Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada


Warning This page has been archived.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.

Table 10: Horizontal Initiatives

A "horizontal initiative" is an initiative in which partners from two or more organizations have agreed under a formal funding agreement (e.g. Memorandum to Cabinet, Treasury Board submission, federal-provincial agreement) to work toward the achievement of shared outcomes.

The objective of reporting on horizontal initiatives is to provide Parliament and the Canadian public and government with an overall picture of public spending and results achieved by departments working together.

Horizontal initiatives listed below were led by AAFC and were allocated federal funds that exceed $100 million (counting all federal partners) for the duration of the program, or were allocated less than $100 million in federal funds but still considered to be key to the achievement of government priorities, or had a high public profile.

Following is a summary list of horizontal initiatives for 2007-08. More complete information on each initiative, including spending and results, is available on the Treasury Board Secretariat's Horizontal Results Database.

  1. Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program (CAIS)
  2. Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS)
  3. Co-operatives Secretariat
  4. Farm Business Services
  5. MOU with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on Food Safety and Quality
  6. AAFC-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) MOU on Agri-Food Specialists Positions Abroad
  7. MOU with Environment Canada (EC) on the National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI)
  8. MOU with Health Canada (HC) on Food Safety and Quality and Environment
  9. Production Insurance
  10. Rural Development

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative:
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) (transition to AgriStability/ AgriInvest)

2. Name of Lead Department(s):
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity:
Business Risk Management

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2003
For Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) - Business Risk Management funding, which covers CAIS.

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
March 31, 2008
For APF-Business Risk Management funding, which covers CAIS.

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
$2.4 billion over five years.

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
Under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) 2003/04-2007/08, CAIS was one of two core business risk management (BRM) programs, together with Production Insurance. CAIS was a margin-based program that integrated stabilization and disaster protection into a single program, helping producers protect their farming operations from small and large drops in income. This was a whole-farm program available to eligible farmers regardless of the commodities they produced.

As a result of producer and industry concerns with the responsiveness, timing of payments and predictability of the program, the government committed, in the 2006 Speech from the Throne and Budget, to replacing CAIS with more responsive, predictable and bankable programs. After consultations with industry and the provinces and territories, federal-provincial-territorial governments agreed to replace CAIS with a new suite of BRM programs which includes AgriStability, AgrInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery. Transition to the new programs began in the 2007-08 fiscal year. The application deadline for the 2007 program year is the fall of 2008.

AgriStability is an improved margin-based program that provides farmers with assistance for larger income decline. The program compensates producers when their margin in the program year is more than 15 percent lower than their reference margin from previous years (the second and third tiers under CAIS). While AgriStability is similar to CAIS, it includes a number of enhancements which have long been requested by industry leaders, including a better method for valuing producer inventories, expansion of the criteria for negative margin coverage to allow deeper coverage for back-to-back disasters and an automatic Targeted Advance Payment for when disasters occur. In addition to these parameter changes, governments have also worked to improve the service delivery of the program by introducing enhancements such as automatic sign-up for previous participants, more flexible deadlines, simplified forms and electronic filing, online calculators, national service standards, and clearer program statements.

The new AgriInvest program will allow producers to self-manage the first 15 percent of their losses (the first tier under CAIS), through producer-government savings accounts. Annual producer deposits will be matched by government contributions (cost-shared 60:40 by federal and provincial governments) into the producer's account. Producers will have full access to use their AgriInvest money to address their farm income losses or for investments to mitigate on-farm risks or otherwise enhance profitability. In addition, to ensure that AgriInvest accounts are effective in the first years of the program, before producers have had a chance to build up their AgriInvest balances, the federal government provided one-time "kick-start" contributions into accounts (which did not require a matching producer deposit).

Program costs, including program payments and administrative costs, are cost shared by the federal government and the provinces on a 60:40 basis, respectively as identified in the following authorities:

  • Farm Income Protection (FIPA): Section 4
  • inet:
    • Action Plan for the Agricultural Sector: Part II (June 2006);
    • Action Plan for the Agricultural Sector: Part III (Oct. 2006)
    • Amendments to Farm Income Stabilization Programming (March 2007)

The program links to the departmental strategic outcome Security of the Food System.

8. Shared Outcome(s):
To assist producers in protecting their farming operations from drops in income due to circumstances beyond their control.

Performance measures are:

  1. Percentage target of 80% of the 5-year average program margin that eligible participants achieve overall as a result of the program payments.
  2. Percentage target of 80% of farm market receipts covered by the program.

9. Governance Structure(s):
The CAIS program is part of the comprehensive APF developed by federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture, and falls under the Business Risk Management priority. Funding is 60% federal and 40% provincial/territorial.

The CAIS program is delivered in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon by a federal administration. In Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, the CAIS program is delivered provincially.

Governance structure consists of the following:

  1. The Senior Administrator's Delivery Committee consists of select ADMs and Senior Administrators from the delivering CAIS administrations (Canada, Alberta, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island) with the purpose of strategically looking at how Administrations can work together to create national efficiencies and make strategic decisions on delivery.
  2. The Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) Business Risk Management (BRM) Policy Working Group examines overarching BRM policy issues including performance measurement and future direction. The federal government has two voting representatives and each participating province/territory has one voting representative. The FPT BRM Policy Working Group is co-chaired by one federal official appointed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and one provincial/territorial representative elected from the FPT BRM Policy Working Group to a one year term.
  3. The FPT CAIS Administrators Working Group consists of officials from FPT levels of government who are policy or subject matter experts of business risk management programs and report to the Business Risk Management Working Group through its chair. The purpose of the Working Group is to develop the program guidelines and evaluate program parameters and processing issues. The group discusses issues related to program administration, file processing, administrative policy, finance, communication and any other related program issues.
  4. The National CAIS Committee (NCC) assists in the administration of the program as specified in Section 5(3) of the Farm Income Protection Act (FIPA). Each participating province and territory appoints one provincial and one producer (maximum 3 year term) representative. The Minister appoints 10 producer representatives, one producer who is an aboriginal person and four federal officials. The chairperson is named by Canada from the four federal official members. The Committee monitors the operation of the CAIS Program and ensures national consistency in program delivery. The NCC was replaced by the National Program Advisory Committee (NPAC) in December 2007. The mandate and composition of the NPAC remains the same as that of NCC.

A similar structure is utilized for the new BRM programs AgriStability and AgriInvest.


10.
Federal Partners
11.
Federal Partner Program Activity
12.
Names of Programs for Federal Partners
13.
Total Allocation (from start to end date)
14.
Planned Spending for 2007-2008
15.
Actual Spending for 2007-2008
16.
Expected
Results for
2007-2008
17.
Results
Achieved
in 2007-2008
1. AAFC (lead) Business Risk Management CAIS / AgriStability $2.4 billion (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2007/08) $610.5 million $433.6 million Producers better supported and able to manage business risks

Increased sector viability and profitability

A number of program enhancements have been implemented to better serve producers including: a better method for valuing producer inventories, expansion of the criteria for negative margin coverage to allow deeper coverage for back-to-back disasters and an automatic Targeted Advance Payment for when disasters occur. In addition, improvements have been made to service delivery by introducing automatic sign-up for previous participants, more flexible deadlines, simplified forms and electronic filing, online calculators, national service standards, and clearer program statement.
AgriInvest $172.5 M
for fiscal year 2007-08 (This amount was diverted from the CAIS $2.4B as AgriInvest replaces the top 15% of CAIS)
  $168.3 M Producers better supported and able to manage business risks

Increased sector viability and profitability

Fiscal year 2007-08 was a transition year for the AgriInvest program. As such, program development was the focus and actual program payments to producers were not made. However, Program Grants & Contributions are recognized in the year that the related economic event occurs (ie 2007 Program/tax year). Payments to producers happen the year following the program/tax year (2008-09).

To help producers build their AgriInvest accounts, the federal government provided a one-time only initiative to seed AgriInvest accounts. The $600 million Kickstart payment was delivered to producers in the 2007-08 fiscal year (not included in spending figures).

Total $2.4 billion $610.5 million $601.9 million    

18. Comments on variances:
Although the Administration costs remain relatively constant, the variance in year to year G&C payments is directly related to the needs of the agriculture industry. CAIS/AgriStability is demand-driven rather than being funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. As such, in good years, the program will cost governments less, while in bad years (i.e., years with dropping commodity prices, disasters, etc.) the costs of the program will be higher. The program does, however, include a payment cap of $3 million per participant per program year in order to control costs for governments and prevent larger operations from capturing a large share of program benefits.

The AgriInvest variance between planned and actual spending was due to the timing of the program approval which occurred after the preparation of the 2007-08 RPP.

19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
Joint planning and execution (federally and provincially) so provincial results are consistent.

The BRM Working Group has been working towards developing national performance indicators for program delivery. A national processing service standard for CAIS 2006 program delivery year was agreed upon. This was a key achievement and responded to the Treasury Board policy requiring departments to establish and monitor service standards. Ongoing discussions on the expectation of administrations for regular service standard reporting will be taking place.

20. Contact Information
Michele Taylor
Director General
Farm Financial Programs Branch
204-984-5645

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS)

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity
Innovation and Renewal

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$74.58 million over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
Farmers and/or their spouses are offered assistance for skills development and access to training that could result in increased on or off-farm income. Assistance is provided to access training in areas such as improved farm practices and farm business management including accounting, finance, human resource management; training for other employment; or training to acquire skills for starting a new business. To access training, financial support such as tuition fees for courses, supplies for courses as well as travel and accommodation is provided. By providing assistance for skills development and training, this horizontal initiative contributes to the strategic outcome of innovation for growth. Further details can be found at the following web link: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1176222540186&lang=e

8. Shared Outcome(s):
(a) Farmers' profitability increased;
(b) Improved choices about sources of income; and
(c) Production of farm products based on market and consumer demands respecting food safety and food quality and environmentally-responsible production, and opportunities from science and innovation captured.

9. Governance Structure(s)
Program development with Renewal federal/provincial/territorial working group. Program delivery by Service Canada (Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC)), Provincial Governments and Third Party delivery agents.


10. Federal Partners 11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008
Please note that expected results are different from the ones expressed in the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities. Expected results presented here are consistent with those for Renewal Programs within the recently approved Performance Measurement Framework of the Management Resources and Results Structure. They also better reflect the outcomes of the program.
1. AAFC
Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC)
Innovation and Renewal a. Canadian Agricultural Skills Service $74.58 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09) $29.4 million $40.8 million Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals In 2007-2008, 4,638 producers participated (2,951 of these through the Canadian Farm Families Options Program), bringing the cumulative total to 13,807; 80% of CASS CIA respondents reported that the skills and/or knowledge they developed through participation in CASS helped them in reaching their most important business goal (60% of most important goals reported by CIA CASS respondents were financial goals).
Total $74.58 million $29.4 million $40.8 million Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. Of total 2007 NRS respondents 30% reported that their top business goal is maximizing return on investment, up from 26% in 2004; 96% reported to be meeting this goal to some extent in 2007.

18. Comments on Variances
The delivery of CASS was in its third year in 2007-08. Increased awareness of the program, combined with the CASS cross compliance requirement under the Options program has resulted in higher uptake than originally anticipated for 2007-08.

19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
CASS is delivered through agreements with five provinces (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Prince Edward Island) and through Service Canada in the remaining four provinces and the Yukon (CASS is not available in Quebec and only available on demand in Nunavut and North West Territories). Of the 4,638 producers who participated in 2007-08, 4,449 were in the provinces with provincial delivery arrangements and 189 were in the provinces/territories served by Service Canada. In the provinces with provincial delivery arrangements, participation was as follows: Ontario (841), Manitoba (739), Saskatchewan (2,070), Alberta (764), and PEI (35). In provinces covered by Service Canada, participation was as follows: British Columbia (125), New Brunswick (25), Nova Scotia (37) and Yukon (2). Overall, analysis to date indicates that 79% of CASS participants from provinces with provincial delivery were satisfied or very satisfied with the services provided for the development of their individual learning plan.

20. Contact Information:
Johanne Mtayer, Director
Renewal Division, Farm Financial Programs Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
613-759-6689

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Co-operatives Secretariat

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$22.0 million over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
The Co operatives Secretariat was established in 1987 to help the Government of Canada respond more effectively to the concerns and needs of Canadian co-operatives. The Secretariat advises the government on policies affecting co-operatives, co-ordinates the implementation of such policies, promotes co-operatives within the federal government, and provides a link between the co-operative sector and the many federal departments and agencies with which they interact.

8. Shared Outcome(s)
The end outcome of the Government of Canada with respect to co operatives is the expanded use of the co-operatives model to enhance the economic growth and social development of Canadian rural and urban society. The objectives are to:
-raise awareness of the co operative model and of the role that co operatives can play in both social and economic development;
-promote policies, programs and legislation that support co operatives development to achieve federal policy objectives, and greater harmonization of efforts; and
- encourage the growth of existing co operatives and the creation of new co-operatives to meet the social and economic needs of Canadians.

9. Governance Structure(s):
The Co-operatives Secretariat was created to improve the relationship between Canadian co operatives and the 17 federal departments and agencies currently known to have legislation, policies or programs affecting co operatives. Formal mechanisms for collaboration include the Interdepartmental Committee on Co operatives, dialogue with provincial collaborators and sector working groups. The Co-operatives Secretariat, working closely with the Minister responsible for co-operatives, acts as a coordinator for interaction between the government and the co operative sector. The Secretariat is headed by an Executive Director, and administrative services for the Secretariat are provided by AAFC. More details on the functions of the Secretariat are available.


10. Federal Partners Involved 11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008
Co-operatives Secretariat/ AAFC   

A listing of the 17 departments and agencies with legislation, policies and programs affecting co-operatives is available at: http://www.agr.gc.ca/rcs-src/coop/index_e.php?s1=leg&page=intro#CIC.

Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats Co-operative Development Initiative (CDI):
- Advisory
  Services
- Innovation & Research
$22.0 million
(for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09)
$4.1 million $9.3 million Enhanced capacity for development of co operatives. Network of 20 provincial, regional and sectoral partners involved in the delivery of CDI - Advisory services
Increased opportunities, barriers mitigated and enhanced capacity of co-operatives development through government policies, programs and services. During 2007-08, the Ag-CDI was extended for 2 years which will enable partnership with the co-op sector to assist farmers who want to explore the co-op approach to capture new agricultural value-added opportunities, including biofuels.
Total $22.0 million $4.1 million $9.3 million    

18. Comments on variances:
The Ag-CDI funding renewal during the year increased available funding by $1M which was essentially expended.

19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
Not applicable

20. Contact Information:
Donna Mitchell
Executive Director
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats
613-759-7113

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative:
AAFC-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) MOU on Agri-Food Specialists Positions Abroad

2. Name of Lead Department(s):
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity:
Markets and International

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
2003-04 fiscal year

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
2007-08 fiscal year (extended to March 31, 2009)

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
$44.4 million over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative:
This MOU was established under the 5 year Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) which ended in 2007/2008. The APF was extended for one year in order to facilitate the transition to Growing Forward, AAFC's new policy framework. The MOU establishes the operational principles, management practices and performance measurement criteria for the 34 agriculture and agri-food specialist positions abroad. The objective is to enhance the delivery of the services to Canadian exporters in areas such as agriculture and agri-food business development, investment promotion, market access and advocacy, through Canadian Embassies and High Commissions located in key export markets.

8. Shared Outcome(s):
(a) Improved capacity within DFAIT's Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) to deliver in-market support to Canadian agriculture and food exporters;
(b) Increased recognition in targeted markets of Canada's ability to supply high quality, safe and innovative agriculture and food products produced in an environmentally responsible manner; and
(c) Improved market access in key markets for Canadian agriculture and food products.

9. Governance Structure(s):
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) The Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) Deputy Ministers who review and recommend the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommend the Ministers' approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort dispute resolution.

A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the JMC.
This MOU Governance Structure was supported in 2007-08 by the International Markets Coordination Unit (IMCU), which will evolve in 2008-09 into the Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioner Service (AFTCS) at AAFC. Operating under the guidance of the relevant Directors General of AAFC and DFAIT and the Senior Director at TBS, IMCU consults with appropriate AAFC and DFAIT officials from the geographic, trade policy, investment, performance measurement, and human resources teams.


10.
Federal Partners
11.
Federal Partner Program Activity
12.
Names of Programs for Federal Partners
13.
Total Allocation (from start to end date)
14.
Planned Spending for 2007-2008
15.
Actual Spending for 2007-2008
16.
Expected
Results for
2007-2008
17.
Results
Achieved
in 2007-2008
1. AAFC Markets and International a. International Team Program Delivery $13.8 million $2.5 million $1.7 million 1. Recognition gained and markets built through the implementation of Canada's branding strategy. Agri-food specialists contributed to branding Canada abroad through timely information provided to potential customers, trade show participation, missions abroad, incoming buyer missions, etc. Examples include: participation in 5 international food shows in Russia, including the International VIV Show in Moscow; Foodex in Japan; the European Seafood Exposition in Brussels; HoFex in Hong Kong; Mexican buyers mission to Boston Seafood Show.
2. Improved market access Market access improvements have been made at several posts abroad. Key achievements include: Partial beef market opening in Indonesia; full beef access restored in the Philippines; maintained beef market access for under-thirty-months boneless beef to Hong Kong despite more BSE outbreaks in Canada; in June 2007 the market for Canadian beef was re-opened in Taipei, with conditions (de-boned meat from animals over 30 months of age).
3. Technical barriers overcome Overcame technical barriers for some key agri-food products. Examples of achievements: Korean Food and Drug Administration added the specifications for oxygenated products in its regulations. This has effectively removed an obstacle preventing access for Canadian oxygenated water; for salmon roe in Taipei export certificates are no longer required to certify that the wild fish from which the roe is taken are free of a number of several diseases endemic to the species; the EU reduced the end-use restriction on the cooked and peeled shrimp quota, increasing it to 20,000 tonnes. This change significantly opens the market to greater volumes of Canadian shrimp.
  b. Agricultural Policy Framework (For 10 additional positions and regularizing the 6.5 existing positions transferred) $15.8 million (involves funds transferred from AAFC to DFAIT for work that supports AAFC and DFAIT Strategic Outcomes) $3.2 million (involves funds transferred from AAFC to DFAIT for work that supports AAFC and DFAIT Strategic Outcomes) $3.2 million 1. Workplans developed for all agri-food positions abroad, harmonized as much as possible with DFAIT's planning and reporting requirements. Workplans and reports developed. They will continue to be refined and updated as the work progresses. Progress has been made to integrate processes of both departments.
2. Vacant positions staffed. Candidates selected for New Delhi, Dubai and Singapore.
Temporary duty assignments filled for Moscow, New York and Miami.
3. Training and pre-posting tour arranged for new agri-food specialists Outreach and training provided for India and Moscow trade commissioners.
4. Review of agricultural and food positions abroad in line with priority markets. Review completed.
5. Re-integration strategy developed for returning agri-food specialists. Returning officers successfully reintegrated according to new processes, however, a formalized strategy is to be developed.
  c. Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) (for original positions) $9.5 million (involves funds transferred from AAFC to DFAIT for work that supports AAFC and DFAIT Strategic Outcomes) $1.9 million $1.9 million    
2. DFAIT Investment, Innovation and Sectors Client Service Fund (for general expenditures in support of the positions) $5.3 million $1.1 million $1.1 million    
Total $44.4 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09 $8.7 million $7.9 million    

18. Comments on variances:
n/a

19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners (if applicable):
n/a

20. Contact Information:
Bruce Howard, Director - Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioner Service
Room 1059A
935 Carling Ave. Ottawa, ON K1A 0C5
613-759-6284
howardb@agr.gc.ca

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts identified in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Farm Business Services

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity
Innovation and Renewal

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$109.0 million over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
These services will provide eligible farmers access to financial consultants who will help them assess their finances and develop succession, action plans and business plans (financial, marketing, value-added). By providing access to financial consultants, this horizontal initiative contributes to the strategic outcome of innovation for growth.Further details can be found at the following web link: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1177623682220&lang=e

8. Shared Outcome(s)
(a) Farmers' profitability increased;
(b) Improved choices about sources of income; and
(c) Production of farm products based on market and consumer demands respecting food safety and food quality and environmentally responsible production, and opportunities from science and innovation captured.

9. Governance Structure(s)
Program development and performance measurement by Renewal federal/provincial/territorial working group.


10. Federal Partners 11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected Results for
2007-2008
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008
Please note that expected results are different from the ones expressed in the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities. Expected results presented here are consistent with those for Renewal Programs within the recently approved Performance Measurement Framework of the Management Resources and Results Structure. They also better reflect the outcomes of the program.
1. AAC Innovation and Renewal a. Farm Business Assessment (FBA). This included for the beginning period of the FBA program, in cases where provinces had not yet signed their respective APF Implementation Agreements, the Farm Consultation Service (FCS), which was an existing program similar to FBA. Costs to deliver FCS have been included in FBA allocations. $55.8 million $15.3 million $14.3 million Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. In 2007-2008, 8,086 producers participated in FBA, 5,759 of these through Options.

55% of FBA Client Impact Assessment (CIA) respondents indicated that the FBA had been helpful in reaching their most important farm business goal. Of all FBA CIA respondents approximately 77% of most important goals reported were financial goals.

b. Specialized Business Planning Services (SBPS) $26.5 million $5.5 million $7.2 million Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. 643 producers participated in SBPS in 2007-2008, with a cumulative total of 1,817. 71% of SBPS CIA respondents reported that the SBPS program had assisted them in reaching their most important business goal. Of all SBPS CIA respondents 49% of most important goals reported were financial goals.
c. Planning and Assessment for Value-added Enterprises (PAVE) $26.7 million $1.5 million $0.6 million Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. 28 producers participated in PAVE during 2007-2008, with a cumulative total of 161.
Total $109.0 million (fiscal years 2003/04 to 2007/2008) $22.3 million $22.1 million Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. The 2007 National Renewal Survey (NRS) results show that 41% of farmers and farm families are meeting their business and personal goals; up from 37% in 2004. In addition, 30% reported that their top business goal is maximizing return on investment, up from 26% in 2004.

From 2003-2008 21,144 producers participated in FBA, SBPS, or PAVE


18. Comments on Variances
Increased awareness of the FBA program, combined with the FBA cross compliance requirement under the Options program has resulted in higher uptake than originally anticipated for 2007-08. Further, uptake of the SBPS program was similar to 2006-07, and a slight decline in PAVE program uptake occurred in 2007-08.

19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
Planning and execution done jointly (federally and provincially) so provincial results do not differ.

20. Contact Information
Johanne Mtayer, Director
Renewal Division, Farm Financial Programs Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
613-759-6689

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
MOU with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on Food Safety and Quality

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity
Food Safety and Food Quality

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003 for both initiatives

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 for Medicated Feeds initiative and
March 31, 2009 for On-Farm Food Safety Recognition initiative

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$29.4 over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
To establish minimum standards, as well as inspection and enforcement strategies for manufacturers of medicated feed for food producing animals. Also to establish the On-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program (OFFSRP), which provides for government recognition of HACCP - based food safety systems developed and implemented by national producer associations.

Specific activities under the medicated feeds initiative will:
- promulgate and implement medicated feed regulations establishing minimum standards for manufacturers of medicated feed for food producing animals; and
- establish standards and policies supporting the design and implementation of an inspection and licensing system for these feed mills and farms by evaluating their manufacturing procedures and records.

Specific activities under the on-farm food safety recognition initiative will:
- establish a recognition system for on-farm food safety programs, which will ensure that adequate government oversight mechanisms are in place to maintain the confidence of Canada=s trading partners and facilitate open access to marketplace.

8. Shared Outcome(s) (MOU, section 1.2)
(a) protect human health by reducing exposure to hazards; and
(b) increase consumer confidence in the safety and quality of food produced in Canada

9. Governance Structure(s)
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) the Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) the Deputy Ministers' Committee which reviews and recommends the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommends the Minister's approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) the Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort for dispute resolution.
A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the first committee.


10.
Federal Partners
11.
Federal Partner Program Activity
12.
Names of Programs for Federal Partners
13.
Total Allocation (from start to end date)
14.
Planned Spending for 2007-2008
15.
Actual Spending for 2007-2008
16.
Expected
Results for
2007-2008
17.
Results
Achieved
in 2007-2008
1. AAFC (work performed by CFIA) Food Safety and Food Quality (AAFC)

2007-08 Food Safety and Public Health (CFIA)

a. On-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program (OFFSRP) $ 10.0 million for 2003/04 to 2007/08 plus $2.4 million for 2008/09 totalling $12.4 million over 6 fiscal years.(APF plus first year of Growing Forward) $1.98 million $1.5 million OFFSRP Development
- The requirements, criteria, and procedures for the 3rd party audit accreditation process developed and finalized
- 3rd party audit accreditation process finalized.
- Assessment process implemented (industry management system)
- On-going monitoring process. Conduct
- Pilots on accreditation and implementation assessment processes conducted
- Training to industry and government partners on the details of the above processes provided
- The latter stages of the OFFSRP developed in consultation with industry and FPT governments.
OFFSRP Implementation
- Ongoing technical review of industry-submitted generic HACCP models and producer manuals
- Pilot on management system conducted.
- Technical reviews completed on 2 more industry-submitted generic HACCP models and producer manuals, and 4 more were initiated.
- Pilot completed on industry management system
- Ongoing technical review of industry procedures manual, management system documents and manuals.

Expanded Activities (from re-profiled funding)
Hazard Data Base (HDB)
- The existing information and supplemental information for the Hazard Data Base (HDB) updated and reviewed.

- No additional industry management systems were submitted for review.

- The existing information & supplemental information for the HDB were reviewed and updated.

- The web-based application for the provision of the HDB technical information to stakeholders developed and implemented. - The web-based application has been developed and implemented.
Generic Models
- On-farm and / or post-farm HACCP generic models for identified products developed.

Guidelines
- A reference document that will serve as a tool for industry regarding the safety of fresh fruit and vegetables developed.
- A training module related to the reference document developed and delivered.

- HACCP generic models and Food Safety Practices Guidance documents for Sprouts, RTE Fresh Cut Vegetables, and Spices were fully developed and released to stakeholders

- Work done in this area conducted through other activities

Enhanced knowledge skills
- Work continued with provinces and stakeholders to identify knowledge and information gaps and integrate into generic plans and hazard data base as appropriate.

Post Farm Recognition
- Stakeholder needs and OFFSRP tools and methodology integrated into the Post Farm Recognition Program (PFFSRP).

- Work done in this area conducted through other activities.

- Analysis on stakeholder need and OFFSRP completed. Preliminary work conducted on the conversion of OFFSRP manuals for use with the proposed PFFSRP

- Implementation strategy developed - Program development and implementation plan created
- Technical review process for HACCP plans and participant manuals piloted - Pilot will be conducted following identification of both government and industry bodies to participate
- Technical review process related to management systems developed - Preliminary work conducted on the conversion of OFFSRP manuals for use with the proposed PFFSRP
Technical Advice
- Timely scientific and technical advice to AAFC and AAFC stakeholders provided.
- Timely scientific and technical advice provided to AAFC and AAFC stakeholders.
Information gathering and sharing
- Workshop conducted with provincial partners to identify information needs, objectives and information management options.
- work done in this area conducted through other activities.
Surveillance
- Current knowledge on the prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella and Campylobacter in food-producing animals and meat products marketed in Canada assessed.

- Critical gaps in industry food safety plans that require action are identified.

Strengthening Food Safety Programs

- Key food safety, traceability and quality strategies development through work with interdepartmental colleagues as well as consultation with P/T Governments and external stakeholders.

- Risk modelling tool to evaluate risk profiles development.

The Survey design for the Surveillance study was completed.

- CFIA participation and input on various intradepartmental and interdepartmental committees and working groups - e.g. the FPT Food Safety Committee, FPT Strategy for Safe Food sub-committee and working groups, FPT HACCP Recognition sub-committee, AAFC's Growing Forward development, and the proposed Agriculture-Health Agenda.

2. CFIA b. Animal and Plant Resource Protection Medicated Feed Regulations $ 17.0 million
for 2003/04 to 2007/08.
$ 3.36 million $2.6 million Development of the Proposed Regulations

- Regulatory text developed and finalized, including Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and other required documents; Regulatory proposal published in Publish Gazette I and II

Development of the Proposed Regulations

After consultations with stakeholders the regulatory text was developed and is currently with the Department of Justice for review. It is anticipated that the regulations may be published in Gazette Part 1 in late 2008.

The Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement was reviewed and revised.

- Continued participation in bilateral and multi-lateral stakeholder meetings and conferences to discuss the regulatory proposal Stakeholder meetings held to determine the controls necessary to meet regulatory outcomes and develop the Manual of Procedures outlining how to implement and assess the proposed controls,

Twelve information sessions held across the country to inform stakeholders about the proposed regulation.

- Environmental scan prepared on effective licensing options

- Functional licensing office opened

A risk ranking model to assist in determining the risk of carryover medication residues to animal and human health. The draft model was presented to stakeholders, USFDA and gFARAD. Work is ongoing.

A decision was made not to spend significant amounts of funds evaluating options and open an office until the final the regulations were approve

Lab Accreditation

- Development continued on a lab accreditation system for medication guarantees and residues

Lab Accreditation
Ongoing work to support ISO 97025 accreditation through SCC

Development of new methodologies to determine trace levels of medicating ingredients.

Development of Training Program/Inspector Certification

-National documented training and assessment program for feed inspection staff developed

Development of Training Program/Inspector Certification

A series of Training Manuals, E-Learning Courses and Workshop Templates were developed. The Launch of the Training Program is tentatively scheduled for July 2008.

Facility Inspection
Inspection facility protocols continue to be adjusted and piloted to support the regulations.

Computer Applications

- IT system to ensure availability of accurate, comprehensive electronic compliance information is improved

A Compliance Verification System for feed facility inspection was developed.

Computer Applications

Medicated Feed Team Staff coordinated Feed Program Submission for the improvements to the MCAP System, including reporting capabilities.

Total $29.4 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09; (funds transferred from AAFC to CFIA) $5.34 million $4.1 million    

18. Comments on variances:
OFFSRP development is still on-going since further discussions to be held with industry and FPT governments regarding need and scope of latter stages of recognition process. As part of the Quality Assurance process, the web-based application and user acceptance testing is being conducted for the Hazard Database. OFFSRP development is continuing under a Memorandum of Understanding for 2008-09. Under the Medicated Feed Regulations a decision was made not to spend a significant amount of funds evaluating licensing options and opening an office until the final regulations are approve.

19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
Not applicable

20. Contact Information
Anita Stanger
Director
Food Safety and Quality Programs Division
613-759-6054

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
MOU with Health Canada (HC) on Food Safety and Quality and Environment

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity
Food Safety and Food Quality

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$56.5 million over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
To conduct research-related work in support of standard setting, on-farm food safety standards, national integrated enteric pathogen surveillance, and human health impact of on-farm anti-microbial use.

Specific activities will include:

  • development of on-farm food safety standards related activities that support industry-developed food safety programs (i.e., information collection and analysis; the conduct of risk assessments; consultation with industry, federal, provincial and territorial colleagues and other relevant and interested parties; decision-making; communication; and information dissemination);
  • research that addresses hazards of public health significance and supports on-farm food safety standards;
  • development of a national integrated pathogen surveillance program to link human exposure to pathogens from animal and other food sources to the occurrence of human enteric illness in the population;
  • development of an integrated antimicrobial resistance program that can measure the impact of agri-food and aquaculture sector antimicrobial use, and other management factors on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in human pathogens at the farm level;
  • develop a better understanding of the impact of agriculture on the prevalence, levels and sources of microbiological (faecal) contamination at drinking water supply intake points and recreational beaches; and detection, characterization and control of microbial and chemical hazards through the entirety of the food continuum to insure the safety of foods during production, processing, storage and distribution by using an integrated approach from the farm to the consumer.

8. Shared Outcome(s):
(a) protect human health by reducing exposure to hazards;
(b) increase consumer confidence in the safety and quality of food produced in Canada; and
(c) reduce agricultural risks to the environment and provide benefits to health and supply of water, with key priority areas being nutrients, human pathogens, pesticides and water conservation. [MOU, section 1.2]

9. Governance Structure(s)
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) the Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) the Deputy Ministers' Committee which reviews and recommends the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommends Ministers' approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort for dispute resolution.
A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the JMC.
This MOU Governance Structure is supported by the Interdepartmental Director General Working Group, whose members are the relevant Directors General from AAFC, HC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and a Senior Director from TBS.


10. Federal Partners 11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected Results for
2007-2008
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008
1. HC, PHAC and AAFC Food Safety and Food Quality a. HC On-Farm Food Safety Standards $11.9 million $2.5 million $2.5 million Increased quality, quantity and availability of information relevant to on-farm food safety issues.
Policies and risk management strategies applicable on-farm
- Developed CANLINE, a centralized, searchable database on levels of chemical contaminants in food: data generated by the HC and NCR will be readily accessible for use in health risk assessments and policy development activities within the department.
Industry developed on farm food safety programs are recognized by on-farm food safety recognition programs

Ongoing collaborations with F/P/T governments on issue identification, gap analysis and data collection in support of research and or policy development.
Work to be done by HC to pursue AAFC, HC and PHAC Strategic Outcomes)

- Completed Strategy for Safe Food and obtained agreement in principle from the FPT Food Safety Committee to use the Strategy to identify key activities and priorities for the consideration of FPT ADMs of Agriculture and Health.
b. HC Research in Support of Standard Setting $9.2 million $2.0 million $2.0 million Increased capacity to identify and monitor key foodborne pathogens and chemical contaminants in food and food inputs at the farm level.

Increased scientific knowledge of key pathogens and chemical contaminants in food and food inputs at the farm level.

Increased scientific contribution to the development of evidence-based on-farm food safety intervention strategies

Established and/or strengthened partnerships among government policy makers, government researchers, academia and industry associations to optimize coordinated on-farm food safety research.

(Work to be done by HC to pursue AAFC and HC Strategic Outcomes)

- Conducted surveillance of raw agricultural products, animal feeds and composted manure from farms to better understand the transmission of Shigella, Salmonella, viruses such as the noroviruses, and other key pathogens through the food system. This will allow identification of key areas of interventions to manage microbiological risks, and to develop Codes of Practice and educational materials.
- Contributed to finding that human strains of noroviruses can be found in animals and be transmitted to humans through the food chain. Discovery could have a huge impact on policy.
- Discovered a high prevalence of Giardia and Cryptosporidium (human parasites) on farms and the potential zoonotic transmission of these pathogens through direct contact, water or foods. This discovery could have a huge impact on policy.
- Determined residue levels in single serving commodities at the farm level to establish the impacts of composting. These data provided knowledge of chemical contamination and residue drift within a growing operation, and to occupational exposure to these contaminants.
- Conducted a large review on allergens and produced an Information Update document on the safety of including limited amounts of pure oats in the diet of Celiac patients.
- Reviewed current risk assessment of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs. As a result, the HC's tolerable daily intake (TDI) for dioxins (and dioxin-like PCBs) has been revised and reduced almost 5-fold.
c. PHAC - National Integrated Enteric Pathogen Surveillance $3.3 million $0.7 million $0.7 million An integrated enteric pathogen sentinel site surveillance program is operational in one sentinel site (human, food, food animal, water) Data synthesis and analysis with respect to trends / emerging issues.

(Work to be done by PHAC to pursue AAFC, HC, and PHAC Strategic Outcomes)

- Developed Framework for National Sentinel Surveillance
- Consulted with National and International Stakeholders
- MOUs and Agreements developed and signed.
- Implemented and Maintained Pilot Sentinel Site using the region of Kitchener-Waterloo.
- Reports, Publications, Presentations
d. PHAC - Human Health Impact of On-Farm Antimicro-bial Use $3.3 million $0.7 million $0.7 million Farm level studies on antimicrobial use and development of resistant pathogens. Data synthesis and analysis with respect to trends / emerging issues.

(Work to be done by PHAC to pursue AAFC HC, and PHAC Strategic Outcomes)

- Consensus obtained among stakeholders contributed to the establishment of a sentinel vet/farm-based framework design where herd biosecurity and data confidentiality are protected. - This national program is active in the 5 major pork producing provinces, involving 28 veterinarians and 108 sentinel farms.
- Additional support from BC, AB and SK provided better data in those provinces. Support included funds and in kind contributions. - On-farm surveillance provides the only usable data on antimicrobial use (AMU) in animals that is currently available in Canada.
- Provincial, federal and industry funding agencies have funded on-farm research that will direct the expansion of this surveillance program to other commodities.
- This infrastructure provides a platform to address new issues as they arise, e.g. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in farmers.
- This pilot will provide direction on the activities that contribute to core public health surveillance of the food-chain.
e. HC - Water Quality Surveillance $4.8 million ($4.0 million for HC; $0.8 million for AAFC) $0.7 million $0.7 million Define whether agriculture is a contributor of microbiological (faecal) contamination at drinking water supply intake points in three distinct watersheds; which will, in turn, contribute to the development of policies/strategies that will reduce human exposure to faecal contaminants (refer to logic model and HC PAA).

(Work to be done by HC and AAFC to pursue AAFC and HC Strategic Outcomes)

- Strategic planning meetings held each year; finalized study activities for years 1 through 5.
- Sampling using optimized MST methods (water and faecal) conducted on South Nation Watershed from 2004 to November 2007.
- Comprehensive science reports completed annually.
- Results presented at national and international fora, thereby contributing to the advancement of the field of MST.
- Mining of data continues
2. AAFC (work performed by AAFC)   AAFC - Research in Support of APF Priorities $24.0 million $4.0 million $4.0 million Scientific knowledge advanced and data on food safety provided. Research activities were conducted on the effect of antimicrobial use in foods, alternative strategies to reduce antibiotic use in animals, improved detection and control of food borne viruses, bacteria and chemical toxicants including mycotoxins, enhanced knowledge of biochemical mechanisms and processes as they affect sensitivity to allergens and development of a comprehensive understanding of microbial interactions during food production from the farm to the plate and the impact of these interactions on the safety of food
Methodologies developed to detect and quantify foodborne viruses, food borne pathogens, allergens and mycotoxins in food nutrices. - Allergic reactions appear to be on the rise in Canada. The impacts of AAFC research in this area include:
AAFC scientists supplied control allergen reference materials for use in method development, evaluation and validation in support of Health
- Canada's allergen policy development for detection of peanut allergens in chocolate. Identification of the potential sources of allergen cross-contamination during food processing was evaluated to provide allergen free product to sensitive consumers.
- Samples of allergenic materials were provided to European scientists to be used in a human double blind food allergy challenge study by Europrevall.
- North American study (26 Canadians and Americans) was completed and 13 allergens (5 novel) were identified and the frequency among the population of patients with soybean allergy was determined. In addition, over 2,500 soy lines were screened for hypo-allergenic material and antibodies developed against one. Detailed characterization of allergenic proteins continues as soy allergens are considered as one of the 10 allergens most frequently affecting people.
Continue to design and evaluate strategies to control pathogenic agents in food matrices, through food productive, processing, distribution, continuum. - Through partnerships with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada and provincial organizations, the food virology group has made breakthroughs in the methodology to detect and quantify food-borne pathogenic viruses in complex food matrices.
Jointly, AAFC, HC, CFIA, and PHAC initiated a 4 year integrated national project to provide potential solutions to recurring incidents of contamination of fresh horticultural products including the detection and control of verotoxigenic E.coli (VTEC; includes E.coli O157:H7 and similar strains). Of special interest, research into the effect of beneficial bacteria - probiotics - on virulence of E. coli O157:H7 (bacteria responsible for "hamburger disease") produced results that indicate a role for probiotics in the treatment of E. coli O157:H7 infections.
- An integrated study of the impact of pathogens and antibiotic use in beef and swine on the safety throughout the farm to food continuum progressed. Results will provide insight into potential of decreasing antibiotic use in animals therefore decreasing antibiotic resistance.
Total $56.5 million (portions where AAFC is listed as a partner and work is performed by HC and/or PHAC involves funds transferred from AAFC to HC - see note) $10.6 million (portions where AAFC is listed as a partner and work is performed by HC and/or PHAC involves funds transferred from AAFC to HC) $10.6 million    

18. Comments on variances:
MOU ended March 31, 2008. All funds were dispersed. HC and PHAC are looking forward to further collaboration.

19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners (if applicable):
Not applicable

20. Contact Information:
Dr. Maria Nazarowec-White
Program Coordinator
Research Branch
Food Safety and Quality
613-759-6378

Note: Planned Spending and total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates. Total Allocation for 2008-09 and beyond is dependent upon finalization of an extension MOU with PHAC, and is therefore not included in the Total Allocation.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
MOU with Environment Canada (EC) on the National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI)

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Environment Canada

3. Lead Department Program Activity
AAFC: Environment
EC: Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Program

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2004

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$25.0 million over four years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
This initiative involves the development of non-regulatory agri-environmental "performance standards" (i.e., outcome-based standards) that will address both desired levels of environmental quality, and the levels that are considered achievable based on available technology and practice. These standards will act as benchmarks and targets against which environmental performance can be assessed. They may also help guide development of practices used by producers and industry to help reduce environmental risks and provide benefits to the health and supply of water, the health of soils, the health of air and the atmosphere, thus ensuring compatibility between biodiversity and agriculture. Standards will be developed in four theme areas: Air, Water, Biodiversity and Pesticides.

Funding for NAESI was allocated to EC under the APF and allotments were released to EC annually following the Deputy Ministers Committee decision based on the recommendation of the Joint Management Committee.

8. Shared Outcome(s)
(a) Consistent national agri-environmental standards are available to support, assess, and demonstrate progress towards the goal of environmentally sustainable agriculture in Canada;
(b) Recognition of Canada's role as a world leader in environmentally responsible agricultural production is advanced;
(c) Environmental farm planning and the move towards environmental farm certification is supported;
(d) Uptake of national standards to benefit the health and supply of water, soil, air and atmosphere; and
(e) Compatibility between agriculture and biodiversity is ensured.

9. Governance Structure(s)
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) the Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) the Deputy Ministers Committee which reviews and recommends the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommends Ministers' approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort for dispute resolution.

A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the first committee.

This MOU Governance Structure is supported by the Interdepartmental Director General Steering Committee, whose members are the relevant Directors General from AAFC and EC and an Executive Director from TBS.


10. Federal Partners 11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008
AAFC Environment MOU with EC on NAESI $25.0 million (for fiscal years 2004-05 to 2007-08) $4.3 million $4.3 million - Completed protocols and standards for the water, biodiversity, air and pesticide themes
- Completed science assessment for the air theme
- Recommendation for standards use and draft implementation plan prepared
- Stakeholder communication materials prepared and workshop held
- EC developed approximately 90 metric-specific environmental performance standards related to water (nutrients, pathogens, sediments, in-stream flow, availability), biodiversity (habitat), pesticides (ideal and achievable standards for high risk pesticides, risk-based standards, meteorological standard for spray application, mixture and commodity based standards) and air (agricultural ammonia emissions and its role in PM formation).
- Ammonia science assessment completed.
- Analysis of the maturity of standards for use to be completed this fiscal year.
- Two newsletters and 2007 technical reports published.
EC Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Program MOU with AAFC on NAESI       Same as above Same as above
Total $25.0 million (work to be done by EC to pursue joint EC/AAFC Strategic Outcomes) $4.3 million $4.3 million    

18. Comments on Variances

19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
There are no non-federal partners involved in NAESI.

20. Contact Information:
Sarah Kalff
Manager, Biophysical Information and Analysis
Agri-Environmental Policy Bureau
613-715-5195

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Production Insurance (PI)

2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity
Business Risk Management (BRM)

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2003

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$2.0 billion estimated over five years.

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
Under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF), PI is one of two core federal-provincial-territorial BRM programs available to Canadian Producers. PI is designed to stabilize producers' incomes by minimizing the economic impacts of production losses arising from natural hazards like drought, hail, frost, and excessive moisture, as well as uncontrollable pests and diseases. The program is cost-shared by producers and governments. It is delivered by the provinces, with the federal government contributing a portion of total premiums and administrative costs. By stabilizing producers' income, this horizontal initiative contributes to AAFC's strategic outcome "Security of the Food System".

8. Shared Outcome(s)
Expand production loss protection to a broader range of agricultural commodities to further reduce the need for ad hoc compensation.

9. Governance Structure(s)
PI is a provincial-territorial program to which the federal government contributes financially under federal-provincial-territorial APF Implementation Agreements. Governance structure includes various national standards outlined in federal PI Regulations and federal-provincial committees (Production Insurance and BRM Working Groups as well as Policy Assistant Deputy Ministers).


10. Federal Partners 11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008
1. AAFC Business Risk Management Production Insurance $2.0 billion (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2007/08) $407.2 million $422.1 million 1. Increased number of new programs and options available to farmers, including new plans for horticulture, forage and livestock sectors. 12 new plans, programs and options.
2. Increased producer participation in provinces and territories that have amended existing plans and that are implementing new plans and options. 2,047 new contracts
Total $2.0 billion (see note) $407.2 million (see note) $422.1 million    

18. Comments on Variances
Total expenditures for 2007/08 were higher than what was planned due to rise in grain and oilseed prices which have increased total premium costs.

19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
N/A

20. Contact Information:
Michel Mass
A/Director
Production Insurance and Risk Management Division
Farm Financial Programs Branch
613-759-6179

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates. Planned spending includes Production Insurance premiums, Production Insurance administration expenses, Wildlife Damage Compensation, and Wildlife Damage Compensation administration expenses.

See also the related horizontal initiative: Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program

Horizontal Initiative

1. Name of Horizontal Initiative:
Rural Development

2. Name of Lead Department(s):
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

3. Lead Department Program Activity:
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats

4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2003

5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)

6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
$69.4 million over six years

7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
The Government of Canada has mandated the Rural Secretariat with developing, coordinating, and implementing a national, coordinated, cross-government approach to better understand the issues and concerns of rural Canadians and to encourage federal departments and agencies to make adjustments to their policies, programs and services to reflect the unique needs of rural communities. In conjunction with 34 federal departments and agencies - the Canadian Rural Partnership - the Government of Canada aims to integrate its economic, social, environmental and cultural policies to enhance the quality of life for rural Canadians.

8. Shared Outcome(s):
The outcome is enhanced access by rural Canadians to opportunities which will allow them to contribute to and benefit from Canada's prosperity and success. It is based on the following six guiding principles:

  • community is the cornerstone of rural development;
  • collaboration across and among governments;
  • flexible government approach to address rural diversity;
  • multi-faceted/integrated approach to realize a community's potential;
  • local leadership underpins the community's capacity; and
  • business and entrepreneurship are essential components of building strong rural communities

9. Governance Structure(s):
The federal partnership - the Canadian Rural Partnership - is managed by the Rural Secretariat based in AAFC in cooperation with an Assistant Deputy Minister Steering Committee and an Interdepartmental Working Group with representatives from 34 federal departments and agencies involved in the rural agenda. Horizontal coordination and leadership are provided by the Rural Secretariat under the direction of the Minister. This collaborative effort is reinforced by Rural Teams in each province and territory comprised of the federal government in the region with most teams also including members from the provincial or territorial government and/or sectoral stakeholders. At the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (F/P/T) level there is an Assistant Deputy Ministers Committee and a Working Group reporting to FPT Ministers responsible for the Rural file.


10. Federal Partners Involved
in each program
11. Federal Partner Program Activity 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 16. Expected
Results for
2007-2008
17. Results
Achieved
in 2007-2008
Rural Secretariat

A listing of the 34 departments and agencies of the Canadian Rural Partnership isa available at http://rural.gc.ca/part_e.phtml.

Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat 1. Rural Dialogue
2. Rural Lens
3. Rural Research and Analysis
4. Outreach
5. Rural Programs
$69.4 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09) $11.3 million
(for all program elements)
$18.2 million
(for all program elements)
A stronger rural voice More than 300 regional initiatives (including learning events, workshops, dialogues and research projects) were achieved
Enhanced capacity for development of rural communities The Community Information database (CID) has shown continued strong usage (800-1,000 visits per month – comparable to last year)
Increased opportunities, barriers mitigated and rural development capacity enhanced through Government policies, programs and services. Rural Development Network (RDN) involves members from 29 depts - held 18 inter-departmental activities. Consolidated membership (24 depts last year).
Total $69.4 million $11.3 million $18.2 million    

18. Comments on variances:
Models for Rural Development program had unused funding in 2006/2007 which was carried over into the 2007/2008 fiscal year.

19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
Not applicable

20. Contact Information:
Donna Mitchell
Executive Director
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats
613-759-7113

Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.