 samples tested in 2009, 1 was confirmed positive for BSE. No part of this confirmed BSE animal entered the human food supply or animal feed systems.
The CFIA is a key player in a number of international zoonotic disease fora and is actively called upon to manage Canadian portions of international zoonotic disease outbreaks. A number of key partnerships have been formed, and plans have been proactively developed to respond to zoonotic diseases and protect public health, such as the following:
The CFIA's programming is aimed at protecting Canada's crops, forests, livestock, aquatic species and wildlife from regulated pests and diseases; preventing the introduction of contaminants into human food or the environment through animal and plant production systems; and assessing the environmental sustainability and impact on biodiversity of new products derived through enabling technologies such as biotechnology. In carrying out activities toward the achievement of this strategic outcome, the CFIA focused its efforts on the following priorities:
While work under such program activities as Animal Health Risks and Production Systems, Plant Health Risks and Production Systems, and Biodiversity Protection, is primarily aimed at addressing the Animal and Plant Pest and Disease risk areas, it also benefits the other key risk areas noted above.
Percentage of 2009–10 Actual Spending: Strategic Outcome 2
Benefits for Canadians
The Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry depends on a safe and sustainable animal resource base. In support of this, the CFIA works to protect the animal resource base—through the regulation of terrestrial and aquatic diseases and feed—from risks that could impact the food supply, economy, environmental sustainability and well-being of Canadians.
Performance Summary
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected result, performance indicators and targets for the Animal Health Risks and Production Systems program activity, and reports 2009–10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–4: Summary of Performance: Animal Health Risks and Production Systems
Expected Result: Risks to the animal resource base are managed within acceptable limits | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
56.7 | 84.1 | 80.1 | 652 | 725 | (73) |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly due to funding received for the Growing Forward Program Suite and for additional statutory compensation. The Variance between Total Authorities and Actual Spending relates to lapsing funds in some of the CFIA's initiatives, as well as internal reallocations. The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 792 compared to Actual FTEs of 725, resulting in a difference of 67. This variance relates to lapsing funds in some of the Agency's initiatives. |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
---|---|---|
Extent to which the CFIA's data indicates that foreign regulated animal diseases have entered Canada via specified regulated pathways |
No evidence (i.e. confirmed by the CFIA's data) that foreign regulated animal diseases have entered into Canada through specified regulated pathways | Met |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
---|---|---|
Extent to which the CFIA's data indicates the spread of foreign regulated animal diseases that entered into Canada this fiscal year20. |
No evidence, as confirmed by the CFIA's data of spread of foreign regulated animal diseases beyond the initial control zone. | Met |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Extent to which renderers and feed mills inspected are without any major deviations with respect to the Feeds Regulations and the Health of Animals Regulations (enhanced feed ban)21 |
≥ 95% compliance | Renderers | Not reporting | Not reporting |
Feed Mills | Not reporting | Not reporting | ||
Performance Analysis: Compliance Approaches and Methods: Three-year Trend Analysis: |
||||
Additional Information: Animal Health Programs: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/animae.shtml |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-4, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Animal Health Risks and Production Systems:
Strategic Performance Analysis
The CFIA continues to respond to emergencies and domestic animal disease outbreaks while maintaining a collaborative approach with stakeholders. More specifically, the CFIA undertook the following:
In 2009–10, the CFIA continued to work with federal, provincial and territorial governments to advance key initiatives under the animal health program.
To continue to modernize the animal programs, the CFIA updated key elements of the regulatory framework by undertaking the following in 2009–10:
HUMANE TRANSPORTATION AND SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS IN CANADA
The CFIA has been working in collaboration with partners and stakeholders to develop a proposal aimed at updating regulations relating to humane transportation of animals in Canada. It is expected that the proposed amendments will strengthen the existing regulatory framework respecting the humane treatment of animals during transport and slaughter.
Benefits for Canadians
The protection of the plant resource base is integral to a safe and accessible food supply and critical to the economy, environmental sustainability and well-being of all Canadians. The CFIA helps to protect Canada's plant resource base from regulated pests and diseases and from deliberate threats, and regulates agricultural and forest products to promote the sustainability of the plant resource base.
Performance Summary
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected result, performance indicators and targets for the Plant Health Risks and Production Systems program activity, and reports 2009–10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–5: Summary of Performance: Plant Health Risks and Production Systems
Expected Result: Risks to the plant resource base are managed within acceptable limits | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
61.3 | 94.7 | 89.7 | 655 | 735 | (80) |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly due to funding received to assist in the payment of litigation costs; funding received related to the CEAP; and funds received for additional statutory compensation. The Variance between Total Authorities and Actual Spending relates to lapsing funds in some of the Agency's initiatives, as well as internal reallocations. The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 735, the same as the Actual FTEs. |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
---|---|---|
Extent to which CFIA data indicates the entry and establishment of new and foreign regulated plant diseases and pests into Canada (listed diseases/pests in the Regulated Pest List for Canada)22 |
No evidence (i.e. confirmed by CFIA data) of the entry and establishment of new foreign regulated plant diseases and pests into Canada through specified regulated pathways |
Met 0 entries of pests currently on the Regulated List for Canada |
Performance Analysis: Three-year trend Analysis: (2007-08, 3 entries, 2008–09, no entries) |
Performance Indicators* | Targets | Performance Status |
---|---|---|
Extent of change in the presence of regulated plant diseases or pests beyond the regulated areas |
No evidence of increase in the size of regulated areas for plant diseases/pests attributable to human activity |
Not Met Four pests spread outside their regulated areas. |
Performance Analysis: Of the four pests that spread outside of the regulated area during the 2008–09 fiscal year, only the emerald ash borer and the blueberry maggot spread again in 2009–10. In 2009–10, the pine shoot beetle and the brown spruce longhorn beetle spread outside of their regulated areas. Three-year Trend Analysis: (2006–07, Some Increase; 2007–08, Increase; 2008–09, Five Pests Spread) |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
---|---|---|
Extent to which Plant Health risks identified by the CFIA (within and outside Canada) are communicated to the affected stakeholders |
Following the identification of a plant health risk, appropriate information is communicated with the relevant stakeholders in less than one month |
Not Reporting |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: |
||
Additional Information: Plant Protection Programs: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/plavege.shtml Plant Pests: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/pestravae.shtml |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-5, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Plant Health Risks and Production Systems PA:
Strategic Performance Analysis
In 2009–10, the CFIA focused on advancing the development of a systemic approach to managing plant pest–related risks.
DID YOU KNOW?
The CFIA eliminated the backlog of submissions for approval and registration of fertilizers and supplements, and implemented service delivery standards for registration-related applications. This will facilitate the introduction of new, safe and high-quality fertilizers and supplements into the marketplace.
Benefits for Canadians
The protection of Canada's biodiversity is critical to the sustainability of the animal and plant resource base, the economy, the environment and the well-being of Canadians. Through targeted programs and services, the CFIA is managing risks and protecting Canada's environment from the spread of invasive alien species, other pests, novel agricultural products and emerging technologies.29
Performance Summary
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected result, performance indicators and targets for the Biodiversity Protection program activity, and reports 2009–10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–6: Summary of Performance: Biodiversity Protection
Expected Result: Risks to biodiversity within the animal and plant resource base are managed within acceptable limits | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
11.1 | 11.3 | 9.5 | 113 | 99 | 14 |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Total Authorities and Actual Spending relates to lapsing funds in some of the Agency's initiatives as well as internal reallocations. The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 99 FTEs, the same as the Actual FTEs. |
Performance Indicators* | Targets31 | Performance Status |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of inspections of novel products that demonstrate compliance with the requirements and standards outlined in the respective authorizations for experimental purposes32 |
Plants with Novel Traits: 90% Novel Fertilizer: 95% Novel Feed: 80% Veterinary Biologics: 80% Additional information33 |
Plants with Novel Traits | 95% | Met |
Novel Fertilizer | 95% | Met | ||
Novel Feed | Not Applicable 0 inspections |
|||
Veterinary Biologics | 100% | Met | ||
Performance Analysis: Novel Feed: Compliance Approaches and Methods: Three-year Trend Analysis: Novel Fertilizer (2007–08 95%), (2008–09 80%) Novel Feed and Veterinary Biologics |
||||
Additional information: Invasive Alien Species: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/invenv/refe.shtml Plant Biosafety: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/pbobbve.shtml |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-6, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Biodiversity Protection PA:
Strategic Performance Analysis
Introducing new and innovative products contributes to maintaining the competitiveness of Canada's agricultural sector. However, competitiveness and innovation cannot come at the expense of environmental sustainability. As such, the CFIA considers impacts on the environment and other species (biodiversity) a key component of the regulatory review process that is mandatory for plants with novel traits, novel feeds and novel supplements or veterinary biologics.
DID YOU KNOW?
The CFIA launched the Invasive Alien Species web portal to increase Canadians' awareness of the threat of invasive species and to help inform them of the Government of Canada's role in prevention and control.
The CFIA's programming contributes to securing the conditions needed for consumer protection (as it relates to food and certain agricultural products) and for a prosperous Canadian agri-food sector that is able to access domestic and global markets. The Agency aims to verify that information provided to Canadian consumers through labels and advertising is truthful and not misleading. The CFIA also works to facilitate continued and new market access for Canadian agriculture, fishery, forestry, and food products by verifying that Canadian products meet domestic regulations and international standards, and by representing Canada's interests in international fora through the provision of technical support and in negotiating technical agreements and standards. In carrying out activities toward the achievement of this strategic outcome, the CFIA focused its efforts on the following priorities:
Work under the program activities Integrated Regulatory Frameworks and Domestic and International Market Access is primarily aimed at addressing the Program Framework and Partnership risk areas, it also benefits the other key risk areas noted above.
Percentage of 2009–10 Actual Spending: Strategic Outcome 3
Benefits for Canadians
The CFIA contributes to the development, maintenance and effective implementation of strong national and international regulatory frameworks. These frameworks are critical to a safe and sustainable food supply, to an animal and plant resource base for Canadian consumers and food industries, and to prosperous food and agricultural industries.
Performance Summary
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected result, performance indicators and targets for the Integrated Regulated Frameworks program activity, and reports 2009−10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–7: Summary of Performance: Integrated Regulatory Frameworks
Expected Result: The CFIA's regulatory framework provides the greatest net benefit for Canadians as it is based on scientific approaches and takes into account international contributions and stakeholders' interests | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
14.2 | 14.2 | 10.7 | 207 | 47 | 160 |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Total Authorities and Actual Spending relates to lapsing funds in some of the Agency's initiatives and internal reallocations. The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 66 compared to Actual FTEs of 47, resulting in a difference of 19. This variance relates to lapsing funds in some of the Agency's initiatives. |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
|
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of regulatory initiatives that meet publication requirements for either the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II34 |
≥95% of regulatory initiatives that meet publication requirements |
77% | Not Met |
Performance Analysis:
Three-year Trend Analysis: (2008–09, 100%) |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
|
---|---|---|---|
Extent to which the net quantity, composition, labelling and advertising of non-registered food products inspected is accurate35. |
70% of products, labels, and advertisements inspected are accurately represented. |
82% | Met |
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: (2008–09, 82%) |
|||
Additional information: Paperwork Burden Reduction Initiative official site (Industry Canada): http://www.reducingpaperburden.gc.ca/epic/site/pbri-iafp.nsf/en/h_sx00001e.html Fair Labelling Practices: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/labetie.shtml Seeds: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/seesem/seeseme.shtml Fertilizer: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/fereng/ferenge.shtml |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-7, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Integrated Regulatory Frameworks PA:
Strategic Performance Analysis
The CFIA worked with stakeholders to address and provide guidance on priority regulatory areas of interest to Canadians, and undertook the following in 2009–10:
REGULATIONS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTS
In response to requests by the organic sector and consumers to develop a regulated system for organic agricultural products, the CFIA developed the Organic Products Regulations, which came into effect in June 2009. These regulations define specific requirements for organic products to be labelled as organic or that bear the organic agricultural product logo.
The CFIA continued to strengthen its regulatory base to enhance consumer protection in the area of food safety. For instance, the Agency undertook the following:
Benefits for Canadians
Maintaining domestic and international market access for Canadian products is critical to the sustainability of the agriculture, fishery, forestry and food industry and the economic prosperity of Canada. To support Canada's economic growth, the CFIA plays an ongoing role in the international arena to maintain and facilitate the opening of new markets to Canadian products by:
Performance Summary
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected result, performance indicators and targets for the Domestic and International Market Access program activity, and reports 2009–10 performance against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 3.3.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Table 2–8: Summary of Performance: Domestic and International Market Access
Expected Result: Canadian producers of food, plants, animals and related products operate within a fair and efficient marketplace, from which Canadian consumers benefit | |||||
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
24.6 | 36.1 | 32.4 | 424 | 521 | (97) |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly due to funding received for the Pork Industry Recovery and Expansion Strategy and for the Growing Forward Program Suite. The Variance between Total Authorities and Actual Spending relates to lapsing funds in some of the Agency's initiatives and internal reallocations. The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 519 compared to Actual FTEs of 521, resulting in a difference of 2. |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Extent to which certified food, animal and plant shipments meet the receiving country's import requirements |
≥ 99% meet requirements |
Food - Meat | 99% | Met |
Food - Fish and Seafood | 99% | Met | ||
Food - Processed Egg | 99% | Met | ||
Animal | No data available | |||
Plant | 99% | Met | ||
Performance Analysis: Three-year Trend Analysis: Animal:(2007–08, No Data Available; 2008–09, No Data Available) |
||||
Additional information: |
* For more information on data controls and data limitations regarding CFIA's performance indicators, please see Table 2-1.
In addition to the detailed performance results found in Table 2-8, the CFIA also achieved strategic performance results under the Domestic and International Market Access PA:
Strategic Performance Analysis
The CFIA worked with existing and new trading partners to facilitate market access opportunities and to address unexpected market access issues.
MAINTAINING CANADA'S EXPORTS
The CFIA will continue to support AAFC's Market Access Secretariat, in Government of Canada contributions to reopening or gaining new markets. This ongoing support, in turn, helps to strengthen Canada's economy.
The CFIA continued to work with international organizations to promote and influence the development and implementation of coherent and consistent international standards.
The CFIA worked toward implementing technical solutions to facilitate compliance with import and export regulatory requirements.
Internal services are groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of an organization. These groups include Management and Oversight Services, Communications Services, Legal Services, Human Resources Management Services, Financial Management Services, IM/IT Services, Real Property Services, Security Management Services, Environmental Management Services, Materiel Management Services, Procurement Services, and Travel and Other Administrative Services.
Percentage of 2009–10 Actual Spending: Internal Services
Benefits for Canadians
The CFIA delivers projects in a more disciplined manner, thereby contributing to prudent stewardship of financial resources and providing Canadians value for their tax dollar. Internal Services refer to groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of an organization.
Work under this program activity is aimed at addressing Human Resources, Information Decision Making and Internal Coordination risk areas.
Performance Summary Table 2-9: Summary of Performance: Internal Services36
2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions) |
2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
108.3 | 142.5 | 141.9 | 832 | 1,021 | (189) |
Variance Analysis | |||||
The Variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly due to funding received for the Government Response to Listeriosis and the Growing Forward Program Suite, as well as collective bargaining and the 2008–09 carry-forward.37 The Variance analysis between Planned and Actual FTEs is not provided because the Planned figure does not consider reallocations of FTEs between program activities. If the Planned figure was restated for this, it would be 1,017 compared to Actual FTEs of 1,021, resulting in a difference of 4. |
In addition to Table 2-9, the CFIA also achieved the following strategic initiatives under Internal Services:
Strategic Performance Analysis
The CFIA continued to strengthen its internal management processes and systems.
DID YOU KNOW?
The CFIA was selected as one of the National Capital Region's Top 25 Employers, further branding the Agency as an employer of choice.
The CFIA focused on developing key plans for the future and improving critical areas of infrastructure.
2009-10 ($ millions) |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities39 | Actual Spending |
|
0 | 9.8 | 8.0 | |
Expected Results | Performance Indicators | Targets | Performance Status |
Deferred maintenance at seven laboratories (over 2 years) is addressed to modernize equipment and improve safety standards |
Percentage of projects completed on time |
100% | 100% |
Percentage of CEAP funds spent |
100% | 82%* |
* The 82% variance for the percentage of CEAP funds spent was due to the current construction industry climate in Canada. This industry is demonstrating significant uncertainty regarding potential bid prices and competitiveness. Projects that are very similar in scope and technical complexity but carried out in different regions of Canada are showing marked differences in bid prices. The result of these economic and industry factors is that many traditional assumptions applied to project estimates are no longer valid—resulting in large variances in bids to estimates. In the case of the 2009–10 EAP projects, this resulted in a net 18% surplus.