Public Opinion Research with
businesses and consumers for the CFIA annual reputation survey: 2021-2022
Final report
Prepared for the Canadian Inspection Agency
Supplier name: Patterson, Langlois
Consultants
Contract number: 39903-210663/001/CY
Contract value: $207,277.17
Award date: December 9, 2021
Delivery date: March 31, 2022
Registration number: POR # 043-21
For more information on this report, please
contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at:
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
Public
Opinion Research with businesses and consumers for the CFIA annual reputation
survey: 2021-2022
Prepared
for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Supplier name: Patterson, Langlois Consultants
March 2022
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français
sous le titre : Recherche sur l’opinion publique auprès des entreprises et
des consommateurs aux fins du sondage annuel sur la réputation de l’ACIA :
2021-2022
This public opinion research report presents the results of the focus
groups, in-depth interviews and online surveys conducted by Patterson, Langlois
Consultants on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The research was conducted between
February 3rd and March 18th, 2022.
This
publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written
permission must be obtained from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. For more
information on this report, please contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
at:
or
at:
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y9
Catalogue
Number: A104-208/2022E-PDF
International Standard Book Number
(ISBN):
978-0-660-44160-3
Related
publications (registration number): 978-0-660-44161-0
A104-208/2022F-PDF (Final Report, French)
Ó Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2022
Political Neutrality Statement
I hereby certify as a Representative of Patterson, Langlois Consultants
that the final deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada
political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and
Federal Identity and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion
Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on
electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the
electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed: Date: March 28, 2022
________________________________
John Patterson, Principal
Patterson, Langlois Consultants
Table of Contents
Research
Purpose and Objectives
Consumer
perceptions of the CFIA and food safety
Consumer
perceptions of the CFIA brand.
Business
perceptions of the CFIA
Businesses’
perception of Agency attributes and values
Regulated
businesses’ appreciation of Agency communications
Enhancing
the CFIA’s Reputation
Consumer
Perceptions of the CFIA and Food Safety
Familiarity
and sources of awareness
Qualitative
consumer insights: Linkage between the CFIA and food safety
Confidence
in the safety of Canada’s food supply
Qualitative
insights on public faith in the food safety regime
Qualitative
insights on consumer understanding of the CFIA
Key
driver analysis - Consumers
Message
evaluation - Consumers
Consumer
perceptions of CFIA institutional attributes and values
Consumer
perceptions of CFIA’s Focus
Business
perceptions of the CFIA
CFIA
reputation and performance indicators among businesses
Qualitative
insights on CFIA reputation among businesses
Qualitative
insights on the CFIA “doing what is right”
Business
confidence in Canadian food safety
Business
confidence in safeguarding of food, plant and animals
Agency
performance in safeguarding safety of food among businesses
Agency
performance in safeguarding safety of plant health among businesses
Agency
performance in safeguarding safety of animal health among businesses
Qualitative
insights on the Agency’s reputation, continued
Business
evaluation of CFIA attributes and institutional values
Key
drivers analysis - Businesses.
Business
impression of CFIA staff / leadership and effectiveness
Qualitative
insights on the Agency’s priorities
Assessment
of CFIA communications and relations with industry
Profile
of consumer sample (S1a, S2, C1, X2-X8)
Profile
of business sample (S3, X1-X15)
Statistical
analysis definitions
Number,
location and composition of groups
Qualitative
Screener - Consumer
Qualitative
Discussion Guide - Consumer
Qualitative
Discussion Guide - Business
Executive summary
Research Purpose and Objectives
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) mandate
is to safeguard food, animals, and plants to protect the health and well-being
of Canada's people, environment, and economy. The Agency designs, develops and
implements several programs in collaboration with other stakeholders, such as
federal departments, consumer advocacy groups, provincial and municipal
organizations, and members of industry. This collaboration around oversight,
enforcement activities, acts and policies is necessary to ensure that the Agency
adapts appropriately and effectively to rapidly evolving realities in the
Canadian market and around the world. These tasks are complex and require the Agency
to capture and assess feedback from many sources. The collaboration is also
essential to ensure that the Agency spends its limited resources wisely,
focusing them where they have the most positive impact on the safety of
Canada’s food, plant and animal resources.
Finally, and to interface properly and wield
appropriate influence with its many stakeholders, the CFIA must not only
maintain, but properly understand its reputation and brand image. This focus on
reputation and brand image not only reflects the organization’s valuation of
its stakeholders, but its commitment to ensuring that both its internal and
external actions are conducted in a way that preserves trust.
To this end, the CFIA has set up this annual public
opinion exercise to measure its reputation among key stakeholders, namely businesses
in the food, plant, and animal sectors, as well as Canadian consumers.
The first wave of this study, done in 2021, set “benchmarks” (or initial baseline
measures) for the Agency’s strategically important indicators. This report
presents the result of the second wave of this study, which provides the Agency
with an opportunity to reassess its reputation and how it has evolved since the
previous year. The results of this research will be used to help the CFIA
manage and improve its communication activities, assist in the Agency’s
strategic planning, as well as inform program, policy, and the delivery of
services.
More specifically, the objectives of this study were
to:
•
Gather data on reputation, trust and other brand
attributes that allows the Agency to manage and develop the CFIA brand across all
business lines and track these indicators of trust and reputation over time
•
Measure the percentage of Canadians who agree that
CFIA’s activities help ensure food sold in Canada is safe
•
Conduct key driver analysis to understand the role
awareness, trust and confidence have on overall performance
•
Test key messages and brand attributes
•
Measure how food, plant and animal businesses and
association stakeholders assess CFIA services
•
Assess satisfaction with existing communication tools
and tactics
•
Assess preferred methods of communication for each
stakeholder segment
Summary of Methodology Used
The 2022 wave of this project was completed in 2 parts, first through a
survey with 3,001 consumers via an online panel which took an average of 10 minutes
to complete. An
online survey was chosen because of its capacity to deliver the survey to a broadly
representative sample of Canadians efficiently, and because it is well-adapted
to Canadians’ communication habits. There are limitations to online panels for generalizing
the results to the target population, and caution should be taken when applying
inferential statistics.
The second part of this study was completed by surveying 1,499 Canadian
businesses (1,291 who consider themselves “food businesses”, 302 who consider
themselves “plant businesses”, and 277 who consider themselves as “animal” businesses),
who were emailed invitations sent out from Agency servers with assistance from
Advanis Research. These took approximately 19.2 minutes on average to complete.
Note that the definitions of “food”, “plant, and “animal” businesses are not
mutually exclusive: some businesses who answered this year’s survey identify
themselves as having primary activities in more than one line of business, but all
the businesses surveyed in this study have dealings with the CFIA.
Qualitative research was conducted during the research process to help improve
the questionnaire, explain the results of the surveys, and assess the Agency’s communication
tools. With consumers, the work consisted of 8 online (Zoom-based) focus groups
composed of 5 consumers each and recruited from across the country. Participants
were offered $150 for their participation in the study as compensation for
their time. The incentive was offered to compensate participants for “homework”
done prior to the discussions. This work was designed to have them research questions
about plant and animal safety from which the CFIA could get a clearer view on
how the Agency’s website and related tools help shape the Agency’s reputation
with the public.
Qualitative research with businesspeople was focused
on companies that are involved in the growing, breeding or transportation of living
plants or animals. A total of 6 focus groups (5 in English and 1 in French) were
also conducted online (on Zoom) in which participants were offered $200 as compensation
for their time and effort. Participants for the business groups (5 in each) were
recruited by way of emailed invitations to businesses on the Agency’s internal
lists, with “cold call” recruiting by professional recruiters, and from
respondents to the business survey who volunteered to participate.
Qualitative research is used for broadening the understanding
of what matters to the target audiences, and to better understand how they think.
Qualitative research illustrates the diversity of perspectives among target
audiences and reveal issues that were not previously identified or recognized
by the research team. That said, the findings from qualitative inquiry are not
and should not be construed as statistically representative of the populations
involved.
Summary of Key Findings
Consumer perceptions of the CFIA and food safety
Unaided awareness of the CFIA as the organization that
is responsible for safeguarding the nation’s supply of food, animals, and
plants was consistent with last year’s research. The number of Canadians who
could, unprompted specifically name the CFIA was 10%, that number rises
slightly in Ontario to 12% and a little higher in Atlantic Canada to 14%. Aided
awareness of the Agency is considerably higher at 68% (down slightly 3 pts from
last year’s study). 16% answer that they are familiar with the activities of
the CFIA (also down 3 pts from last year). Consistent with previous research, 77%
of Canadians have strong confidence in the safety of Canada’s food supply. Results
show a modest 4 point increase this year in Canadians (70%) with a high level
of trust (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) in the CFIA to do what is right to
ensure food is safe in Canada.
Qualitative discussions with consumers added substance and validity to
these survey results, and also confirm what was found last year, namely that Canadians’
trust is based on very limited understanding of the scope, breadth, or
complexity of the Agency’s oversight, and more on general faith in government. This
suggests that the CFIA has an opportunity to communicate with the public more
and in more detail about what it does. Participants themselves acknowledge that
they both want and should know more, and that their trust would be even
stronger if they did.
Consumer perceptions
of the CFIA brand
Consumers associate the CFIA Brand with similar attributes as last year,
although somewhat less strongly. The strongest associations were “Food recalls
are an example of the food system working” 73% (down 3 pts from last year),
“The CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians” 67% (down slightly
more, declining 8 pts) and “The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations” 63% (down 4 pts).
Consumers were asked to what extent they agree with a
series of statements, 3 of which were asked in last year’s survey, as well as 4
new ones. Most consumers remained in agreement with the 3 statements asked last
year, although levels dipped somewhat:
· “By protecting
Canada's food, animals and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the health and
well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy” 75% (same as last
year)
· “The CFIA
issues food recalls in a timely manner” 68% (down 5 pts)
· “The CFIA enforces
regulations that helps ensure animals are transported humanely” 64% (down 3 pts)
These 4 new statements were also met with considerable
agreement:
· “As a
science-based regulator, the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement” 70%
· “The CFIA enforces
regulations that help ensure Canada's plant resources are protected” 68%
· “CFIA
enforcement activities are strong enough to encourage companies to comply with
the regulations” 64%
· “CFIA helps to
facilitate international trade” 60%
The qualitative discussions suggest that the levels of
agreement with the statements remain consistent and even when there are slight
dips in agreement with last year, they are not likely a reflection of recent
events or CFIA communications, given that most consumers are not overly
knowledgeable about the Agency. 9 of 10 are unable to identify the Agency, and
even fewer report any detailed knowledge about what is done to ensure food,
plants and animals are safe guarded. In short, the broad agreement seen with
these statements reflects positive presumptions on the part of Canadians.
Key consumer drivers
A key drivers analysis indicates the relative
importance of familiarity, trust, and confidence (predictor variables) by
analysing the level of agreement with a variety of questions about the CFIA.
For each of these 3 key predictor variables, there are several important
drivers that the Agency can emphasize in their communications to build consumer
familiarity, trust, and confidence in the CFIA.
Similar to last year, results demonstrate that the
most important drivers of Agency familiarity are:
· communication
to help consumers understand what the Agency does,
· providing them
with additional ways to access information about the CFIA.
The top drivers of Agency trust also remain consistent
with last year’s results:
· driving
perceptions that CFIA is “looking out” for the best-interests of Canadians,
· has an
effective system in place to ensure food safety is the most important factor in
driving Agency trust.
Confidence in the CFIA is driven by:
· consumers’
understanding of the Agency’s mandate,
· their
understanding that food recalls are evidence of the enactment of that mandate.
Business perceptions
of the CFIA
As was the case last year, the qualitative and
quantitative findings suggest that perceptions of the Agency among the
businesses it regulates are largely positive. Food, plant, and animal
businesses have considerably more interaction with the Agency than consumers do,
and the oversight that they are subject to informs their perspective. Although the research found some complaints
(and some significant ones), it nonetheless found evidence that the Agency’s reputation
with the businesses it regulates remains largely positive and is improving over
time. There are clear signs that perceptions of the Agency are generally
improving, but not with all businesses.
There is evidence of increased familiarity with the
Agency relative to last year, testifying to improved communication: 81% of the
businesses overall are familiar (compared to 72% last year), varying very
little across business lines (82% for food, 81% for animal and 80% for plant
businesses, respectively). Additionally, the results show strong endorsement of
the CFIA’s safeguarding of food (88%), plant health (88%) and animal health (80%)
as assessed by business respondent.
Discussions with businesspeople suggest progress on
several fronts – those with long-standing and generally involved relationships
with the Agency point to improvements, notably in progress toward increasingly
digitized and efficient web-based servicing, rationalization of inspection requirements
and continued good relations with individual Agency personnel. Some issues were
noted in adjusting to evolving regulations, but even here, these more involved
participants indicated that things were being handled “as well as could be
expected”. The participants who fall outside this set of bigger, core
industries, however, were more likely to report issues communicating with the
Agency and getting their specific issues resolved. Some of these businesses
reported issues severe enough to diminish their competitiveness, their ability
to exploit new opportunities, and even their continued survival.
Businesses’ perception
of Agency attributes and values
Businesses
were asked to evaluate how the CFIA is perceived across several attributes. On
most attributes, food and plant businesses gave higher scores than animal
businesses did. High levels of agreement were noted for statements that
reference respect, helpfulness, and fairness. The CFIA received lower scores
for the statements related to relative performance of the CFIA compared to food
inspection agencies in other developed countries, and less than half of businesses
agreed that the Agency listens to their industry when it comes to understanding
specific innovation and competitive needs.
Key drivers
for businesses
A key
driver analysis was also conducted to predict the most important drivers of Agency
familiarity, trust, and confidence among businesses. Results are similar to
last year, where the top attributes that drive familiarity are related to
having respectful interactions with the agents of the CFIA, having the CFIA act
as a “fair” regulatory Agency, and the ability to have open and honest dialogue
with the Agency about regulatory policies. In terms of driving Agency trust
among businesses, the primary driver is perceived “fairness”, followed by “transparency”
in their operations, and “sensitivity” to the specific needs of businesses.
Regulated businesses’
appreciation of Agency communications
When it comes to the way that the CFIA interacts with the business
community, some preferences remain consistent with last year. For example, email is the most recalled
method of communication from the Agency by business across all business lines, up
considerably from last year, and respondents who received emails were generally
happy with the quality of communications. Usage of the CFIA website and portal
notices in My CFIA were the next highest-ranking methods of recalled
communication from the Agency.
Looking at the satisfaction of businesses with communication
from the CFIA shows that email communications account for the largest measure
of business satisfaction with the Agency: further communication appears to add
only marginally thereafter. The next most significant drivers of Agency
satisfaction are personal interaction with CFIA representative and receiving mailed
documents, both of which provide only minor improvements in satisfaction with
the CFIA.
Enhancing the CFIA’s Reputation
Among consumers
The biggest opportunity to improve CFIA reputation
among Canadians is to better educate them about the scope of the Agency’s
mandate: many Canadians do not understand the full scope of what the Agency does
and are generally confused about the responsibilities and accountability of
individual government agencies. This lack of awareness highlights opportunities
for the CFIA to provide Canadians with additional ways to access information. The
Agency can increase trust among Canadian consumers by encouraging use of its communications
tools (some of which, such as podcasts, appear to be under-used) to keep them informed
about that the CFIA is the Agency responsible for the safety of the Canadian
food, plant and animal supply and about all the work taking place to achieve
that goal. Finally, the CFIA may have opportunity to boost the already high
level of confidence of Canadian consumers by emphasizing the Agency’s mandate,
and to cement the already existing feeling that food recalls are evidence that
the CFIA’s systems are functioning properly.
Among businesses
Unlike consumers, businesses that interact with the CFIA are already very
familiar with the Agency and are generally supportive of its mandate and confident
in its operations. This research points to opportunities to improve communications
about the benefits of the Agency’s efforts in digitization of its
communications and processes. The qualitative discussions found that some
businesses – generally those who experience lower levels of oversight and less
frequent interactions – have complaints about the CFIA’s ability to communicate
with them about their specific needs, and that it is becoming increasingly harder
to find resolutions to their specific issues. These businesses tend to be
unsatisfied with using the Agency’s recently implemented digital processes
(because they are arguably too complex for their needs), and are increasingly
frustrated by perceived changes in the CFIA that seem, to them, to be making
the sorts of quick, person-to-person contact they seek impossible. These
findings suggest that the Agency may find opportunity to improve its reputation
by instituting solutions that are more appropriate for businesses of this
type.
Finally, the data suggest that the Agency may be able to enhance its
reputation by focusing on 3 qualities in its communications with businesses:
respectful interactions, fairness, and transparency. This last element has
consistently emerged as essential to fostering goodwill among businesses if the
Agency makes a mistake.
Project
Budget
The total cost to conduct this research was $207,277.17,
including HST.
Full Research
Findings
Consumer Perceptions of the CFIA and Food Safety
Awareness of the CFIA
Consumers were asked to identify which organizations
in Canada are tasked with food safety without any prompts (unaided awareness), and
the number of Canadians who could specifically name the CFIA remained the same
as last year (10%), a number that rises slightly in Ontario to 12% and is a
little higher in Atlantic Canada at 14%. When asked specifically about animal
health and plant health, the awareness numbers for CFIA are lower; only 2% cited
CFIA as the organization tasked with animal health vs 3% last year, and 4% as
the organization tasked with plant health (same as last year). When prompted, Canadians have moderate aided awareness of the CFIA
overall (68%), which is down slightly from last year (71%). This rate is lower
amongst the younger generation under age 35 (55%) and significantly lower among
Quebecers (57%).
Similar to last year, half of Canadians (49%) are
aware that moving untreated firewood from a campground or cottage can spread
invasive species. 1 in 4 (24%) are aware
that the CFIA plays an important role in preventing the spread of pests such as
Japanese beetle in Vancouver and Emerald Ash Borer in Eastern Canada.
Interestingly, only 1 in 7 (13%) Canadians are aware
that the CFIA is responsible for regulating the importation of dogs, and pet
owners over-index in this regard. These awareness levels match last year’s
survey.
Familiarity
and sources of awareness
Only 1 in 6 (16%) consumers consider himself to be
very familiar (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) with the activities of CFIA, which
is slightly lower than what was observed last year, consistent across regions.
Those under age 35 tend to have somewhat higher levels of familiarity (22%) versus
those 35-54 (17%) and 55+ (11%). While familiarity is low among consumers, 1 in
4 (26%) recall seeing/hearing about the CFIA through traditional media, and
another 1 in 6 (17%) recall information via the Internet. Half of consumers
(51%) have no recall of hearing or seeing anything related to the CFIA in 2022.
This is different from last year, when more consumers recalled hearing or
seeing CFIA material or information (only 1 in 3 consumers did not recall
seeing or hearing CFIA material or information last year).
|
A3: Where have you seen, heard, or read about the
CFIA? |
|
|
N/A |
51% |
|
Traditional media
(newspapers, TV, radio) |
26% |
|
Internet (includes internet-based news sites but not
social media) |
17% |
|
Word of mouth |
13% |
|
Social media (not including CFIA social media) |
8% |
|
Direct contact
from CFIA (includes CFIA social media and visiting the CFIA website) |
4% |
|
A digital assistant (for example, Alexa, Siri,
Google) |
2% |
|
Podcasts |
2% |
Base: consumer total N
= 3001
The following chart illustrates varying rates of
comprehension of CFIA related information absorbed from different sources. The
source of information with the highest comprehension rate was Podcasts (87%),
though it had lowest recall overall. Not surprisingly, understanding of
information about the CFIA is highest (79%) combined 5, 6, or 7 scores on a
7-point scale) when contact is direct with the Agency. Other sources of
information like the internet (excluding social media), traditional media, and
digital assistants (for example, Alexa, Siri, or Google) all provide clear
information about the CFIA for those who recall seeing messaging: more than 70%
agree that this communication is easy to understand. Information coming from social
media was considered less clear (67%), and interestingly, the clarity of information
via “word of mouth” (69%) is lower than most digital sources. Our qualitative
discussions suggest this is simply a reflection of how businesspeople tend to
reach out for person-to-person help when they can’t find information online, or
when they encounter unusual situations.
|
A4: Thinking
about what you have seen, heard, or read about the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA) indicate how well did you understand the information? |
||||||||
|
Source |
1 – Not at all |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 – Understand completely |
T3B -Rated 5,6,7 |
|
Podcasts |
0% |
0% |
3% |
11% |
42% |
24% |
21% |
87%* |
|
Direct contact from CFIA (includes CFIA social media
and visiting the CFIA website) |
1% |
1% |
5% |
15% |
23% |
24% |
31% |
79% |
|
Internet
(includes internet-based news sites but not social media) |
1% |
1% |
4% |
18% |
30% |
24% |
22% |
76% |
|
Traditional media (newspapers, TV, radio) |
1% |
1% |
7% |
18% |
33% |
21% |
19% |
73% |
|
A digital
assistant (for example, Alexa, Siri, Google) |
0% |
3% |
5% |
21% |
31% |
25% |
15% |
71% |
|
Word of mouth |
1% |
1% |
8% |
20% |
35% |
17% |
17% |
69% |
|
Social media (not
including CFIA social media) |
2% |
1% |
7% |
24% |
26% |
19% |
21% |
67% |
*Caution
base <50
Base:
Consumer, those who recall having seen/heard/read about CFIA (base differs by
where information was recalled)
Please
note that the acronym "T3B” is used throughout this report to identify
where respondents have selected a score of 5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale.
Of the 49% of Canadians who report having seen/heard
or read about the CFIA, the majority (58%) report visiting the CFIA website. Lower
proportions of respondents subscribe to food recall notices (14%) and even
fewer (11%) follow the CFIA on social media. This data suggests that
impressions of the CFIA are being shaped to a considerable extent by the Agency’s
webtools.
|
A3a: Select all the following that apply to you: |
|
|
I have visited the CFIA website |
58% |
|
I subscribe to
CFIA food recall notices |
14% |
|
I follow the CFIA on a social media platform |
11% |
|
I have listened
to the Inspect and Protect podcast |
9% |
|
I submitted a food safety or labelling concern |
7% |
|
In person
interaction with a CFIA employee |
6% |
|
I have contacted the CFIA by email or through the
website |
6% |
|
I have contacted
the CFIA by phone |
3% |
|
I subscribe to
the Chronicle 360 |
2% |
Base: Consumers who
recall seeing/ hearing reading about CFIA n = 1465
Satisfaction with CFIA
Satisfaction scores with specific forms of information
from the Agency vary. The highest satisfaction (8, 9, 10 on a 10-point scale)
was cited for “CFIA issues food recall notices in a timely manner” (51%)
followed by “the CFIA’s handling of the food safety or labelling concern you reported”
(50%) and then 46% for “CFIA phone interaction you had.”
|
A3ai Show
if A3a Level 1 through 8 selected Using a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all
satisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”. How satisfied are you... |
|||||||||||
|
0 - Not at all satisfied |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
(10) 10 - Very satisfied |
|
|
that the CFIA issues food recall notices in a
timely manner |
0% |
0% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
10% |
12% |
22% |
14% |
16% |
21% |
|
with the CFIA handling of the food safety or
labelling concern you reported |
1% |
0% |
2% |
5% |
7% |
12% |
10% |
13% |
14% |
17% |
19% |
|
with the CFIA email or website interaction you
had |
1% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
2% |
15% |
15% |
21% |
14% |
9% |
19% |
|
with the Chronicle 360 article |
0% |
0% |
0% |
12% |
0% |
8% |
12% |
14% |
16% |
20% |
18% |
|
with the CFIA phone interaction you had |
2% |
0% |
0% |
6% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
18% |
19% |
11% |
17% |
|
with the podcast Inspect and Protect |
2% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
7% |
25% |
7% |
18% |
11% |
5% |
12% |
|
with the CFIA content on social media |
1% |
1% |
1% |
4% |
4% |
22% |
16% |
16% |
15% |
10% |
12% |
|
with the usability of the CFIA website |
0% |
0% |
1% |
3% |
6% |
21% |
14% |
21% |
16% |
7% |
11% |
Base: Consumers who
recall seeing/ hearing reading about CFIA n = 1465, base differs by statement
selected
Qualitative consumer insights: Linkage between the CFIA and food safety
The consumer participants in this year’s qualitative
sessions were asked to research issues of plant and animal safety as “homework”
(see the methodology section for related instructions) and to refer to the
results of this research during our discussions. This exercise was designed to help
shed light on what the Agency’s website contributes to Canadians’ understanding
of the CFIA, its mission, its ways of working and key messages about plant and
animal health. From this exercise, we noted the following:
·
The
Agency’s site emerges as a primary and authoritative source -- but not the only
one -- on questions related to animal and plant health. It competes with other
federal, provincial, commercial and NGO websites that were often described as
easier to find and use. While these were not always seen as more authoritative
than the CFIA site, they were often preferred for reasons of simplicity, focus
on specific consumer-centric information and easily accessible practical and pragmatic
advice. In contrast, the CFIA site was critiqued for being too complex,
containing too much information, for being difficult to navigate and for
presenting overly technical information.
·
The
Agency’s site apparently offers the specific information sought – at least on
the questions about invasive species that may threaten plants or about
importing exotic animals into Canada – but it’s not easily accessed. Most
participants found this information more easily by using Google than by
navigating through the site itself, which was generally described as “complex”
and rather tangled.
· The site does not appear to
support awareness of the Agency very well. Even though participants were made aware
that the research was sponsored by the CFIA during the recruiting process and asked
to investigate questions about plant and animal health – ones clearly in the
Agency’s purview - very few were able to recall the Agency’s name or its role
even after having spent time on the CFIA website. This was apparently because
their research had also led them to a wide array of different government, departmental
and other commercial sites such as Environment Canada, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, even the Canada Border Services Agency. Many participants
reported losing sight on which part of Government is accountable for what in
this mix. This is a likely reason why participants tended to conclude that the
safety of Canada’s food supply is a shared and diffuse responsibility of
“Government” as opposed to that of a (singular) Agency.
·
That
said, and despite preferences for other sites, the Government of Canada’s websites
are widely seen as credible and authoritative. As was the case last year, this reflects
Canadians’ enduring trust in the institutions of the federal government. The
fact that several departments are communicating about essentially the same
information, however, would appear to make it more difficult for Canadians to
grasp were specific accountability for safe food lies. In short, Canadians are
getting what they feel is credible information about plant and animal health, but
also some impressions of vague, large bureaucracies with duplicated responsibilities
and distributed accountability.
Confidence in the safety of Canada’s food
supply
Consistent with last year, 77% of Canadians have considerable confidence
in the safety of Canada’s food supply (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). Age and
income are a factor here: those 55+ have a higher rate of confidence (81%) than
those under 55 (74%), and those with a household income greater than $100,000
also have a higher rate of confidence (80%) than those making under $100,000
(75%).
|
A7: Please rate your level of confidence that food
sold in Canada is safe. |
|
|
1 – Not at all confident |
2% |
|
2 |
2% |
|
3 |
4% |
|
4 |
16% |
|
5 |
27% |
|
6 |
30% |
|
7 – Very confident |
20% |
Base: Consumer total
sample N=3001
Specific indicators of trust
Results show a 4 point increase this year in Canadians
(70%) with a high level of trust (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) in the CFIA to
do what is right to ensure food is safe in Canada. This is higher among those aged 55+ (73%) versus
those under 55 (67%). When asked about their trust that food product labels identify
ingredients that may cause allergy/food sensitivity, again 70% of Canadians had
a high level of trust (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale). Among only those who
report having food allergies/sensitivities themselves or a family member in
their household (31% of Canadians), the level of trust is consistent at 71% (5,
6, or 7 on a 7-point scale). This is significantly improved versus last year,
where the trust was lower among this group (62%).
|
A5: Please rate how much you trust the Canadian food
inspection Agency (CFIA) to do what is right to help ensure that food is safe
in Canada |
|
|
1 – Not at all confident |
3% |
|
2 |
1% |
|
3 |
5% |
|
4 |
20% |
|
5 |
27% |
|
6 |
25% |
|
7 – Very confident |
17% |
Base: Consumer total
sample N=3001
|
A6: How much do you trust that food product labels
have indications regarding ingredients that may cause allergy/food
sensitivity? |
|
|
1 – Not at all confident |
3% |
|
2 |
2% |
|
3 |
6% |
|
4 |
20% |
|
5 |
28% |
|
6 |
25% |
|
7 – Very confident |
18% |
Base: Consumer total
sample N=3001
Consistent with last year, more than 3 of 4 Canadians
(76%) feel the CFIA is doing well (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) to verify the
food sold here is safe. This is consistent across demographics. The belief that
the CFIA is doing well (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) to safeguard plant health
(70%) and animal health (69%) are slightly lower than confidence around food.
|
A7a: When it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada
is safe, how well do you believe the CFIA is doing? |
|
|
1 – Not at all confident |
2% |
|
2 |
1% |
|
3 |
4% |
|
4 |
17% |
|
5 |
29% |
|
6 |
27% |
|
7 – Very confident |
20% |
Base:
Consumer total sample N=3001
|
A7b: When it comes to safeguarding plant
health (regulating pests and invasive species), how well do you believe the CFIA is doing? |
|
|
1 – Not at all confident |
2% |
|
2 |
1% |
|
3 |
5% |
|
4 |
21% |
|
5 |
30% |
|
6 |
25% |
|
7 – Very confident |
15% |
Base:
Consumer total sample N=3001
|
A7c: When it comes to safeguarding
animal health and preventing animal diseases, how well do you believe the
CFIA is doing? |
|
|
1 – Not at all confident |
2% |
|
2 |
1% |
|
3 |
5% |
|
4 |
22% |
|
5 |
29% |
|
6 |
25% |
|
7 – Very confident |
15% |
Base:
Consumer total sample N=3001
Qualitative insights on public faith in the food
safety regime
Our discussions this year revealed no substantive
changes or evolutions in how participants think about food safety or in their
trust that food in Canada remains safe, nor any new concerns. Safe food in
Canada remains an article of faith for most participants that is challenged only
very rarely by the occasional recall or media-reported event. Even when unsafe
food incidents occur, however, participants seem inclined to see organization within
the supply chain as the most accountable. Participants are generally convinced
that Canada has more than adequate food safety regulations and presume that
enforcement is robust (although few are aware of what the enforcement regime
looks like or costs, or even which part of Government is responsible).
This landscape is similar to what we found last year:
Canadians are both highly confident in the safety of the food supply and
generally unaware of how this level of safety is achieved, or which parts of
Government are responsible. Participants themselves acknowledge that their
trust in this one very specific aspect of Government accountability reflects their
faith in Government as a whole. As we noted last year, however, this rather
blind faith about the efforts of the Agency and limited awareness of the Agency
itself leaves Canadians’ trust in food vulnerable to challenges the Government
may have on other fronts. Although hinted at by only a few participants, we did
hear some point to what they felt was “all-over-the-place” responses to the
pandemic as reason to doubt what the Government was doing to ensure food
safety. This underscores the risks associated with Canadians’ “blind faith” and
suggests that investment in the communications that provides more detail about
how this level of safety is achieved would be in the public interest.
Brand attributes assessment
With the removal of some of the attributes in this
question from last year, we see that the results of the remaining attributes are
mostly consistent year-over-year. We measured agreement (5, 6, or 7 on a
7-point scale) with statements about the CFIA, and most consumers agree to a
considerable extent with important statements like “Food recalls are an example
of the food system working” (73%), and “The CFIA looks out for the best
interests of Canadians” (67%). Statements around efficacy and fairness of the
CFIA generated more middling scores; “The CFIA is effective in enforcing food
safety regulations” (63%), and “All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA”
(52%).
Some statements were not so agreeable, with less than
half of consumers “understand what the CFIA does” (47%), or thinks that “getting
more information about food, plant or animal safety from the CFIA is easy” (45%).
Overall, males and those with a university degree had higher agreement scores
across all statements.
|
A8: Below are a number of statements about the CFIA.
For each statement, please indicate how much you agree or disagree. |
||||||||
|
Statement |
1 –
Disagree completely |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 –
Agree completely |
N/A |
|
Food
recalls are an example of the food system working |
1% |
1% |
5% |
14% |
24% |
24% |
26% |
6% |
|
The CFIA looks out for the best interests of
Canadians |
1% |
1% |
5% |
17% |
24% |
22% |
21% |
8% |
|
The CFIA is
effective in enforcing food safety regulations |
1% |
2% |
5% |
18% |
27% |
22% |
15% |
11% |
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA |
1% |
2% |
6% |
16% |
21% |
17% |
14% |
22% |
|
CFIA veterinaries
are among the best in their field |
1% |
1% |
5% |
17% |
21% |
16% |
12% |
27% |
|
Getting more information about food, plant or animal
safety from the CFIA is easy |
2% |
3% |
7% |
20% |
20% |
14% |
11% |
24% |
|
I understand what
the CFIA does |
3% |
4% |
11% |
25% |
23% |
14% |
10% |
11% |
Base:
Consumer total sample N =3001
Qualitative insights on consumer understanding
of the CFIA
Participants had some general impressions reinforced as
a by-product of researching the questions in their homework exercises. The following are examples of notions they
retained, namely that:
· Canada has
high standards when it comes to animal and plant health – even “world class”.
· Strict oversight
is applied to ensure these high standards are met.
· This oversight
is focused on protection and prevention and the Canadian environment generally.
· Canada has
massive and very complex regulatory packages to ensure the above.
·
The Government’s efforts to ensure the safety of the
Canadian food supply is “massive” and spread out across a number of different
parts, notably Environment
Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency,
and the CFIA (which was often referred to as “Inspections something” or
variations on the “CFIA” acronym).
· That the whole business of ensuring
a safe food supply is “complicated” and difficult to understand.
The CFIA site in particular seems to reinforce these impressions
by “fore-fronting” regulatory acts and material intended for regulated
organizations, and by presenting what most participants felt was a huge amount
of information in a single place.
What we did not hear from participants was
clear understanding of the CFIA, its mandate, size, scope, or budget. Finally, it
was also clear that the very inefficient search function on the CFIA website contributes
to impressions that this whole business is complicated: a search for any term
results in “at least 400 hits” that ultimately do not give the answer that is
being sought. It should be noted that participants found this to be the case on
most, if not all of the Government of Canada websites they visited.
Key driver analysis - Consumers
This year’s study includes a “key driver analysis”. This analysis indicates the relative
importance of each of the predictor variables using the 7 attributes at A8 to
predict the outcome variable (Familiarity, Trust, or Confidence). For each of
these 3 key metrics, there are several important drivers that the Agency can
emphasize in their communications to build consumer familiarity, trust and
confidence in the CFIA.
Key driver analysis shows similar results to last year
in that communication to help consumers understand what the Agency does and providing
additional ways to access information about the Agency are the most important
drivers of familiarity with the CFIA. “I understand what the CFIA does” (53%)
is the most important driver of being familiar with the Agency, followed by
“Getting more information about food, plant or animal safety from the CFIA is
easy” (19%). Interestingly, the statement “CFIA veterinaries are among the best
in their field” had the 3rd strongest importance share, suggesting
that CFIA veterinaries are a relatively important driver of Agency familiarity.
|
CFIA – all attribute drivers of A2 familiarity
(total sample) |
|
|
Statement |
Share of Importance (%) |
|
I
understand what the CFIA does |
53.3 |
|
Getting more information about food, plant, or
animal safety from the CFIA is easy |
18.8 |
|
CFIA
veterinaries are among the best in their field |
9.8 |
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA |
7.0 |
|
The
CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations |
4.7 |
|
The CFIA looks out for the best interests of
Canadians |
4.9 |
|
Food
recalls are an example of the food system working |
2.5 |
Looking at the top drivers of trust in the Agency, the
same statements come up as most important this year “The CFIA looks out of the
best interests of Canadians” (23%), “The CFIA is effective in enforcing food
safety regulations” (18%) and “Food recalls are an example of the food system
working” (17%).
|
CFIA – all attribute drivers of A5 trust (total
sample) |
|
|
Statement |
Share of Importance (%) |
|
The
CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians |
22.6 |
|
The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations |
17.7 |
|
Food
recalls are an example of the food system working |
17.0 |
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA |
14.1 |
|
Getting
more information about food, plant, or animal safety from the CFIA is easy |
11.1 |
|
CFIA veterinaries are among the best in their field |
10.7 |
|
I
understand what the CFIA does |
6.8 |
Stronger confidence in the CFIA is driven by consumers’
understanding of the Agency’s mandate; “the CFIA looks out for the best
interests of Canadians” which has an 25% share of importance, their
understanding that recalls are evidence of the enactment of that mandate; “Food
recalls are an example of the food system working” 23% share of importance, and
also that “the CFIA Is effective in enforcing food safety regulations” (18%
share of importance). Consumers want to feel confident and see evidence that
the CFIA is working for them, and feel more confident when they do.
|
CFIA – all attribute drivers of A7 confidence (total
sample) |
|
|
Statement |
Share of Importance (%) |
|
The
CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians |
24.7 |
|
Food recalls are an example of the food system
working |
23.2 |
|
The
CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations |
17.8 |
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA |
11.1 |
|
CFIA
veterinaries are among the best in their field |
10.7 |
|
Getting more information about food, plant, or
animal safety from the CFIA is easy |
7.7 |
|
I
understand what the CFIA does |
4.8 |
Message evaluation - Consumers
Based on agreement ratings (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point
scale), the messages that generate the most agreement include “By protecting
Canada's food, animals and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the health and
well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy.” (75%) and “As a
science-based regulator, the CFIA is increasingly using data and technology to
be agile and responsive to new risks.” (70%), “The CFIA issues food recalls in
a timely manner” (68%), and “The CFIA enforces regulations that help ensure
Canada's plant resources are protected” (68%). Secondary messaging with lower
agreement scores includes “The CFIA enforces regulations that helps ensure
animals are transported humanely” (64%), “CFIA enforcement activities are
strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations” (64%), and
“CFIA helps to facilitate international trade” (60%).
|
B1: Below are some statements to
describe the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). How
much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? |
|
|||||||
|
Statement |
1 – disagree completely |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 – agree completely |
|
|
By
protecting Canada’s food, animals, and plants, the CFIA is contributing to
the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment, and the economy |
1% |
1% |
4% |
19% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
|
|
As a science-based regulator, the CFIA is believable
when it issues a statement |
1% |
2% |
5% |
22% |
26% |
24% |
20% |
|
|
The
CFIA issues food recall warnings in a timely manner |
2% |
2% |
6% |
22% |
27% |
24% |
18% |
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations that help ensure
Canada's plant resources are protected |
2% |
1% |
5% |
24% |
29% |
22% |
17% |
|
|
The
CFIA enforces regulations that helps ensure animals are transported humanely |
3% |
2% |
7% |
25% |
29% |
20% |
15% |
|
|
CFIA enforcement activities are strong enough to
encourage companies to comply with the regulations |
2% |
2% |
8% |
24% |
29% |
21% |
15% |
|
|
CFIA
helps to facilitate international trade |
2% |
2% |
7% |
29% |
29% |
18% |
14% |
|
Base:
Consumer total sample N = 3001)
Consumers were then asked to rank the top 3 priorities
for the CFIA. The number 1 ranked priority was “Verifying safe food is sold to
consumers” by 44% of the sample. Next in priority was “Verifying importers do
not import contaminated or fraudulent foods” (13%) and third priority was “Helping
to keep foreign animal diseases out of Canada” (10%). “Helping to keep
international markets open to Canadian food, plant and animal products” seemed
least important to Canadian consumers, as less would be directly impacted by
market closure to Canadian products.
|
Statement |
RANK 1 |
2 |
3 |
||
|
Verifying safe food is sold to consumers |
44% |
17% |
13% |
||
|
Verifying
importers do not import contaminated or fraudulent foods |
13% |
20% |
17% |
||
|
Helping to keep foreign animal diseases out of
Canada |
12% |
13% |
15% |
||
|
Helping
prevent the spread of plant pests and animal diseases in Canada |
10% |
16% |
16% |
||
|
Verifying the safety and quality of feed,
fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds in Canada |
10% |
15% |
15% |
||
|
Helping
prevent plant pests and invasive species from entering Canada |
8% |
12% |
15% |
||
|
Helping to keep international markets open to
Canadian food, plant and animal products |
4% |
7% |
10% |
||
Base:
Consumer total N = 3001
A TURF analysis (Total Unduplicated Reach and
Frequency) was used to measure which individual and unique messages contribute
most to what consumers hear about the Agency. Consistent with the 2021 results,
the most effective message overall was “By protecting Canada's food, animals
and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians,
the environment and the economy” which met with agreement from 75% of
respondents. The next most unique and effective message (identified by removing
all participants who selected the first message) is “The CFIA issues food recall
warnings in a timely manner”, which generates an incremental 5% contribution to
reach. The remaining contributing message is “As a science-based regulator, the
CFIA is believable when it issues a statement” which adds an incremental 2%. Incremental
reach levels off at this point, showing that these 3 messages have the
potential to reach 82% of consumers.
|
CFIA consumer B1 messages
- incremental reach (T3B%) |
||
|
Statement |
% |
Cumulative reach |
|
By protecting Canada's food, animals
and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the health and well-being of
Canadians, the environment and the economy |
75 |
75 |
|
The CFIA issues food recall warnings
in a timely manner |
5 |
80 |
|
As a science-based regulator, the
CFIA is believable when it issues a statement |
2 |
82 |
|
The CFIA enforces regulations that
helps ensure animals are transported humanely |
1 |
83 |
|
The CFIA enforces regulations that
help ensure Canada's plant resources are protected |
1 |
84 |
|
CFIA enforcement activities are
strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations |
1 |
85 |
|
CFIA helps to facilitate
international trade |
0 |
85 |
Base: Consumer total N = 3001
Consumer perceptions of CFIA institutional
attributes and values
When asked to consider a list of attributes that apply
to the CFIA, “Scientific” (47%), “Informative” (41%) and “Trusted” (40%) are referenced
most often. This list was shortened from last year, though results for top and
bottom attributes were quite similar. Roughly a third of respondents selected “Responsive”,
“Dedicated” and “Efficient”. Words not generally associated with the CFIA are “Punitive”
(5%), “Innovative” (9%) and “Global Leader” (10%). The reader will note that
the list of attributes presented to respondents in this year’s survey are
mostly new and fewer in number. These changes were made to improve focus on the
questions currently at hand for the Agency.
|
B4 Please look at the
following list of words, and select the ones that in
your view, describe the CFIA. |
|
|
Word |
% |
|
Scientific
|
47 |
|
Informative |
41 |
|
Trusted |
40 |
|
Responsive |
32 |
|
Dedicated |
31 |
|
Efficient |
31 |
|
Fair
|
24 |
|
Service
oriented |
23 |
|
Consistent |
22 |
|
Caring |
22 |
|
Respectful |
21 |
|
Collaborative |
15 |
|
Transparent |
15 |
|
Global
Leader |
10 |
|
Innovative |
9 |
|
Punitive |
4 |
|
None
of the above |
10 |
Base:
Consumer total N = 3001
Consumer perceptions of CFIA’s Focus
Consumers
believe that the CFIA is mostly involved in activities at the border: “Checking
food products being imported into Canada” (75%), and “Checking plant products
coming into Canada” (69%). About half of consumers think the CFIA is involved
in regulating “insects, fungus and other pests that affect plant health, but do
not have a direct impact on the ability of consumers to eat the plant as food”
(55%). Roughly half of consumers perceive the CFIA to be involved in situations
involving animals being imported or exported, whether as pets, for food, or for
other reasons. Less than 1 in 3 perceive the CFIA to be implicated in food
safety at restaurants, whether it be sanitary conditions or improperly cooked
food.
|
B6 From the following list, indicate which of the
following situations you believe the CFIA is involved in? |
|
|
% Selected |
|
|
Checking food products being imported into the
country |
75% |
|
Checking plant products coming into the country |
69% |
|
Insects, fungus and other pests that affect plant
health, but do not have a direct impact on the ability of consumers to eat
the plant as food |
55% |
|
A dog being brought into Canada to be permanently
adopted by a person living in Canada |
52% |
|
Live animals being exported from Canada to other
countries to be consumed as food |
51% |
|
Live animals being exported from Canada to other
countries for reasons other than to be consumed as food |
45% |
|
A dog being brought into Canada by a vacationing
family |
35% |
|
A restaurant has a complaint of a dirty kitchen |
30% |
|
A person gets food poisoning from cooking and
eating undercooked meat |
25% |
Another new question this year
was one that asked consumers to indicate the percent of food they believe is
inspected by the CFIA. Consumers believe that almost 2/3 of the food they
consume has been inspected. This is higher for females (66%) than males (59%)
and for those age 18-34 (65%) and 35-54 (63%) than those over age 55 (59%).
|
B7 In thinking of the food that you consume, what
percentage do you think has been inspected by the CFIA? |
||||||
|
Total % |
Male |
Female |
Age 18-34 |
Age 35-54 |
Age 55+ |
|
|
% of food inspected by CFIA |
62% |
59% |
66% |
65% |
63% |
59% |
Business perceptions of the CFIA
The following sections detail the responses of
businesses whose operations are regulated by the CFIA, which have more
developed understanding of the Agency given its relevancy to their business.
Readers should note that the Agency’s terminology for
differentiated business is used throughout this report. Accordingly, “food
line” refers to businesses that transform food from raw form to products that
are sold to consumers. In this sense, beef and a beef processor are considered
part of the “food” line as soon as the animal crosses the farm or ranch gate
but remains a feature of the “animal” line up until it crosses that gate.
Similarly, soybeans, for example, are “plant” up until they cross the farm gate
and are on their way to processing into tofu and so on.
CFIA reputation and performance indicators among
businesses
The following chart displays results relative to the Agency’s reputation and performance indicators, namely familiarity, communication, trust, confidence and safeguarding. Not surprisingly, most businesses interviewed have strong familiarity (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) with the CFIA. The overall score is 81% - 82% for food, 81% for animal and 80% for plant businesses. These findings reflect a significant increase in familiarity over last year when the overall score was 72%.
|
A1: How familiar would you say your company is
with the activities of the CFIA? |
|||||||
|
1 - Not familiar at all |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 - Very familiar |
|
|
Total sample |
1% |
2% |
4% |
11% |
25% |
23% |
33% |
|
Food |
1% |
2% |
4% |
11% |
24% |
24% |
34% |
|
Animal |
1% |
4% |
5% |
9% |
23% |
24% |
33% |
|
Plant |
1% |
2% |
5% |
11% |
24% |
25% |
32% |
Base: Total sample N=1499, Food N=1291,
Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Businesses were asked about the types of communication
they have received from CFIA in the past year. Email (86%) is the most recalled
method of communication from the CFIA by business across all business lines. The
next-most common source of communication is the CFIA website (37%) though
higher amongst the animal line (43%) and plant line (44%). Portal notices in My
CFIA were recalled by roughly one-third of businesses surveyed (32%), again recalled
more among animal line (39%) and plant line (37%) businesses.
|
B4: How has your company received information from
the CFIA in the past year? |
||||
|
Source |
Total sample |
Food |
Animal |
Plant |
|
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) |
86% |
86% |
84% |
86% |
|
CFIA website |
37% |
36% |
43% |
44% |
|
Portal
notices in My CFIA |
32% |
31% |
39% |
37% |
|
Personal
interaction with CFIA representative |
28% |
26% |
39% |
34% |
|
Telephone
communications |
24% |
23% |
35% |
27% |
|
Mailed
documents |
19% |
19% |
23% |
23% |
|
Through an
industry association |
10% |
9% |
13% |
14% |
|
Social media |
4% |
4% |
4% |
3% |
|
Chronicle 360 |
2% |
3% |
3% |
1% |
|
Podcasts |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Other |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
Not
applicable: I have never received information from the CFIA |
2% |
2% |
2% |
3% |
Base: Total sample N=1499, Food
N=1291, Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Encouragingly, all methods of communication with the CFIA generate strong rates of understanding (5, 6, or 7 on 7-point scale), with most scores for all listed communication sources being higher than 80% overall and across all lines of business. The CFIA website had lower scores (total 72%, food 75%, animal 64%, plant 64%), as did the Portal Notices in My CFIA (total 78%, food 79%, animal 69%, plant 75%).
|
B5: Please indicate the
level of understanding that your company has about the information received
from the CFIA. |
|||||||
|
|
1
– No understanding at all |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
– Understands completely |
|
Personal interaction
with CFIA representative |
1% |
1% |
1% |
5% |
14% |
35% |
43% |
|
Telephone communications |
1% |
2% |
2% |
8% |
19% |
30% |
38% |
|
Social media |
0% |
2% |
3% |
3% |
24% |
31% |
37% |
|
Mailed documents |
2% |
1% |
3% |
10% |
24% |
29% |
31% |
|
Chronicle 360 |
3% |
0% |
0% |
6% |
25% |
36% |
31% |
|
Through an industry
association |
0% |
0% |
3% |
8% |
27% |
32% |
29% |
|
Email (including CFIA
Listservs) |
0% |
2% |
5% |
12% |
23% |
30% |
27% |
|
Portal notices in My
CFIA |
1% |
3% |
6% |
12% |
26% |
30% |
22% |
|
CFIA website |
1% |
4% |
8% |
15% |
23% |
29% |
19% |
Base: Business; those who received
specific communication methods; base size differs by method
Note: Industry segments are not
mutually exclusive
Qualitative insights on CFIA reputation among businesses
Many of the themes and issues we heard about in last
year’s exercise were echoed in this most recent qualitative work. The Agency’s
reputation appears to be evolving favourably on some measures with some kinds
of business, and not as much on others.
We did not encounter evidence of any “new issues” relative to last
year.
Rather, the findings this year suggest an Agency that
is making strides improving processes and striking better balances with the
businesses it deals with most, but perhaps less so with the businesses of a
more niche vocation or smaller size. We note that compared to last year, when
many of the “more intensely regulated” companies had complaints of a relatively
moderate nature, these same companies seemed to have fewer and more minor
issues a year later. In contrast, some of the “less regulated” companies this
year seemed to have more serious issues. This would suggest that the Agency’s
efforts to focus its resources is producing positive but unequal results: “favouring
the many” and reducing their issues while perhaps increasing problems for those
businesses outside of the “mainstream”. These
observations are not, however, validated by the survey data, although this may
simply be because we are not able to distinguish “niche” businesses in the way
it emerged in discussions.
Business trust in CFIA to do “what
is right”
As stated in the Scope of Work for this project, “The
reputation and credibility of the CFIA are vital to the ability to deliver
their mandate. As such, a key part of the CFIA’s values is that the Agency’s
actions, internally and externally, are conducted in a way that trust is
preserved.” This study shows that a strong majority of Canadian businesses in
this sector do trust the CFIA to do what is right. Strong trust scores (5, 6,
or 7 on a 7-point scale) overall at 81%, (food 83%, animal 70%, plant 80%) down
slightly from last year across all lines of business.
|
A4: Please indicate how
much your company trusts the CFIA to do what is right. |
|||||||
|
|
1
– Do not trust at all |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
– Trust completely |
|
Total sample |
3% |
3% |
4% |
9% |
18% |
29% |
34% |
|
Food
|
3% |
3% |
4% |
8% |
18% |
30% |
35% |
|
Animal |
4% |
6% |
7% |
13% |
20% |
26% |
23% |
|
Plant |
4% |
3% |
4% |
9% |
21% |
30% |
28% |
Base: Business; total
sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry segments are not
mutually exclusive
Qualitative insights on the CFIA “doing what is
right”
Our qualitative discussions suggest that
interpretation of this question would vary significantly were it to clarity
what, exactly, “doing right” means. Generally speaking, business participants
were near unanimous in support of the Agency’s responsibility to ensure safe
food, and rarely critical of the specific activities or requirements it
imposes. To the contrary, we encountered
stronger appreciation of this support this year relative to last year. That
said, “doing right by businesses” also implies working in support of business,
be it in helping ensure that permits are received promptly, that ambiguities in
the regulations be resolved quickly (to ensure smooth operations) or even in
ironing out the international agreements that might facilitate Canadian
business abroad. In these respects, our discussions reveal more issues than
these quantitative results suggest. As stated previously, and noting that
progress is recognized on the “big ticket” issues confronting the more
regulated organizations, there were signals that minor issues among more niche
or less regulated organizations may be suffering. These would be important to
track in subsequent waves of this study.
Business confidence in Canadian food safety
Just under half of all business respondents (46%) feel very confident (7 on a 7-point scale) that food sold in Canada is safe. The top 3 box score (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) shows high confidence across industry segments in the safety of Canadian food (total 92%, food 93%, animal 88%, plant 93%). Only about 5% of businesses rated their confidence somewhere between 1 and 3 on a 7-point scale.
|
A5: Please rate your
company's level of confidence that food sold in Canada is safe. Please
provide your opinion even if you are not primarily a food business. |
|||||||
|
|
1
– Not confident at all |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
– Very confident |
|
Total sample |
1% |
1% |
2% |
5% |
13% |
33% |
46% |
|
Food
|
1% |
1% |
2% |
4% |
13% |
32% |
48% |
|
Animal |
0% |
1% |
3% |
8% |
16% |
31% |
41% |
|
Plant |
1% |
0% |
1% |
5% |
17% |
33% |
43% |
Base: Business; total
sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry segments are not
mutually exclusive
Business confidence in safeguarding of food, plant
and animals
When the question of confidence is broadened to include the safeguarding of animals and plants, we see a decrease in top box confidence, down to 37% very confident (7 on a 7-point scale). Looking at the top 3 box rating (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) for confidence in safeguarding food, plant and animals is still very high at 89% of total businesses interviewed (food 90%, animal 84%, plant 88%). Encouragingly, the number of businesses that rated confidence at a 1 or 2 score remains negligible, as was the case last year.
|
A5a: Please rate your
company’s level of confidence that food, plants, and animals in Canada
are safeguarded. |
|||||||
|
|
1
– Not confident at all |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
– Very confident |
|
Total sample |
1% |
1% |
3% |
6% |
17% |
34% |
37% |
|
Food
|
1% |
1% |
3% |
5% |
17% |
34% |
39% |
|
Animal |
3% |
1% |
4% |
8% |
21% |
32% |
31% |
|
Plant |
1% |
1% |
2% |
9% |
18% |
36% |
34% |
Base: Business; total
sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Agency performance in safeguarding safety of
food among businesses
Breaking the question down a little further we asked
food industry companies how they think the CFIA is doing with respect to
safeguarding food sold in Canada. Food businesses rate the CFIA quite highly,
with 39% giving the Agency a perfect 7 on a 7-point scale and almost 90% scoring
the Agency a 5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale when asked about the safeguarding of
food in Canada. As we noted last year, this continues to suggest that operators
have a more informed perspective about threats to food safety beyond the
Agency’s purview, and that they may provide valuable insight on where the
Agency might focus to improve oversight.
|
A6a: When it comes to
safeguarding the safety of food sold in Canada, how well do you believe the CFIA
is doing? |
|||||||
|
|
1
– Not doing well |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
– Doing well |
|
Food |
1% |
1% |
3% |
5% |
16% |
32% |
39% |
Base: Business Food N=1291
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Agency performance in safeguarding safety of
plant health among businesses
Similarly, plant industry businesses rate the
CFIA highly (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) with a score of 88% in safeguarding
the health of plants in Canada, and a top box score (7 on a 7-point scale) of 32%,
somewhat lower than the confidence in food safeguarding.
|
A6b: When it comes to safeguarding the health of
plants in Canada how well do you believe the CFIA is doing? |
|||||||
|
|
1 – Not doing well |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 – Doing well |
|
Plant |
2% |
0% |
3% |
7% |
24% |
32% |
32% |
Base: Business Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Agency performance in safeguarding safety of
animal health among businesses
When animal industry
businesses were asked how the CFIA is doing, 80% gave a high rating (5, 6 or 7 on
a 7-point scale) to the CFIA for its safeguarding of animal health in Canada. They also had a lower top box score than the food and
plant industries at only 26% (7 on a 7-point scale), signaling an area
for the Agency to improve perception.
|
A6c: When it comes to safeguarding the health of
animals in Canada how well do you believe the CFIA is doing? |
|||||||
|
|
1 – Not doing well |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 – Doing well |
|
Animal |
4% |
1% |
6% |
9% |
24% |
31% |
26% |
Base: Business Animal N=277
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Qualitative insights on the Agency’s reputation,
continued
Our qualitative discussions with producers continue to
suggest how the CFIA’s reputation varies across producer organizations as a
function of how oversight meshes with the operations of the businesses
concerned. This year, both our survey data and qualitative discussions suggest
that the Agency continues to do better among bigger organizations, and
especially ones that have found the resources to adapt their organizational
structure to regulatory oversight, and who have perhaps been the focus of
efforts to improve processes. Many of these larger organizations report
positive trends and improvements in communications, notably in “My CFIA”, which
was more a source of issues last year, and in the rationalization of procedures.
Conversely, our qualitative discussions clearly suggest that the Agency’s
reputation tends to be less positive among businesses that rely on the CFIA for
very pointed or specific things, or that fall outside “typical” operations. We
hear comments from these businesses that would suggest that the Agency is less
responsive, more remote, and occasionally even the source of considerable
barriers to continued operations. Example operations would include small
business that make soil with unlisted components, laboratories that struggle to
get safety certifications for the importation and handing of live plant
materials, breeders of exotic horses, and so on.
Overall, however, most participants suggest general
improvement, and credit the Agency in the following respects:
·
For having open, helpful, and genuinely agreeable
local staff and inspectors.
·
For having improved processes, particularly those that
are now resident on My CFIA – which has resulted in valued improvements in
speed, easier (centralized) access to important documents and so on.
·
And finally, as was the case last year, the Agency is
credited for balanced oversight, in effect focusing attention and resources
where it counts. Most business – and even the ones that have complaints – do
not often challenge the roles and preoccupations of the Agency where safety is
concerned.
The issues that emerge, in contrast, are more often about
helping businesses operate smoothly, to exploit opportunities or simply to tend
to decisions or procedures that may be minor in the grand scheme of things, but
critically important to those operators that need them. Otherwise, some things
we heard last year continue to be mentioned this year:
·
A decrease in both accessibility and expertise: As was
the case last year, participants have noticed that the local people they once
relied on to provide insight into how things are meant to work, or what the
rules prescribe seem less knowledgeable, and less able to make calls without “referring
back to Ottawa”. Although we heard less about reductions in inspectors (noting
that many inspections were done remotely due to the COVID19 pandemic and
apparently with few problems), we did hear more about different inspectors apparently
acting on different interpretation of the rules and/or seemingly less willing
to decide things on their own, sometimes causing significant delays or other
operational issues.
·
Continued issues with local access for smaller
operators: As was the case last year, smaller operators such as exotic plant
breeders or small cattle breeders complain of severe issues simply accessing
the services they need to continue operating businesses in remote locations. For
example, animal breeders who wish to sell their products intra-provincially in
remote areas of the country cannot access a local meat processor (because the
rules and inspection regimes seem to make smaller operations prohibitively
expenses) or labs within reasonable distance, often resulting in significant
business challenges. These smaller operators argue that the Agency’s rules and
procedures favor larger corporations to their detriment.
·
De-personalized communications: Finally, we heard
quite a bit (even from some larger and more regulated businesses) about difficulties
contacting persons “in charge” or “in the know” in Ottawa. Several operators
complained rather bitterly about having to call time and time again not only to
get an answer but with the added burden having to re-explain their complicated
issues time and again. From their perspective, it seems the Agency is working
hard to isolate staff with specific expertise or authority from direct contact
with businesspeople. Participants with these complaints note that individual
staff who answer the phone seem rather clueless about their issues, unwilling
to document their case (a few mentioned that the Agency would do well to adopt
common customer service practices like case files and id numbers), and some
were even unwilling to provide anything more than a first name.
Business evaluation of CFIA attributes and institutional values
Businesses were asked to evaluate how the CFIA is
perceived across several attributes and values statements. On most attributes,
Food and Plant businesses gave higher scores than Animal businesses did. Very
encouraging to note are the high levels of agreement (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point
scale) for statements that reference respect, helpfulness, and fairness. Some examples
are: “Representatives of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties”
(80%), “Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency” (73%), “Representatives
of CFIA are helpful in providing us with information on regulations” (69%) and “Information
received from the CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance” (68%). Those
businesses with Indigenous owners or that have more than 50% of employees who
are visible minorities tended to agree even more often with these positive statements
about the CFIA.
The CFIA received lower scores for the statements “The
CFIA provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other
developed countries” (43%) and many also do not think “The CFIA listens to the
industry when it comes to understanding specific innovation and competitiveness
needs” (48%).
|
A7: Below are a number of statements about the CFIA.
For each statement, please indicate your level of agreement on a 7-point
scale – T3B (5, 6 or 7). |
|
|
Statement |
% in agreement (5, 6 or 7 out of a 7-point scale) |
|
Representatives of the CFIA are
respectful in carrying out their duties |
80% |
|
Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency |
73% |
|
Representatives of CFIA are helpful in
providing us with information on regulations |
69% |
|
Information received from the CFIA helps
to stop future non-compliance |
68% |
|
CFIA is transparent in how they operate |
58% |
|
It is easy to have open and honest
dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory priorities |
58% |
|
The CFIA is properly equipped to manage
the complexity of Canada's food, animal and plant supply |
57% |
|
CFIA guidance on regulations is clear |
57% |
|
CFIA regulations have been implemented
in a way that is fair to all businesses |
57% |
|
The decision-makers in my company feel
that the CFIA regulations are very complicated |
56% |
|
The CFIA is sensitive to the reality of
how things work in your specific industry |
56% |
|
The CFIA does business in the same way
for everyone within their mandate |
52% |
|
CFIA listens to industry views when it
comes to understanding specific regulatory priorities |
51% |
|
The CFIA listens to industry when it
comes to understanding specific innovation and competitiveness needs |
48% |
|
The CFIA provides better service compared
to food inspection agencies in other developed countries |
43% |
|
CFIA regulations are too basic for my
company to be concerned about |
16% |
Base:
Total sample N=1499
Key drivers analysis - Businesses
Using the attributes at A7, a key driver analysis was conducted
to predict the outcome variable (familiarity, trust, or confidence). For each
of the 3 key metrics, there is a uniquely important primary driver that the Agency
should focus their communication to businesses to facilitate building
familiarity, trust and confidence in the CFIA.
In assessing the primary driver of familiarity, the top attribute is “Representatives
of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties” (23% share of
importance) which is up slightly from last year (21%). The next driver in order
of importance is “Overall the CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency” (16%) and the
third driving attribute of familiarity this year was “It is easy to have open
and honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory policies” (10%). This driver
moved up from last year where it had one of the lowest shares of importance. Essentially,
familiarity with the Agency is driven by CFIA representatives carrying their duties
in a respectful manner, the passing along of information regarding
non-compliance, and representatives engaging stakeholders in open and honest
dialogue.
|
CFIA – A7 attribute drivers of A1 familiarity (total
sample) |
|
|
Statement |
Share of
importance (%) |
|
Representatives
of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties |
23.4 |
|
Information
received from the CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance |
16.2 |
|
It is easy to
have open and honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory priorities |
9.7 |
|
CFIA guidance
on regulations is clear |
8.7 |
|
The CFIA is properly
equipped to manage the complexity of Canada's food, animal, and plant supply
chain |
5.7 |
|
Overall, the
CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency |
5.2 |
|
Representatives
of CFIA are helpful in providing information on regulations |
4.3 |
|
The CFIA
listens to industry views when it comes to understanding industry's specific
regulatory priorities |
3.6 |
|
The CFIA is
sensitive to the reality of how things work in your specific industry |
3.5 |
|
CFIA
regulations have been implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses |
3.5 |
|
The CFIA
listens to industry when it comes to understanding specific innovation and
competitiveness needs |
3.2 |
|
CFIA is
transparent in how they operate |
3.2 |
|
The CFIA does
business in the same way for everyone within their mandate |
2.9 |
|
The decision-makers
in my company feel that CFIA regulations are very complicated |
2.5 |
|
The CFIA
provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other
developed countries |
2.4 |
|
CFIA
regulations are too basic for my company to be concerned about |
2.1 |
Base:
Total sample N=1499
Looking at the predictors of trust in the CFIA among
businesses, the primary driver is again fairness this year, however with a
lower share of importance versus last year, along with perceptions that the
Agency is transparent and sensitive to specific realities in each industry.
Fairness is indicated by the following statements: “Overall,
the CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency” 14%, down slightly in terms of importance
from last year, and “CFIA regulations have been implemented in a way that is
fair to all businesses” 8%. Transparency – referenced with “CFIA is transparent
in how they operate” (8%), and “The CFIA is sensitive to the reality of how
things work in your specific industry” – drives trust in the CFIA in a
meaningful way.
|
CFIA – A7 attribute drivers of A4 trust (total
sample) |
|
|
Statement |
Share of
importance (%) |
|
Overall, the
CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency |
13.9 |
|
CFIA
regulations have been implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses |
8.3 |
|
CFIA is
transparent in how they operate |
7.9 |
|
The CFIA is
sensitive to the reality of how things work in your specific industry |
7.8 |
|
Information
received from the CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance |
7.5 |
|
The CFIA
listens to industry views when it comes to understanding industry's specific
regulatory priorities |
7.3 |
|
The CFIA
listens to industry when it comes to understanding specific innovation and
competitiveness needs |
6.7 |
|
It is easy to
have open and honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory priorities |
6.3 |
|
The CFIA does
business in the same way for everyone within their mandate |
6.2 |
|
Representatives
of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties |
6.2 |
|
The CFIA is
properly equipped to manage the complexity of Canada's food, animal, and
plant supply chain |
5.6 |
|
CFIA guidance
on regulations is clear |
5.3 |
|
Representatives
of CFIA are helpful in providing information on regulations |
5.2 |
|
The CFIA
provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other
developed countries |
4.4 |
|
The
decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA regulations are very complicated |
0.9 |
|
CFIA
regulations are too basic for my company to be concerned about |
0.4 |
Base:
Total sample N=1499
Lastly, CFIA gains the confidence of its business
stakeholder by communicating fairness in its operations, and managing complex
and sensitive realities of industry. “Overall the CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency”
is the most important driver of organizational confidence (up slightly versus
last year), and “The CFIA is properly equipped to manage the complexity of
Canada’s food, animal and plant supply chain” is the 2nd most
important driver of confidence (down slightly compared to last year).
|
CFIA – A7
attribute drivers of A6 confidence (total sample) |
|
|
Statement |
Share of importance (%) |
|
Overall, the
CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency |
13.7 |
|
The CFIA is
properly equipped to manage the complexity of Canada's food, animal, and
plant supply chain |
10.7 |
|
The CFIA is sensitive
to the reality of how things work in your specific industry |
7.9 |
|
The CFIA
provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other
developed countries |
7.6 |
|
The CFIA does
business in the same way for everyone within their mandate |
7.6 |
|
Information
received from the CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance |
6.9 |
|
CFIA
regulations have been implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses |
6.9 |
|
Representatives
of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties |
6.7 |
|
The CFIA listens
to industry when it comes to understanding specific innovation and
competitiveness needs |
5.6 |
|
CFIA is
transparent in how they operate |
5.4 |
|
CFIA guidance
on regulations is clear |
5.3 |
|
Representatives
of CFIA are helpful in providing information on regulations |
5.2 |
|
The CFIA
listens to industry views when it comes to understanding industry's specific
regulatory priorities |
5.2 |
|
It is easy to
have open and honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory priorities |
4.6 |
|
CFIA
regulations are too basic for my company to be concerned about |
0.5 |
|
The
decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA regulations are very complicated |
0.4 |
We also asked businesses to associate the CFIA with a
list of attributes to understand the organization’s brand impression, and the list
of attributes changed versus last year. In the context of selecting words from
a set list that describe the CFIA as a partner to industry, businesses selected
“Respectful” as the top pick again (49%) up 7pts from last year, “Fair” was
second choice again (40%) up 3 pts from last year. 2 new attributes rounded out
the “top 4”: “Informative” (39%) and “Trusted” (36%). Overall, performance on
top attributes is markedly higher than last year, which may only be due to a
shorter list of terms to select from. 3 new descriptors added this year,
“Innovative” (5%), “Global leader” (7%), and “Caring” (13%) were met with very
low levels of agreement.
|
A8: Please look at the
following list of words, and select the ones that in your view, describe the
kind of partner the CFIA is to your industry |
|
|
Word |
% |
|
Respectful |
49 |
|
Fair |
40 |
|
Informative |
39 |
|
Trusted |
36 |
|
Responsive |
33 |
|
Collaborative |
28 |
|
Consistent |
26 |
|
Efficient |
25 |
|
Scientific |
25 |
|
Transparent |
22 |
|
Service Oriented |
21 |
|
Dedicated |
20 |
|
Caring |
13 |
|
Punitive |
9 |
|
Global Leader |
7 |
|
Innovative |
5 |
|
None of the above |
10 |
Base: Business total
sample N=1527
Business impression of CFIA staff / leadership
and effectiveness
The CFIA Inspectors and Enforcement staff are
considered the most credible, responsive, and reliable members of the organization,
more so than call centre staff, senior managers and the CFIA president. Based
on the number who said do not know/ not sure, it seems that businesses have
more interactions with the inspectors and enforcement staff that allows them to
make a judgement on these characteristics. This finding is consistent across
business lines.
|
A9. Consider your interactions with the CFIA and
its leadership structure. Select the responses that you feel describe each: |
|||||
|
Is credible |
Is responsive |
Is reliable |
Do not know / Not sure |
||
|
CFIA inspectors/enforcement staff |
41% |
47% |
43% |
26% |
|
|
Call centre staff |
20% |
37% |
24% |
46% |
|
|
CFIA senior management |
18% |
20% |
19% |
65% |
|
|
The CFIA President |
10% |
9% |
10% |
81% |
|
Base: Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal
N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry
segments are not mutually exclusive
In another assessment of described CFIA activities, between 77% and 83%
of businesses (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) agree that the CFIA is
contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the
economy by protecting Canada's food, animals and plants. Across business lines,
between 73% and 80% agree that CFIA enforcement activities encourage companies
to comply with the regulations. About 3 in 4 believe that as a science-based
regulator, the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement.
When it comes to issuing food recall warnings in a timely manner, 3 in 4
Food businesses agree. 77% of the Plant businesses agree that the CFIA enforces
regulations that help to ensure Canada’s plant resources are protected. There
is lower agreement from the Animal businesses (61%) that the CFIA enforces
regulations that help to ensure that animals are transported humanely.
|
B1
Below are some statements to describe the activities of the CFIA. How much do
you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? – T3B (5, 6 or
7) |
||||
|
|
Total
sample |
Food |
Animal |
Plant |
|
The CFIA is contributing to the health and
well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy by protecting
Canada's food, animals and plants. |
82% |
83% |
77% |
83% |
|
CFIA enforcement
activities encourage companies to comply with the regulations. |
79% |
80% |
73% |
76% |
|
As a science-based regulator, the CFIA is believable
when it issues a statement. |
77% |
78% |
70% |
75% |
|
The CFIA issues
food recall warnings in a timely manner. |
73% |
76% |
66% |
63% |
|
The CFIA enforces
regulations that help to ensure that Canada's plant resources are protected. |
68% |
68% |
58% |
77% |
|
The CFIA enforces regulations that help to ensure
that animals are transported humanely. |
60% |
61% |
63% |
54% |
Base: Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal N=277,
Plant N=302
Note: Industry
segments are not mutually exclusive
“Verifying safe food is sold to consumers” is ranked
1, 2 or 3 (76%) most often by all lines of business as the top priority for the
CFIA. Next in importance are “Verifying importers do not import contaminated or
fraudulent goods” (59%) and “Helping to keep international markets open to
Canadian food, plant and animal products” (40%). About 1 in 3 consider “Helping
to keep foreign animal diseases out of Canada”, “Helping prevent the spread of
plant pests and animal diseases in Canada” and “Helping prevent plant pests and
invasive species from entering Canada” to be top 3 priorities. “Verifying the
safety and quality of feed, fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds in
Canada” (24%) was the lowest priority of the list across all lines of business.
|
B1a Please review the list below and rank what you personally
feel the top 3 priorities of the CFIA should be. |
||||
|
RANKED 1, 2 or 3 |
TOTAL |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
Verifying safe food is sold to consumers |
76% |
77% |
72% |
70% |
|
Verifying importers do not import
contaminated or fraudulent foods |
59% |
61% |
52% |
48% |
|
Helping to keep international markets open
to Canadian food, plant and animal products |
40% |
40% |
46% |
41% |
|
Helping to keep foreign animal diseases out
of Canada |
35% |
34% |
41% |
33% |
|
Helping prevent the spread of plant pests
and animal diseases in Canada |
34% |
33% |
38% |
38% |
|
Helping prevent plant pests and invasive
species from entering Canada |
33% |
30% |
29% |
43% |
|
Verifying the safety and quality of feed,
fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds in Canada |
24% |
25% |
23% |
27% |
Base: Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal
N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Qualitative insights on the Agency’s priorities
Our qualitative discussions with producers show that their sense of
priorities would differ considerably depending on several factors including
their business lines, the depth of their relationship with the Agency, as well
as the degree to which they have been the focus (or not) of recent efforts to
rationalize procedures.
Transparency is a key metric measured in this year’s
survey. Businesses believe that the CFIA is transparent 70%
(5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) when
it comes to assessing non-compliance with regulations. This is similar for Food
business (72%) and lower for Animal (62%) and Plant (67%) businesses. Those
businesses owned by Indigenous persons rated CFIA transparency even higher (85%).
Our qualitative discussions continue to show that transparency on the part of
the Agency – about the decisions it makes, its slow response times and these
sorts of things – go a long way to building patience and goodwill among the
businesses it regulates.
|
B2 In your opinion, how transparent do you think the CFIA is
when it comes to assessing non-compliance with regulations? |
||||
|
TOTAL |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
|
(1) 1 Not at all transparent |
3% |
3% |
5% |
4% |
|
(2) 2 |
2% |
2% |
3% |
2% |
|
(3) 3 |
4% |
4% |
5% |
4% |
|
(4) 4 |
21% |
20% |
24% |
24% |
|
(5) 5 |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
|
(6) 6 |
24% |
24% |
22% |
22% |
|
(7) 7 Very transparent |
21% |
23% |
16% |
20% |
|
NET: (5) + (6) + (7) Very
transparent |
70% |
72% |
62% |
67% |
Base: Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal
N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry
segments are not mutually exclusive
When assessing transparency in reporting (publishing)
non-compliance, businesses gave a similar rating 71% (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale). Food business
(73%) rated this transparency metric higher than Animal businesses (65%) and
Plant (65%) businesses. Again the Indigenous-owned businesses gave a higher
rating for transparency of CFIA reporting (86%).
|
B3 How transparent do you think the CFIA is when it comes to
reporting (publishing) non-compliance? |
||||
|
TOTAL |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
|
(1) 1 Not at all transparent |
2% |
2% |
3% |
2% |
|
(2) 2 |
1% |
1% |
3% |
1% |
|
(3) 3 |
5% |
5% |
5% |
7% |
|
(4) 4 |
21% |
19% |
25% |
25% |
|
(5) 5 |
23% |
23% |
23% |
25% |
|
(6) 6 |
24% |
25% |
23% |
20% |
|
(7) 7 Very transparent |
23% |
25% |
18% |
20% |
|
NET: (5) + (6) + (7) Very transparent |
71% |
73% |
65% |
65% |
Base: Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal
N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry
segments are not mutually exclusive
A new question in 2022 asked businesses to rank the importance
of services offered by the CFIA. The top ranked service is “I can contact a
CFIA representative for clarification” (36% ranked #1 and 83% ranked 1,2 or 3),
followed by “Services are available when I need them” (20% ranked #1 and 69%
ranked 1,2 or 3) and “The services are easy to understand” (16% ranked #1 and
53% ranked 1,2 or 3). This data, and particularly the importance attached to
being able to contact a person echoes sentiments we heard in our focus groups.
In these, we note that the Agency is recognized for having made substantial
efforts to improve communications and rationalize procedures among some, but
not all businesses.
|
B8 When your company assesses the services offered
by the CFIA, which elements are the most important? Please rank the top 3
service elements. |
||||
|
|
Ranked #1 |
Ranked #2 |
Ranked #3 |
RANK 1, 2 OR 3 |
|
I can contact a
CFIA representative for clarification |
36% |
26% |
21% |
83% |
|
Services are available when I need them |
20% |
24% |
24% |
69% |
|
The services are
easy to understand |
16% |
19% |
17% |
53% |
|
I can access all of the services offered by the CFIA
in 1 place |
13% |
15% |
19% |
47% |
|
The services
offered by CFIA help prevent non-compliance |
12% |
15% |
17% |
44% |
Base: Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291, Animal
N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry
segments are not mutually exclusive
Assessment of CFIA communications and relations with industry
As mentioned
previously, when assessing the communication methods and sources used by the
CFIA, most food, animal and plant businesses cite email (85%) as the most
common mode of communication. This is significantly higher than last year at
(58%). The CFIA website was used by 37% of
businesses (down from 46% last year), and Portal notices in My CFIA were used
by roughly 1 in 3 businesses surveyed. These top 3 communication modes also
score highly on understanding and satisfaction, indicating businesses’
preference for these modes. In terms of preference for future communications, email remains overwhelmingly preferred as the
method for future communication (86%). Telephone communications (28%), personal
interaction (28%) and CFIA website (25%) to accompany the primary email
communication are much less preffered. Virtual
chat from the CFIA website or My CFIA were added to the question this year, but had low preference
among businesses. Communication trends are fairly consistent for each line of
business individually.
|
Total sample |
Methods of communication from CFIA (B4) |
T3B Understand communication (B5) |
T3B Satisfied with communication (B7) |
Preferred method of communication (B9) |
|
Email (including CFIA
Listservs) |
86% |
80% |
82% |
86% |
|
CFIA website |
37% |
72% |
69% |
25% |
|
Portal notices in My CFIA |
32% |
78% |
74% |
22% |
|
Personal interaction with a CFIA representative |
28% |
92% |
90% |
28% |
|
Telephone communications |
24% |
87% |
85% |
28% |
|
Mailed documents |
19% |
84% |
82% |
16% |
|
Through an industry
association |
10% |
89% |
82% |
7% |
|
Social media |
4% |
92% |
86% |
2% |
|
Chronicle 360 |
2% |
92% |
86% |
1% |
|
Podcasts |
0% |
100% |
100% |
1% |
|
Virtual chat from the CFIA
website or My CFIA |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
13% |
Base:
Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291,
Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
We conducted a
TURF analysis to understand what modes of communication drive the greatest satisfaction
with communication from the CFIA. Comparing top 3 box scores (5, 6, or 7 on a
7-point scale) show that most of the satisfaction is driven through email (71%,
up from last year where Email was also the top method of communication at 48%
contribution). We see an incremental 4% contribution from Personal interaction
with CFIA representative, and then an additional 3% from mailed documents. This
is where the incrementality levels off, indicating that a focus on the top 3 is
the most efficient way to drive satisfaction with the CFIA among businesses.
|
Business
B7 Satisfaction with Communication - Incremental Reach (T3B%) |
||
|
Source |
Incremental Reach |
Cumulative Messaging Reach |
|
Email
(including Listervs) |
71% |
71% |
|
Personal interaction with CFIA
representative |
4% |
75% |
|
Mailed
documents |
3% |
78% |
|
CFIA website |
1% |
81% |
|
Portal
notices in My CFIA |
1% |
82% |
|
Telephone communications |
1% |
83% |
|
Through
an industry association |
1% |
83% |
|
Social Media |
0% |
84% |
|
Podcasts |
0% |
84% |
|
Chronicle 360 |
0% |
84% |
Base: Total
sample N=1499
The overall satisfaction
with CFIA communications (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) shows that nearly 3 in
4 (73%) businesses are very satisfied with the tools the CFIA uses to
communicate, indicating a modest improvement relative to last year. This is
consistent across all food and plant industry segments, but slightly lower for businesses
from animal lines (65%).
|
B6
What is your overall level of satisfaction regarding the communication tools
that are used by the CFIA? |
|||||||
|
|
1 – Not at all satisfied |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 – Very satisfied |
|
Total sample |
4% |
3% |
6% |
13% |
24% |
27% |
21% |
|
Food
|
3% |
3% |
5% |
14% |
24% |
28% |
22% |
|
Plant |
8% |
4% |
7% |
16% |
21% |
26% |
18% |
|
Animal |
5% |
4% |
4% |
12% |
23% |
30% |
20% |
Base:
Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291,
Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
Businesses are
split on the best way to have more open and clear discussions with the CFIA.
Conducting formal consultations (32%), informal quarterly consultations (30%),
and industry association events (27%) were all equally divided. This was true
across all lines of business.
|
B10 When
trying to understand new requirements and regulatory priorities, what is the
best way to have more open and clear discussions with CFIA regulators? |
|
|
% |
|
|
(1) Informal quarterly consultations |
30% |
|
(2) Formal consultations |
32% |
|
(3) Industry association events |
27% |
|
(4) Other |
6% |
|
(99) Not applicable: I wish the CFIA would not send me any
future communications |
5% |
Base:
Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291,
Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note:
Industry segments are not mutually exclusive
In terms of
topics that drive the most interest if CFIA was to hold webinars, a webinar on
Import requirements seems most appealing (47% of businesses would be interested).
Other topics of interest were Labelling (43%), with more interest among food
business and lower interest among plant and animal businesses. “How to use my
CFIA portal to apply for licences and other permissions” also had modest
interest (41%), higher for plant business and lower for food and animal
businesses. Less interesting topics were “Preventive control plans” (39%)
overall, and “Traceability” (33%) overall. Both of these topics were more
interesting to the Food businesses.
|
B11 If the CFIA
was holding webinars, what topics would drive the most interest? |
||||
|
TOTAL |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
|
Import requirements |
47% |
45% |
49% |
45% |
|
Labelling |
43% |
47% |
29% |
30% |
|
How to use MY CFIA portal to apply for licences and other
permissions |
41% |
40% |
42% |
47% |
|
Preventive control plans |
39% |
44% |
32% |
24% |
|
Traceability |
33% |
36% |
27% |
20% |
|
Do not know/Prefer not to say |
12% |
11% |
13% |
14% |
|
Other |
4% |
3% |
7% |
5% |
Base:
Business total sample N=1499, Food N=1291,
Animal N=277, Plant N=302
Note: Industry
segments are not mutually exclusive
Appendices
Sample profiles
Profile of consumer sample (S1a,
S2, C1, X2-X8)
S1a
Would you be willing to indicate in which of the following age categories you
belong?
|
|
Region |
Age |
Gender |
||||||||
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
(1) 18 to 24 |
11% - |
11% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
39% BC |
0% |
0% |
7% |
15% A |
|
(2) 25 to 34 |
17% - |
17% |
16% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
61% BC |
0% |
0% |
10% |
24% A |
|
(3) 35 to 44 |
17% - |
17% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
52% AC |
0% |
12% |
22% A |
|
(4) 45 to 54 |
16% - |
16% |
16% |
16% |
16% |
16% |
0% |
48% AC |
0% |
15% |
17% |
|
(5) 55 to 64 |
17% - |
17% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
0% |
44% AB |
22% B |
12% |
|
(6) 65 or older |
22% - |
22% |
22% |
22% |
22% |
22% |
0% |
0% |
56% AB |
34% B |
10% |
S2
In which province or territory do you live?
|
|
Region |
Age |
Gender |
||||||||
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
(1) British Columbia |
14% - |
100%
BCDE |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
14% |
14% |
14% |
|
(2) Alberta |
11% - |
0% |
63% ACDE |
0% |
0% |
0% |
13% |
11% |
11% |
10% |
13% A |
|
(3) Manitoba |
4% - |
0% |
21% ACDE |
0% |
0% |
0% |
3% |
4% |
4% |
5% B |
3% |
|
(4) Saskatchewan |
3% - |
0% |
17% ACDE |
0% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
3% A |
4% A |
3% |
3% |
|
(5) Ontario |
39% - |
0% |
0% |
100%
ABDE |
0% |
0% |
39% |
39% |
39% |
39% |
39% |
|
(6) Quebec |
23% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100%
ABCE |
0% |
23% |
23% |
23% |
23% |
23% |
|
(7) New Brunswick |
2% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
31% ABCD |
2% |
3% |
2% |
2% |
2% |
|
(8) Prince Edward Island |
0% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
5% ABCD |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
(9) Nova Scotia |
3% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
47% ABCD |
3% |
2% |
4% |
3% |
3% |
|
(10) Newfoundland and Labrador |
1% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
17% ABCD |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
(11) Yukon |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
(12) Northwest Territories |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
(13) Nunavut |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
(14) Outside Canada |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
|
(15) Prefer not to answer |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
C1
Which of the following statements best describes your role and responsibility
when it comes to grocery shopping for your family or household?
|
|
Region |
Age |
Gender |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
||||||||||
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
||||||||||
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
||||||||||
|
(1) I am solely responsible |
53% - |
56% |
51% |
52% |
57% B |
52% |
45% |
62% AC |
51% A |
48% |
59% A |
|
||||||||||
|
(2) I share in this responsibility |
40% - |
36% |
43% AD |
42% |
37% |
44% |
43% B |
35% |
42% B |
45% B |
35% |
|
||||||||||
|
(3) Somebody else in my family or household
looks after grocery shopping |
5% - |
6% |
6% |
5% |
5% |
3% |
9% BC |
2% |
5% B |
6% |
4% |
|
||||||||||
|
(4) Prefer not to say |
1% - |
1% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
2% BC |
1% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
|
||||||||||
X2
What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
|
|
Region |
Age |
Gender |
||||||||
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
(1) Less than a high school diploma or
equivalent |
3% - |
3% |
2% |
3% |
4% B |
2% |
3% B |
2% |
4% B |
3% |
3% |
|
(2) High school diploma or equivalent |
24% - |
27% C |
29% CD |
20% |
22% |
30% CD |
29% BC |
20% |
23% |
22% |
25% |
|
(3) Registered apprenticeship or other
trades certificate or diploma |
6% - |
4% |
8% AC |
4% |
9% AC |
6% |
6% |
5% |
7% B |
7% |
5% |
|
(4) College, CEGEP or other non-university
certificate or diploma |
26% - |
24% |
25% |
26% |
28% |
23% |
22% |
27% A |
27% A |
24% |
28% A |
|
(5) University certificate or diploma below
bachelor's level |
6% - |
8% B |
5% |
5% |
7% B |
10% BC |
7% |
6% |
6% |
6% |
6% |
|
(6) Bachelor's degree |
25% - |
24% |
23% |
29% BDE |
21% |
21% |
24% |
29% AC |
22% |
26% |
23% |
|
(7) Graduate degree above bachelor's level |
9% - |
8% |
8% |
12% ABDE |
8% |
6% |
8% |
11% A |
9% |
11% B |
8% |
|
(8) Prefer not to answer |
1% - |
1% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
1% C |
1% C |
0% |
0% |
1% |
X3
What language do you speak most often at home?
|
|
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
Gender |
|
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
(1) English |
79% - |
95% D |
97% DE |
95% D |
26% |
92% D |
82% |
79% |
78% |
79% |
80% |
|
(2) French |
18% - |
1% |
1% |
1% |
73% ABCE |
6% ABC |
16% |
18% |
19% |
18% |
17% |
|
(3) Other |
3% - |
4% DE |
2% |
4% DE |
1% |
1% |
2% |
4% A |
3% |
3% |
3% |
|
(4) Prefer not to
answer |
0% - |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
1% C |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
X4
Which of the following best describes your total household income last year,
before taxes, from all sources for all household members?
|
|
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
Gender |
|
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
(1) Under $20,000 |
8% - |
6% |
5% |
8% B |
10% AB |
8% |
12% BC |
7% |
6% |
7% |
9% A |
|
(2) $20,000 to just
under $40,000 |
16% - |
15% |
19% C |
14% |
16% |
19% |
17% B |
13% |
18% B |
15% |
17% |
|
(3) $40,000 to just
under $60,000 |
17% - |
17% |
17% |
14% |
20% C |
17% |
16% |
15% |
18% B |
16% |
17% |
|
(4) $60,000 to just
under $80,000 |
16% - |
13% |
16% |
15% |
17% |
18% |
15% |
15% |
16% |
16% |
15% |
|
(5) $80,000 to just
under $100,000 |
13% - |
12% |
15% D |
14% D |
11% |
13% |
13% |
14% |
13% |
15% B |
12% |
|
(6) $100,000 to just
under $150,000 |
15% - |
19% BDE |
12% |
17% BDE |
13% |
10% |
13% |
19% AC |
13% |
16% |
14% |
|
(7) $150,000 and
above |
8% - |
10% DE |
9% |
10% DE |
6% |
5% |
6% |
12% AC |
7% |
10% B |
6% |
|
(8) Prefer not to
answer |
7% - |
7% |
7% |
8% |
7% |
10% |
8% |
6% |
8% |
5% |
10% A |
X5
Are you an Indigenous person?
|
|
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
Gender |
|
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
3001 |
409 |
549 |
1164 |
678 |
193 |
840 |
990 |
1170 |
1501 |
1501 |
|
(1) Yes |
4% - |
3% |
7% ACD |
4% |
4% |
4% |
9% BC |
4% C |
2% |
4% |
5% |
|
(2) No |
96% - |
97% B |
93% |
96% B |
96% B |
96% |
91% |
96% A |
98% AB |
96% |
95% |
X6
You indicated that you are an Indigenous person. Please specify the group to
which you belong.
|
|
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
Gender |
|
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
131 |
14 |
38 |
45 |
25 |
7 |
75 |
35 |
21 |
63 |
68 |
|
First Nations (North
American Indian) |
41% - |
66% B |
26% |
49% B |
32% |
46% |
49% C |
33% |
25% |
47% |
35% |
|
Métis |
36% - |
19% |
57% AC |
24% |
39% |
31% |
35% |
29% |
56% |
34% |
39% |
|
Inuk (Inuit) |
4% - |
11% |
0% |
2% |
10% |
0% |
5% |
4% |
0% |
8% B |
0% |
|
Other (Specify) |
3% - |
0% |
2% |
7% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
8% |
0% |
2% |
4% |
|
Prefer not to answer |
16% - |
4% |
15% |
18% |
19% |
23% |
10% |
26% |
19% |
10% |
22% |
X7
Are you a member of a visible minority group?
|
|
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
Gender |
|
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
|
Base size |
2870 |
395 |
510 |
1119 |
653 |
186 |
765 |
955 |
1150 |
1437 |
1433 |
|
(1) Yes |
18% - |
26% BDE |
15% DE |
24% BDE |
9% E |
4% |
28% BC |
21% C |
8% |
16% |
20% A |
|
(2) No |
82% - |
74% |
85% AC |
76% |
91% ABC |
96% ABCD |
72% |
79% A |
92% AB |
84% B |
80% |
X8
You indicated that you are a member of a visible minority group. Please select
the box(es) that apply to you.
|
|
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
Gender |
|
||||||||||
|
Column % |
NET |
BC |
Prairies |
Ontario |
Quebec |
Atlantic |
18-34 |
35-54 |
55+ |
Male |
Female |
||||||||||
|
Column |
A |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
||||||||||
|
Base size |
510 |
101 |
75 |
264 |
61 |
8 |
213 |
202 |
96 |
228 |
282 |
||||||||||
|
Chinese |
33% - |
49% BCD |
32% D |
32% D |
16% |
29% |
26% |
40% A |
36% |
38% B |
29% |
||||||||||
|
South Asian/East
Indian |
16% - |
10% E |
17% E |
20% AE |
11% E |
0% |
17% |
13% |
21% |
18% |
15% |
||||||||||
|
Black |
14% - |
1% |
13% A |
16% A |
22% A |
42% A |
18% C |
15% C |
2% |
10% |
16% A |
||||||||||
|
Filipino |
9% - |
8% |
17% C |
7% |
8% |
16% |
13% B |
7% |
7% |
6% |
12% A |
||||||||||
|
Other visible
minority group (specify) |
7% - |
6% |
7% |
7% |
3% |
15% |
2% |
7% A |
16% AB |
9% |
5% |
||||||||||
|
Person of mixed
origin (with 1 parent in 1 of the visible minority groups) |
6% - |
4% E |
1% |
6% BE |
18% ABE |
0% |
10% B |
4% |
4% |
3% |
9% A |
||||||||||
|
Southeast Asian |
5% - |
12% BCE |
4% |
3% E |
6% |
0% |
5% |
7% |
3% |
5% |
6% |
||||||||||
|
Non-White West
Asian, North African or Arab |
5% - |
3% |
3% |
4% |
11% |
15% |
5% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
4% |
||||||||||
|
Non-White Latin American |
4% - |
2% |
2% |
4% E |
10% E |
0% |
6% C |
4% |
1% |
2% |
6% A |
||||||||||
|
Japanese |
4% - |
7% DE |
1% |
4% DE |
0% |
0% |
2% |
4% |
6% |
4% |
3% |
||||||||||
|
Korean |
3% - |
5% E |
3% |
2% E |
3% |
0% |
3% |
4% |
1% |
3% |
3% |
||||||||||
Profile of
business sample (S3, X1-X15)
Specific profiling details of the sample used for the
business section of this report is detailed below in table form which outlines
the differences across the 3 lines of industry; food, animal and plant.
Significance testing is shown by column letters indicating that a value is
significantly higher than another at a 95% confidence interval.
S3
What industry segments does your company operate in?
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
Food preparation |
11% - |
13% CD |
10% D |
3% |
|
Food importing |
38% - |
44% CD |
22% |
16% |
|
Food exporting |
18% - |
21% CD |
20% D |
14% |
|
Interprovincial
trade of food |
15% - |
18% CD |
11% |
10% |
|
Food manufacturing |
22% - |
26% CD |
15% D |
8% |
|
Farming |
16% - |
19% CD |
26% |
25% |
|
Food/beverage
manufacturing or processing |
17% - |
20% CD |
10% |
8% |
|
Meat and poultry slaughter |
2% - |
2% |
4% D |
1% |
|
Other (specify) |
9% - |
11% CD |
12% |
9% |
|
Live animal
importing |
6% - |
4% |
34% BD |
5% |
|
Live animal
exporting |
4% - |
2% |
20% BD |
2% |
|
Germplasm (genetic
material) import |
1% - |
0% |
3% BD |
1% |
|
Germplasm (genetic
material) export |
1% - |
0% |
4% BD |
1% |
|
Animal product or
by-product importing |
3% - |
3% |
18% BD |
4% |
|
Animal product or
by-product exporting |
2% - |
2% |
13% BD |
3% |
|
Live animal domestic
management |
2% - |
2% |
9% BD |
1% |
|
Animal product or
by-product preparation or manufacture |
1% - |
1% |
6% BD |
1% |
|
Animal feed (including
feed mills and feed sellers) |
2% - |
1% |
9% BD |
2% |
|
Pet food import |
1% - |
1% |
6% BD |
0% |
|
Pet food export |
1% - |
1% |
5% BD |
2% |
|
Animal
transportation (including freight forwarders) |
1% - |
1% |
5% BD |
1% |
|
Artificial
insemination centres |
0% - |
0% |
2% BD |
0% |
|
Veterinary biologics |
0% - |
0% |
2% BD |
1% B |
|
Horse owners |
1% - |
1% |
4% BD |
0% |
|
Small flock owners
(including bird collections) |
1% - |
1% |
5% D |
1% |
|
Other (specify) |
4% - |
4% |
22% BD |
9% B |
|
Fertilizers and
supplements |
3% - |
1% |
3% |
14% BC |
|
Forestry products |
1% - |
0% |
1% |
7% BC |
|
Horticulture
(greenhouse, nursery, bulbs, fruit trees, grapevines) |
6% - |
3% |
3% |
30% BC |
|
Crops (grains,
oilseeds) |
4% - |
3% |
6% |
18% BC |
|
Potatoes |
3% - |
3% |
2% |
14% BC |
|
Seed growing (other
than seed potato) |
1% - |
1% |
2% B |
6% BC |
|
Seed establishments/
handling |
1% - |
1% |
1% |
4% BC |
|
Plant breeding |
1% - |
0% |
2% B |
5% BC |
|
Plant breeders'
rights (intellectual property) |
1% - |
0% |
1% B |
4% BC |
|
Invasive species
prevention and management |
0% - |
0% |
1% B |
2% B |
|
Other (specify) |
5% - |
3% |
10% B |
24% BC |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
B |
C |
D |
X1 Approximately how
many people are employed by your company?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Sole proprietor
/ just me |
12% - |
12% |
16% |
11% |
|
(2) 2 to 9 |
36% - |
36% |
38% |
34% |
|
(3) 10 to 49
employees |
29% - |
30% B |
24% |
26% |
|
(4) 50 to 99
employees |
8% - |
9% B |
5% |
8% |
|
(5) 100 to 499
employees |
10% - |
9% |
7% |
12% A |
|
(6) 500 to 999
employees |
1% - |
1% |
3% |
2% |
|
(7) 1000 to 4999
employees |
1% - |
1% |
1% |
3% A |
|
(8) 5000+ employees |
1% - |
1% |
3% A |
3% A |
|
(9) I do not know/
Prefer not to answer |
2% - |
1% |
3% |
2% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X2
What is the approximate annual revenue of your company?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Less than
$100,000 |
16% - |
16% |
21% C |
14% |
|
(2) $100,000 to
$499,999 |
15% - |
16% |
14% |
15% |
|
(3) $500,000 to
$999,999 |
10% - |
11% C |
9% |
7% |
|
(4) $1 million to
less than $25 million |
35% - |
35% B |
25% |
36% B |
|
(5) $25 million to
less than $100 million |
6% - |
6% |
6% |
9% |
|
(6) $100 million or
more |
2% - |
2% |
1% |
3% |
|
(7) I do not know/
Prefer not to answer |
15% - |
14% |
22% AC |
16% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X3
How long has your company been in operations?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(10) Less than a
year |
4% - |
4% |
3% |
3% |
|
(11) More than 1 but
less than 5 years |
17% - |
17% C |
18% |
13% |
|
(12) 5 or more years
but less than 10 years |
12% - |
13% BC |
9% |
12% |
|
(13) 10 or more
years but less than 25 years |
27% - |
27% |
26% |
22% |
|
(14) More than 25
years |
38% - |
37% |
41% |
48% A |
|
(15) I do not know/
Prefer not to answer |
2% - |
2% |
3% |
2% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X5
In which regions does your company currently do business?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
British Columbia |
31% - |
30% |
30% |
35% A |
|
Alberta |
27% - |
26% |
34% |
28% |
|
Saskatchewan |
18% - |
17% |
24% |
23% A |
|
Manitoba |
18% - |
18% |
23% |
23% A |
|
Ontario |
48% - |
47% |
50% |
53% |
|
Quebec |
38% - |
38% B |
27% |
36% B |
|
New Brunswick |
15% - |
15% |
13% |
19% AB |
|
Prince Edward Island |
12% - |
11% |
12% |
18% AB |
|
Nova Scotia |
15% - |
15% |
17% |
16% |
|
Newfoundland and Labrador |
10% - |
9% |
11% |
11% |
|
Yukon |
5% - |
5% |
4% |
7% A |
|
Nunavut |
4% - |
3% |
2% |
4% |
|
Northwest Territories |
4% - |
4% |
3% |
4% |
|
United States of America |
21% - |
19% |
27% |
30% A |
|
Outside of the United States of America or
Canada |
11% - |
10% |
17% A |
16% A |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X6
And in which regions does your company have offices/facilities where CFIA food
safety regulations are applicable?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
British Columbia |
19% - |
19% |
19% |
24% A |
|
Alberta |
13% - |
13% |
22% AC |
11% |
|
Saskatchewan |
6% - |
5% |
11% AC |
7% |
|
Manitoba |
6% - |
6% |
9% |
6% |
|
Ontario |
36% - |
35% |
39% |
38% |
|
Quebec |
25% - |
27% B |
16% |
22% B |
|
New Brunswick |
4% - |
5% |
4% |
6% |
|
Prince Edward Island |
3% - |
3% |
4% |
6% |
|
Nova Scotia |
5% - |
5% |
9% |
6% |
|
Newfoundland and Labrador |
2% - |
2% |
3% |
2% |
|
Yukon |
1% - |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
Nunavut |
0% - |
0% |
1% |
0% |
|
Northwest Territories |
0% - |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
United States of America |
6% - |
6% |
9% |
8% |
|
Outside of the United States of America or
Canada |
3% - |
3% |
6% |
5% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X7
What is the ownership status of your company?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Publicly-traded |
5% - |
4% |
7% |
7% A |
|
(2) Privately-held |
86% - |
87% BC |
84% |
82% |
|
(3) Government/Crown |
1% - |
0% |
2% A |
3% A |
|
(4) Not sure |
9% - |
9% |
7% |
9% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X8
Is your company based in Canada, or does it have its headquarters elsewhere?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Headquarters located in Canada |
90% - |
90% |
89% |
89% |
|
(2) Headquarters located outside of Canada |
8% - |
8% |
9% |
9% |
|
(3) Not sure |
2% - |
2% |
2% |
1% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X8f
Would you consider the organization to be a family-owned organization?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Yes |
69% - |
69% |
68% |
67% |
|
(2) No |
26% - |
25% |
27% |
28% |
|
(3) Do not know / Not sure |
6% - |
6% |
5% |
6% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X9
What are your company’s regular hours of operation?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Weekdays 9am to
5pm |
47% - |
47% B |
33% |
45% B |
|
(2) Monday through Saturday |
15% - |
15% |
18% |
19% |
|
(3) Weekdays &
weekends |
15% - |
15% |
19% |
17% |
|
(4) Open 24 hours |
7% - |
6% |
15% AC |
7% |
|
(5) Other (Specify) |
12% - |
12% |
10% |
9% |
|
(6) Not sure |
3% - |
3% |
4% |
4% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X10 When is usually
your company’s busiest time of the week?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Weekdays during
the day |
78% - |
79% B |
74% |
78% |
|
(2) Weekdays during
the evening |
3% - |
3% |
4% |
3% |
|
(3) Weekends, during
the day |
10% - |
9% |
10% |
12% |
|
(4) Weekends, during
the evenings |
1% - |
1% |
1% |
0% |
|
(5) Not sure |
8% - |
7% |
11% AC |
6% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X11
Which of the following best describes your company’s busiest time of the year?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
Summer |
32% - |
34% BC |
27% |
28% |
|
Fall |
29% - |
29% |
27% |
35% B |
|
Winter |
18% - |
18% |
17% |
17% |
|
Spring |
28% - |
25% |
34% |
43% AB |
|
Holiday occasion(s) |
15% - |
17% BC |
12% |
10% |
|
Consistent
year-round |
31% - |
30% |
35% AC |
25% |
|
Not sure |
5% - |
5% |
6% A |
5% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X12
Would you describe your company as Indigenous managed or owned?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Yes |
5% - |
5% |
5% |
4% |
|
(2) No |
88% - |
88% |
90% |
89% A |
|
(3) Unsure |
7% - |
7% |
5% |
7% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X13
For statistical purposes only, what is your gender?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
(1) Male |
53% - |
54% B |
47% |
58% B |
|
(2) Female |
39% - |
38% |
43% C |
34% |
|
(3) Other |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
0% - |
|
(4) Prefer not to answer |
8% - |
8% |
11% A |
8% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1499 |
1291 |
277 |
302 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X14
Approximately, what percentage of individuals might identify as a visible
minority?
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
0% |
55% - |
55% |
64% |
60% |
|
1-19% |
8% - |
8% |
10% |
7% |
|
20-39% |
7% - |
7% |
4% |
7% |
|
40-59% |
7% - |
8% |
8% |
5% |
|
60-79% |
3% - |
3% |
1% |
2% |
|
80-100% |
19% - |
20% |
13% |
19% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
903 |
781 |
157 |
167 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
X15 Please describe
the approximate percentages of individuals with a senior management position
who identify as female.
|
|
|
Industry Segment |
|
|
|
Column % |
Total |
FOOD |
ANIMAL |
PLANT |
|
0% |
23% - |
23% |
21% |
27% |
|
1-19% |
11% - |
11% |
12% |
12% |
|
20-39% |
15% - |
16% |
11% |
16% |
|
40-59% |
32% - |
32% |
36% A |
31% |
|
60-79% |
7% - |
7% |
7% |
4% |
|
80-100% |
11% - |
11% |
14% |
9% |
|
NET |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
100% - |
|
Column Population |
1087 |
941 |
197 |
213 |
|
Column Names |
A |
A |
B |
C |
Statistical analysis definitions
Included here are definitions and explanations of how
the TURF and key driver analysis were conducted.
TURF
TURF is an acronym for “Total Unduplicated Reach and
Frequency.” It is an optimization algorithm for finding subsets of items/attributes
that “reach” the maximum number of respondents possible. In the context of
TURF, “reach” can be defined in various ways. For example, it may be defined as
ratings of “4” or “5” (for Top 2 Box) on a 5-point scale.
Once reach has been defined, TURF is applied to
respondent-level data to analyze reach (and frequency) for all possible subsets
of a certain size. The TURF algorithm counts how many respondents are reached
by each possible subset and then rank orders the subsets in terms of overall
reach. As a result, TURF is typically used to answer questions like, “Which
subset of 5 attributes out of 30 is best in terms of maximizing reach?”
The “frequency” part of TURF simply refers to the
number of times respondents are reached for a particular combination of
items/attributes. If 2 subsets have equal reach, then the subset with higher
frequency should be preferred. Accordingly, the TURF algorithm rank-orders
subsets in terms of reach first, followed by frequency.
In practice, TURF often reveals multiple solutions
with equal or nearly equal reach. At face value, this may seem problematic in
terms of identifying an optimal subset. This can also be seen as an
opportunity, however, because it allows for other relevant business information
to help “break the tie”. For example, if subsets “A” and “B” result in roughly
equal reach but subset “A” would be quicker and more inexpensive to implement,
then subset “A” should be preferred.
Key driver analysis
The basic problem in a derived relative importance analysis
(for example, drivers analysis) is to assess the contribution of each driver’s
influence on an outcome of interest. An intuitive way to quantify driver
contribution is to use the portion of explained variance (for example,
R-squared) attributed to each driver. Variance decomposition techniques, such
as LMG and Johnson's Relative Weights, are computationally intensive analyses
that are used to measure relative importance in the context of marketing
research studies. These techniques define driver "relative
importance" as the share of explained variance (for example, R-squared)
attributed to each driver in the model.
Methodology
Quantitative methodology
The Reputation study involved 2 surveys, 1 for
businesses and the other for consumers. The consumer portion of the study was
conducted as an online web survey using the Dynata panel of respondents. The
desired sample structure is available below. A total of 3,001 completed surveys
were collected across Canada between February 3rd and February 11th, 2022.
|
Quota |
Target Completes |
Actual Completes |
|
Region |
|
|
|
Atlantic Canada |
193 |
193 |
|
Quebec |
677 |
678 |
|
Ontario |
1163 |
1164 |
|
Manitoba |
109 |
109 |
|
Saskatchewan |
92 |
92 |
|
Alberta |
349 |
349 |
|
British Columbia |
406 |
409 |
|
Territories |
10 |
7 |
|
Age |
|
|
|
18 – 24 |
329 |
320 |
|
25 – 34 |
517 |
520 |
|
35 – 44 |
497 |
504 |
|
45 – 54 |
472 |
490 |
|
55 – 64 |
517 |
488 |
|
65+ |
667 |
679 |
|
Gender |
|
|
|
Male |
1500 |
1428 |
|
Female |
1500 |
1531 |
|
Other |
- |
25 |
|
Prefer not to answer |
- |
17 |
|
Total |
3000 |
3001 |
Weighting:
Quantitative data from consumers was weighted to
redress the sample so that it conforms to the characteristics of the Canadian
population. The Consumer sample (N=3001) was weighted using Stats Can figures
for age and gender. This was repeated across regions to account for regional
fallout differences during fielding.
Results were weighted to reflect the following:
|
REGION/PROVINCE |
Population %s |
|
Alberta |
12% |
|
Atlantic |
6% |
|
British Columbia |
14% |
|
Manitoba |
4% |
|
Ontario |
39% |
|
Quebec |
23% |
|
Saskatchewan |
3% |
|
Territories |
0% |
|
Grand Total |
100% |
|
Gender |
Population % |
|
Male |
50% |
|
Female |
50% |
|
Grand Total |
100% |
|
Age Groups |
% of Total |
|
18-24 |
11% |
|
25-34 |
17% |
|
35-44 |
17% |
|
45-54 |
16% |
|
55-64 |
17% |
|
65+ |
22% |
|
Grand Total |
100% |
The business survey consisted of an online survey
where respondents were sent email invitations directly by the CFIA, with
reminders being sent a few days later. A total of 7,219 invites were sent and
1499 respondents completed the survey (259 French, 1240 English), for a 14%
completion rate. In survey research non-response bias is always a possible
confound since certain types of people may be more willing to respond to a
survey request than others. However,
the participation rate is within industry standards for this type of survey so
additional investigation is not required at this time.
The average survey length for the online survey was 19
minutes and 12 seconds. We need to keep in mind that, during an online survey,
the time elapsed does not necessarily align perfectly with survey duration
since respondents may not always complete the survey all at once. Data was
collected between February 8th and March 8th, 2022.
Quotas were monitored for the business study for
business type, whether it related to food, animal, or plant. Below are the
targets and actuals broken down.
|
Quota |
Target Completes |
Actual Completes |
|
CFIA Sample |
|
|
|
Food business |
500 |
1291 |
|
Animal business |
500 |
277 |
|
Plant business |
500 |
302 |
|
Total |
1500 |
1499 |
Qualitative methodology
Chosen method
Given the objectives set out for this study, the
time and resources available, online focus group methodology was chosen as the
optimum approach. All participants were met in focus groups of between 3 and 5
participants each – a somewhat smaller than usual size, but necessary given the
constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to conduct these interviews
over the Internet.
Number, location and composition of groups
For this year’s study, the qualitative process was
organized as follows:
·
8 focus groups with consumers. These consumers were
recruited via cold-call contacts and were designed to ensure that Canadians
from different areas of the country, walks of life, ages and income levels
participated. 6 of these groups were held in English and 2 in French.
·
8 focus groups with different representative of
businesses that work in the plant and animal lines (as defined by the Agency). These
participants were recruited either from the survey (from those who volunteered
to participate in follow-up research), invitations emailed to Agency contacts,
or via cold-calls to pre-identified businesses.
Recruiting screener
Recruiting screening questionnaires designed to
facilitate the recruiting process were developed prior to the start of the
process and approved by the contracting authority. Copies of these are appended
to this report.
Incentive fees
Consumers were offered $150 for their participation – in
order to encourage participation in our request that they undertake modest
research of plant and animal safety related issues prior to our discussions.
Business operators and association personnel were offered $200 for their
participation.
Moderating and analysis
John Patterson moderated all interviews and was solely
responsible for the analysis of results and related reporting.
Questionnaires
Consumer questionnaire
The
objective of this research is to help the Government of Canada understand the
perceptions that Canadians have regarding the safety of food and the protection
of plant and animal health in Canada.
This is
entirely voluntary and your responses will remain confidential and anonymous.
There is no attempt here to sell or market anything. It will take approximately
10 minutes of your time to complete.
To take
the survey in an alternative format, please contact support@e54surveys.com
(mailto:support@e54surveys.com).
To
verify the legitimacy of this survey you can contact the lead researcher at
Patterson Langlois john.patterson@plinc.ca or the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA) at CFIA.information.ACIA@canada.ca
(CFIA.information.ACIA@canada.ca).
© 2022
Advanis Privacy Policy (https://www.advanis.ca/privacy_policy2.html) CRIC
Pledge (https://www.canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CRIC-Pledge-to-Canadians.pdf)
S1
In what
year were you born?
Minimum:
1900, Maximum: 2022
__________
❑ -8 Prefer
not to answer
S1a Show if S1 Refused
Would
you be willing to indicate in which of the following age categories you belong?
❍ 1 Younger
than 18 years old
❍ 2 18
to 24
❍ 3 25
to 34
❍ 4 35
to 44
❍ 5 45
to 54
❍ 6 55
to 64
❍ 7 65
or older
❍ 8 Prefer
not to answer
T1 Show if S1 S1a Under 18
We’re
sorry but for this survey you must be 18 years of age or older.
Please
wait while your browser redirects to your panel.
Status Code: 501
S2
In
which province or territory do you live?
❍ 1 British
Columbia
❍ 2 Alberta
❍ 3 Manitoba
❍ 4 Saskatchewan
❍ 5 Ontario
❍ 6 Quebec
❍ 7 New
Brunswick
❍ 8 Prince
Edward Island
❍ 9 Nova
Scotia
❍ 10 Newfoundland
and Labrador
❍ 11 Yukon
❍ 12 Northwest
Territories
❍ 13 Nunavut
❍ 14 Outside
Canada
❍ 15 Prefer
not to answer
T2 Show if S2 outside Canada OR refused
We’re
sorry but for this survey you must live in Canada.
Please
wait while your browser redirects to your panel.
Status Code: 502
T4 Show if Region Quota Block
We’re
sorry but we’ve filled our quota of people like yourself.
Please
wait while your browser redirects to your panel.
Status Code: 571
S3a
Do you
or anybody in your household have any food allergies or sensitivities?
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 Yes,
I have a food allergy or sensitivity
❑ 2 Yes,
somebody in my household has a food allergy or sensitivity
❑ 3 No (Exclusive)
❑ 4 I’m
not sure/Don’t know (Exclusive)
S3b Show if S3a Yes
You
said that you or somebody in your household has one or more food allergy or
sensitivity. Please indicate the type and severity of any applicable food
allergies or sensitivities in your household.
1. Milk *
2. Eggs *
3. Tree nuts *
4. Peanuts *
5. Shellfish *
6. Fin Fish *
7. Soy *
8. Wheat *
9. Sesame *
10. Caffeine *
11. Sulfites *
12. Salicylates *
13. Amines *
14. Mustard
15. Other foods
Levels
marked with * are randomized
❍ 7 7
- Very sensitive or very allergic
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not sensitive or allergic at all
S3f Show if S3b Other 2 to 7
What
other food allergies/sensitivities do you have?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Section
CFIA Key Performance Indicators
A0F,
A0A, A0P
Page
A0F
When
you think of organizations in Canada that are dedicated to food safety, which
organizations come to mind?
Please
type one organization per box for as many organizations as you can think of.
1. __________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________
❑ -9 Not
aware of any
Page
A0A
When
you think of organizations in Canada that are dedicated to safeguarding animal
health and protecting against animal diseases, which organizations come to
mind?
Please
type one organization per box for as many organizations as you can think of.
1. __________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________
❑ -9 Not
aware of any
Page
A0P
When
you think of organizations in Canada that are dedicated to safeguarding and
protecting plant health, which
organizations come to mind?
Please
type one organization per box for as many organizations as you can think of.
1. __________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________
❑ -9 Not
aware of any
Section
A1, A2,
A3, A3a, T3, A3ai, A4, Ax, A5, A6, A7, A7a, A7b, A7c, A8
Page
A1
When
thinking of organizations that are responsible for safeguarding the nation’s
supply of food, animals, and plants, which of the following come to mind?
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) *
❑ 2 Municipal
inspectors (for example, public health inspectors) *
❑ 3 Provincial
food safety regulators (Provincial or Territorial governments) *
❑ 4 Health
Canada *
❑ 5 Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada *
❑ 6 Public
Health Agency of Canada *
❑ 7 Businesses
*
Levels
marked with * are randomized
A2
The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is dedicated to safeguarding food,
animals and plants, which enhances the health and well-being of Canada's
people, environment and economy. Reducing risks to food safety, plant health
and animal health are CFIA priorities, and the health and safety of Canadians
are key forces behind the design and development of CFIA programs.
How
familiar would you say you are with the activities of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘very
familiar’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not familiar at all’.
❍ 7 7
- Very familiar
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not familiar at all
A3
Where
have you seen, heard, or read about the CFIA?
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 Word
of mouth (friends, family, etc.) *
❑ 2 Social
media (not including CFIA social media) *
❑ 3 Podcasts
*
❑ 4 A
digital assistant (for example, Alexa, Siri, Google) *
❑ 5 Traditional
Media (newspapers, TV, radio) *
❑ 6 Internet
(includes online news sites but not social media) *
❑ 7 Direct
contact from CFIA (includes CFIA social media and visiting the CFIA website) *
❑ 8 Not
applicable - have not seen, heard or read anything about the CFIA (Exclusive)
Levels
marked with * are randomized
A3a Show if A3 1 to 7
Select
any of the following that apply to you:
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 I
subscribe to CFIA food recall notices
❑ 2 I
submitted a food safety or labelling concern
❑ 3 I follow
the CFIA on a social media platform
❑ 4 I
have visited the CFIA website
❑ 5 I
have contacted the CFIA by phone
❑ 6 I
have contacted the CFIA by email or through the website
❑ 7 I
subscribe to the Chronicle 360
❑ 8 I
have listened to the Inspect and Protect podcast
❑ 9 In
person interaction with a CFIA employee
❑ 10 I
have a friend or family member who works at the CFIA
T3 Show if A3a CFIA Family or Friend
Unfortunately
for this survey we need people who are not connected with the CFIA.
Please
wait while your browser redirects to your panel.
Status Code: 503
A3ai Show if A3a Level 1 through 8 selected
Using a
scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all satisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”. How
satisfied are you...
1. that the CFIA issues food recall
notices in a timely manner? (Show if A3a 1
CFIA recall notices)
2. with the CFIA handling of the food
safety or labelling concern you reported? (Show
if A3a 2 food safety labelling)
3. with the CFIA content on social media? (Show if A3a 3 CFIA social media)
4. with the usability of the CFIA website? (Show if A3a 4 Visited CFIA website)
5. with the CFIA phone interaction you
had? (Show if A3a 5 CFIA by phone)
6. with the CFIA email or website
interaction you had? (Show if
A3a 6 CFIA by email)
7. with the podcast Inspect and Protect? (Show if A3a 8 Inspect and Protect
podcast)
8. with the Chronicle 360 article? (Show if A3a 7 Chronicle 360)
❍ 10 10
- Very satisfied
❍ 9 9
❍ 8 8
❍ 7 7
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
❍ 0 0
- Not at all satisfied
A4 Show if A3 NOT Not applicable
Thinking
about what you have seen, read or heard, about the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA), indicate how well you understood the information?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates
‘understood completely. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all’.
1. Word of mouth (friends, family, etc.) (Show if A3 Word of mouth)
2. Social media (not including CFIA social
media) (Show if A3 Social Media)
7. Podcasts (Show if A3 Podcasts)
3. A digital assistant (for example,
Alexa, Siri, Google) (Show if A3 A
digital assistant)
4. Traditional Media (newspapers, TV,
radio) (Show if A3 Traditional Media)
5. Internet (includes online news sites
but not social media) (Show if A3
Internet)
6. Direct contact from CFIA (includes CFIA
social media and visiting the CFIA website) (Show
if A3 Direct contact)
❍ 7 7
- Understood completely
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not at all
Ax
When
you review the following list of government and non-government organizations,
how favourable of an impression do you have overall of each organization?
1. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
*
2. Health Canada *
3. Canada Revenue Agency *
4. Canada Border Services Agency *
5. Canadian Transportation Agency *
6. Public Health Agency of Canada *
Levels
marked with * are randomized
❍ 7 7
- Extremely favourable
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not favourable at all
❍ 8 I
don’t know / Not sure
A5
Please
indicate how much you trust the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to do
what is right to help ensure that food is safe in Canada?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘trust
completely’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all’.
❍ 7 7
- Trust completely
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Do not trust at all
A6
How
much do you trust the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to ensure that
food product labels have indications regarding ingredients that may cause
allergy/food sensitivity?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘trust
completely’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all’.
❍ 7 7
- Trust completely
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Do not trust at all
A7
Please
rate your level of confidence that food sold in Canada is safe.
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘very
confident’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all confident’.
❍ 7 7
- Very confident
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not at all confident
A7a
When it
comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe, how well do you believe
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is doing?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘doing
well’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not doing well’.
❍ 7 7
- Doing well
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not doing well
A7b
When it
comes to safeguarding plant health (regulating invasive insects, plants and
other plant pests), how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) is doing?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘doing
well’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not doing well’.
❍ 7 7
- Doing well
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not doing well
A7c
When it
comes to safeguarding animal health, and preventing the spread of animal
diseases, how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is
doing?
Please
use the 7-point scale below for your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘doing
well’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not doing well’.
❍ 7 7
- Doing well
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Not doing well
A8
Below
are a number of statements about the CFIA.
For each statement, please indicate how much you agree or disagree. A rating of 7 means ‘Agree completely’. A
rating of 1 means ‘Disagree completely’.
1. The CFIA looks out for the best
interests of Canadians *
2. The CFIA is effective in enforcing food
safety regulations *
3. All businesses are treated fairly by
the CFIA *
4. Food recalls are an example of the food
system working *
5. I understand what the CFIA does *
6. Getting more information about food,
plant or animal safety from the CFIA is easy *
7. CFIA veterinaries are among the best in
their field *
Levels
marked with * are randomized
❍ 7 7
- Agree completely
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1
- Disagree completely
❍ 8 Not
sure/Not applicable
Section
CFIA Message Evaluation
B1,
B1a, B2, B3, B4, B6, B7, B8, C1, C2
Page
B1
Below
are some statements to describe the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA). How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
1. By protecting Canada’s food, animals
and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians,
the environment and the economy *
2. As a science-based regulator, the CFIA
is believable when it issues a statement *
3. The CFIA issues food recall warnings in
a timely manner *
4. The CFIA enforces regulations that
helps ensure animals are transported humanely *
5. The CFIA enforces regulations that help
ensure Canada’s plant resources are protected *
6. CFIA enforcement activities are strong
enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations *
7. CFIA helps to facilitate international
trade *
Levels
marked with * are randomized
❍ 7 7
- Agree completely
❍ 6 6
❍ 5 5
❍ 4 4
❍ 3 3
❍ 2 2
❍ 1 1 - Disagree completely
B1a
Please
review the list below and rank what you personally feel the top 3 priorities of
the CFIA should be.
_____ Verifying safe food is sold to consumers *
_____ Verifying importers do not import contaminated
or fraudulent foods *
_____ Helping to keep international markets open to
Canadian food, plant and animal products *
_____ Helping to keep foreign animal diseases out of
Canada *
_____ Helping prevent the spread of plant pests and
animal diseases in Canada *
_____ Verifying the safety and quality of feed,
fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds in Canada *
_____ Helping prevent plant pests and invasive
species from entering Canada *
Levels
marked with * are randomized
B2
Were
you aware that moving untreated firewood from a campground or cottage can
spread invasive species?
❍ 1 Yes
❍ 2 No
❍ 3 Not
sure
B3
Were
you aware (before this survey) that the CFIA was responsible for regulating the
importation of dogs into Canada?
❍ 1 Yes
❍ 2 No
❍ 3 Not
sure
B4
Please
look at the following list of words, and select the ones that in your view,
describe the CFIA.
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 Efficient
*
❑ 2 Dedicated
*
❑ 3 Punitive
*
❑ 4 Transparent
*
❑ 5 Consistent
*
❑ 6 Caring
*
❑ 7 Innovative
*
❑ 8 Trusted
*
❑ 9 Global
leader *
❑ 10 Informative
*
❑ 11 Responsive
*
❑ 12 Service
oriented *
❑ 13 Scientific
*
❑ 14 Respectful
*
❑ 15 Fair
*
❑ 16 Collaborative
*
❑ 17 None
of the above (Exclusive)
Levels
marked with * are randomized
B6
From
the following list, indicate which of the following situations you believe the
CFIA is involved in?
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 Checking
food products being imported into the country *
❑ 2 A
restaurant has a complaint of a dirty kitchen *
❑ 3 A
person gets food poisoning from cooking and eating undercooked meat *
❑ 4 Checking
plant products coming into the country *
❑ 5 Insects,
fungus and other pests that affect plant health, but do not have a direct
impact on the ability of consumers to eat the plant as food *
❑ 6 A
dog being brought into Canada by a vacationing family *
❑ 7 A
dog being brought into Canada to be permanently adopted by a person living in
Canada *
❑ 8 Live
animals being exported from Canada to other countries for reasons other than to
be consumed as food *
❑ 9 Live
animals being exported from Canada to other countries to be consumed as food *
Levels
marked with * are randomized
B7
In
thinking of the food that you consume, what percentage do you think has been
inspected by the CFIA?
Minimum:
0, Maximum: 100
__________
%
B8
Were
you aware (before this survey) that the CFIA plays an important role in
preventing the spread of pests such as Japanese beetle in Vancouver and emerald
ash borer in eastern Canada?
❍ 1 Yes
❍ 2 No
❍ 3 Not
sure
C1
Which
of the following statements best describes your role and responsibility when it
comes to grocery shopping for your family or household?
❍ 1 I
am solely responsible
❍ 2 I
share in this responsibility
❍ 3 Somebody
else in my family or household looks after grocery shopping
❍ 4 Prefer
not to say
C2
Which
of the following descriptions would you say describe you, and to what extent?
1. Foodie *
2. Camper *
3. Cottager *
4. Hobby farmer *
5. Gardener *
6. Nature enthusiast *
7. Hiker *
8. Outdoorsy *
9. Pet owner *
10. Animal lover *
Levels
marked with * are randomized
❍ 3 Describes
me completely
❍ 2 Describes
me somewhat
❍ 1 Does
not describe me at all
❍ 4 Don’t
know/Not sure
Section
Demographics
X1, X2,
X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, X9, End1
Page
X1
The
following information is collected for classification purposes only.
Please
indicate your gender.
❍ 1 Male
❍ 2 Female
❍ 3 Other
❍ 4 Prefer
not to answer
X2
What is
the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
❍ 1 Less
than a high school diploma or equivalent
❍ 2 High
school diploma or equivalent
❍ 3 Registered
apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma
❍ 4 College,
CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma
❍ 5 University
certificate or diploma below bachelor's level
❍ 6 Bachelor's
degree
❍ 7 Graduate
degree above bachelor's level
❍ 8 Prefer
not to answer
X3
What
language do you speak most often at home?
❍ 1 English
❍ 2 French
❍ 3 Other
(specify): __________________________________________________
❍ 4 Prefer
not to answer
X4
Which
of the following best describes your total household income last year, before
taxes, from all sources for all household members?
❍ 1 Under
$20,000
❍ 2 $20,000
to just under $40,000
❍ 3 $40,000
to just under $60,000
❍ 4 $60,000
to just under $80,000
❍ 5 $80,000
to just under $100,000
❍ 6 $100,000
to just under $150,000
❍ 7 $150,000
and above
❍ 8 Prefer
not to answer
X5
Are you
an Indigenous person?
An
Indigenous person is a member of a First Nation, a Métis or an Inuk (Inuit).
First Nations (North American Indians) include Status and Non-Status Indians.
❍ 1 Yes
❍ 2 No
X6 Show if X5 Yes
You indicated
that you are an Indigenous person. If you wish to provide further details,
please specify the group to which you belong.
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 First
Nations (North American Indian)
❑ 2 Métis
❑ 3 Inuk
(Inuit)
❑ 4 Other
(Specify) __________________________________________________
X7 Show if X5 Not Indigenous
Are you
a member of a visible minority group?
A
member of a visible minority in Canada may be defined as someone (other than an
Aboriginal person) who is non-white in colour or race, regardless of place of
birth. For example: Black, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian or
East Indian, Southeast Asian, non-white West Asian, North African or Arab,
non-white Latin American, person of mixed origin (with one parent in one of the
visible minority groups in this list), or other visible minority group.
❍ 1 Yes
❍ 2 No
X8 Show if X7 Yes
You
indicated that you are a member of a visible minority group. If you wish to
provide further details, please select the box(es) that apply to you.
Select
all that apply
❑ 1 Black
❑ 2 Chinese
❑ 3 Filipino
❑ 4 Japanese
❑ 5 Korean
❑ 6 South
Asian/East Indian (including: Indian from India; Bangladeshi; Pakistani; East
Indian from Guyana, Trinidad, East Africa; etc.)
❑ 7 Southeast
Asian (including: Burmese; Cambodian; Laotian; Thai; Vietnamese; etc.)
❑ 8 Non-White
West Asian, North African or Arab (including: Egyptian; Libyan; Lebanese;
Iranian; etc.)
❑ 9 Non-White
Latin American (including: indigenous persons from Central and South America,
etc.)
❑ 10 Person
of mixed origin (with one parent in one of the visible minority groups)
❑ 11 Other
visible minority group (specify)
__________________________________________________
X9
What
are the first three digits of your postal code?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
❑ -8 Prefer
not to answer
End
Those
are all our questions for you today.
Business
Questionnaire
Thank you for taking the time to
participate in this survey. The objective of this research is to allow you, a
CFIA regulated party, to tell us how you see the Agency and to share what you
think about the CFIA and its services. This survey will help the Agency improve
its program delivery and communication with businesses. It is also voluntary
and responses will remain confidential and anonymous. There is no attempt to
market or sell anything. It will take approximately 20 minutes of your time to
complete.
All of your responses to the survey will be strictly confidential and will be
reported only in the aggregate.
If you get interrupted while doing the survey, you can click on the same link and you will be able to continue the
survey in the same spot where you left off.
To take the survey in an alternative format, please contact support@e54surveys.com
(mailto:support@e54surveys.com).
To verify the legitimacy of this survey you can contact the lead researcher at
Patterson Langlois john.patterson@plinc.ca (mailto: john.patterson@plinc.ca) or
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) at CFIA.information.ACIA@canada.ca
(CFIA.information.ACIA@canada.ca).
© 2022 Advanis Privacy Policy
(https://www.advanis.ca/privacy_policy2.html) CRIC Pledge
(https://www.canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CRIC-Pledge-to-Canadians.pdf)
S3
What industry segments does your
company operate in?
Select all that apply
|
|
Food
businesses: |
|
❑ 1 |
Food
preparation (Show
if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 2 |
Food
importing (Show
if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 3 |
Food
exporting (Show
if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 4 |
Interprovincial
trade of food (Show
if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 5 |
Food
manufacturing (Show
if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 6 |
Farming
(Show
if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 7 |
Food/beverage
manufacturing or processing (Show if Sample NAICS Food
business) |
|
❑ 8 |
Meat
and poultry slaughter (Show if Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
❑ 9 |
Other
(specify) __________________________________________________ (Show if
Sample NAICS Food business) |
|
|
Animal
health businesses: |
|
❑ 10 |
Live
animal importing (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 11 |
Live
animal exporting (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑
12 |
Germplasm
(genetic material) import (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 13 |
Germplasm
(genetic material) export (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 14 |
Animal
product or by-product importing (Show if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 15 |
Animal
product or by-product exporting (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 16 |
Live
animal domestic management (for example, producers, assembly yards, includes
terrestrial and aquatic) (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 17 |
Animal
product or by-product preparation or manufacture (including renderers and
skin tanners) (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 18 |
Animal
feed (including feed mills and feed sellers) (Show if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 19 |
Pet
food import (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 20 |
Pet
food export (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 21 |
Animal
transportation (including freight forwarders) (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 22 |
Artificial
insemination centres (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 23 |
Veterinary
biologics (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 24 |
Horse
owners (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
❑ 25 |
Small
flock owners (including bird collections) (Show if Sample NAICS Animal
business) |
|
❑ 26 |
Other
(specify) __________________________________________________ (Show
if Sample NAICS Animal business) |
|
|
Plant
health businesses: |
|
❑ 27 |
Fertilizers
and supplements (Show
if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 28 |
Forestry
products (Show
if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 29 |
Horticulture
(greenhouse, nursery, bulbs, fruit trees, grapevines) (Show if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 30 |
Crops
(grains, oilseeds) (Show
if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 31 |
Potatoes (Show
if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 32 |
Seed
growing (other than seed potato) (Show if Sample NAICS Plant
business) |
|
❑ 33 |
Seed
establishments/ handling (Show if Sample NAICS Plant
business) |
|
❑ 34 |
Plant
breeding (Show
if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 35 |
Plant
breeders’ rights (intellectual property) (Show if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
|
❑ 36 |
Invasive
species prevention and management (Show if Sample NAICS Plant
business) |
|
❑ 37 |
Other
(specify) __________________________________________________ (Show
if Sample NAICS Plant business) |
S4
Does your business sell products
online?
|
❍ 1 |
Yes |
|
❍ 2 |
No |
|
❍ 3 |
Not
sure |
S4a Show if S4 Yes
Approximately what percentage of your
business’ total revenue comes from online sales?
Minimum:
0, Maximum: 100
__________
%
S4b Show if S4 Yes
Does your business have its own
e-commerce site, or does it use other platforms (for example, Amazon)?
|
❍ 1 |
Own
site |
|
❍ 2 |
Other
platform |
|
❍ 3 |
Both |
|
❍ 4 |
Don’t
know / not sure |
A1
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals and plants, which enhances
the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy.
How familiar would you say your company is with the activities of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your
response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘Very familiar'. A rating of 1 indicates ‘Not
familiar at all’.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very familiar |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not familiar at all |
AX
When you review the following list of
government and non-government organizations, overall, how favourable of an impression do you have of each organization?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your
response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘Extremely favourable'. A rating of 1
indicates ‘Not favourable at all’.
|
1. |
Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) * |
|
2. |
Health
Canada * |
|
3. |
Canada
Revenue Agency * |
|
4. |
Canada
Border Services Agency * |
|
5. |
Canadian
Transportation Agency * |
|
6. |
Public
Health Agency of Canada * |
Levels marked with * are randomized
|
❍ 7 |
7
Extremely favourable |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not favourable at all |
A4
Please indicate how much your
company trusts the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to do what is
right?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your
response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘trust completely’. A rating of 1 indicates
‘do not trust at all’.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Trust completely |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Do not trust at all |
A5
Please rate your company’s
level of confidence that food sold in Canada is safe.
Please provide your opinion even if you are
not primarily a food business.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very confident |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not confident at all |
A5a
Please rate your company’s
level of confidence that food, plants and animals in Canada are safeguarded.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very confident |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not confident at all |
A6a
When it comes to safeguarding the
safety of food sold in Canada, how well to you believe the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you are not primarily a
food company.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Doing well |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not doing well |
A6b
When it comes to safeguarding the
health of plants in Canada how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you are not primarily a
plant company.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Doing well |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not doing well |
A6c
When it comes to safeguarding the
health of animals in Canada how well do you believe the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you are not primarily
an animal company.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Doing well |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not doing well |
A7
Below are a number of statements about
the CFIA.
For each statement, please indicate your
level of agreement on a 7-point scale where a rating of 7 means “strongly
agree”, 1 means “strongly disagree”, and 4 means “neither agree nor disagree”.
|
1. |
The
decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA regulations are very complicated
* |
|
2. |
CFIA
is transparent in how they operate * |
|
3. |
The
CFIA does business in the same way for everyone within their mandate * |
|
4. |
CFIA
regulations have been implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses * |
|
5. |
CFIA
guidance on regulations is clear * |
|
6. |
CFIA
regulations are too basic for my company to be concerned about * |
|
7. |
Representatives
of CFIA are helpful in providing information on regulations * |
|
8. |
Information
received from the CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance * |
|
9. |
Representatives
of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties * |
|
10. |
Overall,
the CFIA is a fair regulatory agency * |
|
11. |
The
CFIA is properly equipped to manage the complexity of Canada’s food, animal,
and plant supply chain * |
|
12. |
The
CFIA listens to industry when it comes to understanding specific innovation
and competitiveness needs * |
|
13. |
The
CFIA listens to industry views when it comes to understanding industry's
specific regulatory priorities * |
|
14. |
It
is easy to have open and honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory
priorities * |
|
15. |
The
CFIA provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other
developed countries * |
|
16. |
The
CFIA is sensitive to the reality of how things work in your specific industry
* |
Levels marked with * are randomized
|
❍ 7 |
7
Strongly agree |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4
Neither agree nor disagree |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Strongly disagree |
|
❍ 99 |
I
don’t know/Not applicable |
A8
Please look at the following list of
words, and select the ones that in your view, describe the kind of partner the
CFIA is to your industry.
Select
all that apply
|
❑ 1 |
Innovative
* |
|
❑ 2 |
Efficient
* |
|
❑ 3 |
Informative
* |
|
❑ 4 |
Scientific
* |
|
❑ 5 |
Transparent
* |
|
❑ 6 |
Fair
* |
|
❑ 7 |
Dedicated
* |
|
❑ 8 |
Consistent
* |
|
❑ 9 |
Punitive
* |
|
❑ 10 |
Caring
* |
|
❑ 11 |
Trusted
* |
|
❑ 12 |
Responsive
* |
|
❑ 13 |
Service
oriented * |
|
❑ 14 |
Respectful
* |
|
❑ 15 |
Collaborative
* |
|
❑ 16 |
Global
leader * |
|
❑ 17 |
None
of the above (Exclusive) |
Levels marked with * are randomized
A9
Consider your interactions with the
CFIA and its leadership structure. Select the responses that you feel describe
each:
|
1. |
The
CFIA President * |
|
2. |
CFIA
senior management * |
|
3. |
CFIA
inspectors/enforcement staff * |
|
4. |
Call
centre staff * |
Levels marked with * are randomized
|
❍ 1 |
Is
credible * |
|
❍ 2 |
Is
responsive * |
|
❍ 3 |
Is
reliable * |
|
❍ 4 |
Don’t
know / Not sure |
Levels marked with * are randomized
Page SecB
B1
Below are some statements to describe
the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). How much do you
agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
|
1. |
The
CFIA is contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians, the
environment and the economy by protecting Canada’s food, animals and plants. |
|
2. |
As
a science-based regulator, the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement. |
|
3. |
The
CFIA issues food recall warnings in a timely manner. |
|
4. |
The
CFIA enforces regulations that help to ensure that animals are transported
humanely. |
|
5. |
The
CFIA enforces regulations that help to ensure that Canada’s plant resources
are protected. |
|
6. |
CFIA
enforcement activities encourage companies to comply with the regulations. |
|
❍ 7 |
7
Strongly agree |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4
Neither agree nor disagree |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Strongly disagree |
B1a
Please review the list below and rank
what you personally feel the top 3
priorities of the CFIA should be.
|
_____ |
Verifying
safe food is sold to consumers * |
|
_____ |
Verifying
importers do not import contaminated or fraudulent foods * |
|
_____ |
Helping
to keep international markets open to Canadian food, plant and animal
products * |
|
_____ |
Helping
to keep foreign animal diseases out of Canada * |
|
_____ |
Helping
prevent the spread of plant pests and animal diseases in Canada * |
|
_____ |
Verifying
the safety and quality of feed, fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds
in Canada * |
|
_____ |
Helping
prevent plant pests and invasive species from entering Canada * |
Levels marked with * are randomized
B2
In your opinion, how transparent do
you think the CFIA is when it comes to assessing
non-compliance with regulations?
Please answer on a scale of 1-7 with 1 being
not at all transparent, and 7 being very transparent.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very transparent |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not at all transparent |
B3
How transparent do you think the CFIA
is when it comes to reporting
(publishing) non-compliance?
Please answer on a scale of 1-7 with 1 being
not at all transparent, and 7 being very transparent.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very transparent |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not at all transparent |
B4
How has your company received
information from the CFIA in the past year?
Select all that apply
|
❑ 1 |
Mailed
documents |
|
❑ 2 |
Telephone
communications |
|
❑ 3 |
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) |
|
❑ 4 |
Portal
notices in My CFIA |
|
❑ 5 |
Personal
interaction with a CFIA representative |
|
❑ 6 |
CFIA
website |
|
❑ 7 |
Social
media |
|
❑ 8 |
Podcasts |
|
❑ 9 |
Chronicle
360 |
|
❑ 10 |
Through
an industry association |
|
❑ 11 |
Other
(specify): __________________________________________________ |
|
❑ 12 |
Not
applicable: I have never received or do not remember receiving information
from the CFIA (Exclusive) |
B5
Please rate how well your company
understands the information when it is received from the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your
response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘understands completely’. A rating of 1
indicates ‘no understanding at all’.
|
1. |
Mailed
documents (Show
if B4 1 Mailed document) |
|
2. |
Telephone
communications (Show
if B4 2 Telephone commu) |
|
3. |
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) (Show if B4 3 Email including) |
|
4. |
Portal
notices in My CFIA (Show
if B4 4 Portal notices ) |
|
5. |
Personal
interaction with a CFIA representative (Show if B4 5 Personal intera) |
|
6. |
CFIA
website (Show
if B4 6 CFIA website) |
|
7. |
Social
media (Show
if B4 7 Social media) |
|
8. |
Podcasts (Show
if B4 8 Podcasts) |
|
9. |
Chronicle
360 (Show
if B4 9 Chronicle 360) |
|
10. |
Through
an industry association (Show if B4 10 Through an indu) |
|
11. |
<<B4.specify(11)>> (Show if
B4 11 Other specify) |
|
❍ 7 |
7
Understands completely |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
No understanding at all |
B6
What is your overall level of
satisfaction regarding the communication tools that are used by the CFIA?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your
response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘very satisfied’. A rating of 1 indicates
‘not at all satisfied’.
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very satisfied |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not at all satisfied |
|
❍ 99 |
Not
applicable: I have never received or do not remember receiving information
from the CFIA |
B7 Show if B4 answered 1 to 11
How satisfied are you with the
following communication tools used by the CFIA?
|
1. |
Mailed
documents (Show
if B4 1 Mailed document) |
|
2. |
Telephone
communications (Show
if B4 2 Telephone commu) |
|
3. |
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) (Show if B4 3 Email including) |
|
4. |
Portal
notices in My CFIA (Show
if B4 4 Portal notices ) |
|
5. |
Personal
interaction with a CFIA representative (Show if B4 5 Personal intera) |
|
6. |
CFIA
website (Show
if B4 6 CFIA website) |
|
7. |
Social
media (Show
if B4 7 Social media) |
|
8. |
Podcasts (Show
if B4 8 Podcasts) |
|
9. |
Chronicle
360 (Show
if B4 9 Chronicle 360) |
|
10. |
Through
an industry association (Show if B4 10 Through an indu) |
|
11. |
<<B4.specify(11)>> (Show if
B4 11 Other specify) |
|
❍ 7 |
7
Very satisfied |
|
❍ 6 |
6 |
|
❍ 5 |
5 |
|
❍ 4 |
4 |
|
❍ 3 |
3 |
|
❍ 2 |
2 |
|
❍ 1 |
1
Not at all satisfied |
B8
When your company assesses the
services offered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which elements
are the most important? Please rank the top 3 service elements.
Start by selecting the reason that you
consider to be most important. If there are other reasons, continue to select
all that apply and rank (up/down) in order of importance. Please rank order the
top 3.
|
_____ |
The
services are easy to understand * |
|
_____ |
I
can access all of the services offered by the CFIA in one place * |
|
_____ |
The
services offered by CFIA help prevent non-compliance * |
|
_____ |
I
can contact a CFIA representative for clarification * |
|
_____ |
Services
are available when I need them * |
|
_____ |
Other |
Levels marked with * are randomized
B8other Show if B8 Other in top 3
What is the "Other" service
offered that you feel is important?
Please
do not enter personally-identifying information (for example,, name, email
address, phone number, mailing address), as anything you enter may be shared
with the sponsor of this research.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
B9
How would you prefer the CFIA
communicate with you in the future?
Select
all that apply
|
❑ 1 |
Mailed
documents * |
|
❑ 2 |
Telephone
communications * |
|
❑ 3 |
Virtual
chat from the CFIA website or My CFIA * |
|
❑ 4 |
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) * |
|
❑ 5 |
Portal
notices in My CFIA * |
|
❑ 6 |
In
person interaction with CFIA representative * |
|
❑ 7 |
CFIA
website * |
|
❑ 8 |
Social
media * |
|
❑ 9 |
Podcasts
* |
|
❑ 10 |
Chronicle
360 * |
|
❑ 11 |
Through
an industry association * |
|
❑ 12 |
Other
(Specify): __________________________________________________ |
|
❑ 99 |
Not
applicable: I wish the CFIA would not send me any future communications (Exclusive) |
Levels marked with * are randomized
B10
When trying to understand new
requirements and regulatory priorities, what is the best way to have more open
and clear discussions with CFIA regulators?
|
❍ 1 |
Informal
quarterly consultations * |
|
❍ 2 |
Formal
consultations * |
|
❍ 3 |
Industry
association events * |
|
❍ 4 |
Other
(specify): __________________________________________________ |
|
❍ 99 |
Not
applicable: I wish the CFIA would not send me any future communications |
Levels marked with * are randomized
B11
If the CFIA was holding webinars, what
topics would drive the most interest?
Select all that interest you.
|
❑ 1 |
How
to use MY CFIA portal to apply for licences and other permissions (for
example, export certificates, permit to import, certificate of free sale) * |
|
❑ 2 |
Preventive
control plans * |
|
❑ 3 |
Traceability
* |
|
❑ 4 |
Import
requirements * |
|
❑ 5 |
Labelling
* |
|
❑ 6 |
Other
(specify): __________________________________________________ |
|
❑ 7 |
Don’t
know/Prefer not to say (Exclusive) |
Levels marked with * are randomized
B12
Do you have any other opinions or
comments that you would like to share about food safety or the CFIA?
Please do not enter personally-identifying
information (for example,, name, email address, phone number, mailing address),
as anything you enter may be shared with the sponsor of this research.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
|
❑ -8 |
No
comment |
X1
The following information is collected
for classification purposes only. Please answer the following questions about your
company:
Approximately how many people are employed in your company?
|
❍ 1 |
Sole
proprietor / just me |
|
❍ 2 |
2
to 9 |
|
❍ 3 |
10
to 49 employees |
|
❍ 4 |
50
to 99 employees |
|
❍ 5 |
100
to 499 employees |
|
❍ 6 |
500
to 999 employees |
|
❍ 7 |
1000
to 4999 employees |
|
❍ 8 |
5000+
employees |
|
❍ 9 |
I
don’t know/ Prefer not to answer |
X2
What is the approximate annual revenue
of your company?
|
❍ 1 |
Less
than $100,000 |
|
❍ 2 |
$100,000
to $499,999 |
|
❍ 3 |
$500,000
to $999,999 |
|
❍ 4 |
$1
million to less than $25 million |
|
❍ 5 |
$25
million to less than $100 million |
|
❍ 6 |
$100
million or more |
|
❍ 7 |
I
don’t know/ Prefer not to answer |
X3
How long has your company been in
operations?
|
❍ 10 |
Less
than a year |
|
❍ 11 |
More
than 1 but less than 5 years |
|
❍ 12 |
5
or more years but less than 10 years |
|
❍ 13 |
10
or more years but less than 25 years |
|
❍ 14 |
More
than 25 years |
|
❍ 15 |
I
don’t know/ Prefer not to answer |
X5
In which regions does your company
currently do business?
Select
all that apply
|
❑ 1 |
British
Columbia |
|
❑ 2 |
Alberta |
|
❑ 3 |
Saskatchewan |
|
❑ 4 |
Manitoba |
|
❑ 5 |
Ontario |
|
❑ 6 |
Quebec |
|
❑ 7 |
New
Brunswick |
|
❑ 8 |
Prince
Edward Island |
|
❑ 9 |
Nova
Scotia |
|
❑ 10 |
Newfoundland
and Labrador |
|
❑ 11 |
Yukon |
|
❑ 12 |
Nunavut |
|
❑ 13 |
Northwest
Territories |
|
❑ 14 |
United
States of America |
|
❑ 15 |
Outside
of the United States of America or Canada |
X6
Please check the different regions
where your company offices or facilities are located and where CFIA food safety
regulations are applicable.
Select
all that apply
|
❑ 1 |
British
Columbia |
|
❑ 2 |
Alberta |
|
❑ 3 |
Saskatchewan |
|
❑ 4 |
Manitoba |
|
❑ 5 |
Ontario |
|
❑ 6 |
Quebec |
|
❑ 7 |
New
Brunswick |
|
❑ 8 |
Prince
Edward Island |
|
❑ 9 |
Nova
Scotia |
|
❑ 10 |
Newfoundland
and Labrador |
|
❑ 11 |
Yukon |
|
❑ 12 |
Nunavut |
|
❑ 13 |
Northwest
Territories |
|
❑ 14 |
United
States of America |
|
❑ 15 |
Outside
of the United States of America or Canada |
X7
What is the ownership status of your
company?
|
❍ 1 |
Publicly-traded |
|
❍ 2 |
Privately-held |
|
❍ 3 |
Government/Crown |
|
❍ 4 |
Not
sure |
X8
Is your company based in Canada, or
does it have its headquarters elsewhere?
|
❍ 1 |
Headquarters
located in Canada |
|
❍ 2 |
Headquarters
located outside of Canada |
|
❍ 3 |
Not
sure |
X8f
Would you consider the organization to
be a family-owned organization?
|
❍ 1 |
Yes |
|
❍ 2 |
No |
|
❍ 3 |
Don’t
know / Not sure |
X9
What are your company’s regular hours
of operation?
|
❍ 1 |
Weekdays
9am to 5pm |
|
❍ 2 |
Monday
through Saturday |
|
❍ 3 |
Weekdays
& weekends |
|
❍ 4 |
Open
24 hours |
|
❍ 5 |
Other
(Specify): __________________________________________________ |
|
❍ 6 |
Not
sure |
X10
When is usually your company’s busiest
time of the week?
|
❍ 1 |
Weekdays
during the day |
|
❍ 2 |
Weekdays
during the evening |
|
❍ 3 |
Weekends,
during the day |
|
❍ 4 |
Weekends,
during the evenings |
|
❍ 5 |
Not
sure |
X11
When is your company’s busiest time of
the year?
Select all that apply.
|
❑ 1 |
Summer |
|
❑ 2 |
Fall |
|
❑ 3 |
Winter |
|
❑ 4 |
Spring |
|
❑ 5 |
Holiday
occasion(s) |
|
❑ 6 |
Consistent
year-round |
|
❑ 7 |
Not
sure (Exclusive) |
X12
Would you describe your company as
Indigenous managed or owned?
|
❍ 1 |
Yes |
|
❍ 2 |
No |
|
❍ 3 |
Unsure |
X13
For statistical purposes only
What is your gender?
|
❍ 1 |
Male |
|
❍ 2 |
Female |
|
❍ 3 |
Other |
|
❍ 4 |
Prefer
not to answer |
X14
Approximately, what percentage of
individuals might identify as a visible minority*?* in senior management (including owner) roles?
Please note your percentage within the
following range: a minimum of “0” and a
maximum of “100.”
*?*
The Government of Canada has a policy that is designed to ensure that the
diverse population of Canada is equally supported. To better understand the composition of
leadership within Canadian food businesses, we are asking about race and other
demographic characteristics of the leadership group. An estimate is fine for
this question and if you do not know that is fine as well.
Minimum:
0, Maximum: 100
__________
%
|
❑ -9 |
I
do not know |
X15
Please describe the approximate
percentages of individuals with a senior management position who identify as female*?*.
Please note your percentage within the
following range: a minimum of “0” and a
maximum of “100.”
*?*
The Government of Canada has a policy that is designed to ensure that the
diverse population of Canada is equally supported. To better understand the composition of
leadership at Canadian food businesses we are asking about gender and other
demographic characteristics of the leadership group. An estimate is fine for
this question and if you do not know that is fine as well.
Minimum:
0, Maximum: 100
__________
%
|
❑ -9 |
I
don't know |
ASK
X16 IF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET:
S3
= CODES 16, 21, 24, 25, OR 27-36
AND
A6B/A6C = 5 OR LESS (IF S3 = 16, 21, 24, OR 25, REFER TO A6C, IF S3 = 27-36,
REFER TO A6B).
X16
Thank
you for your time. The CFIA has
contracted an independent research firm for this questionnaire and to conduct
short one-hour interviews with representatives of some of the companies that
gave answers like yours. These interviews have the objective of better
understanding your responses to the survey and would be scheduled on Zoom at a
time of your convenience, for which you would be compensated $100 for your
time.
Are
you open to being contacted for such an interview? You can trust that the interview will be
handled by an objective researcher and your participation will not be known to
the CFIA. The interview would have to be
done in the next few weeks. This is a
request – you may also decline without concern, but we would value your input
|
❍ 1 |
Yes,
I would be open to being contacted about a follow-up interview |
|
❍ 2 |
No,
please do not contact me for a follow-up interview |
ASK X17 IF X16 = CODE 1 (YES), OR ELSE
PROCEED TO THANK YOU SCREEN.
X17
Please
provide your contact information so that we may contact you for a follow-up
interview:
Telephone
number: 9-DIGITS
Email
Address: ENSURE VALID EMAIL ADDRESS IS PROVIDED
Qualitative Screener - Consumer
Draft Version
December
2021
SCREENER/DISCUSSION
GUIDE OUTLINE
Dates: Commencing
January 2021, dates TBD
Client: Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Locations: National:
Mini Focus Groups with Canadian Consumers on Food Safety, Plant &
Animal Health and the Agency’s reputation
Qualitative
research with consumers is required to understand how and in what ways they
evaluate the safety of the Canadian food supply, the health of Canadian crops
and animals, and the role that the CFIA plays in that. Qualitative data will be
collected through virtual mini focus groups and that reflect the diversity of
Canadians.
Research Objectives:
Explore
Canadians’ understanding of food safety.
Explore
Canadians’ understanding of animal health.
Explore
Canadians’ understanding of plant health.
Explore
Canadians’ understanding of the CFIA and its reputation.
Understand what
sources are contributing to these questions and how.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO
RECRUITERS:
RECRUIT 5 for 4-5 to show
Hello/Bonjour: Determine
(quickly) if the person answering prefers to speak in English or French and use
the appropriate version of this screener.
My name is _______ and I work for Patterson, Langlois Consultants, a
research company working on behalf of the Government of Canada. I am looking for someone to participate in
some important research commissioned by the Government on the our food supply, including
crops, animals and the food that’s ready to eat in stores. Can you help me? I need to speak to the person in your
household that usually does most of the food shopping. If that’s not you, could you direct me to
that person?
LEAVE YOUR CONTACT INFO IF NECESSARY AND REPEAT INTRO AS NECESSARY FOR
THE NEW PERSON ONCE CONTACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. Please be mindful of the fact that you are in
effect working on behalf of the government.
INDICATE: Male o1 Female
o2 A good mix
My name is _______ and I work for Patterson, Langlois Consultants, a
research company working on behalf of the Government of Canada. I am looking for someone to participate in
some important research commissioned by the Government on the safety of our food
supply, including crops, animals and the food that’s ready to eat in
stores. If you will, I need 3 or 4 minutes of your time in order to verify if
you are the right person for this study.
By the way, this is research only – no one will attempt to sell you
anything. Participation is strictly
voluntary, your answers will remain confidential, and your privacy will be
protected. (PROCEED WITH Q.1)
Q.1 We are
looking for someone in your household that normally does the food shopping
? Is that you?
Yes 1
No 2 Would it be possible to speak
with that person?
(Re-engage or
set up a call-back)
Q.2 Would you be willing to be interviewed on this
topic? Not surprisingly, these
interviews will be conducted on Zoom and take about 90 minutes with the
interviewer and up to 4 other Canadians:
You will not be asked anything of a confidential or sensitive nature)
Yes 1
No 2 THANK AND END
Q.3 Can you
tell me: Does anyone in your household
have any special dietary needs like celiac, a food allergy, a food intolerance
of some kind?
Yes 1 Recruit for groups 1 and 8 and skip to Q5A
No 2 Continue
Q.4 Which
of the following does the best job of describing your food preferences?
1 We buy local, fresh and organic whenever we can 1 Recruit for group 2, 4 and 6 and 8.
2 We
usually eat what we can afford or what’s on sale 1 Recruit for group
1, 3, 5
3 What
eat for pleasure. Price, organic etc. don’t really matter 4 Recruit for group 7
4
Other:
please probe and allocated as appropriate
Q.5A Do you know
what a focus group is?
Yes 1
No 2 CONTINUE
TO Q.12
Q.5B Have you ever
participated in a focus group discussion before?
Yes
1 Determine
topic and frequency of groups in last 5 years.
Exclude anyone
who has attended 5 or more studies in the last 5
years, or within the last month.
Skip to Q7A.
No 2
Q.6 A
focus group brings together a small number of people and an independent
professional moderator from the research firm (Patterson, Langlois Consultants)
whose main role is to solicit the opinions of participants: the topic of
discussion will be food safety and how you buy your food. This research is being done on behalf of the
Government of Canada. There is no
intention to sell you a product or to change your views about anything, but
rather to gather opinions to help the Government better understand and respond
to the needs of Canadians. Participation
is strictly on a voluntary basis and the information provided will be
administered in strict accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act. To
thank you for your participation, we will give you $150 compensation at the end
of the discussion, but we will expect you to spend about half an hour doing
preparing for the group beforehand. Could we count on you?
Yes 1 CONTINUE
No 2 THANK AND END
Q.7A Would you
be available to participate in the focus group on _____ at ______?
Q7B: HOMEWORK
TO BE DONE BEFORE THE GROUP:
Here’s the little bit of homework we expect from you –
but don’t worry, this isn’t like school!
NO TESTS NO GRADES! It should be
fun! I’m going to read this to you and
then we will email you a copy.
Imagine that a family that has just moved in next door
from a far away place. In your very
first conversation with the mother, she shares with you that she’s worried
about how her family is going to adjust to Canadian food. Some in her family have some intolerances
that she hasn’t quite figured out but she sees issues across the board – in
some basic plant proteins, meats and even processed foods.
Your mission:
You want to give her the information she needs to hear about the safety
of Canada’s crops, meat and the other
food products sold in stores. This
family speaks English as a second language so everything will need to be
simple, but you want to be thorough (cover all of the concerns) and leave her with
the information she needs to follow up on her own if she wants to.
To do this, please spend 20-30 minutes investigating
for her and write down the main points and information sources on one page.
We’ll expect you to have this done and send to us a
day before the groups, and then we will discuss during the group. Is all of that clear?
Yes 1 CONTINUE
No 2 CLARIFY AS NECESSARY
SKIP TO CONTACT DETAILS
Q.8 Great! The interview will be on Zoom with a
moderator.
Determine
that the person is comfortable with Zoom or is willing to use it.
There
is no intention to sell you a product or to change your views about anything,
but rather to gather opinions help the Government perform better. Participation is strictly on a voluntary
basis and the information provided will be administered in strict accordance
with the provisions of the Privacy Act. To thank you for your participation, we
will give you $150 compensation at the end of the interview. Could we count on
you?
Yes 1 CONTINUE
No 2 THANK AND END
CONTACT DETAILS
|
The discussion will be held on Zoom.
Are you comfortable with that? The discussion will about (1 hour for In-depth interview) (90 minutes
for the focus group). Please, be sure to send your one-page document to us a
day before and be ready 15 minutes prior to the start of your interview. We will remind
you if you haven’t done your homework – and you will not be able to
participate if you haven’t done it.
Most importantly, if for any reason you are unable to attend,
please call or email us as soon as possible so that we can reschedule or
replace you if need be. Although we
can accommodate a replacement for you if that’s necessary, please inform us
beforehand because we cannot do this without screening that person first. PROVIDE NAME, PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL. Can I confirm your contact details so we can send you the Zoom link
and a reminder? |
Name: _________________________________________
EMAIL: _________________________________________
May I please have a
phone number where I can reach you ?
House: (_____)-_____-__________ Work: (_____)-_____-__________
Your co-operation is greatly appreciated!
RECRUITED BY:
_____________________ CONFIRMED BY: ______________________
Qualitative Discussion Guide - Consumer
Introduction
(20 min.)
1. Introduction
of moderator, name and type of research firm: (e.g. John representing the
marketing research firm Patterson Langlois)
2. Set
up: We're here to talk about the safety of Canada’s food supply. The purpose of these discussions is to help
the Government of Canada better understand how Canadians understand safe food
and their trust that Canada’s food supply is indeed safe. Your input is important and very much
appreciated.
3. Explanation of the process:
Conversation
recorded: This conversation will be recorded, but will be used in
accordance with the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and
Electronics Documents Act.
· Voluntary participation: Participants
are free to leave or refuse to participate at any time.
Anonymity:
Although we mean to listen to and use your opinions here, you have a strict
guarantee of anonymity. The fact that
you participated in this process or what you personally say will not be made
public.
Disclaimer
of observers: Observers may be on this call and hidden from view. Their presence is to directly hear what you
have to say but mostly to ensure that I ask the right questions, cover all of
the bases, etc.
Role
of moderator and participants: I am
here as a professional researcher. I am
not a Government employee and I am here precisely because I am neutral and
objective. I have no vested interest in
how you respond to my questions. I am
here to ask questions, not provide answers. You are here to speak for
yourselves.
Expression
of opinions: there are no wrong or
right answers, no expectation that you agree with each other.
Length: we will be here about 90
minutes.
· Assess familiarity with Zoom. For focus
groups: Be aware that having a group
discussion on Zoom requires us to use the available features if we want this to
go smoothly. Please “raise your hand”
using the Zoom feature if you have something to say.
4. Round-table
introduction of participants: (in-depth for IDI’s, more briefly for focus
group participants)
Please start by introducing yourself and
your household.
Probes:
Size and composition of family
Major preoccupations about food
· Allergies,
dietary and other food related imperatives
PART 1: Food in your life (15 minutes max)
Let’s start with a simple question:
What does “good food” and “bad food” mean in your house?
Keeping safety-related dimensions for later, validate where and how
participants share common food related values.
INVENTORY FOOD DIMENSIONS FOR
FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION
PROBES (if not brought up):
How much of what you consider “good food” is determined by:
·
Price
·
Provenance
·
Seasonality
·
Food group (protein,
starches, sugars, etc)
·
Your family’s background
·
Variety (prone to stay with what your family likes or
try new things a lot?)
·
Size and location of
producers
·
Dietary implications
(calories, fat content, etc.)
·
Taste
·
Freshness
·
Etc.
- Are
you adventurous with food or tend to be more conservative?
- Do
you care a lot about food or is it just something you take care of with minimum
effort
- Is
the cost of food a big deal or not?
- Do
you read, think or worry about ingredients?
What are you looking for?
- What
would I learn from watching you buy food?
Where do you go? What guides
those choices? Etc.
PART 2: Homework Exercise (30-45 minutes):
Ok,
let’s talk about your homework exercise.
By the way, I have looked at your one-pagers and will have some
questions, but first, can someone start us off by summarizing what you would
pass on to your new neighbors?
Extend the discussion by having everyone take
a turn, sharing their own discoveries and noting the discrepancies and
similarities. Once the process has run
its course, compare, contrast and summarize.
Probes:
·
Adjectives to describe food
safety and why they were chosen.
·
What did they end up saying
about plant health? Why that? Why not more?
·
What did they end up saying
about animal health? Why that? Why not more?
·
What, if any institutions
did they include? (Inventory)
o Attributes used to describe?
o Why those? Why not others?
·
What sources of information
did they encounter? How…
o Do they naturally qualify those sources?
o Accessible?
o Readable?
o Authoritative?
o What other attributes come up and why?
·
Summarize: Differences and similarities with respect to:
o Plant health
o Animal health
o Food safety generally
o Institutions responsible and their reputations
o Other notable aspects
o Sources of information used (readability, etc)
PART 2 - Additional Topics :
- What
is a food recall? When do they happen? What do they mean about the safety of
Canada’s food supply? Is this a sign
that the system is working or not working?
What kind of dangers to Canadians’ health do you associate with a
recall?
- What
kind of dangers to Canadians’ health do you associate with a recall? How do you
find out about food recalls? For example, through news media (TV, newspapers,
radio)? Social media? Do you subscribe to the CFIA’s food recall alerts?
- Has
anyone heard about restrictions about seeds and borders or traveling overseas
with pets?
- Is
there a difference between “safe food” and
“unhealthy food”? what about
between “unsafe” and “poor quality”?
Where do they intersect? How has
your thinking about this changed over time, if at all? Have you heard anything lately that caused
you to reconsider any of this?
-
WRAP UP
So by now I suppose it’s clear that this research is being commissioned
by the CFIA. What do you think we’ve
learned about this agency, its reputation and the how reputation is being
communicated?
PROBES along the following topics:
o Specific Role: What is it accountable for?
o Comprehensiveness: How wide and broad is its
mandate?
o Organization: What do you understand of how
the CFIA is structured and how it operates?
How long has it been there? How
big is it? Etc.
o Credibility?
o
Authorship: How much it
owns it’s communications and how much of it seems colored by other sources?
o Institutional priority topics and audiences: As you recall all of the things
we’ve discussed, what do you think the CFIA is focused on – either in terms of
issues or audiences? What do we think
about that?
o Any additional topics, concerns or issues?
Before
we end this, allow me to remind you that this is Government research, and that
you are entitled to both protection under the Privacy Act, and access to this
research once the process has run its course.
A report will be available under the Access to Information Act or from
Library and Archives Canada. Most of
all, please accept my thanks for your time and good will.
THANK AND TERMINATE
Qualitative Discussion Guide - Business
SUMMARY
Dates: commencing March
2022, dates TBD
Client: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA)
Locations: national in-depth interviews
and focus groups with Plant and Animal organization professionals on Zoom
In
order to understand feelings and opinions about the CFIA, qualitative research
is required with businesses and consumers. Qualitative data will be collected
through virtual focus groups and individual in-depth interviews that reflect
the diversity of our targeted population.
Research
Objectives:
- Gather data on reputation, trust
and other brand attributes that allows the Agency to manage and develop
the CFIA brand over plant and animal business lines.
- Examine thoughts on CFIA messages
and brand attributes and service quality
- Measure how stakeholders access
and assess CFIA services
- Assess satisfaction with existing
communication tools and tactics
- Assess preferred methods of
communication for each stakeholder segment
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Introduction (10 min.)
- Introduction of moderator, name
and type of research firm: (e.g John representing the marketing research
firm Patterson Langlois)
Subject
for animal business line interviews/focus groups: We're here to talk about Canada's
animal health regulations and the federal animal health regulator, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The purpose of these discussions is to help the
CFIA recognize how individual companies experience the regulations and how
companies view the CFIA as a regulator. More specifically, your input from
these discussions will assist future communications and messages the CFIA uses
to deliver on their mandate. Your input is important and very much appreciated.
Subject
for plant business line interviews/focus groups: We're here to talk about
Canada's plant safety regulations and the federal plant safety regulator, the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The purpose of these discussions is to
help the CFIA recognize how individual companies experience the regulations and
how companies view the CFIA as a regulator. More specifically, your input from
these discussions will assist future communications and messages the CFIA uses
to deliver on their mandate. Your input is important and very much appreciated.
Explanation
of the focus group process:
- Conversation
recorded: This
conversation will be recorded, but will be used in accordance with the
Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronics
Documents Act.
- Voluntary
participation: Participants
are free to leave or refuse to participate at any time.
- Anonymity: Although we
mean to listen to and use your opinions here, you have a strict guarantee
of anonymity. The fact that you participated in this process or what you
personally say will not be made public.
- Disclaimer of
observers: Observers
may be on this call and hidden from view. Their presence is to directly
hear what you have to say but mostly to ensure that I ask the right
questions, cover all of the bases, etc.
- Role of moderator and
participants: I
am here as a professional researcher. I am not a Government employee and
I am here precisely because I am neutral and objective. I have no vested
interest in how you respond to my questions. I am here to ask questions,
not provide answers. You are here to speak for yourselves and your
organization.
- Role of moderator
continued: Although
I have done my homework and read up on regulations, I am no expert –
please bear with me if I ask naïve questions or ask that you explain
things that may seem obvious to you.
- Expression of
opinions: there
are no wrong or right answers, no expectation that you agree.
- Length: we will be here
about 90 minutes – more if you think it necessary. (60 minutes for
in-depth with representatives of industry associations).
- Assess familiarity
with Zoom.
- Round-table introduction of
participants: (in-depth
for IDI's, more briefly for focus group participants)
- Please start by introducing
yourself. Tell us a little about yourself personally before you get into
your work and the specific nature of your job.
- Length of time in role
- Other jobs or roles played
elsewhere or in the food/plant/animal industry
- Are you the only contact for
the CFIA and other regulators?
- Adjustments in your business
required since COVID
PART
1: Challenges For Your Industry / Organization (App. 20 min)
Although I have certain
topics I need to make sure we cover, what we talk about in this discussion is
mostly up to you. Let's start with a simple question: What are the biggest
challenges facing your industry? Just so you know, I'm going to keep track of
the regulatory things so we can take them all up a little later.
Probe: Explore regulatory
issues, encourage flow of challenges until run out: Inventory topics and take
them up individually.
EXAMPLE PROBES FOR
CHALLENGES INDENTIFIED:
- Is this something everyone in
your industry faces? What is it about this issue that makes it a challenge
for everyone? Is it your sense that every business like yours faces this
problem?
- In what other ways does it affect
your business? PROBE: Impact on costs, competitiveness,
ability to export, human resources, etc.?
- How has this changed over the
last years, if at all? (query re: above → evolutions in commerce,
competitive challenges, nature of opportunities, etc.)
- What changes do you consider
permanent versus those that may be time limited?
- Do you feel these things are
stable, changing still? What do you think will have changed 3-5 years from
now? (probe pace and breadth of organizational / market change)
PART
2: The CFIA as a Regulator (app 30 minutes)
Moderator note: Take some
time to do an inventory of all of the dimensions that colour participants'
sense of the CFIA as a regulatory agency.
What are your thoughts on
the CFIA – whether it be about the organization as a whole or the people from
that organization that you deal with?
ADDITIONAL TOPICS TO BE
PROBED IF NOT MENTIONED
- The focus: Is the CFIA
concerned about the right thing? How well do you feel they balance the
needs of Canadians and those of your industry?
- Do you trust the CFIA as a
regulator? [Expand on this question, what attributes go into trust… etc.]
- How do you access CFIA services?
How do you get the services (digital v. in person)? Do you go to the
website? Do you subscribe to email lists, social media?
- Are you familiar with My CFIA
(the digital portal to access licences, and other permissions) – What has
you experience been? Level of satisfaction?
- What do you see as an ideal way
to get CFIA services?
- Their flexibility: Anything to say
about – how quickly, how appropriately that have responded to evolutions,
be they in the wider economy, the industry, etc? What about how they (the
CFIA specifically) have handled things during the pandemic? Note that the
scope of this discussion cannot extend to larger issues or measures the
Government of Canada may have taken.
- Their tone, attitude or demeanor: How is it
working with the CFIA and its representatives? In what ways do you
interact with the CFIA? What are their strengths and weakness, how can
they improve?
- How would you describe typical
interactions with CFIA employees (probe specifically for interactions
with inspectors, politeness, professional, helpful?
Re-state list of regulatory
challenges not mentioned previously: Ok, these are the regulatory
topics you brought up earlier. Let's talk about these. If you think of anything
else along the way, this would be the time to bring it up.
Explore each topic,:
- In what other ways does it affect
your business? PROBE: Impact on costs, competitiveness,
ability to export or sell inter-provincially, human resources, etc.?
- How has this changed over the
last years, if at all? (query re: above → changes in commerce,
competitive challenges, nature of opportunities, etc.)
- Do you feel these things are
stable, changing still? How do you think it might change 5 years from now?
PART 3: Communications
If I asked you to describe
CFIA communications in one-word, what would it be? [Keep list]
If we looked at the
traditional sense of a BRAND how would you describe the CFIA brand? What pops into your mind when you hear CFIA?
What is the most effective
way for CFIA to get messages to you?
What types of
communications are most effective in breaking through the clutter?
What is your preferred
method of communication from the CFIA?
Probes:
- Are messages professional? Consistent?
- Guidance? How do you find
the guidance provided by the CFIA (check on where or how they get guidance
on regulations?
- Impact of messages, impression, thoughts
on brand attributes and service quality
ADDITIONAL TOPICS TO BE
PROBED IF NOT MENTIONED
- Introduction of any new
legislation or updates to the regulations they must follow (e.g.,
Fertilizer regulations or Animal Transport).
- Follow up for both businesses
lines:
- Characterization: What kind of
change did this represent?
- Comprehensiveness: Is it adapted
to the realities faced by your specific line of business? If not, how so:
- Overall impact and
unexpected or unforeseen consequences: What did you expect from
this change in legislation/regulations? Did it deliver positive or
negative results? How so and how not? Did anything get unexpectedly worse
or better after the introduction of the SCFR/other legislation related to
plant or animal health? Please explain?
- Was the regulation adjustment
easier or harder than you anticipated? Why?
- Are you satisfied or not with the
way these regulations were introduced? Why? Why not?
- In the end, has this proved to be
more or less of an improvement than you thought?
Before we end this, allow
me to remind you that this is Government research, and that you are entitled to
both protection under the Privacy Act, and access to this research once the
process has run its course. A report will be available under the Access to
Information Act or from Library and Archives Canada. Most of all, please accept
my thanks for your time and good will.
END