This page has been archived.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.
The original version was signed by
The Honourable Gerry Ritz, PC, MP
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board for the period ending March 31, 2011
Management Representation Statement for Performance Information
Section II – Analysis of Program Activities by Strategic Outcome
Section III – Supplementary Information
Section IV: Other Items of Interest
From its inception, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has been working to maintain the safety of Canada’s high-quality agriculture, agri-food, aquaculture, and fishery products. The CFIA works with the Agriculture Portfolio team to tackle the agricultural sector’s challenges, while helping the sector to capitalize on its tremendous potential for growth and future profitability. The Agency’s role is critical in protecting Canadian and international consumers and preserving the good reputation of Canada’s food industry, here at home and around the world.
The work of the CFIA’s dedicated employees across Canada is challenging. To effectively protect the health of Canadians and the resources from which our food is derived, CFIA staff must continually adapt and respond to emerging issues and emergencies, new science and intelligence, and world events. It is therefore critical that the CFIA workforce have the tools and information they need to carry out the important work of the Agency. In fiscal year 2010–11, the CFIA undertook a number of initiatives aimed at supporting its employees in the performance of their work.
To further the goal of continual improvement in food safety and to implement recommendations coming from the Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak and the Lessons Learned reports, significant investment has been made in the CFIA.
The Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak and Lessons Learned reports emphasized the need to increase public transparency on the work of the Agency, particularly with respect to inspection, compliance, and enforcement activities and coordination with other agencies and departments. Canadians expect the CFIA to deliver on its mandate in an open and accountable way.
Since 2006, the CFIA has hired a net total of 733 new inspection staff to enhance inspection. To complement these new hires, CFIA has created a national recruitment strategy that will provide an ongoing pool of inspectors for years to come.
As part of the CFIA’s inspection modernization work, a new 29-week training program for meat processing inspectors has been implemented. This training will better enable inspectors to carry out their functions in a professional and consistent manner.
To support employee interactions with industry and regulated parties, the CFIA has launched an integrity initiative that includes values and ethics training. This training helps front-line staff make informed decisions in situations where they are called upon to deal with ethical problems in work situations.
The CFIA continues to collaborate with its partners to minimize and manage food-related risks. This year, the CFIA continued its proactive agenda related to animal health, working with industry and with federal, provincial and territorial partners to develop national farm-level biosecurity standards. This included developing industry biosecurity planning guides for the animal and plant sectors.
That is why the CFIA has expanded its online information on compliance and enforcement activities. Making this information public is a fair, balanced, and measured approach to protecting the safety of Canada’s food supply and the resources upon which it depends. At the same time, the CFIA continues to work closely with the food industry so that they have clear guidance on how to achieve compliance.
The CFIA also launched the Consumer Association Roundtable so that consumers have a united voice in food safety from farm to fork as well as an opportunity to provide input on a variety of topics related to CFIA priorities, policies, programs, and services.
Modernizing the CFIA’s regulatory components and tools continues to be a priority. This year, the CFIA worked with the National Farm Animal Care Council to modernize guidelines for producers and handlers of farm animals. These guidelines affect practices related to raising, housing, handling, treating and transporting particular species of animals. Work continued on a proposal to modernize Canada’s fertilizer regulatory framework; this included revising safety standards, policies, and precautionary labelling statements for fertilizer and supplement products so that these products remain safe and can be used in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The CFIA continues to invest in prevention, preparedness, and response capability to manage the entry and spread of high-risk animal and plant diseases and pests such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, avian and pandemic influenza, and various invasive species.
Informed decision making at the CFIA is based on high-quality, timely, relevant science. In 2009, through Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the federal government committed $24 million over two years to address high-priority infrastructure projects, thus improving the CFIA’s science and technology capacity. The resulting Accelerated Laboratory Infrastructure Program identified and completed needed renovations at our laboratories in Burnaby, Lethbridge, Calgary, Saskatoon, Ottawa, Saint-Hyacinthe, and Dartmouth. Our laboratories are now better suited for modern scientific practice. Our scientists and researchers have healthier and more modern work environments which enhance research and development.
In the 2011 budget, the Government made a $100-million investment over five years toward inspector training, additional science capacity, and electronic tools to support the work of our front-line inspectors.
There is also a provision for $17 million over five years for managing and monitoring plum pox virus. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will each receive a portion of this investment.
All this contributes to better health and safety outcomes for Canadians.
The Honourable Gerry Ritz, PC, MP
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) 2010–11 Performance Report for the year ending March 31, 2011, was prepared under my direction and the CFIA's Senior Management Committee, and approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In accordance with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, the report also includes an assessment of the fairness and reliability of the performance information conducted by the Auditor General of Canada.
I submit for tabling in Parliament the 2010–11 Performance Report for the CFIA.
This document has been prepared based on the following reporting principles contained in the Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the Estimates: 2011–12 Report on Plans and Priorities and 2010–11 Departmental Performance Report:
George DaPont
President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is Canada’s largest science-based regulatory agency. It has over 75001 dedicated employees working across Canada in the National Capital Region (NCR) and in four operational areas (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and Western).
The CFIA is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals and plants, and contributing to a safe and accessible food supply and plant and animal resource base—thereby enhancing the health and well-being of Canada’s people, environment, and economy.
The CFIA’s activities contribute to protecting Canadian and international consumers, Canadian agricultural production (including forestry) and our environment. In turn, these activities benefit Canadian farmers, fishers, foresters, processors and distributors (including importers and exporters), as well as consumers.
The success of the CFIA is reliant upon five interrelated and fundamental factors: sound science; an effective regulatory base; effective inspection programs; effective risk management; and strong partnerships. In an international context, the CFIA strives to ensure that the international regulatory framework (as it relates to the CFIA’s mandate) is strong, coherent, and science-based.
The CFIA is responsible for administering and enforcing 13 federal statutes and 38 sets of regulations, for regulating the safety and nutritional quality of food sold in Canada, and for supporting a sustainable plant and animal resource base. The CFIA shares many areas of responsibility with other federal departments and agencies, with provincial, territorial and municipal authorities, and with other stakeholders.
In a complex operating environment, the CFIA works with its partners to implement food safety measures; manage food, animal and plant risks and emergencies; and promote the development of food safety and disease control systems to maintain the safety of Canada’s high-quality agriculture, agri-food, aquaculture and fishery products. The CFIA’s activities include verifying the compliance of imported products; registering and inspecting establishments; testing food, animals, plants, and their related products; and approving the use of many agricultural inputs. The CFIA also provides scientific advice, develops new technologies, provides testing services, and conducts research.
At the CFIA, informed decision making is based on high-quality, timely, relevant science. Science informs policy development and program design and delivery through foresight, advice, risk assessment, the influence of international standards, research and development, and testing.
The CFIA’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA) is a component of its Management Resources and Results Structure (MRRS), which forms part of the Whole-of-Government Framework for a common, government-wide approach to the collection, management, and reporting of financial and non-financial information. To effectively deliver on its responsibilities, the CFIA aims to achieve three strategic outcomes (SO).2 The current PAA, shown in Figure 1, illustrates the alignment of the CFIA’s strategic outcomes to the Government of Canada (GoC) outcome areas and reflects how the CFIA plans to allocate and manage its resources in order to achieve the corresponding expected results. In 2010–11, a new PAA consisting of one Strategic Outcome and five Program Activities, was established and will be implemented in 2011-12. The PAA was changed to better reflect how the CFIA operates.
Figure 1: Program Activity Architecture for the CFIA
For 2010–11, the CFIA established five priorities to guide the management of resources toward achieving its SO. The CFIA’s performance with respect to achieving these priorities is summarized below; Section 2 elaborates on performance by SO.
Priority Status Legend
Priority | Type3 | Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies) |
---|---|---|
Design and deliver risk-based inspection and surveillance services | Ongoing | Links to all Strategic Outcomes |
Status: Mostly Met | ||
|
Priority | Type3 | Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies) |
---|---|---|
Improve compliance through compliance management activities | Ongoing | Links to all Strategic Outcomes |
Status: Mostly Met | ||
|
Priority | Type3 | Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies) |
---|---|---|
Modernize the Agency’s regulatory components and tools | Ongoing | Links to all Strategic Outcomes |
Status: Mostly Met | ||
|
Priority | Type3 | Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies) |
---|---|---|
Increase transparency and strengthen strategic partnerships and communications with key partners and stakeholders | New | Links to all Strategic Outcomes |
Status: Mostly Met | ||
|
Priority | Type3 | Strategic Outcome(s) and/or Program Activity(ies) |
---|---|---|
Develop a workforce and workplace such that the Agency is innovative, more effective and well-managed | New | This management priority is part of Internal Services which contributes to all Strategic Outcomes |
Status: Mostly Met | ||
|
The effective management of risks associated with food, animals, and plants is fundamental to the achievement of the CFIA’s mandate. As such, CFIA practices have been built on risk management concepts and principles. As the organization responsible for identifying and managing risks to the food supply and the animal and plant resource base, on which safe food and a prosperous economy depends, the CFIA has developed a robust risk management discipline. Risk management is performed by all parts of the CFIA as an integral part of priority setting, planning, policy and program development, service delivery, review, and reporting activities.
A cornerstone of the CFIA’s risk management process is the development of a Corporate Risk Profile (CRP). The CFIA’s current CRP describes nine key strategic risks to which the CFIA is exposed as well as strategies for addressing those risks. The CFIA’s day-to-day service delivery is also focused on controlling and mitigating those risks. The CFIA’s 2010–11 Report on Plans and Priorities detailed the CFIA’s planned risk mitigation efforts. The following is a summary of progress made on the strategies planned for each of the CFIA’s key risk areas. Further analysis and details can be found in Section 2.2.
The CFIA’s primary risk associated with foodborne hazards is the failure to detect, track, or mitigate pathogens, toxins, chemical contaminants and other health hazards in consumables. As outlined in the 2010–11 RPP, key risk mitigation strategies planned for 2010–11 included initiatives associated with the Government of Canada’s FCSAP and a response to the recommendations of the Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak, which includes implementation of the Compliance Verification System (CVS).
As part of the FCSAP, the CFIA developed and implemented a number of strategies aimed specifically at the enhanced identification and prioritization of food safety risks, including the development and use of science-based risk ranking tools and targeted surveys on microbial and chemical hazards. The CFIA also conducted targeted oversight to enhance inspection of high-risk food sectors, improved rapid response capacity, and provided detailed risk information to consumers.
In response to recommendations in the Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak, the CFIA made significant progress; it enhanced its risk management capacity by hiring and training meat processing inspectors and ensured that inspectors were better equipped to effectively carry out their responsibilities. Improved methods for detecting hazards in food were developed and validated; this includes a Listeria monocytogenes detection method that significantly reduces testing time and enables a more rapid response during food safety investigations. The CFIA performed inspections of meat establishments using the new risk-based CVS and, over the course of the year, implemented a number of improvements to that system, including the introduction of Listeria sampling tasks and increased emphasis on establishments that produce ready-to-eat (RTE) products.
The CFIA’s risk mitigation efforts related to zoonotic outbreaks/incidents have focused on animal health biosecurity, integrated surveillance, and the prevention and control of the spread of zoonotic diseases. In 2010–11, the CFIA led the development of national farm-level biosecurity standards in collaboration with industry and federal/provincial/territorial partners. This initiative was undertaken as part of the Growing Forward Agricultural Policy Framework, led by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The CFIA also led the Canadian Animal Health Surveillance Network (CAHSN), a collaborative effort with federal, provincial, and university animal health diagnostic laboratories that combines surveillance data received from a variety of sources and simultaneously alerts both human and animal health authorities when potential animal disease threats are identified. Furthermore, for a third year, the CFIA directed the highly successful collaborative Canadian Notifiable Avian Influenza Surveillance System (canNAISS). A major operational response was required in 2010–11 for an AI outbreak in a Manitoba turkey flock as well as for a confirmed single positive case of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Given that the CFIA has managed similar incidents in the past, the very successful outcome of both incidents underscored just how valuable continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies is. With a view to preventing and controlling future risks, the CFIA continued to lead the collaborative project, Fore-CAN: Foresight for Canadian Animal Health. The project aims to predict the future requirements of the animal health emergency system.
The CFIA’s role in maintaining a safe and sustainable plant and animal resource base requires the CFIA to be able to prevent, detect, contain, and mitigate animal and plant pests and diseases. In 2010–11, the CFIA developed plant and animal biosecurity guides as well as advanced guidance and training on enforcement and compliance verification regarding traceability. Plant surveys were conducted for over 23 plant pests, and 27 animal health risk analyses were completed in relation to animal importing and exporting, aquatic animal health diseases, scientific advice, and the disease status of various countries, zones and regions. To support the implementation of the NAAHP, the CFIA promoted new reporting requirements and continued to work with partners, such as the Assembly of First Nations, to ensure that information needs are met. Finally, a CVS inspection protocol for feed ingredient manufacturers was designed, developed, and piloted, and work began on a new CVS approach for the humane transportation and identification of animals.
The CFIA depends on a highly skilled, multi-disciplinary staff complement located across the country. In the 2010–11 RPP, the CFIA identified the implementation of the CFIA Renewal Plan as the focus of risk mitigation strategies related to effective human resources management. Notable progress has been made in the past year; this includes the successful implementation of a National Recruitment Strategy to coordinate and standardize the CFIA’s inspector recruitment. Specialized training was provided to CFIA personnel who work on programs involving meat processing, biosecurity, traceability, and plant health. Structured national training curricula were developed to support scientific and technical training for all 14 inspection programs. Non-technical training and corporate initiatives to enhance values and ethics, transparency, and occupational health and safety were also delivered. Finally, training under the Leadership Development Framework was delivered to enable new employees and supervisors to develop their leadership skills and to provide seasoned professionals with the means necessary to mentor the next generation.
The rapid pace of technological and methodological change in relation to food, animal, and plant products both threatens and benefits the CFIA’s science and technology capacity. Consistent with commitments it made in 2010–11, the CFIA developed a long-term regulatory research strategy. The research will inform decision-making, program design, and operational program delivery. The CFIA also funded research that used novel platforms, such as mass spectrometry, aptamer platforms, and time-of-flight technology, to test for and detect pathogens such as Listeria, Shigella and Campylobacter. Finally, the Fore-CAN initiative will help the CFIA remain abreast of new scientific and regulatory methods. It will also contribute to the development of an integrated Canadian laboratory network that will enhance the capacity and expertise of all government departments.
Effective management of any organization, particularly one that has the size and complexity of the CFIA, depends upon a strong and stable analytical foundation for strategic and operational decision-making. Planned mitigation strategies, which were aimed at addressing risks associated with information for decision-making, included the implementation of the Performance Management Reporting Solution (PMRS) project and advances in the development of the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF). In the past year, the PMRS project implementation included the Animal Health and Meat Hygiene programs, bringing the total number of programs in the system to six. This Agency-wide management tool supports enhanced performance monitoring, reporting, and informed decision-making. In 2010–11 the CFIA also established a new Program Activity Architecture (PAA) and its associated PMF, both of which will be implemented in 2011-12. Combined, they will enhance the information base upon which sound risk-based decisions can be made.
Stewardship of food safety and plant and animal health is a shared responsibility. This has given rise to numerous opportunities and threats for the CFIA, underscoring the importance of partnerships. The relationship between the CFIA, Health Canada (HC), and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) was strengthened in an effort to streamline information sharing and provide a more cohesive and forward-thinking approach to food safety. Industry, federal/provincial/territorial partners, and others were actively engaged in numerous initiatives, including the development of the national farm-level biosecurity standards, the proposed legislative framework to enhance traceability, and the implementation of the NAAHP. In addition, the Consumer Association Roundtable was launched to give consumers a voice in the food safety continuum. The CFIA maintained a strong international presence through regular meetings with its foreign counterparts. In particular, the CFIA engaged other competent government authorities (CGAs) such as the European Union (EU) and United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) to assess the equivalency of food safety systems.
Internal coordination is required to effectively support program design and delivery. In an effort to enhance internal coordination, as per the 2010–11 RPP, the CFIA addressed coordination-related recommendations in the Report of the Internal Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak and renewed its corporate governance structure. The renewed governance structure clarifies authorities, simplifies decision-making, and facilitates increased administrative efficiency while fostering a whole-of-Agency approach to decision-making. Last year, the CFIA also improved its capacity to manage projects through the development of an Enterprise Project Management Framework (ePMF). This development was in keeping with recommendations that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) made in the Management Accountability Framework (MAF).
In 2010–11, the CFIA continued to work toward strengthening its Program and Regulatory Framework in order to protect consumers and facilitate trade and fair market access. For example, the CFIA developed regulations to protect the health of aquatic animals; this will allow Canada to meet international trade standards and help prevent the loss of aquatic resources due to the introduction or spread of disease. The CFIA also pre-published a regulatory proposal that will create a more flexible seed variety registration system. This proposal is aimed at streamlining regulatory requirements while continuing to maintain the integrity of seed certification and the safety of the environment, food, and feed. The CFIA made progress related to hog identification and the humane transport of animals in support of amendments to the Health of Animal Regulations and continued to develop a regulatory package to modernize and update the requirements in the Honey Regulations. In the past year, the CFIA continued to explore improvements to the consistency of the various regulations affecting the regulatory framework for agri-food programs. While important progress has been made, the complexity and time required to implement changes in regulations and programs means that mitigation of this risk will be an ongoing focus for the CFIA.
Further analysis and details of the CFIA’s risk mitigation efforts can be found in Section 2.2.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
689.1 | 750.8 | 721.8 |
The variance between Planned Spending and Total Authorities is mainly attributed to the following: funding received for continuing the Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada ($10.0M) and the Growing Forward Program Suite ($5.0M); new funding received to increase the frequency of food inspections in meat processing establishments ($11.4M); funding received for the 2009–10 carry forward ($27.6M); as well as increases for other statutory and corporate items. Actual spending has increased by less than 1% since 2009–10 ($718.1M).
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
6,717 | 6,669 | (48) |
Actual Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) utilization has increased by 2.2% since 2009–10 (6,525 FTEs). FTE is a standard financial measure used to capture the total paid hours of an organization’s workforce over the course of a fiscal year. For example, 1 FTE could represent 1 full-time employee or 2 part-time employees whose time is split equally over the year. FTE amounts differ from the total number of employees shown in Section 1.1 (7,500) as the latter considers the number of individuals employed by the CFIA at a specific point in time, including active employees, those on leave status as well as suspended employees.
Note: Performance indicators and targets at the Strategic Outcome level were not part of the 2010–11 PAA. They will be available under the CFIA’s new PAA structure, which will be implemented in 2011–12. |
Program Activity | 2009-10 Actual Spending ($ Millions) |
2010-11 ($ Millions) | Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
|||
Food Safety and Nutrition Risks | 270.5 | 258.1 | 299.4 | 307.6 | 301.5 | Healthy Canadians |
Zoonotic Risks | 83.3 | 67.8 | 67.8 | 68.4 | 62.1 | Healthy Canadians |
Total | 353.8 | 325.9 | 367.2 | 376.0 | 363.6 |
Note: Performance indicators and targets at the Strategic Outcome level were not part of the 2010–11 PAA. They will be available under the CFIA’s new PAA structure, which will be implemented in 2011–12. |
Program Activity | 2009-10 Actual Spending ($ Millions) |
2010-11 ($ Millions) | Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
|||
Animal Health Risks and Production Systems | 80.1 | 87.1 | 87.1 | 91.7 | 77.1 | Strong Economic Growth |
Plant Health Risks and Production Systems | 89.7 | 61.3 | 61.3 | 70.5 | 68.3 | A Clean and Healthy Environment |
Biodiversity Protection | 9.5 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 10.8 | A Clean and Healthy Environment |
Total | 179.3 | 161.3 | 161.3 | 175.1 | 156.2 |
Note: Performance indicators and targets at the Strategic Outcome level were not part of the 2010–11 PAA. They will be available under the CFIA’s new PAA structure, which will be implemented in 2011–12. |
Program Activity | 2009-10 Actual Spending ($ Millions) |
2010-11 ($ Millions) | Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
|||
Integrated Regulatory Frameworks | 10.7 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.1 | 6.8 | A Fair and Secure Marketplace |
Domestic and International Market Access | 32.4 | 32.3 | 32.3 | 35.3 | 34.5 | A Prosperous Canada Through Global Commerce |
Total | 43.1 | 42.0 | 42.0 | 44.4 | 41.3 |
Internal Services consist of groups that perform related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of the programs and corporate obligations of an organization. These groups include the following: Management and Oversight Services, Communication Services, Legal Services, Human Resources Management Services, Financial Management Services, Information Management Services, Information Technology Services, Real Property Services, Security Management Services, Environmental Management Services, Materiel Management Services, Procurement Services, and Travel and Other Administrative Services.
Program Activity | 2009-10 Actual Spending ($ Millions) |
2010-11 ($ Millions) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
||
Internal Services | 141.9 | 116.2 | 118.6 | 155.3 | 160.7 |
Total | 141.9 | 116.2 | 118.6 | 155.3 | 160.7 |
In 2010–11, the federal government provided the CFIA with $14.2 million under Year Two of Canada’s Economic Action Plan (CEAP). Additionally, a surplus of $1.8 million from the 2009–10 CEAP funds was carried forward to 2010–11, as certain projects spanned both years. Therefore, in 2010–11, the total budget for this initiative was $16.0 million.
The CFIA’s spending has increased overall from 2008–09 to 2010–11. This increase is mainly due to incremental resources for the Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan; new resources for Canada’s Economic Action Plan; the Government Response to Listeriosis, increased frequency of food inspections in meat processing establishments; the Pork Industry Recovery and Expansion Strategy; and collective bargaining.
For information on our organizational votes and/or statutory expenditures, please see the 2010–11 Public Accounts of Canada (Volume II) publication. An electronic version of the Public Accounts is available at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/txt/72-eng.html
The Auditor General has assessed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s performance information presented in section 2 of this report. This assessment is only a review level of assurance, and does not constitute an audit. The Auditor General’s Assessment Report is included in front of the performance information in section 2.
The Auditor General has audited the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s financial statements. These financial statements and the auditor’s report are presented in section 3.
The Auditor General has not evaluated or audited any other sections of this report.
In accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) Management, Resources and Results Structure (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 gives an account of the progress made in advancing the plans and priorities identified in the CFIA’s 2010–11 RPP. Under each strategic outcome and program activity, performance as it relates to special initiatives, risk mitigation strategies, and ongoing activities is reported upon, and special focus is given to how this affects 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 through the use of compliance and other relevant performance indicators.
Given the complexity and inherent variability of the agriculture, agri-food, forestry and fishery 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 target the areas of highest risk. For example, the CFIA focuses its efforts on systems, processes and facilities that directly affect the safety of food. The resulting compliance rates indicate the extent to which regulated parties have adhered to requirements specified in federal acts and regulations. When a broader environmental context is taken into account, year-to-year compliance trends give more information about an area’s true performance than does the absolute compliance rate for any one year. For detailed information on compliance assessment, see Section 4.3.
Qualitative and quantitative performance targets provide a basis for measuring the performance of regulated parties and of the CFIA in relation to how they achieve the results expected of them. The targets in this report are for critical program areas and are 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 fell below the established targets. Targets for programs that monitor activities are set differently than those for programs that focus on specific areas of non-compliance. In terms of compliance rates, the CFIA considers performance within +/- 1% as met. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
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, reporting, and informed decision-making at all levels. When fully operational, the PMRS will facilitate the production of corporate documents such as the Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), the Departmental Performance Report (DPR), the Management Accountability Framework (MAF), and the Program Activity Architecture (PAA) and its associated Performance Measurement Framework (PMF). In 2010–11, the Animal Health and Meat Hygiene programs were rolled out, bringing the total number of programs that have been rolled out since the inception of the project to six. These six programs represent 42% of the CFIA’s expenditures, excluding internal services. Also in 2010–11, a scorecard for the CFIA’s new 2011-12 PMF was developed and successfully tested.
2.1.2.1 Data Quality
For 2010–11, the CFIA assigned a data quality rating to every performance result indicator in the CFIA’s DPR. The ratings provide a reasonable assessment of the reliability and limitations of the CFIA’s performance information. For each indicator, the CFIA applied a consistent methodology to evaluate the data and processes used to derive performance results.
Information on performance result methodologies and data is used to substantiate that the information reported in the CFIA’s DPR is valid, reliable, fair, and supported by appropriate evidence. This information is also the basis for determining the data quality ratings for each indicator. Ratings are based on an assessment of the systems and processes used to manage data and the systems and processes used to derive performance results from the data.
A data quality rating of Higher Confidence, Moderate Confidence or Lower Confidence, as categorized below, is determined for each indicator and included in the performance tables in Section 2.2.
Data Quality Rating | |
---|---|
Higher Confidence | Results rating where (1) the data used to derive performance results is stored and managed using reliable systems and methods; and (2) performance results are derived using reliable systems and methods. |
Moderate Confidence | Results rating where (1) the data used to derive performance results is stored and managed in most cases using reliable systems and methods; and (2) performance results are derived in most cases using reliable systems and methods. |
Lower Confidence | Results rating where there are gaps in the reliability of data sources and/or performance results: data and performance results are supported or derived from systems and methods that do not support data robustness and reliability. |
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 five priorities:
While work within Food Safety and Nutrition Risks and Zoonotic Risks is primarily aimed at addressing the Foodborne Hazards and Zoonotic Outbreaks/Incidents risk areas4, it also benefits the other key risk areas noted above.
Program Activity Description:
Food safety nutrition risk management programming works with federal, provincial and municipal partners and organizations to improve the overall health of Canadians. A primary contribution to this effort is in minimizing and managing risks, and deliberate threats, to food and food production systems. Consumers are also provided with appropriate information on which to base safe and nutritious food choices. We achieve this by developing and delivering programs designed to verify that food safety and nutrition information is accurate. Programs and services are developed and delivered to protect Canadians from preventable food safety hazards, by managing food safety emergencies effectively, and supporting public awareness of, and the contribution to, food safety, in imported and domestic food.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
299.4 | 307.6 | 301.5 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
2,975 | 3,063 | 88 |
Actual Spending increased by $31.0M from the previous year ($270.5M). This increase is largely explained by new funding received to increase the frequency of food inspections in meat processing establishments ($9.6M) as well as by the receipt of incremental resources for Listeriosis ($7.9M), the Food Safety Action Plan ($9.9M), and Canada’s Economic Action Plan ($4.0M).
The following table identifies the CFIA’s expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Food Safety and Nutrition Risks program activity. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators |
Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risks associated with food, including nutrition, are managed with acceptable limits | Extent to which inspected, federally registered establishments comply with federal food safety requirements | ≥ 98 % compliance | Meat | 96% | Not Met | Moderate Confidence |
Fish and Seafood | 99% | Met | Higher Confidence | |||
Processed Products | 100% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Dairy | 100% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Shell Egg | 99% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Extent to which domestic and imported food products comply with federal chemical residue requirements | ≥ 95% compliance | Meat | 97% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |
Fish and Seafood | 95% | Met | Higher Confidence | |||
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables | 97% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Processed Products | 99% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Honey** | 70% | Not Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Shell Egg | 94% | Not Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Dairy | 98% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
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 | Higher Confidence | ||
Extent to which nutrition information on non-registered food products inspected is accurate5 | ≥80% of food products inspected declare nutrition information which is accurate. | 76% | Not Met | Higher Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding the CFIA’s performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
** The explanation for the low rating of honey is found under the Performance Summary and Analysis of Program Activity section
Food Safety portal: www.foodsafety.gc.ca
Moving Forward on Food Safety Action on Listeria: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/transp/prog/proge.shtml
CFIA Consumer Centre: www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/concene.shtml
Food Recalls and Allergy Alerts: www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/recarapp/recaltoce.shtml
FCSAP: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/concengov/govplane.shtml
Healthy Canadians: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/index-eng.php
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
Meat – 96% compliance – Not met
In 2010–11, the CFIA did not meet its target. The CFIA performed inspections of meat establishments using the new Compliance Verification System (CVS) and the new enforcement policy for meat. This compliance level is identical to that of the previous fiscal year of 2009-2010, the result of industry continuing to improve their understanding of the system and of the defined enforcement policy implemented in 2008-2009. The meat inspection program has unique elements, such as mandatory Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points, slaughter requirements, and export market requirements, and thus has a greater number of specific and defined inspection activities under the CVS. The CFIA continues to communicate and work with industry to increase understanding of these requirements and of the related CVS policies. The CFIA aims to increase the levels of compliance through ongoing communication and education and continue its vigilance through inspection and the enforcement of defined standards.
Fish and Seafood – 99% compliance – Met
The CFIA continues to meet its target for Fish and Seafood. An initial implementation phase for strengthened Schedule I and II operating requirements for establishments is in place, and industry is working to address these requirements.
Processed Products – 100% compliance – Met
Since the introduction of the Processed Products Establishment Inspection Manual (PPEIM) in 2008, industries have continued to improve their facilities. In addition, training on new procedures and directions regarding inspection has led to a more effective response to cases of non-compliance.
Dairy – 100% compliance – Met
Of the 162 in-depth dairy inspections performed, 15 establishments failed Category I health and safety infractions upon initial inspection. After the first follow-up, all facilities were in compliance with Category I items. The CFIA has continued to foster relationships with industry by working to promote a comprehensive understanding of food safety and inspection requirements.
Shell Egg – 99% compliance – Met
The Shell Egg performance target has been exceeded. The CFIA, through its field work
with egg specialists and inspection staff, has continued to foster relationships with industry by working to promote a comprehensive understanding of food safety and inspection requirements.
Compliance Approaches and Methods
A monitoring approach6 is used to assess compliance for all commodities under this indicator. Compliance results are determined at either the initial inspection or audit or in the first follow-up visit.
Overall, the CFIA met or exceeded its targets for all areas with the exception of Honey and Shell Egg.
Meat – 97% compliance – Met
Fish and Seafood – 95% compliance – Met
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables – 97% compliance – Met
Processed Products – 99% compliance – Met
Honey – 70% compliance – Not met
Shell Egg – 94% compliance – Not met
Dairy – 98% compliance – Met
Compliance Approaches and Methods
In 2010–11, the CFIA effectively managed the issuance of 131 public warnings for Class I recalls regarding risks associated with food. All the warnings were issued within the 24 hour deadline following the declaration of a warning.
Nutrition information accuracy – 76% compliance – Not met
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-2, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Food Safety and Nutrition Risks program activity:
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. Action has been taken on all 25 recommendations. Five recommendations (9, 10, 31, 33, and 34) involve medium- to long-term action, and are either nearing completion or being advanced through Budget 2011 investments.
The following are examples of progress that the CFIA has made with respect to the 25 recommendations for which it is the lead Agency:
The Government of Canada’s FCSAP aims to support active prevention in order to better identify food safety risks, target oversight and thus enhance inspection of high-risk food sectors, and provide a rapid response to problems when they occur. As part of this plan, the CFIA achieved the following in 2010–11:
The CFIA is committed to continually strengthening its programs to maintain Canadians’ high level of confidence in their country’s food safety system. In 2010–11, the CFIA proceeded to emphasize the need for an enhanced food safety system that integrated the interests of government, consumers, and industry. To that end, the CFIA:
Performance highlights for ongoing activities under Food Safety and Nutrition Risks included:
Over 70% of the food products imported into Canada belong to the non-federally registered food sector. These products include bakery goods, ingredients, baby food, alcoholic beverages, and vegetable oils. Products that do not fall under the imported non-federally registered sector include whole and processed eggs, dairy, honey, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, fish, and meat.
By the end of 2010–11, the CFIA had managed over 200 food recall incidents, reached 47,500 subscribers through the recall and allergy alert email notification service, and attracted over 1800 followers on Twitter.
In 2010–11, an internal audit of the CFIA’s Management of Imported Food Safety was completed with the goal of assuring senior management that the CFIA’s imported food activities are designed, organized, and delivered in order to achieve food safety objectives. The findings of this audit identified challenges related to coordination and to consistent planning efforts across commodity programs. Consequently, some of the key recommendations outlined by the audit included the need for a concerted agency approach to the planning, delivery, and reporting of programs and for a stronger governance structure to provide oversight and to clarify and realign accountability to business needs while simplifying decision-making. To address this matter, the Agency put in place (in 2010–11) a new governance framework based on its business line priorities (Food, Animal and Plant); this framework aligns with the Agency’s Program Activity Architecture and establishes even stronger relationships between program policy, design, and delivery functions to enable better business planning, performance monitoring, reporting, and resource management.
The Food, Plant and Animal business line committees provide a forum for horizontal management discussions throughout the organization. The plans and priorities identified for these business lines serve as the basis to establish approved annual work plans for compliance verification, enforcement, and operational delivery activities.
Another lesson learned relates to the FSAP initiative. The accelerated pace and broad scope of the FSAP presented challenges for the Agency in terms of respecting their commitments in monitoring and reporting. To respond to this matter, the CFIA put various measures into place to enhance project management thoroughness within the Agency. The FSAP adopted these measures: formal senior management approvals at each stage of a project; a streamlined project governance structure to ensure that issues are raised and addressed promptly; project management training; tools to clearly define work plans; and improved project reporting with a focus on key risks, scope of project, timelines, and expense updates. These measures have been very useful in managing the FSAP as well as many other projects within the Agency.
Program Activity Description:
Zoonotics risks programs work with federal and provincial partners and organizations to improve the overall health of Canadians. A primary contribution to this effort is in protecting Canadians from the spread of diseases transmissible, or potentially transmissible, from animal populations to humans. Zoonotic risks are managed and minimized through the development and delivery of programs and services focused on the animal health aspect and designed to help prevent and control the spread of zoonotic diseases, support public awareness, conduct inspections, and monitor and test.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
67.8 | 68.4 | 62.1 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
561 | 515 | (46) |
Actual Spending decreased by $21.2M over 2009–10 ($83.3M). The decrease is partially explained by the H1N1 Preparedness and Response which was funded for only one year (2009–10). The balance of the decrease is related to other corporate adjustments.
The following table identifies the CFIA’s expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Zoonotic Risks program activity. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators* | Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risks of the transmission of animal diseases to humans are managed within acceptable limits. | Number of incidents of avian influenza that expand beyond the initial control zone | No expansion of the disease beyond the initial control zone. | No Expansion | Met | Moderate Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding CFIA’ performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
Avian Influenza programming: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/avflu/avflue.shtml
Animal diseases: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/disemalae.shtml
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
The only incident of avian influenza that entered Canada in 2010–11 was Low Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza (LPNAI) in November 2010. An initial control zone of 5 km was established as part of the CFIA’s emergency response, and there was no spread of the disease beyond this control zone.
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-3, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Zoonotic Risks program activity:
The CFIA is committed to working collaboratively with partners and stakeholders to better anticipate, prevent, detect, and manage animal health risks and associated emergencies. These collaborations are designed to minimize the opportunity for the introduction of an animal health threat, minimize the time required to identify and respond to the threat, maximize the participation of stakeholders in effectively managing the threat, and minimizing the time required to recover from the event. In 2010–11, the CFIA:
The CFIA continued to monitor the level of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) and the effectiveness of measures taken to control it in the domestic cattle population. Specifically, the CFIA:
Performance highlights for ongoing activities under Zoonotic Risks included:
The CFIA is committed to sharing timely information to help minimize the risks associated with animal diseases. In an effort to better reach producers and the next generation of farmers, the CFIA launched the animal health Twitter account, participated in more than 30 conferences and agricultural exhibitions, placed targeted advertisements online, and developed strategic partnerships with national and provincial 4-H organizations.
The communication and collaboration amongst the multiple partners in a 2010 Low Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza outbreak in a Canadian turkey flock led not only to a successful and rapid resolution of the situation, but also to the illustration of the potential that multi-partner collaborations in disease control can exert in real time.
Having learned from challenges in previous AI outbreaks, the Agency focused on improving communication and coordination of efforts between the various levels of government and industry partners to improve the clarity of process and to define roles. The CFIA enhanced collaboration with provincial partners, including provincial laboratories, regional Operations staff and the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease (NCFAD). Improved relationships with stakeholders allowed the CFIA to work with partners to clearly define roles and processes in the event of future outbreaks.
As a result, during the 2010 outbreak, all parties worked swiftly and efficiently due to the connections already established, including relationships with the Canadian Animal Health Surveillance Network and the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre. These kinds of results are only possible through collaborative working arrangements amongst multiple partners and served as an affirmation of the measures put in place to address previous challenges.
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. Through the work done in these areas, Canadians are able to remain confident in the quality of plants and plant products and in Canadian product access to export markets. In carrying out activities aimed at the achievement of this strategic outcome, the CFIA focused its efforts on the following five 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.
Program Activity Description:
Protection of the animal resource base is integral to the Canadian food supply and critical to the well-being of all Canadians. The animal heath risks and production systems programming plays an important role in minimizing and managing risk by protecting Canada’s animals (including livestock and aquatics) from regulated disease, including deliberate threats to the resource base. Programs and services are developed and delivered to protect Canadian animal resources, feeds, and animal products, as well as to manage animal disease emergencies effectively. Public confidence in animals, production systems, animal products and their by-products is significantly enhanced by Canada’s reputation for effectively mitigating the risk of serious diseases.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
87.1 | 91.7 | 77.1 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
792 | 700 | (92) |
The following table identifies the CFIA’s expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Animal Health Risks and Production Systems program activity. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risks to the animal resource base are managed within acceptable limits | Extent to which the CFIA’s data indicates that foreign regulated animal diseases have entered Canada via specified regulated pathways | No evidence, as confirmed by the CFIA’s data, that foreign regulated animal diseases have entered into Canada through specified regulated pathways. | No Evidence | Met | Moderate Confidence | |
Extent to which the CFIA’s data indicates the spread of foreign regulated animal diseases that entered into Canada this fiscal year | No evidence, as confirmed by the CFIA’s data of spread of foreign regulated animal diseases beyond the initial control zone. | No Evidence | Met | Moderate Confidence | ||
Extent to which inspected 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)9 |
≥ 95% compliance rate | Renderers | 98% | Met | Higher Confidence | |
Feed Mills | 80% | Not Met | Higher Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding the CFIA's performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
Animal Health Programs: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/animae.shtml
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
The only foreign regulated animal disease that entered Canada in 2010–11 was Low Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza (LPNAI) in November 2010. The CFIA contained the outbreak by Februrary 2011, and the CFIA’s data did not indicate that this outbreak entered Canada via any specified regulated pathways. Unregulated pathways include situations outside of the CFIA’s direct control, such as wild birds that may introduce the avian influenza virus to domestic poultry via direct or indirect contact. To address this and similar risks, the CFIA encourages poultry producers to heighten their poultry biosecurity measures and provides producers with biosecurity guidelines and standards.
The only incident of foreign regulated animal disease that entered Canada in 2010–11 was LPNAI in November 2010. The disease was contained within the initial control zone, and hence there was no spread of the outbreak.
Feed Mills – 80% compliance – Not met
Renderers – 98% compliance – Met
Compliance Approaches and Methods
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-4, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Animal Health Risks and Production Systems program activity:
The CFIA continued to modernize regulations and standards to better ensure that its work effectively meets the industry’s evolving standards. In 2010–11, the CFIA:
Traceability is the ability to follow an item or group of items – including animals, plants, food products, and agricultural inputs – from one point in the supply chain to another. In cases where problems are detected (e.g. disease outbreak, contaminated input), this ability allows the CFIA to better identify the source and extent of the problem (e.g. where the diseased animal, plant, or food product has been) and mitigate the impacts of the situation for a targeted, efficient, and effective response. The CFIA is working to enhance and expand the existing traceability program under the Health of Animals Act. For example, in 2010–11, the CFIA:
Work also continued to protect animals from—and prepare for—disease threats. In 2010–11, the CFIA:
The CFIA strives to protect the health of Canada’s animals in an open and collaborative environment, working with partners in industry and other governments to encourage producer engagement and accountability, mitigate disease risks, and maintain market access. Ongoing improvements to compliance and enforcement activities, guided by the principles of fairness, impartiality, and transparency, enhance the CFIA’s ability to administer and enforce acts and regulations related to animal health. In 2010–11, the CFIA:
Performance highlights for ongoing activities under Animal Health Risks and Production Systems included:
Through revisions to regulations supporting the National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP), the CFIA now has the authority to receive and respond to any suspected or confirmed cases of the 20 reportable diseases and 15 immediately notifiable diseases affecting aquatic animals.
In 2010, the presence of clinical signs suggestive of a Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak resulted in the CFIA investigating a Canadian Meat Packing Establishment. While no FMD (or any other swine vesicular disease) was found following laboratory analysis, the incident served to raise awareness about the prospects of finding a case of FMD in Canada. Activities related to the incident included the CFIA conducting a post-incident assessment, which resulted in the identification of a number of issues that warranted further attention. Subsequent to the CFIA’s post-incident assessment, an FMD workshop was held in early March 2011 to identify roles and responsibilities in the first 24-48 hours of a suspected case of FMD. The assessment and workshop identified the following key areas which require action:
Program Activity Description:
Protection of the plant resource base is integral to the Canadian food supply and critical to the well-being of all Canadians. Plant health risks and production systems programming plays an important role in minimizing and managing risk by protecting Canada’s plant resource base (crops and forests) from regulated pests and diseases, including deliberate threats to the resource base, and regulation of agricultural products. Programs and services are developed and delivered to protect Canadian plant resources, fertilizers and plant products. Public confidence in plants, production systems and plant products is significantly enhanced by Canada’s reputation for effectively mitigating the risk of serious pests and diseases.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
61.3 | 70.5 | 68.3 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
660 | 687 | 27 |
Actual Spending decreased by $21.4 M since 2009–10 ($89.7M). This is mainly due to one-time funding received in 2009–10 to assist in the payment of litigation costs, a decrease in compensation payments which fluctuate annually ($2.2M), as well as other corporate adjustments.
The following table identifies the CFIA’s expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Plant Health Risks and Production Systems program activity, and reports 2010–11 performance results measured against these expectations. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risks to the plant resource base are managed within acceptable limits. | 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) | No evidence, as confirmed by CFIA’s data, of the entry and establishment of new, foreign regulated plant diseases and pests into Canada through specified regulated pathways. | 1 Entry | Not Met | Lower Confidence |
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. | 3 pests outside regulated area | Not Met | Higher Confidence | |
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. | 37% communicated in less than one month | Not Met | Moderate Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding the CFIA's performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
Plant Protection Programs: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/plavege.shtml
Plant Pests: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/pestravae.shtml
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
In 2010–11, one low-risk pest, Japanese apple rust (Gymnosporangium yamadae) which is currently identified on the Regulated Pest List was identified as having entered and established in Canada. Based on a pest risk assessment and initial risk management analysis, it has been determined that this is a low-risk pest for Canada. This pest is also present and not currently regulated in the US. When the CFIA confirms that a plant pest or disease has been detected in Canada, the CFIA responds quickly by investigating the risk posed to Canada’s plant resource base and by developing strategies for control and eradication as appropriate.
Compliance Approaches and Methods
Change in presence of plant diseases or pests – 3 pests outside regulated area – Not met
Plant Health Risk communication – 37% communicated within one month – Not met
The Pest Risk Analysis process is a three-step process, based on international standards, that includes Pest Risk Assessment, Pest Risk Management, and Pest Risk Communication. The CFIA first conducts Pest Risk Assessments to evaluate potential biological risks that a plant commodity, pest, or plant pest pathway (e.g. soil) had on Canada. Based on the Pest Risk Assessment and an assessment of other factors, such as economic and trade issues, a proposed management strategy is developed, and a Risk Management Document is completed. Following consultations with stakeholders on the management strategy contained in the Risk Management Document, the CFIA communicates the final approach.
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-5, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Plant Health Risks and Production Systems program activity:
In keeping with most regulatory organizations, a significant contribution to the success of the regulatory programs that the CFIA administers is the awareness and engagement of the regulated parties, of partners, and of the Canadian public. This awareness helps stakeholders understand the objectives and importance of the programs and enables them to help meet the goal of mitigating risks to the plant resources base. This maximizes the effectiveness of the programs. In 2010–11, the CFIA:
The CFIA recognizes that mitigation of risks to the plant resource base depends on effective environmental scanning, identification of high-risk pests and pathways, and collaboration between internal and external stakeholders to develop and implement effective risk mitigation measures for plant commodities. Additionally, the ongoing evaluation of programs and subsequent refinement, where appropriate, is important to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness. In 2010–11, the CFIA:
Performance highlights for ongoing activities under Plant Health Risks and Production Systems included:
Originally detected in the Toronto/Vaughn area of Ontario in 2003, the Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALHB) is currently under an eradication program being implemented by the CFIA in collaboration with the municipalities involved. More than 25,000 infested trees have been removed since 2003, with no beetles detected since 2008. After two more years of nil detections, in 2013, the CFIA will be able to declare ALHB as successfully eradicated from Canada. The CFIA is strengthening its import policy with respect to this pest, and it is continuing to conduct national surveys and collaborate with partners with regard to communication and research efforts.
In 2008, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) completed an audit which highlighted the CFIA’s challenges with respect to managing risks to the plant resources base. Key findings of the OAG identified the need for tools, processes, and data analysis capacity to help prioritize and apply a targeted approach to delivering activities that focus on protecting Canada’s plant resource base within the resource levels available. Since 2009, the CFIA has implemented refined processes and prioritization tools to support the completion of pest risk assessments and the delivery of surveys.
Due to an increase in the volume and the complexity of global trade, plant protection organizations around the world are facing greater challenges with respect to implementing effective environmental protection measures. Based on past experience, the CFIA recognizes the value in working with other plant protection organizations to develop international standards that mitigate risks associated with global trade. In the longer term, the CFIA is also exploring the development of an international engagement strategy on plants, a strategy that will guide international engagement activities, thus targeting resource investments to maximize results and benefits. Continued risk mitigation will also be reliant upon clear and transparent communication of Canadian import requirements to all stakeholders, including the CFIA’s international partners.
Program Activity Description:
Protection of Canada’s biodiversity is critical to the sustainability of Canada’s environment. Biodiversity protection programming plays an important role in minimizing and managing risks to Canada’s environment by developing and delivering programs and risk mitigation strategies to protect Canada’s biodiversity from the spread of invasive species and other pests due to environmental change, and from novel agricultural products, including products of emerging technologies. Programs are developed and delivered to assess and manage environmental safety for the introduction of agricultural products. Through these programs, public confidence in Canada’s ability to assess and manage the risks associated with the introduction of new species and/or new agricultural products is maintained and significantly enhanced.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
12.9 | 12.9 | 10.8 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
99 | 116 | 17 |
The following table identifies the CFIA’s expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Biodiversity Protection program activity. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risks to bioversity within the animal and plant resource base are managed within acceptable limits | 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: 90% | 96% | Met | Higher Confidence |
Novel Supplements: 95% | 96% | Met | Moderate Confidence | ||
Novel Feed: 80% | N/A | No Inspections Performed | N/A | ||
Veterinary Biologics: 80% | 100% | Met | Moderate Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding the CFIA's performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
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
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
Plants with Novel Traits – 96% compliance – Met
Novel Supplements – 96% compliance – Met
Veterinary Biologics – 100% compliance – Met
Novel Feed – N/A
Compliance Approaches and Methods
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
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-6, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Biodiversity Protection program activity:
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 safety or sustainability. With ongoing advancement in new technologies and new products, the CFIA must work closely with its partners to enable regulatory programs to keep pace with innovation in Canada wherever possible. To that end, in 2010–11, the CFIA:
Performance highlights for ongoing activities under Biodiversity Protection included:
The CFIA conducted an environmental assessment and authorized unconfined environmental release of drought-tolerant corn. This made Canada the first country in the world to authorize a drought-tolerant crop for commercial planting. Drought-tolerant crops, which require less water, may enable Canadian farmers to obtain higher yields in spite of climate change. The environmental assessments of drought-tolerant crops are more complex and challenging than those for crops with more familiar types of traits, such as tolerance to herbicides or resistance to insects.
In the past, the Fertilizer Program experienced file review backlogs which caused significant delays in product approvals and registrations. This affected the CFIA’s ability to meet its service delivery standards, which then affected the introduction of new fertilizers and supplements into the Canadian marketplace for Canadian farmers. In consultation with stakeholders, a backlog reduction action plan was developed and implemented, resulting in the elimination of file backlogs. Over the past fiscal year, the Fertilizer program worked towards further streamlining the regulatory requirements and improving service delivery standards. This work included a tiered, risk-based approach where well established products with a history of performance and marketplace acceptance are subject to reduced requirements.
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 CFIA 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 reflecting Canada's interests when negotiating technical arrangements and standards in the international arena. In carrying out activities toward the achievement of this strategic outcome, the CFIA focused its efforts on the following five priorities:
Work under the Integrated Regulatory Frameworks and Domestic and International Market Access program activities is primarily aimed at addressing the Program Framework and Partnerships risk areas; however, it also benefits the other key risk areas noted above.
Program Activity Description:
Integrated regulatory frameworks programming enables the economic prosperity of Canadians through its contribution to the development and effective implementation of national and international regulatory frameworks for food, animals and plants, and their products that are transparent, science-based, rules-based and mutually reinforcing. By contributing to the development of these frameworks, the ability of different jurisdictions to protect against sanitary and phytosanitary risks and to pursue other legitimate objectives in a manner that is consistent with a fair and competitive market economy is reinforced.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
9.7 | 9.1 | 6.8 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
66 | 51 | (15) |
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Integrated Regulatory Frameworks program activity. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Percentage of regulatory initiatives that meet publication requirements for publication in either the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II10 | ≥ 95% of regulatory initiatives meet publication requirements | 52% | Not Met | Moderate Confidence |
Extent to which the net quantity, composition, labelling and advertising of non-registered11 food products inspected is accurate. | 70% of products, labels and advertisements inspected are accurately represented. | 79% | Met | Higher Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding the CFIA's performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
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
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
Regulatory initiatives that meet publication requirements – 52% compliance – Not met
Labelling accuracy – 79% compliance – Met
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-7, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Integrated Regulatory Frameworks program activity:
The CFIA worked with stakeholders to address and provide guidance on priority regulatory areas of interest to Canadians and undertook the following in 2010–11:
The CFIA continued to strengthen and modernize its regulatory base to enhance its user fee regime and the regulation of animals, plants, and related products. For instance, the CFIA undertook the following work:
In adherence with the GoC Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation, the CFIA worked to improve the horizontal regulatory framework for agri-food programs, and made the following efforts in 2010–11:
The CFIA also continued to evolve its food labelling requirements to meet the needs of consumers and industry; this included:
A new interactive food product labelling tool, providing stakeholders with an easy overview of the mandatory food labelling requirements in Canada, is available on The CFIA's website. More detailed food labelling requirements can also be quickly accessed online.
Through continual performance monitoring, the CFIA noted a marked decrease in its capacity to meet performance targets with respect to the completion and approval of regulatory packages. While analysis revealed several factors impacting its performance in this area, key factors included the CFIA's ability to comply with Government of Canada directives for streamlining regulations. Close examination demonstrated a need for internal enhancements in order to meet cost benefit analysis requirements. To address this challenge, the CFIA worked with various partners within the Government of Canada to obtain support in cost benefit training and to obtain other resources to enhance the CFIA's ability to comply with directives. These measures, in conjunction with a new regulatory prioritization approach that provides for more flexible work planning, are key to addressing the CFIA's performance in this area.
Program Activity Description:
Domestic and international market access programming contributes to securing the conditions for an innovative and prosperous economy. It does so primarily by enabling products to enter markets through the implementation and enforcement of an effective and efficient regulatory system that is accessible, understandable and responsive to domestic and international market requirements. Information provided to consumers by producers is verified as truthful and not misleading, and Canadian products are verified as meeting high quality and safety standards.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
32.3 | 35.3 | 34.5 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
528 | 525 | (3) |
The following table identifies the CFIA's expected results, performance indicators, and targets for the Domestic and International Market Access program activity. For more detailed information, including results from previous reporting periods, refer to the Summary of Performance Indicators in Section 4.1. Where applicable, performance indicator results have been rounded down to the nearest percentage point.
Expected Results |
Performance Indicators* |
Targets | Performance Status | Data Quality Rating* | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canadian producers of food, plants, animals and related products operate within a fair and efficient marketplace, from which Canadian consumers benefit | Extent to which certified food, animal and plant shipments meet the receiving country's import requirements | ≥ 99% meet requirements | Food – Meat | 99% | Met | Moderate Confidence |
Food – Fish and Seafood | 99% | Met | Higher Confidence | |||
Food – Processed Egg | 100% | Met | Moderate Confidence | |||
Animal | 99% Live Animal Only | Met | Lower Confidence | |||
Plant | 99% | Met | Moderate Confidence |
* For more information on data ratings and limitations regarding the CFIA's performance indicators, please see Section 2.1.2.1.
In 2010, the CFIA received 361 applications for plant breeders' rights (PBR), granting intellectual property rights to 300 plant varieties; this gives the breeder exclusive rights to produce for sale and to sell the reproductive material of a certain variety. The CFIA also renewed the protection of 1665 varieties previously approved for the granting of rights.
For more information on PBR, please visit: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pbrpov/pbrpove.shtml
Destination Inspection Services: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/frefra/dis/dise.shtml#serv
Canada Organic Regime: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtml
Performance Summary, Trending and Compliance Methods
Meat – 99% compliance – Met
Animal – 99% compliance – Met
Plant – 99% compliance – Met
In addition to the performance results summarized in Table 2-8, the CFIA also achieved the following results under the Domestic and International Market Access program activity:
The CFIA continued to work with international organizations to promote and influence the development and implementation of coherent and consistent international standards. To that end, the CFIA:
The CFIA also worked to further enhance the understanding of Canada's robust regulatory system by foreign counterparts in order to improve market access opportunities. This is achieved through regular meetings with its foreign counterparts, incoming or outgoing missions that involve reviewing how Canada's regulatory system protects plants, animals and the food supply. For example:
In 2010, the CFIA continued its efforts in monitoring and communicating Canadian herd disease status and managing herd certification programs. For example:
In 2010–11, the CFIA continued to modernize the import/export certification process to facilitate compliance with import and export regulatory requirements:
The CFIA continued to participate in, coordinate, and support the development of international standards and trade rules relevant to food, animal, and plant products that reflect Canada's interests. For example:
In January 2009, the Minister of Agriculture announced the creation of the Market Access Secretariat (MAS). The MAS is a collaborative effort between AAFC and the CFIA, and it is to be the focal point for targeted agricultural market access activities in priority international markets. The CFIA is committed to working in collaboration with the MAS to develop and implement strategic initiatives related to market access. The CFIA has contributed veterinarians and plant health specialists to be colocated in the MAS and has leveraged the role of Chief Technical Market Access Negotiator to provide technical trade support expertise to the MAS. The CFIA and MAS are continuing market access negotiations with a number of countries including China, Russia, Korea, India, and the EU.
In 2008, the CFIA piloted a program which established veterinary positions in Tokyo, Beijing, Mexico City, and Brussels to support market access and recovery efforts for beef and cattle following Canada's findings of BSE. The CFIA's representation abroad has been instrumental in minimizing market access restrictions when foreign animal disease outbreaks occur and in maintaining and regaining markets for beef, pork and poultry products. Positions abroad also enable enhanced access to important information on food safety, animal health, and plant health issues in the countries and regions represented.
This pilot was reviewed in 2010–11. Through interviews with industry and government stakeholders, it was confirmed that the program would play an important role in advancing market access initiatives and establishing strong regulatory relationships to more effectively manage food safety, animal health, and plant protection import programs. The review also provided the opportunity to identify areas for improvement, including enhanced communication of the role that CFIA staff members situated abroad play in the broader market access team, increased training and support for specialists prior to being posted abroad, and greater integration and communication with the headquarters team.
Given how CFIA staff located abroad contribute to both market access and broader CFIA import activities, an ongoing Technical Specialists Abroad program has been established. The four original postings have been augmented with additional positions in Moscow and New Delhi.
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 are: Management and Oversight Services; Legal Services; Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management Services; Information Technology Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; Acquisition Services; and Travel and Other Administrative Services. Internal Services include only those activities and resources that apply across an organization and not to those provided specifically to a program.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending |
---|---|---|
118.6 | 155.3 | 160.7 |
Planned | Actual | Difference |
---|---|---|
1,036 | 1,012 | (24) |
In 2009–10, the CFIA incurred expenditures of $141.9M (19.8%) within Internal Services. Expenditures increased by $18.8M to $160.7M (22%) in 2010–11 largely due to payments made to Public Works and Government Services Canada for additional space occupancy for the CFIA, a one-time space consolidation project for the CFIA, costs incurred in support of an increased Information Management / Information Technology capacity, and other corporate adjustments.
The CFIA continued to strengthen its internal management processes and systems under the Internal Services program activity by:
The CFIA was once again selected as one of the NCR’s Top 25 Employers and, for the first time, as one of Canada’s Best Diversity Employers for 2010. These recognitions demonstrate the CFIA’s commitment to its employees and help in its ongoing efforts to attract talent and strengthen its position as an employer of?choice.
As Canada's largest science-based regulator, the CFIA relies on high-quality, timely, and relevant science to make informed decisions that contribute to international capacity-building for global health and food security. To demonstrate the important multi-faceted work that CFIA scientists completed in 2010, the CFIA published the Science at Work brochure.
To ensure that the Agency is in a position to meet its core business of food safety and inspection and to respond to emergency situations should they arise, the Agency identified the resourcing, retention, learning, and succession planning needs of EG-03 and EG-04 inspectors as priority activities.
A Steering Committee on Inspector Hiring was established in May 2010 and given the task of redefining how staffing is carried out. Process improvements were identified and, as a result, the following solutions and tools were implemented:
In 2009–10, the CFIA focused on developing key plans for the future and improving critical areas of infrastructure by:
Delivering 19 of 21 projects in 2010–11. This was carried out in six provinces at the following laboratories: Burnaby, Calgary, Dartmouth, Lethbridge, Ottawa, Saskatoon, and St. Hyacinthe, and it provided the opportunity to address deferred maintenance. These projects were delivered on time and on budget. The CFIA delivered 93% of the Canada's Economic Action Plan projects on time. The program reduced the risk of asset failure and the associated impact on program delivery while ensuring safe modern facilities for our scientists.
Planned Spending | Total Authorities14 | Actual Spending14 |
---|---|---|
14.2 | 16.0 | 15.8 |
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% | 93% (28 of 30) of projects have been delivered as of March 31, 2011. The remaining two projects have slight schedule overruns due to the unavailability of equipment (air handlers) and qualified contractors. They will be completed in May 2011. |
Percentage of CEAP funds spent | 100% | 99% |
Of the total program funding of $24.03M for 2009–10 and 2010–11, 99% was spent. Note that the surplus ($1.8M) of 2009–10 funds was carried forward to 2010–11 as certain projects spanned both years.
The financial highlights presented within the Agency's Performance Report are intended to serve as a general overview of the CFIA's financial position and operations. Financial statements are prepared in accordance with accrual accounting principles, Treasury Board accounting policies and year-end instructions issued by the Office of
the Comptroller General which are consistent with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles for the public sector as required under Section 31 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. The Agency has been audited since its creation and has always received an unqualified opinion.
Condensed Statement of Financial Position As at March 31 |
% Change | 2011 | 2010 |
---|---|---|---|
Assets | |||
Total Assets | 11.54% | 317,851 | 284,961 |
Total | 11.54% | 317,851 | 284,961 |
Liabilities | |||
Total Liabilities | 10.94% | 221,338 | 199,515 |
Equity | |||
Total Equity | 12.95% | 96,513 | 85,446 |
Total | 11.54% | 317,851 | 284,961 |
Condensed Statement of Operations Year ended March 31 |
% Change | 2011 | 2010 |
---|---|---|---|
EXPENSES | |||
Total Expenses | 3.78% | 839,043 | 808,476 |
REVENUES | |||
Total Revenues | 1.48% | 56,570 | 55,743 |
Net Cost of Operations | 3.95% | 782,473 | 752,733 |
Total assets at the end of 2010-2011 were $318 million, an increase of $33 million (12%) over previous year's total assets of $285 million. The $33 million increase in total assets was caused by a $25 million increase in non-financial assets from major acquisitions that included mostly leasehold improvements of buildings. The amount of Due from Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) also increased of $6 million from last year, which is in line with the increase in payables and accrued salaries at year end. Tangible assets represented the largest portion of total assets, at $233 million (73%) of total assets, while Due from CRF represented 23% at $74 million. Accounts receivable only represented 3%, followed by inventory which represented less than 1% of total assets.
Total liabilities at the end of 2010-2011 were $221 million, an increase of $21 million (11%) over the previous year's total liabilities of $200 million. The $21 million increase is explained by the increase of $11 million in non-pay accounts payables, $2 million in accrued liabilities and $8 million in employee severance benefits due to an increase in the Treasury Board employee base rate. Employee severance benefits represented 48% of total liabilities, at $106 million, followed by the accounts payable which represented 38% of total liabilities, at $84 million. Vacation pay represented $29 million (13%), while deferred revenue represented less 1% of total liabilities.
The total expenses for CFIA were $839 million in 2010-2011, an increase of $31 million (4%) compare to last year. The CFIA increase in budgetary expenses for 2011 was for the most part caused by an increase in the salary base which represented approx $23 million along with an $8 million increase in the employee severance benefits due to an overall increase in the Treasury Board employee base rate. The majority of the expenses, $433 million (52%), was under Strategic Outcome 1. Strategic Outcome 2 represented $184 million (22%) of total expenses, while Internal Services expenses represented $157 million (19%) of total expenses. Approximately 8% of all expenses were derived from Strategic Outcome 3.
The Agency's total revenues amounted to $57 million for 2010-2011. Revenues for 2010-2011 remained fairly constant with the revenues earned in 2009-2010. More than half of the revenue was derived from the Strategic Outcome 1. Strategic Outcome 3 represented 28% of all revenues ($16 million), where 14% ($8 million), were derived from Strategic Outcome 2. Less than 2% of all revenues were from Internal Services.
Section III information tables listed in the 2010-11 Departmental Performance Report can be found on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Website at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2010-2011/inst/ica/ica00-eng.asp
Section IV information listed in the 2010-11 Departmental Performance Report can be found on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's website at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/ar/2010-11dpr/sect4e.shtml
1 This number includes active, employees on leave status, and suspended employees.
2 Strategic outcome: Long-term and enduring benefit to Canadians that stems from the Agency’s vision and mission. It represents the difference the Agency intends to make for Canadians.
3 Type is defined as follows: Previously committed to—committed to in the first or second fiscal year before the subject year of the report; Ongoing—continuing or permanent commitment; and New—newly committed to in the reporting year of the DPR.
4 Risk areas have been derived from the CFIA’s Corporate Risk Profile (CRP). For more information on the CRP and its risk areas, please refer to Section 1.5.
5 The wording of this indicator changed from the 2010–11 RPP. It no longer includes registered food products. The accuracy of nutrition information concerning registered food products is verified as part of the inspections for federally registered establishments, and their performance is reported in Table 2-2.
6 Monitoring approach: Inspections, sampling and tests are conducted in such a way that the resulting compliance rates are representative of the CFIA-regulated population. Monitoring programs provide an adequate overview of industry competence in general.
7 Targeted approach: In cases where monitoring has identified specific compliance problems, the CFIA takes a targeted approach to inspections, sampling, and testing by focusing on the problem area and areas of highest risk. Non-compliant establishments or products are often sought out for the targeted approach to better define problem areas and reasons for non-compliance. For this reason, compliance rates of targeted programs are typically lower. Improved compliance is promoted through enforcement actions.
8 Investigative approach: Compliance is assessed for the purposes of prosecution for non-compliance. Investigations involve gathering evidence and information from a variety of sources considered relevant to a suspected violation or offence.
9 For 2010–11, reporting was done by calendar year instead of fiscal year.
10 The wording of this indicator changed from the 2010–11 RPP from the following: “Percentage of regulatory initiatives that meet publication requirements for publication in either the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II to cover all publishing requirements.”
11 The wording of this indicator changed from the 2010–11 RPP. It no longer includes registered food products. The accuracy of net quantity, composition, labelling, and advertising of registered food products is inspected as part of the inspections for Federally Registered Establishments, and performance is reported in Table 2-7.
12 Pulse: The edible seeds of various crops (as peas, beans, or lentils) of the legume family.
13 The final policy and a summary of comments received from stakeholders can be viewed at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/agen/manges/mangese.shtml
14 The Authorities and Actual Spending figures of Canada’s Economic Action Plan (CEAP) are inclusive of Employee Benefit Plans (EBP).