Evaluation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Contribution to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games

Action Plan

August 31, 2010

---

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Acronyms/Abbreviations
• 1.0 Introduction and Background
  • 1.1 Objectives
  • 1.2 Description and Activities
  • 1.3 Governance
  • 1.4 Resource Allocation
• 2.0 Evaluation Strategy
  • 2.1 Evaluation Objective
  • 2.2 Evaluation Methodology
  • 2.3 Evaluation Limitations and Challenges
• 3.0 Key Findings and Conclusions
  • 3.1 Relevance and Continued Need
  • 3.2 Effectiveness (Performance)
    • 3.2.1 Quality of planning, management and decision making
    • 3.2.2 Clarity and documentation of roles and responsibilities
    • 3.2.3 Extent to which activities were coordinated effectively
    • 3.2.4 Effectiveness of communication and information sharing
    • 3.2.5 Extent to which the project was implemented as planned
  • 3.3 Efficiency and Economy (Performance)
    • 3.3.1 Extent to which expected outputs and outcomes were achieved
    • 3.3.2 Unexpected impacts/outcomes
    • 3.3.3 Adequacy of resource levels
    • 3.3.4 Alternative approaches
• 4.0 Recommendation
• 5.0 Lessons Learned and Best Practices
  • 5.1 Lessons Learned
  • 5.2 Best Practices
• Annex A: Logic Model

---

Executive Summary

Background

On July 2, 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (the Games) to Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia.¹ The Olympic Games were held from February 12 to 28, 2010, followed by the Paralympic Games from March 12 to 21, 2010.

The CFIA was identified as one of 15 federal departments and agencies providing Essential Federal Services (EFS) for the Games. Departments and agencies were deemed EFS providers if their services were considered essential in the successful hosting of the Games. 

Overview

This evaluation was completed on August 30, 2010, and covers the period from April 1, 2005, to March 21, 2010. A commitment to conduct an evaluation was identified in the CFIA’s Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF), approved in January 2010. 

The evaluation was conducted using multiple lines of evidence including:

• document and file review;
• key informant interviews (internal 19; external 1); and
• media monitoring.

Conclusions

Overall, the CFIA fulfilled its role as an EFS provider while also accomplishing its regular work with very dedicated staff. It was evident that there was clear accountability and decision making; communication and information sharing was effective and efficient; roles and responsibilities internally and interdepartmentally were well understood and outcomes were achieved.

Relationships with other government agencies and departments such as the Canada Border Services Agency, Public Safety Canada and Health Canada were enhanced at both the regional and corporate levels.

Recommendations

The evidence indicates that the CFIA’s contribution to the Winter Games was a success, the activities undertaken were relevant and there is a future role for the CFIA in similar events that touch upon the Agency’s mandate.

The findings indicate that it was challenging during the planning stage to identify the CFIA’s response to past similar events due to the lack of corporate memory and documentation. A significant level of planning, collaboration and coordination was undertaken for the Games which is likely to be useful for future events.

Recommendation 1

The Operations Branch should review all working papers, documents and templates developed for the Games and identify the key information to be archived. Key documents and templates should be accessible to all CFIA staff either electronically or in the branch archives so they can be referenced and used for future events.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

A key component of this evaluation was determining lessons learned and best practices to inform future events. The lessons learned and best practices outlined here were obtained during the key informant interviews.

Lessons Learned

The CFIA did not request additional funding, and all activities undertaken for the Games were financed by A-base resources. The CFIA played a supporting role in the Games, and both human and financial resources were diverted from other projects to fulfill its obligations as an EFS provider.

Lesson Learned 1
Prior to an event, the CFIA should thoroughly assess the project’s needs, identify existing resources and obtain additional resources to address any shortfalls.

A lack of corporate memory and documentation on the CFIA’s involvement in similar events was recognized as a challenge early on.

Lesson Learned 2
The Agency would benefit from a protocols document for special events. On the basis of its experience with the 2010 Winter Games file, the Office of Emergency Management is working on developing this document.

Best Practices

One of the key factors in the CFIA successfully meeting its objectives for this project was related to early engagement. 

Best Practice 1
Early engagement and early planning is essential as they ensure adequate time for planning and for any adjustments that may be needed.

Working relationships were established or strengthened particularly with Public Safety Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency at the national level, and with Health Canada and provincial and municipal partners in the region.

Best Practice 2
Fostering good communication with partners facilitates a positive working relationship and the achievement of joint goals. The ties that are established during a specific project can be useful for future projects.

“Hot washes” are a common practice within the Agency.

Best Practice 3
A hot wash or exit meeting with all staff members involved in the project is essential in wrapping up a project, learning about the overall experience and performance and identifying areas for future improvement.

---

Acronyms/ Abbreviations

AERO

Audit, Evaluation and Risk Oversight

CBSA

Canada Border Services Agency

CFIA

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

DM Committee

Deputy Ministers’ and Heads of Agency Coordination Committee

EFS

Essential Federal Service

FIORP

Foodborne Illness Outbreak Response Protocol

GoC

Government of Canada

HC

Health Canada

ICP

Incident Command Post

ICS

Incident Command System

IOC

International Olympic Committee

NEOC

National Emergency Response Centre

NERT

National Emergency Response Team

NOWG

National internal Olympic Working Group

OEM

Office of Emergency Management

RBAF

Risk-based Audit Framework

REOC

Regional Emergency Operation Centre

RMAF

Results-based Management and Accountability Framework

RWG

Representative Working Group

1.0 Introduction and Background

On July 2, 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (the Games) to Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia.² The Olympic Games were held from February 12 to 28, 2010, followed by the Paralympic Games from March 12 to 21, 2010.

The Government of Canada (GoC) was a key partner in hosting the Games. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat (2010 Federal Secretariat) was originally created to assist the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation in organizing Vancouver’s bid for the 2010 Winter Games. Its role then changed to facilitating and supporting a “whole of government approach” to ensure the delivery of high-quality Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and to maximize the sustainable social and economic benefits for Canadians offered by hosting the Games.

The CFIA was identified as one of 15 federal departments and agencies providing Essential Federal Services (EFS) for the Games. Departments and agencies were deemed EFS providers if their services were considered essential in the successful hosting of the Games.

The CFIA’s roles and responsibilities as an EFS provider are outlined in the Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) developed by the 2010 Federal Secretariat and finalized in November 2009. The CFIA’s roles and responsibilities, outlined in the RMAF/RBAF, fall under three areas:³

1. Health Safety: The CFIA develops and delivers programs and services designed to protect Canadians from preventable food safety hazards, and ensures that food safety emergencies are effectively managed, and that the public is aware of, and contributes to, food safety. Primarily, this entails verifying that food producers, manufacturers, importers and distributors comply with federal food safety requirements. The CFIA also verifies that food imports meet domestic food safety requirements. Information materials relating to food import requirements and restrictions will be distributed and available.
2. Emergency Preparedness: Under the Emergency Management Act, the CFIA has the lead role in preparing for and responding to emergencies involving food safety, animal health and plant protection. During the 2010 Olympics, the CFIA's National, Area and Regional Emergency Operations Centres will be on alert should there be any CFIA-mandated emergencies. The Agency will also collaborate with appropriate federal, provincial and territorial partners in any emergency response exercises that may be conducted prior to the Games.
3. Entry of Goods and Individuals into Canada: The CFIA is responsible for food safety, animal health and plant protection for all Canadians. The Agency will conduct inspection based on referrals from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) at our Pacific ports. The CFIA will also work closely with the CBSA on activities surrounding import issues.

The CFIA did not request additional funding for its contribution to the Games; all activities were financed through existing A-base resources.

Annex A contains the CFIA 2010 Games logic model.

1.1 Objectives

The primary objective for the CFIA as an EFS provider was to facilitate the effective and efficient processing of imported goods destined for use by athletes, delegates and spectators.

1.2 Description and Activities

A number of activities were undertaken to promote Canada’s import requirements for food, plants and animals prior to and during the Games. As an EFS provider, the Agency enhanced its routine activities and supported the CBSA as it accommodated a higher volume of imported goods entering Canada prior to and during the Games, particularly in the western region. 

The Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Operations Branch, was responsible for providing national coordination of the CFIA’s activities for the Games. The OEM was responsible for:

• Liaising between the National Operations Working Group (NOWG), Program Delivery and the Emergency Management Committee, and the Senior Management Committee of the CFIA;
• Liaising with other government departments, non-governmental organizations, and the 2010 Federal Secretariat;
• Representing the CFIA on the Emergency Management Cluster; and
• Partially activating NEOC on December 1, 2009.

The CFIA’s Public Affairs Branch developed a communication strategy targeted at athletes, visitors, sponsors and importers. The objective of the strategy was to communicate import requirements for food, plants, animals and related products to target audiences in a timely manner. The existing “Be Aware and Declare!” campaign was leveraged to increase access to import information.⁴ Various activities were undertaken, including:

• Increasing the number of languages in which the “Be Aware and Declare!” brochures were available from 13 to 24;
• Providing the “Be Aware and Declare!” brochures to the CBSA and Service Canada, as well as to the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies for distribution;
• Ensuring the “Be Aware and Declare!” Web site was available with links from the CBSA, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Vancouver 2010 Olympics Web sites.
• Creating “Be Aware and Declare!” posters and displaying them at major Canadian airports (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Calgary) from October 2008 to March 2010; and
• Advertising in Air Canada’s enRoute magazine. Public service announcements were aired by international air carriers on flights destined for Canada.⁵

At the regional level, BC Operations:

• Implemented import clearance procedures and provided additional support to the CBSA at their Operations Centre through the Import Service Centre;
• Was lead contact with VANOC and BC Health Authorities;
• Sponsored a food safety emergency “table top exercise” with invited representatives from municipal, provincial and federal levels of government (8 agencies and 16 OGDs). The exercise analyzed the effectiveness of the BC Foodborne Illness Outbreak Response Protocol (BC FIORP) by using four scenarios designed by the Justice Institute, of an unknown foodborne illness during the Games;
• Developed Service Standards for the CBSA (based on the January 27, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding between the CFIA and the CBSA)and CFIA Guidelines for the CBSA during the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympics Winter Games; and
• Partially activated the Regional Emergency Operation Centre (REOC) during the Games.⁶

The CFIA as a whole participated in three Olympic exercises coordinated by Public Safety Canada:

• Exercise Bronze (November 2008) focused on regional safety and security issues;
• Exercise Silver (February 2009) focused on practised safety and security plans and procedures; and
• Exercise Gold (November 2009) was a full-scale operational exercise to confirm readiness for the Games.⁷

1.3 Governance

The Department of Canadian Heritage, 2010 Winter Games Federal Secretariat, facilitated and supported a “whole of government approach” to ensure the delivery of high-quality Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and to maximize the sustainable social and economic benefits for all Canadians offered by hosting the 2010 Winter Games. A Framework for Federal Coordination (Framework) was created to provide a coordinated strategic approach to maximizing these opportunities, as well as promoting horizontal and vertical management in the delivery of essential federal government services to the Games.⁸

The Framework was managed by committees at four levels:

1. A Deputy Ministers’ and Heads of Agency Coordination Committee (DM Committee) provided executive leadership to ensure effective coordination in developing a comprehensive and coherent policy and program response to maximizing the federal government’s investment in the 2010 Winter Games.⁹ The President represented the CFIA.
2. A Representative Working Group composed of Assistant Deputy Minister-level representatives, reporting to the DM Committee on the progress of the delivery of essential federal services and providing recommendations concerning proposals for service delivery and opportunities to implement federal policies.¹⁰ The Vice-President, Operations Branch, represented the CFIA.
3. Eight working level Issue Clusters. The CFIA was involved in two of the eight clusters.¹¹ The manager, Office of Emergency Management, represented the CFIA on the Emergency Management Cluster. A manager from the Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate represented the CFIA on the Public Health and Safety Cluster.
4. The Essential Federal Services Committee, a working level group, supported, promoted, coordinated and monitored the seamless planning of essential federal services.¹² The Director of the Office of Emergency Management represented the CFIA.

A Government Partners Public Affairs Group (GPPAG) was established by Public Safety Canada to coordinate public affairs for all Games security and public safety-related issues among the federal, provincial, municipal and private partners.¹³ A representative from the Agency’s Public Affairs Branch attended these meetings and assisted in its planning activities.

Within the Agency, two working groups were established:

1. The CFIA national level Olympic working group (NOWG) was responsible for providing national coordination of the CFIA’s activities for the Games. Chaired by the Director, Office of Emergency Management, it was tasked with identifying and resolving issues that arose.¹⁴ This group developed, coordinated, and implemented the Contingency/Action Plans for Operations, Policy and Programs, Science, Public Affairs branches and Legal Services.
2. The CFIA regional Olympic working group (ROWG) based in the British Columbia Mainland/Interior Office, Western Operations, was the primary contact point for the processing of imported goods and responding to inquiries and issues as they arose.¹⁵ BC Operations was also the lead contact with VANOC and BC Health Authorities.

1.4 Resource Allocation

The overall Government of Canada investment in the Games between 2003-04 and 2010-11 was approximately $1.25 billion of which $686.425 million was distributed to departments/agencies administering essential federal services.¹⁶

The CFIA did not request additional funding for its participation in the Games. Activities were financed through existing A-base resources. A breakdown of expenditures for fiscal years 2005-06 to 2009-10 is shown in Table 1.¹⁷

Table 1: CFIA Expenditures as an EFS Provider, 2005-06 to 2009-10*

	Existing Cost	Incremental Cost
Pay - Salaries	$367,504	$21,351
- Students	-	-
- Overtime	-	$48,210
- Allowances	-	-
- Total Pay	$367,504	$69,561
- Employee Benefit Plan	$73,501	$13,912
O&M  - Travel	-	$18,609
- Postage and Freight	-	-
- Telecom	-	$246
- Publishing and Printing	$38,446	-
- Professional Services	-	$60,257
- Rental	-	-
- Materials and Supplies	-	-
- Purchase of Equipment	-	-
Total O&M	$38,446	$79,112
Grand Total (Pay, Employee Benefit Plan, O&M)	$479,451	$162,585
Total of Existing Cost and Incremental Cost	-	$642,036
Accommodation	-	$50,551
Corporate Support	-	$95,269
Grand Total	-	$787,856

* Note that all expenditures up to June 2009 were estimated; due to this, the financial information presented here may not fully represent the actual cost to the Agency.

2.0 Evaluation Strategy

The evaluation is based on the evaluation strategy from the internal CFIA 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games RMAF and the evaluation framework.

2.1 Evaluation Objective

The objective of the evaluation is to assess the core issues of relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the activities undertaken by the CFIA in preparation for and during the Games.¹⁸

The evaluation specifically addressed:

• The CFIA’s success in achieving its expected outcomes as an essential federal service provider;
• Level of effectiveness in coordinating activities within the CFIA and with the CBSA;
• The extent to which activities undertaken demonstrate efficiency and value for money; and
• Lessons learned and best practices.

The evaluation encompasses the period from fiscal year April 1, 2005, to March 21, 2010. 

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

The methodologies selected for this evaluation incorporate multiple lines of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, to obtain the most comprehensive, valid and reliable findings.

Document and File Review, including: planning and reporting documents, tracking documents and tools, situation reports, meeting minutes, and financial data.

Key informant interviews were conducted with 19 internal staff and one external person.

Media Monitoring using NewsDesk, a GoC-shared system for electronic media monitoring.  

2.3 Evaluation Limitations and Challenges

Many of the findings presented in this report are based on responses obtained from key informants, and as such represent an interpretation of the opinions of those interviewed.

There was no formal tracking of financial resources related to activities until June 2009. For this reason, the financial information may not fully represent the actual cost to the Agency.

The scope of the evaluation did not address the extent to which the import information packages were delivered to the targeted audiences and were useful to them.

3.0 Key Findings and Conclusions

Key findings and conclusions for the following main evaluation issues are presented serially: relevance, effectiveness (performance), efficiency and economy (performance).

3.1 Relevance and Continued Need

The evidence examined indicates that the CFIA’s involvement in the Games as an EFS provider aligns with the Agency’s mandate to safeguard the Canadian food supply and the plants and animals upon which safe and high-quality food depends¹⁹ and with the wider GoC priorities for bolstering economic prosperity, strengthening security at the border and the safety of the food supply, protecting the environment and contributing to the health of Canadians.²⁰

A nearly unanimous view presented by interviewees was that the CFIA’s involvement in the Games was relevant, and that there is a need for the Agency’s involvement in similar events that touch upon the Agency’s mandate. The CFIA’s involvement in providing inspection and laboratory services for G8/G20 was given as an example by some interviewees of a continued need for the Agency’s involvement in special events. 

3.2 Effectiveness (Performance)

3.2.1 Quality of planning, management and decision making

Interviewees stated that interdepartmental and internal working groups and committees provided the Agency with a sufficient level of interaction to support planning, management and decision making for the Games. These interactions provided the Agency with opportunities to liaise and become familiar with planning activities of other departments/agencies, which allowed the Agency to align its own planning with that of others where appropriate. Additionally, it allowed the Agency to internally coordinate and develop national and regional contingency/action plans detailing individual branch roles and responsibilities, especially for potential emergency responses. 

The lack of corporate memory and documentation from similar past events was identified as a challenge. Archived documentation could have facilitated planning and provided valuable information regarding what issues to expect for an event of this stature. 

3.2.2 Clarity and documentation of roles and responsibilities

The majority of interviewees stated that the roles and responsibilities of the Agency were clearly articulated through the contingency/action plans and meetings of the NOWG. This was also supported by the findings from the file and document review. A few interviewees noted that roles and responsibilities were unclear early in the planning process but improved as the start date for the Olympics neared.

The Federal Secretariat’s coordination of the interdepartmental RMAF/RBAF and internal and external performance reporting documents served to inform senior management of CFIA accountabilities and progress against expected results.

3.2.3 Extent to which activities were coordinated effectively

Internally

Most interviewees indicated (supported by the findings from the file and document review) that the coordination of activities worked well within the Agency. No significant gaps or areas of overlap were identified. A review of meeting minutes from the NOWG revealed the same. Additionally, the partial activation of NEOC and REOC formalized the coordination of activities from the field to the national office.

Externally

The CFIA worked closely with the CBSA and with other organizations including the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC), the Federal Secretariat (Canadian Heritage), the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Health Canada.²¹

At the request of the CBSA, the CFIA’s BC Operations developed an electronic training module that the CBSA offered to its staff as a refresher course in preparation for the Games.²² Interviewees from the CFIA and the CBSA indicated that the module met the CBSA’s training needs. 

Some interviewees indicated that Bronze, Silver and Gold exercises could have been better coordinated and communicated as the intent and results of the exercises were not clear. Other interviewees noted how valuable the exercises were in improving coordination between the CFIA and its partners.

A gap was identified in relation to the Public Health and Safety cluster led by Health Canada. Due to a shift in the focus of the cluster, it no longer touched on the CFIA’s mandate and it was unclear to some key informants if the Agency had a continued role.

The inter-agency/department food safety emergency “table top” exercise was considered to be a valuable exercise in preparing for any large-scale food emergency. It was noted during key informant interviews that these types of activities are bringing emergency management and first-responder organizations closer together.

At a corporate level, the Games offered an opportunity for the Agency to increase awareness within the security cluster of potential security issues related to food safety and to ensure that the Agency is engaged in a timely manner. 

The evidence indicates that the CFIA effectively coordinated its activities within the Agency and externally with its partners at all levels of government. Although some coordination difficulties were identified (e.g. coordination and communication of Bronze, Silver and Gold exercises and the evolution of the Public Health and Safety cluster) these were minor in nature given the scale of planning and coordination for the Games.

3.2.4 Effectiveness of communication and information sharing

Communication and information sharing within the Agency and with partners

Communication and information sharing within the CFIA and with other government departments/agencies were through the internal and external working groups and committees and through NEOC. NEOC circulated daily situation reports produced by BC Operations, the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (RCMP), PHAC and Health Canada beginning December 2009 and ending March 2010.

The majority of interviewees indicated that they felt that communication and information sharing within the Agency and with partners worked well. Some interviewees indicated that communication and information sharing was less effective early on but improved as the project evolved. 

Both CFIA and CBSA interviewees indicated that a strong working relationship exists between the CFIA and the CBSA regionally and that there was effective communication between the two.

CFIA External Communications Strategy

The file and document review reveals that the availability and access to import information prior to and during the Games was enhanced as a result of the implementation of the Games Communication Strategy. In 2009-10, of the total 211,620 “Be Aware and Declare!” brochures, the CFIA distributed 53,620, 75,000 were given to the CBSA, and 83,000 to the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies for distribution. The CFIA did not track the number distributed by these two agencies.

There were significant numbers of hits on the “Be Aware and Declare!” Web site: from January to March 31, 2010, there were: 1,356,781 hits, 128,668 page views, 72,898 Web visits and 64,238 unique visitors.

This evaluation did not address the attribution of the availability of communications products on awareness of import requirements. 

The key informants interviewed had varying perceptions on the effectiveness of the communications strategy. Some interviewees indicated that the strategy was successful while others indicated that outreach to the embassies could have been more systematic. Others noted that they had not been well informed about the existence of the communications strategy, or the activities and products resulting from it.

3.2.5 Extent to which the project was implemented as planned

The interviewees indicated that the CFIA implemented its responsibilities as an essential federal service as planned. The majority of interviewees indicated that minor adjustments were made to meet changing needs, such as the shift from delivering in-person training to an electronic training module for the CBSA at the CBSA’s request.

Some interviewees questioned the capacity of the CFIA to respond to concurrent emergencies. This issue was not pursued further in this evaluation.

3.3 Efficiency and Economy (Performance)

3.3.1 Extent to which expected outputs and outcomes were achieved

The document review and information obtained from key informant interviews indicate that the CFIA successfully fulfilled its role as an EFS provider. A letter from the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, thanking the CFIA for its involvement, also supports this.

The CFIA’s BC Operations worked closely with the CBSA to facilitate the effective and efficient processing of imported goods. To facilitate the processing of imported goods, the CFIA’s Import Service Centres enhanced service time to ensure a 45- minute turn around based on time of receipt of request for release approvals, put in place a dedicated Olympics communication phone line that was in effect seven days a week from 07:00 to 23:00 PST, and provided the CBSA with a detailed CFIA contact list. 

As outlined in section 3.2.4, the communication strategy enhanced the availability of information on Canada’s import requirements. However, it was not possible to determine whether the communications strategy led to an increased awareness of Canada’s import regulations or increased importers’ compliance with regulations.

Due to the enhanced level of planning, coordination and communication undertaken by the CFIA, the evidence indicates that the CFIA had processes in place (e.g. working groups, partial NEOC and REOC activation) to increase the efficacy and efficiency of management of emergencies or incidents within the context of international-scale activities, should such events occur. However, an inherent aspect of the CFIA is to be fully prepared to respond to any emerging incident or emergency that touches on the CFIA’s mandate in a timely manner. In this case, due to the international scale of the event, certain processes were activated in advance to ensure a rapid turn-around should an incident occur.

3.3.2 Unexpected impacts/outcomes

The evidence indicates that there were no unexpected impacts resulting from the Agency’s involvement in the Games.

The following unexpected outcomes were highlighted by the key informants:

• Increased collaboration between the CFIA and the CBSA.
• The Agency is better prepared for future events that are similar in nature.
• The Agency has built and strengthened networks with other government departments and agencies and with other levels of government.

3.3.3 Adequacy of resource levels

The CFIA did not request additional funding to plan and operationalize its response for the Games. All activities were supported through existing A-base resources. In the BC Operations office, a full-time term position was dedicated to coordinating the CFIA’s activities from November 2009 to March 2010.²³ For other employees in both the regional and national offices, the Games file was an aside to their regular work.

Most interviewees indicated that the resources the CFIA allocated to support its commitment in contributing to the Games were adequate. The general consensus among interviewees was that funding for projects such as the Olympics should be identified in advance so that full advantage can be taken of funding mechanisms. 

3.3.4 Alternative approaches

The majority of interviewees indicated that the CFIA could not have achieved the same outcomes utilizing fewer resources or by applying an alternative approach or approaches. However, an alternative approach was identified during the key informant interviews. It was suggested that incidents could be handled using existing processes with NEOC activation if an incident or emergency occurred. 

This approach was not pursued further in this evaluation.

4.0 Recommendation

The evidence indicates that the CFIA’s contribution to the Games was a success, the activities undertaken were relevant, and there is a future role for the CFIA in similar events that touch upon the Agency’s mandate. 

The findings indicate that it was challenging during the planning stage to identify the CFIA’s responses to past similar events due to the lack of corporate memory and documentation. A significant level of planning, collaboration and coordination was undertaken for the Games, which is likely to be useful for future events.

Recommendation 1
The Operations Branch should review all working papers, documents and templates developed for the Games, and identify the key information to be archived. Key documents and templates should be accessible to all CFIA staff either electronically or in the Branch archives so they can be referenced and used for future events.

5.0 Lessons Learned and Best Practices

A key component of this evaluation was determining lessons learned and best practices to help inform future events. The lessons learned and best practices outlined here were obtained during the key informant interviews.

5.1 Lessons Learned

The CFIA did not request additional funding and all activities undertaken for the Winter Games were financed by A-base resources. The CFIA played a supporting role in the 2010 Winter Games and both human and financial resources were diverted from other projects to fulfill the CFIA’s obligations as an EFS provider.

Lesson Learned 1
Prior to an event, the CFIA should thoroughly assess project needs, identify existing resources and obtain additional resources to address any shortfalls.

The lack of corporate memory and documentation on the CFIA’s involvement in similar events was recognized as a challenge early on.

Lessons Learned 2
The Agency would benefit from a protocols document for special events. The Office of Emergency Management is developing such a document.

5.2 Best Practices

One of the key factors in the CFIA successfully meeting its objectives for this project was related to early engagement.

Best Practice 1
Early engagement and early planning is essential as it ensures an adequate period of time for planning and for any adjustments that may be needed.

Working relationships were established or strengthened particularly with Public Safety Canada and the CBSA at the national level, and with Health Canada and provincial and municipal partners in the region. 

Best Practice 2
Fostering good communication with partners facilitates a positive working relationship and the achievement of joint goals. The ties that are established during a specific project can be useful for future projects.

“Hot washes” are a best practice within the Agency.

Best Practice 3
A hot wash or exit meeting with all staff members involved in the project is essential in wrapping up a project, learning about the overall experience and performance, and identifying areas for future improvement.

Annex A: Logic Model

Click on image for larger view

Annex A: Logic Model

---

¹ 2010 Federal Secretariat (Department of Canadian Heritage) Internal Document. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, December 2009.

² 2010 Federal Secretariat (Department of Canadian Heritage) Internal Document. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, December 2009.

³ 2010 Federal Secretariat (Department of Canadian Heritage) Internal Document. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, December 2009.

⁴ CFIA Internal Document. Communications Strategy: Vancouver 2010 Olympics and Paralympics, May 2009.

⁵ CFIA Internal Document. 2010 Winter Games RMAF/RBAF Progress Report: “Be Aware and Declare!” Travellers Campaign. April 2010.

⁶ CFIA Internal Document. BC 2010 Olympic and Paralympics - A BC Operational Overview. June 2010.

⁷ National Defence and the Canadian Forces Web site: http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/fea-pro/04112009-eng.asp (Accessed July 2010).

⁸ Public Service Web site: http://publiservice.gc.ca/partners-partenaires/vancouver2010/ffc-eng.html (Accessed August 2010).

⁹ 2010 Federal Secretariat (Department of Canadian Heritage) Internal Document. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, December 2009.

¹⁰ 2010 Federal Secretariat (Department of Canadian Heritage) Internal Document. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, December 2009.

¹¹ ibid.

¹² ibid.

¹³ Public Safety Canada Internal Document. Terms of Reference: 2010 Winter Games Security and Public Safety Government Partners Public Affairs Group. February 2009.

¹⁴ CFIA Internal Document, Terms of Reference: CFIA 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Working Group, 2008.

¹⁵ CFIA Internal Document, BC Operational Overview: BC 2010 Olympic and Paralymics, June 2010.

¹⁶ 2010 Federal Secretariat (Department of Canadian Heritage) Internal Document. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, December 2009.

¹⁷ CFIA Internal Document. Costing for the 2010 Winter Games. August 2010.

¹⁸ Core issues are determined by the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation (2009).

¹⁹ Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Report on Plans and Priorities 2009/2010.

²⁰ CFIA Web site:  http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/agen/agene.shtml) (Accessed July 2010)

²¹ CFIA, Minutes of the National Union/Management Consultation Committee Meeting – Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) and Canadian Food Inspection Agency, October 2009.

²² CFIA Internal Document, CFIA Operations Action Plan for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, 2009.

²³ CFIA Internal Document, BC Operational Overview: BC 2010 Olympic and Paralympics, June 2010.