Common menu bar links
ARCHIVED - Audit of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Internal Audit Report
September 2009
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Audit Opinion
- Findings, Recommendations and Management Action Plan
- Appendix A: Audit Criteria
- Appendix B: Roles and Responsibilities
- Appendix C: List of Acronyms
Executive Summary
Background
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was created in December 2003, bringing together the front-line border management and enforcement activities formerly performed by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
The portion of the CFIA responsibility for traveller and initial inspection services at all Canadian ports of entry for food, plants and animals (FPAs) and related products was transferred to the CBSA by Order-in-Council in 2003. The CBSA is responsible for the initial import inspection services set out in Section 11 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to the extent that they are applicable at airports and Canadian border points.
To implement the Order-in-Council transfer of responsibilities, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed in January 2005 between the CBSA and the CFIA[ 1 ]. The primary goal of the MOU was to outline, in general terms, the working relationship and the roles and responsibilities of the CBSA and the CFIA with respect to the administration and enforcement of acts and regulations governing the import, export and in-transit movement of FPAs and related products. The MOU also formalized the proposed transfer of resources from the CFIA to the CBSA.
In October 2007, the Audit Committee approved an audit of the CBSA–CFIA MOU as part of the CBSA's Multi-Year Audit Plan 2007–2010.
Objective and Scope
The audit objective was to provide assurance to senior management on whether the CBSA was meeting its obligations under the MOU with the CFIA. The audit also assessed the adequacy of the control framework to support FPA-related border activities. The audit was national in scope and focused on FPA inspection activities for the period of July 2007 to November 2008.
Statement of Assurance
The audit engagement was planned and conducted in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.
Audit Opinion
The audit found that the CBSA was partially meeting its obligations under the MOU as the control framework to support FPA-related border activities was not complete. While the FPA-related procedures in effect were adequate for wood packaging given the risk exposure, the procedures in effect for international waste and soil, performance monitoring and reporting, and risk management needed to be improved.
Main Observations
The CBSA develops and issues standard operating procedures (SOPs) to provide program direction to border services officers (BSOs). The SOPs for FPA products were complete in five out of seven areas. Awareness of the SOPs among BSOs and the information available to management to monitor and assess performance were not fully developed.
The CBSA has recognized that training relating to the FPA Program is a strategic learning priority for the Agency. Management efforts were ongoing during the course of the audit to strengthen training and improve the CBSA's capacity to deliver on its FPA-related responsibilities.
In collaboration with the CFIA, the CBSA has established automated FPA risk rules to identify shipments that pose a threat. While the MOU identifies the high-risk inspection activities transferred from the CFIA to the CBSA, risk management practices were not fully coordinated or developed for FPA products. The recent establishment of FPA products as medium-high risk is a positive step towards improving risk management practices. It should be noted that under the MOU, only soil inspections, wood packaging inspections and international waste monitoring are high-risk activities for the CBSA.
While the CBSA's Emergency Preparedness, All Hazards Approach was in place, specific plans to address FPA-related emergencies or outbreak situations have not been developed as per the MOU.
The transfer of resources complied with the planned amounts in the MOU.
Management Response
The CBSA agrees with the report findings.
The audit report reflects the complexity of the CBSA's FPA-related responsibilities and how the transfer of responsibilities has touched many aspects of the Agency's organization and operations.
Management action plans have been developed for each of the audit recommendations. The key branches — Admissibility, Operations, Enforcement and Human Resources — in consultation with other branches of the CBSA and with the CFIA will continue to work collaboratively to address the recommendations in the audit.
Introduction
Background
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was created in December 2003, bringing together the front-line border management and enforcement activities formerly performed by three organizations:
- customs services, part of the then-Canada Customs and Revenue Agency;
- immigration services at ports of entry (POEs) and most of the Intelligence and Enforcement programs of Citizenship and Immigration Canada; and
- import inspection services at POEs of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
The focus of this audit is on the transfer of responsibilities from the CFIA to the CBSA. The portion of the CFIA responsibility for traveller and initial inspection services at all POEs for food, plants and animals (FPAs) and related products was transferred to the CBSA by Order-in-Council in 2003. The CBSA is responsible for the initial import inspection services set out in Section 11 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to the extent that they are applicable at airports and Canadian border points.
To implement the Order-in-Council transfer of responsibilities, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed in January 2005 between the CBSA and the CFIA. The primary goal of the MOU was to outline, in general terms, the working relationship and the roles and responsibilities of the CBSA and the CFIA with respect to the administration and enforcement of acts and regulations governing the import, export and in-transit movement of FPAs and related products. Annexes to the MOU clarified roles and responsibilities, and formalized communication and coordination relating to specific programs, initiatives and issues. They further defined which agency is designated responsible for which activities in the various modes of transportation within the traveller and commercial streams.
The MOU also formalized the proposed transfer of resources from the CFIA to the CBSA. Ninety full-time equivalents (FTEs) were transferred from the CFIA to the CBSA in 2003 to airports, followed by an additional 18 FTEs in 2005 to marine POEs. These resources were to carry out inspection and enforcement activities at the border. This planned transfer consisted of approximately CAN$6.1 million in salary and CAN$2.6 million in operations and maintenance, for a total of approximately CAN$8.7 million.
In October 2007, the Audit Committee approved an audit of the CBSA-CFIA MOU as part of the CBSA's Multi-Year Audit Plan 2007–2010. This audit was the first of its kind within the two agencies. The CFIA was conducting a similar audit simultaneously and any relevant issues were shared between the two agencies.
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) conducted the 2007 Keeping the Border Open and Secure – Canada Border Services Agency audit that impacted some aspects of the FPA Program. The findings within this report revealed weaknesses in the risk assessments of individual travellers and shipments. The systems designed to identify and intercept high-risk individuals and shipments were found not to be working as intended. Other issues identified included the training of targeters and existing border services officers (BSOs). The Agency had not developed a competency profile and a standard training program to ensure that targeters had the competencies and experience required to carry out their duties. Moreover, there was no implementation strategy or national plan for cross-training the BSOs in place.
In December 2008, the OAG found that the CFIA's role in training activities related to plant protection had diminished over time, and the CFIA had not provided input on the training material that had been developed. The CBSA and the CFIA were to jointly determine training requirements for CBSA employees (as set out in the MOU). Furthermore, the OAG found that the CFIA received reports on border lookouts, inspections at airports and wood packaging; however, the CFIA had not formally requested from the CBSA the results of inspections of shipments that contained undeclared FPA products. The OAG recommended that the CFIA, in collaboration with the CBSA, formally define the performance information it requires from the CBSA, and develop an action plan for obtaining and monitoring this information.
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment completed during the audit planning phase concluded that key residual risks that could prevent the CBSA from meeting its obligations under the MOU were the following:
Roles and responsibilities – risk that CBSA employees may not have sufficient knowledge to carry out their FPA-related roles and responsibilities in a consistent manner.
Training – risk that technical FPA-related training may not have been assessed, developed or delivered to ensure ongoing expertise.
Risk management – risk that FPA inspection decisions may not be based on risk assessments.
Contingency planning – risk that the CBSA may not be prepared to respond adequately and effectively to an FPA-related emergency or alert.
Resource capacity – risk that the CBSA may not have received the planned level of resources stated in the MOU.
These above preliminary risks formed the basis for the audit objective and scope.
Audit Objective and Scope
The audit objective was to provide assurance to senior management on whether the CBSA was meeting its obligations under the MOU with the CFIA. The audit also assessed the adequacy of the control framework to support FPA-related border activities.
The audit was national in scope and focused on FPA inspection activities for the period of July 2007 to November 2008. To ensure sufficient and representative audit coverage, the audit team visited three regions (Pacific, Quebec, and Windsor–St. Clair), selected on the basis of traveller volumes and the amounts of FPA shipments processed. In total, FPA inspections were examined at two POEs in each mode of transportation (air, marine and land). The examination phase took place between September and November 2008.
During the planning phase, it was determined that a contingency plan for FPA-related emergencies was not in place, and thus contingency planning was excluded from examination. Management was advised of this observation and informed that it would be included in the audit report.
Approach and Methodology
The methodology used to conduct this audit included the following activities:
- interviews with key stakeholders at Headquarters (Operations, Admissibility and Human Resources branches) and in the regions responsible for the delivery of the FPA Program, including senior managers, program officers and BSOs;
- regional visits to POEs where FPA inspections were examined to identify any gaps in fulfilling FPA-related responsibilities and ensure consistency in the delivery of the FPA Program. The specific activities examined included inspections of wood packaging, goods contaminated with soil and international waste;
- a review of reports and other relevant documentation in support of the FPA-related activities performed, and of the initial transfer of resources received by the CBSA from the CFIA; and
- a review of the policies, procedures and training materials in place to determine whether all aspects of FPA inspections are covered and identify potential gaps.
Audit Criteria
Audit criteria were established based on the requirements and expectations of the MOU and elements of recognized management control frameworks. Detailed audit criteria are provided in Appendix A .
Statement of Assurance
The audit engagement was planned and conducted in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.
Audit Opinion
The audit found that the CBSA was partially meeting its obligations under the MOU as the control framework to support FPA-related border activities was not complete. While the FPA-related procedures in effect were adequate for wood packaging given the risk exposure, the procedures in effect for international waste and soil, performance monitoring and reporting, and risk management needed to be improved.
Findings, Recommendations and Management Action Plan
The CBSA develops and issues standard operating procedures (SOPs) to provide program direction to BSOs. The SOPs for FPA products were complete in five out of seven areas. Awareness of the SOPs among BSOs and the information available to management to monitor and assess performance were not fully developed.
The CBSA has recognized that training on the FPA Program is a strategic learning priority for the Agency. Management efforts were ongoing during the course of the audit to strengthen training and improve the CBSA's capacity to deliver on its FPA-related responsibilities.
In collaboration with the CFIA, the CBSA has established automated FPA risk rules to identify shipments that pose a threat. While the MOU identifies the high-risk inspection activities transferred from the CFIA to the CBSA, risk management practices were not fully coordinated or developed for FPA products. The recent establishment of FPA products as medium-high risk is a positive step towards improving risk management practices. It should be noted that under the MOU, only soil inspections, wood packaging inspections and international waste monitoring are high-risk activities for the CBSA.
While the CBSA's Emergency Preparedness, All Hazards Approach was in place, specific plans to address FPA-related emergencies or outbreak situations have not been developed as per the MOU.
The transfer of resources complied with the planned amounts in the MOU.
Roles and Responsibilities
The CBSA develops and issues SOPs to provide program direction to BSOs. The SOPs for FPA products were complete in five out of seven areas. Awareness of the SOPs among BSOs and the information available to management to monitor and assess performance were not fully developed.
The MOU was the principal document that outlined the responsibilities of each agency as they pertain to FPA-related border activities. The expectation is that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, documented and understood, and that these activities are conducted in a consistent fashion.
The CFIA's Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) was the principal tool used by BSOs for making an FPA-related import decision. The system leads BSOs through a string of questions about the FPA product in order to determine the applicable regulations, policies and import requirements. In the event that BSOs were unable to make an FPA-related import decision, they sought advice from a more experienced BSO (usually a legacy CFIA employee), relied on past experience with similar situations, or contacted a CFIA Import Service Centre (ISC) or the responsible regional program officer (RPO) for instructions. Interviews with BSOs indicated that these processes were not always effective since experienced BSOs were not always available, particularly at land border crossings, and the ISCs did not have 24/7 operations.
In some cases, it was necessary to document in SOPs CBSA operational roles and responsibilities for high-risk FPA-related border activities. Seven SOPs were required, five have been approved and two were in draft form at the time of the audit. See Table 1 in Appendix B for further details.
Interviews with the Admissibility Branch indicated that the Branch experienced difficulties converting the CFIA science-based policies and directives into practical SOPs for BSOs, resulting in delays in the issuance of SOPs. In particular, the development of the soil-related SOPs was identified as being challenging because of policy interpretations. The CBSA is working with the CFIA to clarify the requirements.
The communication process to inform BSOs of the SOPs did not always have the desired results. In general, SOPs were forwarded by FPA Program management at Headquarters to RPOs by e-mail, who then sent the information to the POEs. In addition, SOPs are usually posted on the intranet; however, as of November 1, 2008, one out of five completed SOPs was posted on the intranet. There was no assurance that this information was received by BSOs. BSOs, in general, indicated that they were not sufficiently informed of their FPA-related responsibilities.
Walk-throughs confirmed that awareness of SOPs at all operational levels and in all modes of transportation were not fully developed. The audit noted that FPA inspections were dependent on the FPA-related expertise of the BSOs performing the inspections. Compliance with inspection procedures was fully achieved in two areas, partially achieved in five areas, and not achieved in six of thirteen applicable areas. The following table provides details of the results of the walk-throughs.
Activity |
Stream |
Mode of Transportation |
Responsibilities Met |
|---|---|---|---|
international waste |
commercial |
air |
no |
land |
no |
||
marine |
partially |
||
travellers |
air |
partially |
|
land |
no |
||
marine (cruise ships) |
partially |
||
wood packaging |
commercial |
air |
partially |
marine |
yes |
||
soil |
commercial and travellers |
air/land/marine |
partially |
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalty System |
commercial |
air/land/marine |
no |
travellers |
air |
yes |
|
land |
no |
||
marine |
no |
Monitoring performance is a key control for any program or activity. FPA Program management at Headquarters indicated that no measurement strategy was in place to monitor and assess the performance of FPA-related activities. This is a challenge given that FPA Program management has expressed the view that expectations for the FPA Program have increased since the CBSA took on related responsibilities.
The CBSA has a responsibility under the MOU to enforce the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AA AMPS) across both the travellers and commercial streams. The AA AMPS is an alternative to prosecution for persons who fail to declare FPA products at the port of entry when importing them into Canada.
During the audit, the AA AMPS was enforced only in the travellers stream (air mode). The CBSA was unable to administer commercial AA AMPS effectively because financial delegated authority from the CFIA was not at a sufficient level. During the audit, a timely review of the overall AMPS was initiated by the Admissibility Branch to determine its effectiveness as an alternative to prosecution.
Recommendations:
1. The Vice-President of the Admissibility Branch should develop and implement a performance measurement framework to monitor and report on all aspects of the FPA-related requirements of the MOU with the CFIA. This framework should include performance indicators and targets for effectiveness of FPA-related activities and human resources development.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
Office of primary interest (OPI): Admissibility Branch, Partnerships Division, FPA Program The Admissibility Branch, in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, will develop a performance measurement framework to monitor and report on FPA-related requirements under the MOU. Specifically, the Branch will do the following: |
|
|
September 2009 |
|
September 2009 |
|
March 2010 |
|
May 2010 |
|
March 2011 |
2. The Vice-President of the Admissibility Branch should review the enforcement of the AA AMPS in the travellers and commercial streams for FPA-related activities and implement the results of this review.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
OPI: Admissibility Branch, Compliance Management Division, AMPS Policy and Program Unit; Enforcement Branch, Borders Enforcement and Horizontal Policy and Planning divisions A review of the AA AMPS penalty structure must be undertaken in co-operation with the CFIA to properly extract which penalties are appropriate for application by the CBSA. The CBSA is just now completing a review of its AMPS, and implementation of the results of the review is expected no earlier than 2010. |
|
|
March 2010 |
|
September 2010 |
|
March 2011 |
|
March 2011 |
Training, Tools and Program Knowledge
The CBSA has recognized that training relating to the FPA Program is a strategic learning priority for the Agency. Management efforts were ongoing during the course of the audit to strengthen training and improve the CBSA's capacity to deliver on its FPA-related responsibilities.
The MOU indicates that the CBSA has a joint responsibility with the CFIA for determining training requirements for CBSA staff. The CBSA is also responsible for providing its staff with this training.
The CBSA identified FPA inspections as one of the training priorities in the Strategic Learning Direction 2008–2011. In support of this goal, the Admissibility Branch prepared an analysis and an evaluation of the skill sets required for CBSA officers to administer and deliver the FPA Program. The report, entitled Skills Set Paper, received approval in May 2008 and included recommendations related to the development and delivery of FPA-related training and the completion of SOPs. In summary, the report found gaps in areas such as training, the development of tools and guidelines, and a need for increased visibility.
The report issued the following recommendations:
- Continue to train BSO recruits on the FPA Program as part of Port of Entry Recruit Training (POERT);
- The Admissibility Branch should focus on the completion of SOPs and deliver them to partners in the Human Resources and Operations branches so that training packages can be developed;
- The Operations Branch, with the support of the Admissibility and Human Resources branches, should focus on developing and delivering a training module for BSOs who have not had FPA-related training as part of POERT;
- Explore the use of rotational assignments to ensure greater diffusion of FPA Program knowledge through practical experience;
- Continue to promote the use of AIRS for all CBSA officers performing FPA-related tasks;
- Continue to develop RPOs as key contacts in the regions and provide them with the appropriate levels of support and training; and
- Improve the use of the FPA-product trainers working in the regions.
The CBSA has made progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Skills Set Paper. The completion of most SOPs in 2008 has paved the way for the development of specialized FPA-related training. In August 2008, the Human Resources Branch was advised that training could be developed based on the completed SOPs. A list of new FPA-related training products was agreed upon, and a learning strategy was developed. A service contract was signed in December 2008 between the Operations and Human Resources branches for the development of five FPA-related training modules. The inspection of goods potentially contaminated with soil and the disposal of CFIA-regulated goods was excluded from the service agreement since SOPs for these were not yet complete. Courses are to be developed and released within 15 months.
At the time of the audit, three formal training modules were approved and delivered:
- the FPA component of the POERT program;
- the FPA risk assessment component of the POERT program; and
- the AA AMPS for the travellers stream.
As per the Skills Set Paper recommendations, the FPA component of the POERT program was being delivered to new recruits, and the equivalent core FPA training was being delivered to BSOs who did not graduate from the POERT program. The total duration of both FPA components of POERT was 11.4 hours. Among other things, these components teach BSOs how to recognize risk and make appropriate decisions for their authority.
More specifically, the FPA component of POERT showed how to recognize, refer, release and refuse FPA products. The FPA risk assessment component showed how to analyze risk, recognize risk factors such as the type of traveller and good, the purpose of travel and the country of origin, and determine the admissibility of an FPA product.
The AA AMPS training is a four-module training program designed to teach BSOs to issue a travellers' AA AMPS penalty and fulfill other communications and documentation requirements.
The table below shows statistics on the completion of the approved FPA-related training across the CBSA.
| FPA-Related Training | Statistics on FPA-Related Training | Percentage of BSOs |
|---|---|---|
FPA component of POERT (recruits) |
1,990 BSOs | 33% |
FPA component for BSOs who did not graduate from POERT |
1,242 BSOs | 21% |
AA AMPS |
284 BSOs | 5% |
Core FPA-related training was delivered to new recruits and other BSOs; however, it did not cover all aspects of FPA-related border activities and emphasized the travellers stream. Specialized training modules are currently under development for FPA-related activities with completed SOPs.
Prior to the completion of nationally approved SOPs, some regions were engaged in locally developed training initiatives. Therefore, regional management believed that some BSOs had sufficient knowledge and practical experience to carry out their FPA-related responsibilities. As a result, some districts postponed sending BSOs to the FPA components of POERT to minimize the impact on their operations.
To identify which BSOs had sufficient knowledge of FPA-related border activities, the Human Resources Branch developed an online core competency assessment. Testing was scheduled to begin in February 2009 and will be completed by the end of the 2009–2010 fiscal year. The results of the assessment are to be used to determine which BSOs can be exempted from attending the FPA components of POERT.
Nationally approved training covering all major aspects of FPA-related border activities should lead to a more consistent and effective FPA-related training program. While the CBSA is building its training program, the current state of the program could result in confusion among BSOs and adversely affect the quality and accuracy of decisions made in relation to FPA products.
Recommendation:
3. The Vice-President of the Admissibility Branch, in collaboration with the Operations and Human Resources branches, should establish a timetable to implement and monitor the recommendations contained in the FPA Skills Set Paper.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
OPIs: Admissibility Branch, Operations Branch, Human Resources Branch |
|
|
Completed |
|
April 2010 |
Risk Management Practices
In collaboration with the CFIA, the CBSA has established automated FPA risk rules to identify shipments that pose a threat. While the MOU identifies the high-risk inspection activities transferred from the CFIA to the CBSA, risk management practices were not fully coordinated or developed for FPA products. The recent establishment of FPA products as medium-high risk is a positive step towards improving risk management practices. It should be noted that under the MOU, only soil inspections, wood packaging inspections and international waste monitoring are high-risk activities for the CBSA.
Under the MOU, both the CBSA and the CFIA are committed to developing risk management practices and priorities to better concentrate their efforts and decision-making activities. Both agencies agreed to work collaboratively to identify and provide information relating to the risks arising from the import and in-transit movement of FPA products.
The CBSA is responsible for managing the risks and sets targets in TITAN with respect to the following:
- prohibited FPA products that pose a risk to human, plant and animal health; and
- goods requiring inspection at the first point of arrival, such as agricultural equipment, settlers' effects and wood packaging material.
With respect to other FPA products, the CBSA relies on the CFIA to identify threats and issue "targets" (in the commercial stream) and “lookouts” (in the travellers stream). When the CFIA issues targets and lookouts, it includes instructions for the CBSA on actions to take. These targets and lookouts are then managed accordingly by the CBSA at the border. Examinations are conducted and the results are to be monitored to ensure that they are working as intended. If a CFIA target or lookout is non-resultant, the CBSA informs the CFIA of the results and seeks further guidance.
Regional targeting units made use of the TITAN system to perform pre-arrival risk assessments on cargo shipments. The pre-arrival information is automatically processed by the system using a set of FPA risk rules tailored to identify shipments that pose a threat. The FPA risk rules consist of information that, if matched to data elements, are flagged and visually represented to the targeter. Examination referrals are made by the targeters, who may use the TITAN rules as well as their knowledge and expertise. However, in interviews with targeters, it was not clear whether the TITAN rules were useful or how they were used. Although the CBSA developed TITAN FPA rules, the effectiveness of the rules was not monitored given that the system produced no automatic referrals based on the rule output.
At marine POEs, wood packaging and goods contaminated with soil were risk priorities. Targeters used local methodologies developed at each marine POE as national methodologies for targeting FPA products were not available. Procedures for targeting in general are given in the Customs Commercial Targeting Course. Targeters indicated that additional guidance would be beneficial in relation to FPA products.
For land border POEs and airports, risk management practices were based on the voluntary disclosure of travellers. Detector dogs were also used at airports to detect FPA products. Furthermore, if a BSO was performing a contraband inspection, an FPA inspection was included if anything of concern was identified. The decision to carry out an FPA inspection was usually dependent on the BSO's level of FPA-related border activity knowledge and training.
Another risk management practice was to post FPA-related bulletins on the intranet. These bulletins were disseminated to the regions via the responsible RPO. BSOs indicated that this was not an effective approach to communicate risks. In general, BSOs did not perceive FPA inspections as a relative priority for the CBSA compared to inspections for other types of products such as contraband.
More recently, after the conduct of this audit, the results of the 2008 Border Threat and Risk Assessment were released. This assessment examined all border risks across all business lines using a standardized methodology that included the CFIA as a contributor. This assessment ranked FPA products as medium-high risk.
In summary, the CBSA's risk management approach for FPA products was not fully coordinated or developed. The recent establishment of FPA products as medium-high risk is a positive step towards improving risk management practices.
Recommendation:
4. The Vice-President of the Admissibility Branch should work collaboratively with the CFIA and the Strategy and Coordination, Operations and Enforcement branches to integrate FPA-related risks into the CBSA's risk management regime.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
OPI: Admissibility Branch, Partnerships Division The Admissibility Branch will, with support from the OSIs, work to better integrate FPA-related risks into the CBSA's current risk management practices. |
|
|
March 2010 |
|
Ongoing |
|
December 2010 |
|
December 2010 |
Contingency Planning
While the CBSA's Emergency Preparedness, All Hazards Approach was in place, specific plans to address FPA-related emergencies or outbreak situations have not been developed.
The MOU requires the CFIA and the CBSA to jointly develop emergency preparedness contingency plans. These plans are to be organized along the four pillars of emergency management: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, and they include the development of an exercise schedule to practice the plans.
The CBSA has developed an Emergency Preparedness, All Hazards Approach. This document is broad in scope and provides information for the CBSA to respond to all types of emergencies. It has also been used recently to address FPA-related emergencies. However, it does not address specific FPA-related emergencies as outlined in the MOU. Management was advised of this observation during the planning process for the audit.
In the absence of jointly developed contingency plans specific to FPA-related emergencies, there is a risk that the CBSA and the CFIA may not effectively respond to and manage an FPA-related emergency that could have negative health and safety, environmental and economic consequences for Canada.
Recommendation:
5. The Vice-President of the Admissibility Branch should collaborate with the Operations Branch and the CFIA to develop contingency plans as stated in Annex F of the MOU.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
OPI: Operations Branch, Operational Preparedness Division |
|
The Emergency Management Section of the Operational Preparedness Division, Operations Branch, and the FPA Program Section of the Partnerships Division, Admissibility Branch, will work with the CFIA to advance the existing contingency plans for an FPA-related emergency by creating a visual aid, comprised of a flow chart and a supporting plain-language narrative, to document the process used to issue FPA-related threat and outbreak alerts and related instructions to CBSA offices in the regions. This visual aid will do the following to enhance preparedness and foster a timely and effective response:
The visual aid and narrative will be updated as required to incorporate the lessons learned and best practices identified during real events and exercises. |
September 2009 |
| The Emergency Management Section of the Operational Preparedness Division, Operations Branch, and the FPA Program Section of the Partnerships Division, Admissibility Branch, will work with the CFIA to jointly develop and conduct exercises as part of each agency's comprehensive exercise program. These exercises will provide an opportunity to practice roles and responsibilities during an FPA-related emergency. | Hold a first exercise by the end of the second quarter of the 2010–2011 fiscal year. |
| The type and scope of the first exercise is to be determined. Resource constraints and competing operational and exercise priorities (e.g. planning and exercises to prepare for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games) preclude holding an FPA-related exercise during the 2009–2010 fiscal year. | Hold subsequent exercises as required and as resources permit. |
| The Emergency Management Section and the FPA Program Section met in October 2008 and agreed that they would hold periodic meetings on FPA-related issues, and that the FPA Program Section will assist the Emergency Management Section in refining the CBSA's FPA Program emergency e-mail distribution list. This will improve the dissemination of information and instructions during an emergency. | Ongoing as required. |
| The CFIA has invited the manager of the CBSA's Emergency Management Section to participate in a study to improve the horizontal sharing of information between federal departments' and agencies' emergency operations centres. Participation in this study should contribute to better information sharing between the CBSA and CFIA emergency operations centres during an emergency, which will better prepare both agencies to manage FPA-related threats and outbreaks. | Timelines to be determined. First meeting took place in April 2009. |
Resource Capacity
The transfer of resources complied with the planned amounts in the MOU.
The MOU formalized the proposed transfer of resources from the CFIA to the CBSA. In the initial transfer of resources, 90 full-time equivalents (FTEs) were to be transferred from the CFIA to the CBSA in 2003 to airports, followed by an additional 18 FTEs in 2005 to marine POEs. The audit found that the total salary dollars and operations and maintenance amounts transferred were compliant with the planned amounts in the MOU.
Appendix A: Audit Criteria
The audit criteria used for the examination phase were the following:
Lines of Enquiry |
Audit Criteria |
|---|---|
1. Roles and responsibilities | 1.1 FPA-related roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, understood and communicated, and are fully executed. 1.2 FPA-related activities are carried out consistently across the regions and modes of transportation. |
2. Training | 2.1 The CBSA has developed and delivered core training covering all major aspects of FPA-related activities to support its FPA-related responsibilities. 2.2 Employees have access to sufficient tools, such as SOPs, methodologies and information systems, to execute their FPA-related duties. 2.3 Core training needs are identified and met for all employees performing FPA-related border activities. |
3. Risk management practices | 3.1 The CBSA has developed and implemented risk management practices and priorities for FPA inspections. 3.2 .Management appropriately communicates its risk management strategies to key stakeholders. |
4. Resource capacity | 4.1 The planned resources outlined in the MOU are consistent with the actual resources transferred. |
Appendix B: Roles and Responsibilities
Table 1 – Status of Operating Procedures
Standard Operating Procedures | Status |
|---|---|
Wood packaging inspections |
Approved July 2006; |
Monitoring of international waste |
Approved April 2008 |
BSF156 form completion and schedule of inspection fees |
Approved April 2008 |
Live animal inspections |
Approved June 2008 |
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalty System |
Approved June 2008 |
Inspection of goods potentially contaminated with soil |
Draft March 2008 |
Disposal of CFIA-regulated products |
Draft March 2008 |
Appendix C: List of Acronyms
- AA AMPS
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalty System
- ACROSS
- Accelerated Commercial Release Operations Support System
- AIRS
- Automated Import Reference System
- BSO
- border services officer
- CBSA
- Canada Border Services Agency
- CFIA
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency
- FPA
- food, plant and animal
- FTE
- full-time equivalent
- ISC
- Import Service Centre
- MOU
- memorandum of understanding
- OAG
- Office of the Auditor General of Canada
- OPI
- office of primary interest
- OSI
- office of secondary interest
- POE
- port of entry
- POERT
- Port of Entry Recruit Training
- RPO
- regional program officer
- SOP
- standard operating procedure
Notes
- This MOU superseded and replaced the MOU dated June 4, 1985, and signed by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.[Return to text]
