Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study

8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study

1/38

Impressions on food safety from

the frontline

Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study

February 2016

Prepared for the Agriculture Union


2/38

Methodology

2

• The survey was conducted in English and French among 580 members of the

Agriculture Union who work for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency using aninternet survey programmed and collected by Abacus Data.

• The survey was completed from February 12 to February 29, 2016.

• There are a total of 3,712 members of Agriculture Union who work at the Canadian

Food Inspection Agency. The response rate for the survey was 15.6%.

• The margin of error for this study is 4.15%, 19 times out of 20.


3/38

KEY FINDINGS


4/38

Key Findings

4

With the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on the verge of overhauling its food safety

inspection program, a new survey of its staff reveals widespread confusion and an absence ofconfidence about the changes and a workforce that expects its short-handed inspection operations

will lead to a major food borne illness in the near future.

• More than half (55%) of respondents describe the current complement of inspectors in theirimmediate workplace as inadequate to ensure compliance with food safety requirements. Four-in-

ten (39%) report adequate and 6% report more than adequate complements.

•

This shortage is most acute in meat plants where seven-in-ten (71%) inspectors in process meat

plants and 60% in slaughter facilities report staffing levels in their immediate work team that areinadequate to ensure safety compliance.

•

Daily presence of inspection staff in meat processing plants, a safety requirement for

establishments producing for both Canadian and foreign consumer, is a reality for only a small

minority (27%) working in the meat hygiene program who report there are enough staff for this

practice to always be in place. More than half (57%) report sufficient staff to provide dailypresence sometimes, while 13% report it rarely happens and 4% say it never happens.

• Nearly seven in ten (69%) respondents believe that a major food borne illness outbreak is likely inthe near future given the state of food safety in Canada today. Just 15% believe that such an

outbreak is unlikely.


5/38

Key Findings

5

• One-in-four (24%) of all respondents have been asked by a CFIA manager to stop doing required

food safety related tasks and most (59%) believe these instructions have been issued becausethere are not enough inspectors available to do all required food safety tasks.

• A wide majority (86%) believe greater reliance on the food industry to police its own food safety

practices makes Canada’s food supply less safe.

• Concerning Inspection Modernization, CFIA’s staff lack confidence in the program’s ability to

protect consumer safety, do not feel they have been briefed on their new roles, or trained on their

new responsibilities, and expect it will limit hands-on oversight.

•

A majority feel not at all (42%) or not very (24%) qualified because the CFIA’s Modernization

program expects inspectors to work outside their area of expertise and half (50%) believe the new

approach will actually increase the chance of a major food borne illness outbreak.

•

Half (50%) of all respondents doubt the CFIA’s senior leadership will be able to introduce

Inspection Modernization while protecting public safety at the same time. Only 14% agree theCFIA’s senior leadership will be able to safeguard the public during the transition.

• .


6/38

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS


7/38

Profile of Respondents

7 All Respondents, n = 580

Length of time at CFIA

The majority of respondents have 6 to 15 years of experience, with the plurality of respondentsworking in the meat hygiene program area.

25%

18%

9%

10%

11%

2%

1%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

Meat Hygiene - process

Fish

Fair Labeling/Consumer

Protection

Food Safety

Fruit and Vegetables

Microbiology

Other, please specify...

Program at CFIA

17%

32%

29%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years


8/38

Province of Employment


In which province do you work?

28%

26%

10%

10%

11%

5%

5%

5%

4%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Quebec

Ontario

Alberta

British Columbia

New Brunswick

Manitoba

Newfoundland and Labrador

Nova Scotia

Saskatchewan

Prince Edward Island


9/38

SURVEY FINDINGS


10/38

Number of inspectors in local workplaces


Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

6%

5%

25%

24%

31%

31%

29%

29%

9%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

There are enough inspectors inmy immediate work area to allowstaff to take leave for vacation,

illness and other purposes.

There are enough inspectors inmy immediate work area to allow

staff to book off for required

training

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know

Overall, a majority (60%) of respondents agree there are insufficient inspectors in their work area toallow staff to take leave for vacation, illness or other reasons, or to allow staff to book off time for

required training.


11/38



Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | There are enough inspectors in myimmediate work area to allow staff to book off for required training

5%

8%

4%

4%

8%

5%

5%

6%

6%

24%

23%

28%

24%

20%

14%

19%

49%

27%

31%

30%

27%

30%

37%

33%

40%

17%

28%

29%

28%

26%

35%

28%

47%

37%

23%

19%

10%

11%

14%

7%

7%

1%

6%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other


When asked whether there are sufficient inspectors in their work area to allow time off for requiredtraining, 60% of all respondents report there are not. Inspectors in meat slaughter (80% disagree)

and processing (77% disagree) establishments were least likely to report sufficient inspectors,

while those working in fish were most likely to feel there were enough inspectors (55% agree).


12/38



Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | There are enough inspectors in myimmediate work area to allow staff to take leave for vacation, illness and other purposes.

6%

8%

5%

4%

9%

4%

7%

6%

7%

25%

25%

25%

26%

22%

16%

19%

51%

27%

31%

29%

29%

32%

33%

33%

35%

17%

31%

29%

27%

28%

31%

30%

47%

40%

23%

17%

9%

11%

12%

7%

6%

4%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other


When asked whether there are sufficient inspectors in their work area to allow time off for vacation,illness, or other leave, 60% of respondents felt there are not. Again, those working in the meat

slaughter (80% disagree) and meat process (75% disagree) were least likely to feel there are

sufficient inspectors, while those working in fish were most likely to feel there are enough

inspectors (57% agree).


13/38

Perceptions about Current Complement of Inspection Staff


Which of the following best describes the current complement of inspection staff in your immediateworking group?

6%

39%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

More than adequate to complete all tasks needed toensure compliance with food safety requirements

Adequate to complete all tasks needed to ensure

compliance with food safety requirements

Inadequate to complete all task needed to ensurecompliance with food safety requirements

Although 39% of respondents report that the current complement of staff in their immediate workinggroup is adequate to ensure compliance with food safety requirements, a majority (55%) felt that

current staffing levels are inadequate.


14/38

Perceptions about Current Complement of Inspection Staff


Which of the following best describes the current complement of inspection staff in your immediateworking group?

Overall, 55% of respondents felt the current complement of inspection staff in their working groupwas inadequate. This view was more widely held among those with 11-15 years of experience

(62%), and those working in the meat hygiene – process area (71%).

6%

7%

4%

4%

8%

5%

4%

8%

6%

39%

45%

41%

34%

40%

35%

25%

43%

46%

55%

48%

55%

62%

52%

60%

71%

49%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

More than adequate to complete all tasks needed to ensure compliance with food safety requirements Adequate to complete all tasks needed to ensure compliance with food safety requirements

Inadequate to complete all task needed to ensure compliance with food safety requirements


15/38

Daily Presence of Meat Inspectors


Are there enough inspectors in your immediate working group to allow meaningful daily presence inestablishments for which your group is responsible? Meat Inspectors Only

27%

57%

13%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Just over a quarter of meat inspectors (27%) report that there are always enough inspectors in theirgroup to allow for meaningful daily presence in meat slaughter and process establishments they

are responsible for. Meanwhile, a majority (57%) report that there are sometimes enough, while

13% report there are rarely enough and 4% report there are never enough to meet this

requirement.


16/38

Daily Presence of Meat Inspectors


Are there enough inspectors in your immediate working group to allow meaningful daily presence inestablishments for which your group is responsible? Meat Inspectors Only

When examined across demographic subgroups, those with 6-10 years of experience (22%), andthose working in meat hygiene processing (18%) were least likely to think there are always enough

inspectors to allow meaningful daily presence.

27%

29%

22%

26%

33%

33%

18%

57%

59%

58%

65%

41%

54%

60%

13%

12%

18%

4%

18%

10%

16%

4%

0%

3%

4%

8%

2%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Meat Inspectors

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Always Sometimes Rarely Never


17/38

Required Food Safety Tasks


Have you been asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safetyrelated tasks?

24%

76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Yes

No

Although 76% of respondents answered ‘no’, nearly a quarter (24%) stated that they had beenasked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safety related tasks.


18/38

Required Food Safety Related Tasks


Have you been asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safetyrelated tasks?

While those with five years experience or less (20%), and those working in other sectors (17%)were least likely to have been asked to stop doing some food safety related tasks, those in fish

(42%) and meat hygiene process (29%) were most likely.

24%

20%

24%

28%

23%

28%

29%

42%

17%

76%

80%

76%

72%

77%

72%

71%

58%

83%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

Yes No


19/38

Reason for stopping food safety related tasks


Which of the following best describes why managers at the CFIA asked you to stop doing somerequired food safety related tasks, in your opinion?

59%

13%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

There are not enough inspectors available todo all required food safety tasks

The food safety tasks aren’t necessary to

ensure compliance with safety requirements


Of those asked to stop doing some required food safety related tasks, a majority (59%) believe thatsuch a request was made because of a lack of available inspectors. Just 13% felt the request was

made because the tasks were not necessary to ensure compliance with safety requirements.


20/38

Reason for stopping food safety related tasks.


Which of the following best describes why managers at the CFIA asked you to stop doing somerequired food safety related tasks, in your opinion?

Across demographic subgroups, those working in the meat hygiene slaughter and processdivisions were more likely to feel that they were asked to stop doing some tasks because there are

not enough inspectors (72% and 78%, respectively). Those in the fish sector were most likely to

feel that they were asked to stop because the tasks were not necessary (39%).

59%

52%

60%

62%

56%

72%

78%

30%

47%

13%

19%

15%

11%

9%

2%

3%

39%

16%

29%

29%

26%

28%

34%

26%

19%

30%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

There are not enough inspectors available to do all required food safety tasksThe food safety tasks aren’t necessary to ensure compliance with safety requirements



21/38

Increased Risk of Food Borne Illness


In your opinion, have Canadian consumers been exposed to an increased risk of food borne illnessbecause of a shortage of inspectors?

44%

19%

37%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Yes

No

Don’t know

Although 37% of respondents weren’t sure if a shortage of food inspectors has led to an increasedrisk of food borne illness, a plurality (44%) believe it has.


22/38

Increased Risk of Food Borne Illness


In your opinion, have Canadian consumers been exposed to an increased risk of food borne illnessbecause of a shortage of inspectors?

Although there was minimal variation across demographic subgroups when it came to an increasedrisk of food borne illness in Canada as a result of a shortage of inspectors, those who have worked

for CFIA for five years or less were less likely to see a relationship between risk and the number of

inspectors (28%).

44%

28%

47%

48%

46%

50%

48%

47%

38%

19%

24%

16%

18%

21%

20%

19%

25%

18%

37%

48%

37%

34%

32%

29%

33%

28%

45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

Yes No Don’t know


23/38

Self Regulation


As you may know, the CFIA is increasingly reliant on industry to self-regulate when it comes to foodsafety. Will this trend make Canada’s food supply more safe, less safe, or will it have no impact on

the food supply?

3%

11%

86%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More safe

No impact

Less safe

Overall, a strong majority (86%) of respondents believe that a greater reliance on industry to self-regulate food safety makes Canada’s food supply less safe.


24/38

Self Regulation


As you may know, the CFIA is increasingly reliant on industry to self-regulate when it comes to foodsafety. Will this trend make Canada’s food supply more safe, less safe, or will it have no impact on

the food supply?

Results are relatively consistent across demographic subgroups when respondents were askedwhether an increased reliance on industry to self-regulate would lead to a safer or less safe food

supply in Canada.

3%

4%

4%

2%

3%

2%

4%

2%

4%

11%

15%

11%

7%

12%

6%

10%

11%

14%

86%

81%

85%

90%

85%

92%

86%

87%

82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

More safe No impact Less safe


25/38

Likelihood of Major Food Borne Illness


Given your knowledge and experience with the state of food inspection in Canada, what is thelikelihood that a major food borne illness outbreak in Canada will occur in the near future?

26%

43%

10%

5%

15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Don’t know

Nearly seven in ten (69%) respondents believe that, based on their knowledge and experience, amajor food borne illness outbreak in Canada is likely in the near future. Just 15% felt that such an

outbreak is unlikely.

69% believe that amajor food borne

illness outbreak in

Canada is at leastsomewhat likely tooccur in the near

future.


26/38

Likelihood of Major Food Borne Illness


Given your knowledge and experience with the state of food inspection in Canada, what is thelikelihood that a major food borne illness outbreak in Canada will occur in the near future?

Across demographic subgroups, belief in the likelihood of a major food borne illness outbreak inCanada in the near future is most widely held by those working in meat hygiene – slaughter (78%

likely) and those with over 11 years of experience (77% likely). This belief was least held by those

with less than five years of experience (57% likely).

26%

12%

24%

34%

31%

32%

23%

23%

26%

43%

45%

42%

43%

44%

46%

44%

45%

41%

10%

11%

11%

9%

11%

7%

13%

11%

11%

5%

9%

4%

2%

6%

4%

4%

2%

6%

15%

23%

19%

11%

9%

10%

16%

19%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know


27/38

What if Canadian consumers knew what you know?


If Canadian consumers had your knowledge about the level of food inspection in Canada today, doyou think their level of confidence in the safety of food they consume would!

12%

12%

63%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Increase

Stay the same

Decrease

Don’t know

A strong majority of respondents (63%) think confidence in food inspection would decrease ifCanadians had their inside knowledge. Few (12%) believe more knowledge would increase

confidence among Canadians, and another 12% felt more knowledge would make no difference.


28/38

What if Canadian consumers knew what you know?


If Canadian consumers had your knowledge about the level of food inspection in Canada today, doyou think their level of confidence in the safety of food they consume would!

Across demographic subgroups, those with more experience working for CFIA were more likely tobelieve that public confidence would decrease if consumers shared workers’ knowledge. Those

with less than five years of experience were most likely to feel that public confidence would

increase (20%). Those working in areas of meat hygiene – slaughter and fish were most likely to

feel that confidence would decrease, at 69% and 74%, respectively.

12%

20%

10%

6%

15%

13%

13%

6%

12%

12%

11%

14%

12%

9%

10%

11%

8%

14%

63%

52%

61%

67%

69%

69%

60%

74%

59%

13%

17%

14%

14%

7%

9%

15%

13%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

Increase Stay the same Decrease Don’t know


29/38

The Compliance Verification System


Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? | The Compliance Verification System hasallowed me to be involved in day-to-day problem solving with industry to avoid problems in the

plant from becoming problems that make people sick.

10%

27%

23%

10%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don’t know

Overall, respondents are split on whether the Compliance Verification System allowed them to beinvolved in day to day problem solving. Just over a third (37%) of respondents felt that it had

helped, while a third (33%) felt that it had not, a further 29% were unsure.


30/38

The Compliance Verification System


Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? | The Compliance Verification System hasallowed me to be involved in day-to-day problem solving with industry to avoid problems in the

plant from becoming problems that make people sick.

Those with five years of experience or less were most likely to have found the ComplianceVerification System helpful (50%), while those with over 11 years of experience were less likely.

Meanwhile, those working in the area of meat hygiene – process were most likely to have found the

system helpful (62% agree), while those working in fish were less likely (30% agree).

10%

18%

11%

5%

8%

10%

17%

11%

7%

27%

32%

30%

24%

24%

37%

45%

19%

17%

23%

15%

21%

28%

27%

35%

22%

30%

16%

10%

7%

7%

13%

13%

12%

12%

13%

8%

29%

28%

30%

30%

29%

6%

4%

26%

53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other



31/38

Inspection Modernization


As you may know, the CFIA intends to replace the current commodity inspection system with a new system. The Agency is calling this change Inspection Modernization. In your opinion, what is the

CFIA’s motivation for doing this?

24%

51%

11%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

To respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA

To transfer more responsibility and liabilityfrom CFIA to industry

To improve food safety outcomes

Don’t know

Overall, a majority (51%) of respondents believe that the CFIA’s motivation for introducingInspection Modernization is to transfer more responsibility and liability from CFIA to industry.

Nearly a quarter (24%) feet it is to respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA, and just 11% feel it

is to improve safety outcomes.


32/38



As you may know, the CFIA intends to replace the current commodity inspection system with a new system. The Agency is calling this change Inspection Modernization. In your opinion, what is the

CFIA’s motivation for doing this?

Those with less than five years experience are least likely to feel the motivation behind InspectionModernization is to shift responsibility from CFIA to industry (41%), while those with over 11 years

experience were most likely to feel that way (58%). Further, those working in areas of fish and

meat hygiene - process were most likely to agree that the CFIA’s motivation is to transfer

responsibility (64% and 59%, respectively).

24%

26%

27%

21%

20%

29%

19%

13%

25%

51%

41%

46%

58%

57%

55%

59%

64%

43%

11%

16%

11%

9%

12%

8%

10%

8%

14%

14%

17%

17%

12%

10%

8%

11%

15%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

To respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA

To transfer more responsibility and liability from CFIA to industryTo improve food safety outcomesDon’t know


33/38



CFIA has said Inspection Modernization will allow the Agency to assign inspectors and frontlinesupervisors work outside of their area of expertise (for example, forestry experts inspecting fish,

animal science experts inspecting plant material).Do you feel qualified to inspect products outside

of your field of expertise?

6%

14%

24%

42%

13%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Yes

Somewhat

Not very

Not at all

Don’t know

When asked how qualified they would feel to inspect products outside of their field of expertise, twothirds (66%) feel they would be not very or not at all qualified. Just 20% feel qualified.


34/38



CFIA has said Inspection Modernization will allow the Agency to assign inspectors and frontlinesupervisors work outside of their area of expertise (for example, forestry experts inspecting fish,

animal science experts inspecting plant material).Do you feel qualified to inspect products outside

of your field of expertise?

A majority of all groups felt not very or not at all qualified to inspect products outside their field ofexpertise. There was minimal variation across demographic subgroups, however, feelings of

qualification were lowest among those with 6-10 years experience (15%) and highest among those

working in meat hygiene – slaughter (26%).

6%

8%

5%

7%

6%

8%

8%

4%

5%

14%

17%

10%

16%

17%

18%

12%

13%

13%

24%

16%

27%

24%

28%

26%

27%

28%

22%

42%

49%

42%

40%

39%

44%

47%

47%

38%

13%

10%

17%

14%

11%

5%

5%

8%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

Yes Somewhat Not very Not at all Don’t know


35/38

Impact of Inspection Modernization


In your opinion, will the introduction of Inspection Modernization!

5%

12%

50%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Reduce the chanceof a major food borne

illness outbreak

Make no difference

Increase the chanceof a major food borne

illness outbreak

Don’t know

Overall, half of respondents (50%) felt that the introduction of Inspection Modernization wouldincrease the risk of a major food borne illness outbreak, while just 5% felt it would reduce such

risks.


36/38


In your opinion, will the introduction of Inspection Modernization!

Across demographic subgroups, there appeared to be a relationship between experience andfeelings of increased risk of an outbreak: those with less experience expressed greater uncertainty

and lower levels of risk, while those with more experience were more likely to fear an outbreak and

less likely to be unsure. Those working in the area of meat hygiene – slaughter were most likely to

feel that Inspection Modernization would lead to an increased risk of a major outbreak, at 61%.

Impact of Inspection Modernization

5%

8%

4%

3%

9%

3%

3%

4%

8%

12%

10%

12%

14%

12%

14%

12%

17%

11%

50%

45%

49%

53%

53%

61%

49%

45%

46%

32%

37%

36%

30%

27%

22%

36%

34%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

15 + years



Fish

Other

Reduce the chance of a major food borne illness outbreakMake no difference

Increase the chance of a major food borne illness outbreakDon’t know


37/38



Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

10%

9%

6%

5%

4%

31%

23%

32%

31%

22%

19%

19%

41%

41%

22%

36%

46%

19%

21%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Senior leadership at the CFIA will be able to

introduce Inspection Modernization whileprotecting consumer safety at the same time.

Inspection Modernization will allow me to do

more hands on oversight and inspection ofindustry.

I have been briefed and am fully aware of my

new role and responsibilities under InspectionModernization.

In preparation for the introduction of InspectionModernization, I have received adequate

training to fulfill those responsibilities.

An assessment of resources needed to safelyimplement Inspection Modernization has been

done in my immediate work area.


When a range of statements were tested about the introduction of Inspection Modernization,respondents were overall lacking confidence in the program’s ability to protect consumer safety, felt

it would limit hands-on oversight, did not feel they had been briefed on their new roles, and did not

feel they had been trained on their new responsibilities.


38/38

CONTACT INFO

David Coletto

CEO

[email protected]

613-232-2806

www.abacusdata.ca

Documents

Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study