Skip to content Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Breadcrumb Trail

Institutional links

ARCHIVED - Canadian International Trade Tribunal

Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

SECTION II-ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BY STRATEGIC OUTCOME

The Tribunal's single strategic outcome is the fair, transparent and timely disposition of international trade cases and government-mandated inquiries in various areas of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The expected result to be achieved in support of this strategic outcome is that the Tribunal's decisions and recommendations are fair and impartial (and are viewed as such by stakeholders) and are published in a timely way (in terms of quality and meeting statutory and internal deadlines).

The Tribunal has two program activities that contribute to the above result: the adjudication of trade cases (quasi-judicial role) and general economic inquiries and references (advisory role).

The Summary Logic Model below identifies the relationship between the Tribunal's two program activities, the expected result and the achievement of its strategic outcome. The Tribunal's key performance indicators associated with the expected result have been included in the diagram. However, as part of its planning and reporting framework, the Tribunal has additional enabling indicators as shown in the Performance Indicators Summary Chart at Section 2.5.

2.1 Summary Logic Model of the Tribunal

Summary Logic Model of the Tribunal

Described below is an analysis of each program activity's performance results against its key performance indicators and the associated resources in support of its strategic outcome.

2.2 Program Activity No. 1-Adjudication of Trade Cases

The adjudication of trade cases is a quasi-judicial activity that includes inquiries into unfair trade cases, safeguard inquiries into complaints by domestic producers that increased imports are causing, or threatening to cause, serious injury to domestic producers, appeals from decisions of the CBSA and the CRA, and bid challenges relating to federal government procurement.

Financial Resources($ thousands)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
9,922	9,636	9,494

Human Resources (FTE)

Planned	Actual	Difference
93	82	11

Expected result for program activity No. 1

Tribunal decisions are fair and impartial and published in a timely way.

Key performance indicators

Feedback on whether Canada's trade remedies system is transparent and accessible and meets international obligations

Overall, Canada's trade regime continues to be perceived as transparent, liberal and accessible and as meeting international obligations.⁴

A small number of Tribunal decisions were challenged, which were, for the most part, upheld by national and international appeal bodies

Decisions made by the Tribunal with respect to its various mandates are subject to judicial review or appeal. Tribunal decisions on dumping and subsidizing matters may be reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal or a bi-national panel under NAFTA. A member state whose goods are affected by a Tribunal decision may also initiate dispute settlement proceedings under the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, if it believes that the Tribunal's procedures violated the WTO agreements. The Tribunal's decisions on procurement may be reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal. Tribunal decisions on appeals may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal or, in the case of the Excise Tax Act, the Federal Court (first instance).

The Tribunal monitors whether its decisions have been subject to applications for judicial review or appeals before these bodies. The Tribunal acknowledges however, that this indicator is not ideal because the decision of a party to seek judicial review or appeal may be unrelated to the quality of a Tribunal's decision and may have more to do with private strategic business decisions. Furthermore, given the proportion of requests for judicial review or appeals that are either withdrawn, discontinued or dismissed, the number of Tribunal decisions for which judicial review or appeals are requested is not reflective of the actual number of Tribunal decisions that are impacted by a Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal finding.

Of the 70 decisions rendered by the Tribunal in 2006-2007, 10 decisions for which judicial review or appeals were requested, 2 were withdrawn or discontinued, 1 was dismissed and 1 was remanded. There were 6 Tribunal decisions for which judicial review or appeals were pending as of March 31, 2007. The following table shows the pattern of applications and disposal of requests for judicial review and appeals for the Tribunal over the past three fiscal years. In summary, the Tribunal's decisions have been upheld in almost every case.


Tribunal Decisions Subject to Application for Judicial Review or Appeal
	2004-2005	2005-2006	2006-2007
Number of Tribunal decisions rendered	57	71	70
Action of parties:
Tribunal decisions for which judicial reviews or appeals were filed	20	18	10
Tribunal decisions for which judicial reviews or appeals were withdrawnor discontinued	3	4	2
Court action:
Tribunal decisions for which judicial reviews or appeals were dismissed	10	2	1
Tribunal decisions for which judicial reviews or appeals were remanded or allowed	3	3	1
Tribunal decisions for which judicial reviews or appeals were pending as of March 31	4	9	6

Decisions were published within statutory deadlines

The Tribunal's decisions regarding dumping and/or subsidizing and procurement complaints are subject to statutory deadlines. In 2006-2007, 32 decisions were issued covering these two areas of the Tribunal's mandate, including 13 SIMA decisions and 19 procurement complaint decisions. All determinations were issued within statutory deadlines. The statements of reasons providing the detailed judgment of SIMA determinations were issued on time in all cases. The translated versions of SIMA determinations and statements of reasons were issued simultaneously in all but 3 cases. The statements of reasons providing the detailed judgment of procurement determinations were issued on time in 16 out of 19 cases. The translated versions of procurement determinations and statements of reasons were issued, on average, 24 days after the determination in the original language. The Tribunal implemented strong case-management controls to ensure that it is able to meet these deadlines and does extensive tracking of the status of cases to ensure close adherence to prescribed deadlines.

There were improvements regarding internal deadlines for appeal decisions

There is no statutory deadline imposed for decisions on appeals of CBSA and CRA decisions. However, the Tribunal has adopted an informal, voluntary standard of issuing such decisions within 120 days of the hearing of an appeal. Management monitors these files closely to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, this target is met.

A review of appeals heard in 2006-2007 shows that the Tribunal met this target in 60 percent of the cases, a significant improvement over the performance of the previous fiscal year, where this target was met in less than 40 percent of the cases. Moreover, the average time between the hearing and the decision has diminished by half, from 200 days in 2005-2006 to 99 days in 2006-2007. This progress can be attributed to the new multi-disciplinary approach taken with respect to appeals work.

2.3 Program Activity No. 2-General Economic Inquiries and References

General economic inquiries and references are advisory activities of the Tribunal. These include tariff and general economic inquiries referred by the Government, the standing textile tariff reference from the Minister of Finance and safeguard case recommendations on appropriate measures for dealing with the build-up of imports causing injury to a Canadian industry.

Financial Resources ($ thousands)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
83	607	206

Human Resources (FTE)

Planned	Actual	Difference
1	2	(1)

Expected result for program activity No. 2

Recommendations are fair and impartial and published in a timely way.

Key performance indicators

Tribunal reports relating to general economic inquiries and references were published within statutory deadlines

Tribunal recommendations regarding tariff references and economic inquiries are subject to government-mandated deadlines. In 2006-2007, one tariff reference was completed, and the report was issued within the government-mandated deadline. There is no statutory or government-mandated deadline imposed for tariff recommendations pursuant to cases filed under the standing textile tariff reference from the Minister of Finance. However, the Tribunal has established a voluntary standard of 120 days from the commencement of its investigation for issuing its recommendation to the Minister. During 2006-2007, the Tribunal received one request under the standing reference and issued its recommendation for tariff relief to the Government within the voluntary standard.

Tribunal recommendations were accepted and implemented by Government

An indication that the Tribunal's recommendations meet the business requirements of the Government is the extent to which the Government implements the recommendations of the inquiries and references. Recommendations are typically implemented through tariff changes to the standing textile reference. The Tribunal acknowledges however, that this indicator is not ideal because, for some matters, the Government considers Tribunal recommendations as just one input into a larger policy decision. In arriving at its recommendation, the Tribunal will have focused on the narrow question put to it by the Government and not the broader policy issues.

2.4 Performance Measurement Framework

In addition to the analysis of program activities against key performance indicators, the Tribunal has developed a further set of performance indicators as part of its planning and reporting framework. Its performance is assessed and summarized against indicators in the Performance Indicators Summary Chart below. They are based on a three-level performance scale (major gap, below target or at target). The shaded areas represent the Tribunal's assessment of its performance during 2006-2007. These indicators are under development and will continue to be refined over time, as the Tribunal gains experience in their application.

2.5 Performance Indicators Summary Chart


Key Performance Indicator	Performance Scale
Key Performance Indicator	Major Gap	Below Target	Approaching Target	At Target	Above Target
*Expected Result: Tribunal decisions/recommendations are fair and impartial, and are published in a timely way*
*Priority I: Process cases within legislative deadlines-quality standards*
*Feedback as to whether Canadian trade remedies system is transparent, accessible and meets international obligations*	Canadian trade remedies system has low level of credibility internationally.	WTO has expressed concerns about Canadian trade remedies system. This is hurting reputation, Canadian trade remedies system, and impeding trade discussions.	WTO has expressed some minor concerns about openness of Canadian trade remedies system.	Canadian trade remedies system is perceived to be fair and open and to have high levels of transparency and accessibility. Canada is perceived to have met its international obligations.	Tribunal has high level of credibility in international trade community and is sought out for its expertise by other national authorities.
*Tribunal decisions are upheld by national and international appeal bodies.*	Very large number of Tribunal decisions are overturned.	Very large number of decisions are subject to an application for judicial review.	Significant number of Tribunal decisions overturned, resulting in changes to its procedures.	Small number of decisions overturned.	Small number of decisions subject to an application for judicial review.
*Decisions/ recommendations are published within statutory deadlines*	Number of statutory deadlines were missed	Most statutory deadlines were met.	All statutory deadlines were met. Some quality issues.	All statutory deadlines were met. High standard of quality maintained.	Case processing time less than targeted. Cases issued in both official languages as per deadline.
*Appeal decisions are issued within internal deadlines*	Number of case deadlines were missed.	Time lapse exceeds target, and backlog above-normal.	Not all internal deadlines met. Time lapse stable and backlog stable or decreasing.	All internal deadlines met. Overall time lapse decreasing.	Case processing time less than target. Overall time lapse for processing cases decreasing. Backlog minimal.


Enabling Indicator	Performance Scale
Enabling Indicator	Major Gap	Below Target	Approaching Target	At Target	Above Target
Priority II: Improve service delivery
Stakeholder feedback regarding the quality of service	High frequency of complaints. No survey of stakeholder satisfaction.	Informal feedback is received from stakeholders. Some complaints and concerns are reported. Specific client issues are being addressed.	Positive stakeholder feedback received informally. Complaints are minimal. Some errors, but corrected before they affect external stakeholders.	High stakeholder satisfaction. Issues are resolved quickly. Responsive and efficient service. Good access to information. Few errors.	High stakeholder satisfaction as per stakeholder surveys. Many examples of positive feedback received.
*Quality of case research and investigation*	Major rewrites of staff research reports were required after their release. Members were critical of quality of research reports. Parties had major objections to factual content of research.	Significant rework was required after the release of staff reports. Member feedback was not always positive. Parties had concerns about inaccuracies.	Some changes were made to reports after release. Not all reviews met quality expectations. Members generally provided positive feedback. Few factual corrections identified by parties.	Changes required to reports after release to reflect updates and revisions made by parties. Members provided positive feedback to most reports. Very few factual inaccuracies identified by parties.	Members and parties provided very positive feedback on a number of cases regarding research and analysis. Quality exceeded expectations.
*Quality of electronic access to Tribunal services and information*	Paper filing of cases only. Public has access to Web site for general information. Internal processes are mainly paper-based.	External users have limited access to Tribunal services electronically. Electronic services are cumbersome and time consuming. Little or no integration between electronic services and Tribunal systems. Security of information cannot be guaranteed.	Some electronic services are accessible to external users. Secure electronic document transfer. External/internal users have electronic access to most current case information. Partial integration between electronic services and Tribunal systems.	Electronic services are easily accessible to external users. Security measures are in place. Good access to case information electronically. Case information is shared electronically between the parties. Electronic services are closely integrated with Tribunal systems.	Latest technology in place. Full integration between electronic services and Tribunal systems. Extensive system flexibility. Electronic services are adaptable to different user technical environments.
*Security of information*	Have not conducted security assessment. Responsibility for security is unclear. Limited awareness among employees and stakeholders. A number of significant security incidents.	Some significant security incidents. Information security gaps exist but are being addressed. Inconsistent awareness among employees and stakeholders of security requirements.	No major security incidents. Some minor security gaps have been identified and are being addressed. Increasing awareness among employees and stakeholders.	Some minor security incidents. Measures are in place to address security incidents. Security level is considered sufficient as per Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) /audit. Employees and stakeholders have high degree of awareness of security requirements.	No security gaps identified by TRAs/audits. No security incidents.
*Priority III: Sound management*
*System reliability*	Major user complaints. Major disruptions to services due to system downtime. A lot of uncertainty around system reliability.	Major technology gaps or operating deficiencies. Delays and inconvenience in accessing information. Significant disruptions to services due to system downtime.	Technologies generally meet user requirements. Timely and convenient user access. Users are generally satisfied. Technology meets most industry standards. Brief disruptions to services.	Technologies meet user needs and conform to all government/judicial standards. High user satisfaction. Systems use latest technology. Systems downtime had no operational impact.	High integration of information and technologies. State-of-the-art technology. Users are active in defining new products and services. No disruptions. No security gaps or infractions.
*Conformity to MAF*	MAF expectations have been met for only one or two elements. Management practices need to be put in place.	MAF expectations have been met for roughly half of 10 elements. Management practices for other elements are still at the developing stage	MAF expectations have been met for most elements. Improvement projects are ongoing. Improvement projects are on time and within budget.	MAF expectations have been met for all 10 elements. Management practices are assessed on a yearly basis. Focus is on continuous improvement.	MAF expectations have been met for all 10 elements and have been exceeded for some elements.
*Priority IV: Invest in its people*
*Motivated and committed workforce*	Employee satisfaction is well below government-wide norms. Very high turnover and/or absenteeism. Morale issues exist. Staff relations work disruptions.	Results of employee surveys are below norm. High turnover rate and/or absenteeism compared to certain departments/agencies. Morale issues exist.	Employee satisfaction levels are below norm. Turnover is high. Efforts are underway to improve employee satisfaction and retention. Some grievances and employee relations issues.	Employee satisfaction has been improving as per survey results. Staff retention is close to target levels. Staff has access to learning and development opportunities.	Consistently satisfactory results in employee surveys. Staff retention is within target levels. Positive employee feedback re work environment. Strong internal communications.
*Retention and renewal of workforce*	Major skill gaps exist. No overall approach or plan for renewing workforce.	Employee competencies vary. Significant gaps exist in competencies. High degree of turnover. No back-up. High number of vacant positions. Competencies have not been documented.	Some gaps in competencies. Limited back-up. Delays in staffing positions. Competencies required have been identified for most position types. Individual learning plans in place. Competency gaps are being addressed.	Most staff has required competencies. Vacancies are addressed quickly. Back fill exists for key positions. Ongoing training and learning opportunities available to staff. Effective transfer of expertise to new staff.	Strong back fill for most positions. Strong focus on learning and succession planning. Staff is recruited elsewhere for their expertise.
*Corporate knowledge*	Processes are not documented. No standardized approach. Historical information is limited.	Staff has access to policies, processes and guidelines on intranet, but they are not up-to-date. Historical information is difficult to access. Significant gaps exist in capabilities.	Staff has access to policies, processes and guidelines on intranet (about 60%). Historical information is available but is dispersed. Duplication of tools available.	Staff has access to policies, processes and guidelines on intranet (over 80%). Good access to tools. Historical information is easily accessible. Strong orientation program for new staff.	Staff has ready access to policies, processes, guidelines, tools, and historical information from desktop. Strong focus on learning, succession planning and staff development.