Archived - Audit of the Food, Plant and Animal Program

December 2014

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.

1.0 Introduction

[*] An asterisk appears where sensitive information has been removed in accordance with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA or the Agency) assumed responsibility by an Order-in-Council in 2003 for the initial import inspection services set out in Section 11 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to the extent they are applicable at airports, marine ports of entry, and Canadian land border points. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) retained responsibility for the enforcement of those acts which apply within Canada at CFIA Import Service Centers. The CFIA also retained responsibility for general policy concerning the administration and enforcement of acts and regulations governing the import, export and in-transit movement of food and any goods which are regulated by or under any legislation specified in Section 11 of the CFIA Act.

The CFIA, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada establish the requirements for all food, plants, animals and related products entering or leaving the country. The CBSA is responsible for enforcing these requirements as they apply at the border – in both the travellers and commercial streams in all modes.

The implementation of the Order-in-Council was formalized by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), originally signed in 2005 and most recently updated in 2011. This MOU and its annexes outline the working relationship and operational 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 food, plant, animal (FPA) and related products.

In order to carry out FPA examinations and enforcement activities at the border, the MOU also formalized the transfer of resources from the CFIA to the CBSA. In total, 108 full-time equivalents and approximately $8.7 million were transferred between 2003 and 2006.

The objectives of the CBSA’s FPA Program are:

  • To assist in preventing the introduction of invasive alien species as well as plant and animal diseases into Canada that can threaten Canada’s environment, economy and society;
  • To assist in preventing the introduction of contaminated foods into Canada and protect Canada’s food safety from border-related threats; and
  • To facilitate legitimate FPA-related travel and trade.

The expected outcomes of the FPA Program (and contribution to the Agency’s strategic outcomes) are:

  • Enhanced probability of interception of FPA-regulated products (Canada’s population is safe and secure from border-related risks); and
  • Increased compliance for FPA-regulated goods (legitimate people and goods move freely and lawfully across the border).

In parallel with the examination phase of this audit, the FPA Unit, which is responsible for the administration of the FPA Program, conducted a self-assessment of the FPA Program to identify opportunities for improvements. Six of the nine criteria examined in this audit were also assessed as part of the FPA Program Self-Assessment and have resulted in similar observations.

2.0 Significance of the Audit

This audit is of significance because the processing, examination and clearance of food, plants and animals is one of the CBSA’s three main business lines, i.e. Customs, Immigration and FPA. The FPA Program, which aims to protect the health of Canadians and Canada’s food safety, economy, environment and natural resources base, plays a critical role in the management of FPA activities.

The audit objectives were to determine whether controls are in place and working as intended to mitigate the border integrity risks, and to determine the extent to which the Program’s control framework allows the CBSA to fully meet its FPA-related responsibilities. The audit objective, scope and criteria can be found in Appendix A.

3.0 Statement of Conformance

The audit conforms to the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program. The audit approach and methodology followed the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing as defined by the Institute of Internal Auditors and the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada, as required by the Treasury Board’s Policy on Internal Audit.

4.0 Audit Opinion

The Agency has a formal governance structure in place to provide guidance and oversight to ports of entry responsible for delivering the FPA Program. The majority of the activities relating to the Program’s control framework are also in place and working as intended. Opportunities exist for improvements related to performance measurement, risk management and the monitoring process for international waste disposal.

As a result, this translates to a medium-low risk exposure to the Agency.

5.0 Key Findings

Roles and responsibilities of FPA management at CBSA Headquarters (HQ) and of operational staff in the regions are defined and documented. FPA oversight committees have been established with clear mandates to address FPA concerns, share information and develop initiatives for the betterment of the Program. Although the Agency has an FPA Performance Measurement Framework in place, determining the key performance measures and establishing specific targets for these key measures would help determine whether the program’s objectives are being achieved.

The Agency’s National Border Risk Assessment (NBRA) has identified specific FPA risks within modes of transport and regions. Mitigating strategies have also been developed in the Border Risk Management Plan (BRMP) to address the risks identified in the NBRA. {*}

The ports of entry (POEs) have sufficient tools and support from various sources such as former CFIA officers, regional program officers, CFIA contacts and Programs Branch at the CBSA, to be able to collectively determine whether goods are admissible under the FPA Program. While basic FPA training is provided to all new recruits, not all border services officers (BSOs) have completed the additional five FPA online training modules. The Operations Branch has recognized this gap and is making efforts to ensure that all BSOs receive the available FPA training by August 2015.


6.0 Summary of Recommendations

The audit makes four recommendations relating to:

  • the strengthening of the FPA performance management framework;
  • the implementation of risk mitigation action plans;
  • the fulfillment of the training commitment; and
  • the strengthening of guidance on monitoring of disposal of international waste.

7.0 Management Response

The Agency agrees with the recommendations of this audit. Steps have already been taken to ensure that many of the risks identified in the audit have been addressed, and/or are in the process of being resolved.

The Food, Plant, and Animal (FPA) Program is participating in the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) mapping of the commercial continuum for all modes, which will be the basis of the CBSA’s modernization. During this process, FPA gaps will be identified—as well as solutions which have already been proposed and are being developed, plus potential solutions not yet proposed.

Programs Branch has recently assessed system requirements to improve reporting of wood packaging material examination results, and is considering whether resources are available to implement these changes.

Earlier in 2014, Programs Branch undertook an assessment of the FPA Program’s effectiveness, which identified gaps and areas for improvement, taking into account feedback received in response to a tailored questionnaire distributed to the regions and Commercial Operations. As a result, the following key findings were noted: a significant gap exists in BSOs’ knowledge of the Program; the Program is not recognized or prioritized in accordance with its level of risk; and reporting systems do not fully reflect FPA activities carried out at the border.

The policies and procedures for how the CBSA is to document and monitor the removal and disposal of international waste already exist, and are communicated to the field in the Agency’s standard operating procedures for international waste. These policies and procedures will be revised to clarify the frequency of the monitoring, and the documentation required.

8.0 Audit Findings

8.1 Governance, Accountabilities, Results and Performance

Audit Criteria:

  • FPA roles and responsibilities at HQ and in the regions are defined and communicated.
  • Oversight of FPA activities occurs on a regular basis.
  • A performance framework is implemented to monitor and report on all aspects of FPA requirements of the MOU with the CFIA. Performance information is communicated to relevant stakeholders.

8.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities

The Food, Plant and Animal UnitFootnote 1 within the Programs Branch is responsible for national at-border programs related to the importation, exportation and in transit movement of food, plants and animals and their products into Canada, in collaboration with the CFIA. Its key activities include developing and monitoring policies and procedures concerning the inspection of live animals, wood packaging materials, invasive alien species, goods contaminated with soil, the monitoring of international waste and the disposal of seized FPA goods. In addition, it is also responsible for ensuring that the FPA Program is in compliance with the MOU between the CBSA and the CFIA.

The Commercial Operations Unit within the Operations Branch is responsible for providing operational direction and guidance on commercial activities in all modes with an objective of ensuring national consistency in the operational delivery of the FPA Program. The regional operations are responsible for the implementation of the policies and procedures.

These roles and responsibilities have been documented and communicated through documents such as standard operating procedures and training material to those responsible for delivering the Program. Consequently, staff involved in the design and delivery of the Program are aware of their roles and responsibilities in regards to FPA.

8.1.2 Program Oversight

Program oversight helps ensure that program objectives are achieved in an efficient and effective manner. It also ensures that any issues facing the program are resolved based on the input from relevant stakeholders. A key control by which a program can maintain oversight is by establishing governing committees with clear mandates to determine priorities, identify issues, exchange information, and facilitate the management of the program.

The CBSA’s Executive Committee is mandated with providing oversight for the integrated business plan of the Agency, to ensure objectives are met, to determine priorities and resource allocation within a risk management context and to establish a robust governance framework against the Management Accountability Framework. The Executive Committee monitors the performance of FPA-related activities, such as examinations of wood packaging materials, through the quarterly Agency Performance Summary. In addition, several FPA-specific governing committees have been mandated with the oversight of the FPA Program. For example, twice a year, the Presidents of the CBSA and CFIA meet to discuss intra-governmental issues, agency priorities and any initiatives that would affect the design and delivery of the FPA Program. Similarly, the responsible vice-presidents from both agencies also meet twice a year to discuss FPA-related initiatives and issues such as Beyond the Border Initiatives and the administration of Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties (AAAMPs).

Oversight committees led by Regional Directors General also exist at the regional level. In the Prairie and Pacific regions, a Western Area Working Group was established between the CBSA and CFIA to ensure consistent and efficient delivery of the FPA Program within western Canada. The Regional Directors General of Northern Ontario Region, Southern Ontario Region and Greater Toronto Area also oversee the management and delivery of their FPA operations through the Ontario CBSA-CFIA Steering Committee. Similar committees exist in the Pacific, Quebec and Atlantic regions. In addition, a monthly conference call is held with all regional program officers to discuss issues and share best practices related to FPA.

The CBSA has established several oversight committees for the FPA program. Collectively, these committees provide internal program oversight at Headquarters, in and among regions, and horizontally with the CFIA.

8.1.3 Performance Framework

The 2009 internal audit of the MOU between CBSA and CFIA identified that there was no performance measurement strategy in place to monitor and assess the performance of the FPA Program. A recommendation was made to develop and implement a performance measurement framework to monitor and report on all aspects of FPA requirements of the MOU. According to CBSA’s Performance Management Toolkit, a Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) has four key components:

  • A logic model to capture the relationships and the cause-effect continuum that must be in place for the program to be successful;
  • Expected results, outputs and outcomes;
  • Key performance indicators and targets; and
  • Data collection sources, frequencies and responsibilities.

In 2010, CBSA developed an FPA Performance Measurement Framework. Although the current PMF has a logic model and lists expected results, outcomes, data collection sources, frequencies and identifies responsibilities for collecting data, it does not articulate FPA-specific performance targets. The Agency has established targets for the interception of drugs and weapons which are non-compliant with legislation administered by the CBSA. Similarly, establishing FPA-specific targets would help management determine whether the FPA Program is meeting its objectives.

One of the key activities monitored through the PMF is “increased compliance for FPA regulated products”. This activity is measured by indicators such as “number of interceptions of FPA non-compliant goods”. Currently, the Agency tracks the number of interception of FPA non-compliant goods through the BSF241Footnote 2 forms that must be completed with every FPA interception. However, the BS241 form is not always completed when items of lower risk are intercepted as BSOs consider it to be an administrative burden. Also, when land travellers cross the border with inadmissible FPA goods, the goods are seized or the travellers are asked to return to the US to dispose of the goods. {*}These practices lead to not all FPA interceptions being tracked.

The Standard Operating Procedures for form BSF241 state that one of the intents of the form is “to allow for the forecasting and justification of resources and facilities at all POEs”. Therefore, senior management in HQ depends on performance information to make critical decisions on matters such as budgets, resourcing, and to identify areas of risk for the program and organization. As a result of the practices noted above, management oversight and decision making as to how well it is achieving the Program’s objectives is compromised by FPA data that maybe inconsistent, incomplete and inaccurate.

Recommendation 1:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should update the FPA Performance Measurement Framework by determining which activities the Program should measure and by establishing targets for these activities.

Management Action Plan Completion date

Programs Branch agrees with this recommendation.

Programs Branch will review the FPA Program’s performance measurement framework to determine which activities should be measured, and to identify targets for each activity. In addition, by June 2015, the Branch will complete an analysis of options, including estimated costs, to automate and integrate into CBSA`s systems information on FPA interceptions, examinations and other performance data that are required to measure the key performance indicators.

June 2015

8.2 Risk Management

Audit Criteria:

  • Program management identifies the risks that may preclude the achievement of objectives and identifies mitigating strategies for managing these risks.

The CBSA Enterprise Risk Management Policy requires that an Enterprise Risk Management program be implemented in order to apply risk management in a consistent, disciplined, and systematic manner at all levels of the Agency.

{*} The 2013–2014 BRMP proposed broad mitigation strategies to reduce the border risks that were identified in the NBRA and further stated that subject matter experts in program and operational areas are to devise relevant solutions. {*}

Nonetheless, regional site visits identified that management at the airports manages FPA-related risks. This is accomplished by reallocating resources, such as BSOs and FPA detector dogs, to examine travellers from flights originating from countries known to be high risk for FPA products. {*}

Although each POE may be implementing its own risk mitigation strategies, formal direction on what the Agency considers critical for FPA and the level to which the risks need to be mitigated would ensure that FPA risks are consistently mitigated across the Agency.

Recommendation 2:

The Vice-President of the Programs Branch should develop a formal risk mitigation action plan for FPA and implement the actions identified and monitor the risks on a continuous basis.

Management Action Plan Completion date

Programs Branch agrees with this recommendation.

By March 2015, Programs Branch will develop and implement an action plan and a monitoring framework to ensure that program risks are identified and mitigated.

March 2015

8.3 Controls

Audit Criteria:

  • Employees have the necessary training, tools, resources and information to support the discharge of their responsibilities.
  • Open and effective channels exist for internal and external communications and feedback.
  • AAAMPs are issued according to policy.
  • An up-to-date business contingency plan for FPA-related emergencies has been implemented.
  • Seized or abandoned FPA and related products are controlled and disposed of in compliance with authorities.

8.3.1 Training, tools and support

To meet operational requirements, the Agency has moved away from having BSOs dedicated to specific lines of business such as Customs, Immigration or FPA. Since BSOs are the Agency’s first line of defence against the introduction of plant diseases and pests from other countries, it is essential that they have the knowledge to fulfill their FPA-related duties. In addition to having appropriate admissibility tools at their disposal, the audit expected to find the BSOs trained in the specific FPA activities for which they are responsible.  

New recruits are provided with approximately 24 hours of FPA training during the Officer Induction Training Program in Rigaud. Regional FPA in-service training is also available for the BSOs and the regional program officers. Some POEs, such as Pearson International Airport, have the benefit of having legacy CFIA officers provide FPA training that is specifically adapted to the operations at the port of entry. Five online FPA training modules are also available on topics such as live animal inspections and inspection of wood packaging material. Based on the training data provided by the Human Resources Branch, FPA training completion rates varied from 74% in the Southern Ontario Region for the Inspection of Wood Packaging module, to 1% in the Prairie Region for the Control and Monitoring of Disposal of International Waste module. As the Operations Branch has deemed the training to be essential for all BSOs, efforts are being made to ensure that BSOs have completed all five online FPA training modules by August 2015.

Several tools are available to the BSOs when making FPA-related admissibility decisions. The Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) is CFIA’s online application that provides information on import requirements. The FPA detector dogs, which can be found at seven international airports, are also used in the inspection of baggage and shipments.

In addition to the above-mentioned tools, some POEs have the benefit of having former or current CFIA officers who are able to support the BSOs with their examination. For example, in the Quebec Region, Montréal has implemented a one-year pilot project where a CFIA agent is present in the longroomFootnote 3 and is readily available to answer questions. As a result, the region has seen improvements in the number of interceptions. At the Halifax International Airport, BSOs frequently refer to the dog handler who is also a former CFIA officer when they have questions related to FPA. A former CFIA officer at Pearson International Airport has gone a step further and taken the initiative to develop a mentorship program where he provides hands on FPA training to two BSOs each month.

Supplemented with the guidance provided by superintendents, regional program officers, FPA contacts at CFIA, and with staff in the Programs Branch at HQ, POEs have the support they need to deliver the FPA Program.

8.3.2 Communication

The MOU between the CBSA and the CFIA describes specific communication requirements in the delivery of the FPA Program. To fulfill these requirements, the audit expected communication protocols to be in place to share information between the CBSA and the CFIA, between CBSA-HQ and the regions, and also between regional management and the BSOs. The audit also expected to find mechanisms by which the general public was made aware of their FPA obligations.

The Agency has several mechanisms by which FPA-related information is shared with the CFIA. As mentioned under criteria 8.1.2, the CBSA and the CFIA have several committees in place that meet on an annual and semi-annual basis to discuss key issues related to FPA. Emerging issues as well as policy changes from CBSA-HQ are communicated to the regions through the regional program offices, which then share the information with the relevant modes of operations. Similarly, regional questions related to policy and guidelines are forwarded to the regional program office. If the regional program officer is not able to provide an answer, the questions are forwarded to the Programs Branch.

During site visits, it was observed that airports and land borders clearly display FPA-related information to travellers. International garbage bins with FPA signs are placed along the path travellers take to reach the customs area and FPA brochures are displayed in the areas where travellers wait to clear Customs. Moreover, BSOs also indicated that if inadmissible goods are found, travellers are provided with the FPA brochures in addition to a verbal explanation of why their goods are not allowed into Canada.

8.3.3 AAAMPs

Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties are considered an efficient, fair and transparent alternative to prosecution and act as a deterrent for persons who fail to declare food, plant and animal goods at Canadian ports of entry. AAAMPs are issued by BSOs under the authority of the Agriculture and Agri-food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which also prescribes the penalty appropriate for each violation. The CBSA-CFIA MOU governs the issuance of AAAMPs in both travellers and commercial streams in all modes.

Travellers Stream

The Agency presently issues AAAMPs at nine major airports and has planned to phase in the issuance of penalties in other modes. To improve the efficiency of the AAAMPs process, the Agency recently integrated the issuance of the notices of violation for AAAMPs into its Integrated Customs Enforcement System available at all major land border crossing and international airports. This integration automatically informs BSOs of travellers with prior AAAMPs infractions, and provides the Agency with an automated source of AAAMPs performance data.

BSOs use their discretion in issuing AAAMPs. As the penalty amount is established by the CFIA and cannot be modified to reflect the severity of the infraction, BSOs base their decision to issue AAAMPs on factors such as {*}

Commercial Stream

The 2009 Audit of the MOU between the CBSA and the CFIA recommended that the Agency review the feasibility of applying AAAMPs in the commercial stream. {*} for the commercial stream.

8.3.4 Business Contingency Plan

As per the MOU between the CBSA and the CFIA, both agencies are required to jointly develop an emergency preparedness contingency plan. The MOU indicates that formalizing the commitment to develop a contingency plan would help achieve effective co-operation.

Programs Branch has developed a visual aid which illustrates a process to follow if an FPA-related threat is identified, provides regular and after-hours emergency contact information and describes the inter- and intra-agency flow of information. As a supplemental control to the visual aid, the Agency also has the Emergency Preparedness, All Hazards Approach manual, which contains a section on “Threats to Food Supply”. This section describes the course of actions by mode of transport, in the case of an FPA incident. In March 2013, an FPA table top exercise was conducted to examine the communication protocols between the CBSA and the CFIA in the case of an incident. The CBSA’s internal procedures for processing CFIA emergency requests and the reporting requirements between the CBSA and the CFIA during the incident were also validated during this exercise. More recently in 2014, due to the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea case that was detected in Southern Ontario and Manitoba, the Agency worked with the CFIA to issue operational procedures to the regions to inform the BSOs to be vigilant regarding importations of swine and livestock conveyances to prevent the possible introduction of the pathogen into Canada.

8.3.5 Disposal of FPA Goods

FPA Seizures and Storage

The CBSA is responsible for ensuring that FPA-related products are stored in compliance with the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and their regulations. Any goods that require a CFIA inspection will in the interim be stored according to the aforementioned legislation and regulations to ensure that pests and diseases will not spread. Seized, abandoned and forfeited FPA-related products must be stored separately from non-FPA goods in order to mitigate the risk of introduction of diseases or pests into Canada.

All sampled international airports operations had a room dedicated for detained FPA goods. At land operations where dedicated storage facilities were not available, compensating controls were in place to mitigate the risk of contamination. For example, of the 17 POEs visited, 13 had international waste bins. With the exception of one POE, the remaining ports have access to an international waste bin at a nearby facility. The POE that did not have international waste bins or access to them at the time of the site visit, is currently working with the CFIA to acquire international waste bins and secure a contract with an appropriate waste handler.

Disposal of International Waste

The monitoring of the disposal of international waste is a joint responsibility between the CBSA and the CFIA. According to the International Waste Directive, the CFIA is responsible for approving the waste handlers’ disposal protocols, the routes to be taken when disposing of international waste and the disposal sites, whereas the CBSA is responsible for “monitoring handlers of international waste and coordinating with the CFIA for a process review of the handler’s standard operating procedures for training, emergency plans”, etc.

The CBSA’s own standard operating procedures on International Waste state “reviewing and monitoring means ensuring that the hauler has the CFIA-approved protocols in place”. Although four of the five regions visited which had international bins indicated that the disposal companies’ protocols for training, transport and disposal of international waste were approved by the CFIA, no documentation was provided to substantiate the approval. {*}.

The CBSA is also responsible for occasionally observing the collection and transport of international waste in accordance with the International Waste Directive. Since the CFIA’s International Waste Directive is not specific on how often the CBSA is to physically monitor the removal and transport of international waste, some POEs have not been observing the waste handlers’ activities. This creates a risk that waste handlers may not be appropriately handling the removal and disposal of international waste and in turn creates a risk of introduction of invasive alien species, plant and animal diseases, and contaminated foods into Canada.

Recommendation 3:

The Vice-President of Operations Branch should ensure that BSOs complete all five FPA online training modules.

Management Action Plan Completion date

The Operations Branch agrees with this recommendation as it will further strengthen the integrity of the Food, Plant and Animal Program at the CBSA.

In July 2014, a directive to field operations was issued directing that management ensure all BSOs complete the required training modules. By December 2014, the Operations Branch will have implemented a monitoring control to track completion rates, thereby ensuring that all BSOs have completed all modules by August 2015.

August 2015

Recommendation 4:

The Vice-President of Programs Branch should consult with the Operations Branch and the CFIA to determine what the CBSA should maintain as evidence of monitoring and how often the removal and disposal of international waste should be physically observed by regional operations.

Management Action Plan Completion date

Programs Branch agrees with this recommendation.

Programs Branch will clarify policies and procedures regarding documentation and frequency of monitoring of the removal and disposal of international waste. By March 2015, the Branch will conduct a survey to confirm that the monitoring regime, as described in the revised policies, has been implemented at all ports of entry.

March 2015

Appendix A – About the Audit

Audit Objectives and Scope

The audit objective was to determine whether controls are in place and working as intended to mitigate the border integrity risks, and the extent to which the Program’s control framework allows the Agency to fully meet its FPA-related responsibilities.

This audit was conducted from February 2014 to July 2014. The audit scope covered the period of April 2012 to August 2014. Based on the risks identified in the 2013–2014 National Border Risk Assessment and the 2013 Enterprise Risk Profile, the audit focused on the delivery of the FPA Program in the traveller stream for the air and land modes and in the commercial stream for the air, land and marine modes. Six regions were visited as part of the audit: Quebec, Northern Ontario, Pacific, Greater Toronto Area, Southern Ontario and Atlantic regions.

An audit of the Food, Plant and Animal Program was approved by the President as part of the 2013–2014 to 2015–2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan.

Scope Exclusions

The audit did not examine the postal and rail modes of importation. The preliminary risk assessment identified the postal mode of importation as a lower risk. Also, an internal audit of the rail mode of importation is planned in the near future.

The audit also did not examine enforcement activities under the Customs Act and any FPA-related activities under mandate of other government departments.

Risk Assessment

Our risk assessment conducted during the planning phase identified the following key risk areas:

  • {*}
  • {*}
  • There is a risk that the Agency is not capturing all FPA at-border interceptions thereby compromising the Agency’s ability to accurately assess the program’s performance against expected outcomes and effectiveness.

Approach and Methodology

The examination phase of this audit was performed using the following approach:

  • Reviewing legislation, policies, procedures, guidelines, performance information and reports;
  • Analyzing and comparing data and information from various sources;
  • Interviewing staff at HQ, in the regions and from other government departments such as CFIA and Environment Canada;
  • Visiting regional examination facilities; and
  • Reviewing management action plans resulting from previous audits.

Audit Criteria

Given the preliminary findings from the planning phase, the following criteria were chosen:

Lines of Enquiry Audit Criteria
1. Governance, Accountabilities, and Results and Performance
  • 1.1 FPA roles and responsibilities at HQ and in regions are defined and communicated.
  • 1.2 Oversight of FPA activities occurs on a regular basis.
  • 1.3 A performance framework is implemented to monitor and report on all aspects of FPA requirements of the MOU with the CFIA. Performance information is communicated to relevant stakeholders.
2. Risk Management
  • 2.1 Program management identifies the risks that may preclude the achievement of objectives and identifies mitigating strategies to manage these risks.
3. Controls
  • 3.1 Employees have the necessary training, tools, resources and information to support the discharge of their responsibilities.
  • 3.2 Open and effective channels exist for internal and external communications and feedback.
  • 3.3 AAAMPs are issued according to policy.
  • 3.4 An up-to-date business contingency plan for FPA-related emergencies has been implemented.
  • 3.5 Seized or abandoned FPA and related products are controlled and disposed of in compliance with authorities.

Appendix B – List of Acronyms

Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties
Border Risk Management Plan
Border Services Officer
Canada Border Services Agency
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Food, plant and animal
Memorandum of Understanding
National Border Risk Assessment
Port of Entry



Footnote 1

At the time of the audit, the Agency underwent reorganization within the Programs Branch to strengthen program integrity, clarify roles and responsibilities, and improve how stakeholders are engaged. What was previously known as the FPA Unit within the Border Programs Directorate was reorganized into the Other Government Departments Programs Unit within Program and Policy Management.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

BSF241 form, also known as the Non-Monetary General Receipt, is an instrument for gathering statistics. It enables the BSOs to maintain records of the inspection of FPA and related products.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Longroom refers to a designated Customs area for the release of imported goods.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Date modified: