This page has been archived.
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.
Supplementary Information (Tables)
($ millions) | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-09 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Revenue |
Actual Revenue |
Main Estimates |
Planned Revenue |
Authorities | Actual Revenue |
|
Business Risk Management | ||||||
AgriStability - Admin. Fees | - | - | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.5 |
Collaborative research agreements and research services | 0.0 | - | - | - | - | - |
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) - Admin. Fees | 4.4 | 3.8 | - | - | - | - |
Total - Business Risk Management | 4.4 | 3.8 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.5 |
Food Safety and Food Quality | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | - |
Total - Food Safety and Food Quality | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | - |
Environment | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | 0.7 | 0.1 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 2.1 |
Community Pastures | 17.0 | 18.0 | 19.1 | 19.1 | 19.1 | 15.4 |
Total - Environment | 17.7 | 18.1 | 24.6 | 24.6 | 24.6 | 17.5 |
Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | 5.1 | 9.8 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 11.0 |
Total - Innovation and Renewal | 5.1 | 9.8 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 11.0 |
Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency | ||||||
Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency Revolving Fund | 14.0 | 13.9 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 13.8 |
Total - Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency | 14.0 | 13.9 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 13.8 |
Total Respendable Revenue | 42.1 | 45.7 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 45.8 |
($ millions) | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Revenue |
Actual Revenue |
Main Estimates |
Planned Revenue |
Total Authorities |
Actual Revenue |
|
Business Risk Management | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.9 | 0.4 | N/A | 7.9 | N/A | 8.8 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.9 | 0.9 | N/A | 0.8 | N/A | 0.6 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.5 | 0.3 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 0.3 |
Return on Investments | 1.5 | 1.0 | N/A | 0.6 | N/A | 3.3 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.3 | 0.5 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 0.2 |
Other non-tax revenues | 47.9 | 14.3 | N/A | 1.2 | N/A | 1.6 |
Total - Business Risk Management | 52.0 | 17.4 | N/A | 11.2 | N/A | 14.9 |
Food Safety and Food Quality | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditure | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.3 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.3 | 0.4 | N/A | 0.4 | N/A | 0.4 |
Return on Investments | 0.6 | 0.5 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 1.8 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.1 | 0.2 | N/A | 0.2 | N/A | 0.3 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.7 | 0.7 | N/A | 0.6 | N/A | 0.6 |
Total - Food Safety and Food Quality | 1.7 | 1.9 | N/A | 1.5 | N/A | 3.3 |
Markets and International | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.0 | 0.4 | N/A | 0.5 | N/A | 0.2 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.2 | 0.2 | N/A | 0.2 | N/A | 0.1 |
Return on Investments | 1.1 | 1.0 | N/A | 0.6 | N/A | 3.3 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.9 | 2.9 | N/A | 1.2 | N/A | 1.1 |
Total - Markets and International | 2.3 | 4.5 | N/A | 2.5 | N/A | 4.8 |
Environment | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.2 | 0.3 | N/A | 0.4 | N/A | 0.3 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.4 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.9 | 0.8 | N/A | 0.8 | N/A | 1.0 |
Return on Investments | 3.0 | 2.6 | N/A | 1.5 | N/A | 8.7 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.5 | 0.6 | N/A | 0.7 | N/A | 1.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | 2.2 | 3.2 | N/A | 3.0 | N/A | 2.8 |
Total - Environment | 6.9 | 7.7 | N/A | 6.5 | N/A | 14.1 |
Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.1 | 0.4 | N/A | 0.5 | N/A | 0.5 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 5.1 | 4.5 | N/A | 4.0 | N/A | 6.6 |
Return on Investments | 2.6 | 2.3 | N/A | 1.4 | N/A | 7.7 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 1.8 | 2.0 | N/A | 1.9 | N/A | 2.6 |
Other non-tax revenues | 2.0 | 2.9 | N/A | 2.7 | N/A | 2.5 |
Total - Innovation and Renewal | 11.7 | 12.1 | N/A | 10.5 | N/A | 19.9 |
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.1 |
Service and Service Fees | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Return on Investments | - | 0.2 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.5 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.1 | 0.3 | N/A | 0.2 | N/A | 0.4 |
Total - Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats | 0.1 | 0.6 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 1.0 |
National Farm Products Council | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Service and Service Fees | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Return on Investments | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.3 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.1 |
Total - National Farm Products Council | 0.0 | 0.1 | N/A | 0.2 | N/A | 0.4 |
Total Non-respendable Revenue | 74.7 | 44.3 | N/A | 32.7 | N/A | 58.4 |
Total Respendable and Non-Respendable Revenue | 116.8 | 89.9 | 60.4 | 93.2 | 60.4 | 104.2 |
Notes:
Respendable revenues are generated by the Community Pastures Program; collaborative research agreements and research services; administration fees related to the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS)/AgriStability program, and the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency Revolving Fund. In accordance with Treasury Board policy, the Department can generate and spend up to 125 percent of its vote-netted revenue authority.
Non-respendable revenues include such items as refunds of previous years' expenditures, proceeds from the sales of Crown Assets, privileges, licences and permits. Non-respendable revenues are higher this year mainly due to an increase in Return on Investments of Farm Credit Canada.
The figures in the above tables have been rounded. For this reason, figures that cannot be listed in millions of dollars are shown as 0.0.
Due to rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.
A. User Fee | Fee Type | Fee-setting Authority | Date Last Modified | 2008-09 | Planning Years | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecast Revenue ($000) |
Actual Revenue ($000) |
Full Cost ($000) |
Performance Standards |
Performance Results |
Fiscal Year |
Forecast Revenue ($000) |
Estimated Full Cost ($000) |
||||
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act (FIMCLA) Registration Fees(2) | R | FIMCLA Regulations | May 31, 1999 | 671.0 | 637.0 | 831.0 | Loans from lenders registered within 15 business days of receipt. Target is 90%. | 100% of loans were registered within 15 business days of receipt. | 2009-10 | 2,180.0 | 4,263.4 |
2010-11 | 2,482.0 | 5,263.4 | |||||||||
2011-12 | 2,482.0 | 2,763.4 | |||||||||
Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) (3) | O | Access to Information Act | 1992 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 818.7 | Response provided within 30 days following receipt of request; the response time may be extended pursuant to section 9 of the ATIA. Notice of extension to be sent within 30 days after receipt of request. | Statutory deadlines met 95 % of the time | 2009-10 | 2.0 | 900.0 |
2010-11 | 2.0 | 900.0 | |||||||||
The Access to Information Act provides fuller details. | 2011-12 | 2.0 | 900.0 | ||||||||
2008-2009 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | 671.0 | 637.0 | 831.0 | |||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Services | 2.5 | 0.9 | 818.7 | ||||||||
Total | 673.5 | 637.9 | 1,649.7 | ||||||||
2009-2010 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | 2,180.0 | 4,263.4 | ||||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Services | 2.0 | 900.0 | |||||||||
Total | 2,182.0 | 5,163.4 | |||||||||
2010-2011 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | 2,482.0 | 5,263.4 | ||||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Services | 2.0 | 900.0 | |||||||||
Total | 2,484.0 | 6,163.4 | |||||||||
2011-2012 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | 2,482.0 | 2,763.4 | ||||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Services | 2.0 | 900.0 | |||||||||
Total | 2,484.0 | 3,663.4 |
B. Date last modified: N/A
C. Other Information:
Notes:
According to prevailing legal opinion, where the corresponding fee introduction or most recent modification occurred prior to March 31, 2004 the:
A. External Fee | Service Standard | Performance Results | Stakeholder Consultation |
---|---|---|---|
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act (FIMCLA) Registration Fees | Loans from lenders registered within 15 business days of receipt. Target is 90%. | 100% of loans were registered within 15 business days of receipt. | With the FIMCLA program going through legislative changes in 2008-09, stakeholders have been consulted on many items, but not on a service standard for the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act (CALA) program which is set to replace the FIMCLA in early 2009-10. A new performance standard will be established for CALA as soon as it receives royal assent in 2009-10. |
Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) | Response provided within 30 days following receipt of request; the response time may be extended pursuant to section 9 of the ATIA. Notice of extension to be sent within 30 days after receipt of request. | Statutory deadlines met 95% of the time. | The service standard is established by the Access to Information Act and the Access to Information Regulations. Consultations with stakeholders were undertaken by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat for amendments done in 1986 and 1992. |
The Access to Information Act provides fuller details. | |||
AgriStability Program - Administrative Cost Sharing (ACS) Fee | Process interim applications within 30 days, 100% of the time. Process final applications within 75 days, 75% of the time. |
As of March 29, 2009, of the 2009 program year Interim applications processed where Canada delivers, 83% were processed within the 30 day standard. As of March 29, 2009, of the 2008 program year Interim applications processed where Canada delivers, 55.4% were processed within the 30 day standard. As of March 31, 2009 of the 2007 program year final applications processed where Canada delivers, 57.7% were processed within the 75 day standard. |
The ACS fee is established by Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) agreement. Services standards are negotiated on a national basis by the Program Administrators Working Group to ensure consistency. The AgriStability program service standards are communicated to producers through industry advisories and toll free speaking points. Discussions with provinces on service standards is ongoing. |
B. Other Information:
It is the Department's practice to waive fees where the total owing per request amounts to less than $25.
Notes:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
Projects over $5 million | Current Estimated Total Cost2 |
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending |
Actual Spending |
Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending | ||
Ontario (Ottawa), National Headquarters Complex for the Agriculture Portfolio3 (Project Close Out Phase) | 14.1 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Projects With Specific Program Activities: | |||||||
Business Risk Management | |||||||
Enhancements to the Delivery Systems for the Business Risk Management Programs under the Agricultural Policy Framework (Project Definition Phase) | 125.0 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 22.8 | 22.8 | 22.0 | 16.6 |
Total Business Risk Management | 125.0 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 22.8 | 22.8 | 22.0 | 16.6 |
Environment | |||||||
Saskatchewan (Swift Current), Duncairn Dam/Water Infrastructure Upgrades (Project Close Out Phase)4 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | - | - | - | - |
National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS) (Project Close Out Phase) | 100.1 | 21.3 | 25.3 | 23.9 | 23.9 | 23.9 | 21.7 |
Saskatchewan (Maple Creek), Junction Dam Rehabilitation (Project Construction Phase) | 7.3 | 0.1 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 |
Manitoba (Winnipeg), St.Boniface General Hospital (Project Close Out Phase) | 5.7 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Total Environment | 123.1 | 24.4 | 29.8 | 24.5 | 24.5 | 26.8 | 24.1 |
Innovation and Renewal | |||||||
Quebec (Lennoxville), Dairy Research Facility (Project Construction Phase) | 10.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
Ontario (Ottawa), Greenhouse and Growth Chamber Facility (Project Construction Phase) | 10.9 | 2.1 | 7.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
Total Innovation and Renewal | 20.9 | 2.4 | 8.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Total for Projects over $5 million | 283.1 | 32.0 | 44.1 | 49.2 | 49.2 | 50.5 | 42.2 |
Notes:
1 All current approved projects with an estimated value of over $5 million are listed in this table.
2 The Current Estimated Total Cost number includes both expenditures made in previous years and expenditures for 2008-2009 and beyond. Expenditures include capital and operating costs.
3 National Headquarters Complex for the Agriculture Portfolio figures reflect only those costs to be funded through AAFC reference levels. This project is corporate in nature and pertains to all Program Activities.
4 Final clean-up on Duncairn dam was completed in 2007-08.
The figures in the above table have been rounded. For this reason, figures that cannot be listed in millions of dollars are shown as 0.0.
Due to rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.
The National Land and Water Information Service is an initiative of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) to make available, to land-use decision makers, decision tools and environmental information to support and inform local and regional land-use planning and management. This supports the government’s objectives for an environmentally sustainable agriculture sector.
The National Land and Water Information Service will support improved decision making in agriculture through the provision of timely and relevant geo-spatial information to land management decision makers across Canada. The Service will provide a coordinated national approach for managing, interpreting and disseminating information, by strategically linking the land, soil, water, air, climate and biodiversity capacities of federal departments, provincial and municipal governments and non-governmental organizations. The federal government’s desire for promotion of technology through the Government On-Line initiative strengthens the information provision objective of NLWIS.
Project Definition (2004/05);
Project Implementation (2005/09): Phase 1 (2005/06), Phase 2 (2005/07), Phase 3 (2006/08), Phase 4 (2008/09)
Lead Department | AAFC |
---|---|
Contracting Authority | AAFC, PWGSC |
Participating Departments and Agencies | NRCan, EC, SC, DFO, HC, PWGSC, CSA, INAC, TBS, PSEPC, IC, PC, Archives |
Prime Contractor | |
---|---|
Major Subcontractor(s) | The Halifax Group;Fujitsu Consulting Canada |
Based on AAFC’s existing capabilities with regard to geomatics information technology applications, AAFC will retain overall responsibility for design, development, delivery and ongoing maintenance of the National Land and Water Information Service. Private sector resources will be obtained when required to meet discrete identified gaps in AAFC’s internal capabilities or internal resource availability. In order to ensure compliance with project timelines and minimize transaction and administration costs, existing Government of Canada (GOC) and AAFC procurement instruments (Supply Arrangements, Standing Offers, etc) will be used as appropriate to the circumstances. Procurement of specialized IT and other professional services will be structured to maximize knowledge transfer to AAFC in order to ensure cost-effective maintenance of the National Land and Water Information Service. |
Major Milestone | Date |
---|---|
Milestone | |
Preliminary Project Approval | 10-Apr-03 |
Project Management Office Established | 30-Jun-03 |
Preliminary Project Approval Amendment | 08-Apr-04 |
Proof of Concept Completed | 31-Jan-05 |
Effective Project Approval Documentation Completed | 31-Jan-05 |
Effective Project Approval | 02-May-05 |
Phase 1 (Single Window) completion | 31-Mar-06 |
Phase 2 (Geospatial Environment) commencement | 01-Sep-05 |
Phase 2 (Geospatial Environment) completion | 30-Nov-07 |
Phase 3 (National Source for Agri-environmental Geospatial Information) commencement |
01-Jan-06 |
Phase 3 (National Source for Agri-environmental Geospatial Information) completion |
31-Mar-09 |
Phase 4 (Partner Information Integration) completion | 31-Mar-09 |
The Treasury Board approved the National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS) with an estimated cost of $100.1 million. The NLWIS Project received Preliminary Project Approval on April 10, 2003 and was designated a Major Crown Project. The National Land and Water Information Service Project received Effective Project Approval from Treasury Board in May 2005.
Phase 1 (Single Window) was completed in March 2006.
Phase 2 (Geospatial Environment) was initiated in September 2005 and was completed in November 2007.
Phase 3 (National Source for Agri-environmental Geospatial Information) commenced in January 2006 and provided accessibility to new GIS applications and services to users across Canada. Direct access to geospatial data, maps and tools is now available. Users can access information and data in both official languages and in standardized formats.
Phase 4 (Partner Information Integration) ran concurrent with Phase 3 and saw the completion of the establishment of the enterprise geomatics environment within AAFC, as well as the integration of essential data from external partners to support a joint forestry and agriculture-based biofuels application, and the development of land cover data across the country.
No additional funding has been provided by the Treasury Board or by the department. NLWIS was completed on March 31, 2009 under budget. NLWIS has evolved into an on-going service now called Agri-Geomatics located within the newly formed Agri-Environment Services Branch of AAFC.
The National Land and Water Information Service is a national program that will use and provide information in all the provinces. Resources required to support implementation will be located across Canada.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: AgriInsurance Program (Statutory)
Start Date: April 1, 2008
End Date: March 31, 2012
Description: The AgriInsurance program is one of four core pillars of the new business risk management (BRM) suite available to producers under Growing Forward.
AgriInsurance (formerly the Production Insurance program), will aim to reduce the financial impact on producers of production losses caused by uncontrollable natural perils.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
For 2008-09 producer participation in AgriInsurance had a targeted participation rate of 70% and for forage 50% as measured by a comparison of crops grown to crops insured.
For the main crop groups (excluding forage), Manitoba has the highest participation rate at 81% followed by Saskatchewan at 71.8%, and Quebec at 67%. The national average was 67% which is lower than the target but considered good based on the wide range of uptake across provinces.
Quebec has the highest participation rate for forage at 73%, while the other provinces range from 0% to 20% bringing the national average participation rate for the forage programs to 18%. Overall, numerous enhancements were made this year and will continue to be made to the AgriInsurance program including improvements for forage, horticulture, potato storage, new crops and available coverage levels.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | - | 388.7 | 548.3 | 548.3 | (159.6) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | 388.7 | 548.3 | 548.3 | (159.6) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The increase in federal contributions over the planned amount is a result of the substantial increase in premiums caused by the increase in commodity (i.e. grain) prices which are reflected in the insurable values.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No program evaluation was completed for AgriInsurance in 2008-09. There was a program evaluation completed in 2007-08 for Production Insurance (the program that preceded the AgriInsurance Program) and there were no significant findings.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
There was no audit undertaken in 2008-09.
Note:
Production Insurance (the program that preceded the AgriInsurance Program) expenditures were $416.4 million in 2007-2008 and $343.1 million in 2006-2007.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: AgriInvest Program (Statutory)
Start Date: December 19, 2007
Agreements were signed with the provinces to implement the program starting in the 2007 program year.
End Date: March 31, 2012
AgriInvest is statutory and ongoing; however, the current policy and program authorities expire on this date.
Description: The AgriInvest program is one of four core pillars of the new business risk management (BRM) suite available to producers under Growing Forward.
AgriInvest allows producers to self-manage, through producer-government savings accounts, the first 15 percent of their margin losses for a production year and/or make investments to reduce on-farm risks or increase farm revenues. Under the program, annual producer deposits of up to 1.5 percent of their allowable net sales are matched by government deposits. Government deposits are cost-shared 60:40 by federal and provincial governments. In combination with the AgriStability program, AgriInvest is the successor to the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program. AgriInvest replaces coverage for smaller income declines where AgriStability assists producers in managing larger losses.
AgriInvest provides producers with a secure, accessible, predictable and bankable source of income assistance to address small drops in farm income and manage on-farm risks.
Federal AgriInvest Website
AgriInvest in Quebec (La Financière agricole du Québec)
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
As of March 31, 2009, approximately $525 million has been made available to producers to seed their AgriInvest accounts through the federal Kickstart initiative. As of this date, approximately $291 million had been withdrawn and $234 million remained in accounts for producers to access when needed to address small income losses and to invest in their farming operations (see note below).
On March 31, 2009, federal program administrators began mailing out letters notifying participants of their benefits under 2007 AgriInvest, their total account balances and how to access the funding in their accounts.
Work continues toward full implementation of AgriInvest, when producer deposits and government contributions will be held by financial institutions for the 2009 program year.
A Performance Measurement Framework is in place for the new BRM suite, which includes Performance Indicators and Targets. Federal and provincial governments are now working to collect the information necessary for reporting and expect to be ready to report on the performance of the new suite of programs in early 2010.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | 165.6 | - | 175.7 | 175.7 | (175.7) |
Total Contributions | - | 1.7 | 159.5 | 17.7 | 17.7 | 141.8 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 167.3 | 159.5 | 193.4 | 193.4 | (33.9) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
AgriInvest is demand-driven, rather than being funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. Although the administrative costs of the program remain relatively constant, the variance of the year to year grant and contribution payments is directly related to both participation and commodity prices, as producer deposits and government contributions are based on a percentage of their income generated from the sale of commodities for a production year.
The variance between planned and actual spending for 2008-09 can be largely attributed to the recent increase in the value of grains and oilseeds which resulted in higher than anticipated allowable net sales.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of AgriInvest was not undertaken in 2008-09. It is currently expected that it will be evaluated in 2011-12 in accordance with AAFC's Five-Year Strategic Evaluation Plan (2009-10 to 2013-14), prepared by AAFC's Office of Audit and Evaluation. This program may be evaluated individually or together with a cluster of other Business Risk Management programs.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An internal audit of AgriInvest was not undertaken in 2008-09. AAFC's office of Audit and Evaluation performs an annual risk assessment exercise to determine its internal audit priorities and considers risks related to this program. This program is not currently included in AAFC's Three Year Risk-Based Audit Plan 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Note:
Expenditures for the AgriInvest Kickstart Program in 2007-2008 were:
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Agricultural Disaster Relief Program (ADRP) / AgriRecovery (Statutory)
Start Date: December 6, 2007
Program authorities were obtained to implement the ADRP under the AgriRecovery disaster relief framework beginning with the
2007-08 fiscal year.
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The AgriRecovery framework is one of four core pillars of the new business risk management (BRM) suite available to producers under Growing Forward.
AgriRecovery facilitates the process for federal, provincial and territorial governments to provide short-term, timely assistance to help producers quickly re-establish their income stream and contain the long-term impacts after a small to mid-size disaster (disease, pest, weather-related). Programs under AgriRecovery are developed on a case-by-case basis after an assessment is completed and it is determined that there is need for assistance not covered by existing programs, such as AgriInvest, AgriStability and AgriInsurance.
Under AgriRecovery, the ADRP helps focus the coordination effort, providing fast-tracked programs of up to $20 million (up to $122.6 million per fiscal year) to quickly fund initiatives under AgriRecovery. Programming not eligible under the ADRP may still utilize the AgriRecovery framework and funding though a separate Treasury Board submission would be required.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
The ADRP has demonstrated its flexibility and its ability to meet the objectives of providing timely assistance to minimize/contain the impacts of disasters on agricultural producers, address disaster-specific costs and losses not covered by other government programs and help farming operations return to business operations more quickly.
During the 2008-09 fiscal year, AgriRecovery/ADRP was utilized by federal and provincial governments to respond to six disasters, including the Duponchelia moth in Ontario, Golden Nematode in Alberta, Bovine Tuberculosis in British Columbia, drought in areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and flooding in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.
A Performance Measurement Framework is in place for the new BRM suite, which includes Performance Indicators and Targets. Federal and provincial governments are now working to collect the information necessary for reporting and expect to be ready to report on the performance of the new suite of programs in early 2010.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | 0.1 | - | 1.0 | 1.0 | (1.0) |
Total Contributions | - | - | 108.4 | 55.4 | 55.4 | 53.0 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 0.1 | 108.4 | 56.3 | 56.3 | 52.1 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Actual spending is approximately one half of the planned spending. This is due to the unpredictable nature of both the occurrence and scope of agricultural disasters.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of AgriRecovery (ADRP) was not undertaken in 2008-09. It is currently expected that it will be evaluated in 2010-11 in accordance with AAFC's Five-Year Strategic Evaluation Plan (2009-10 to 2013-14), prepared by AAFC's Office of Audit and Evaluation.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An internal audit of AgriRecovery was not undertaken in 2008-09. AAFC's office of Audit and Evaluation performs an annual risk assessment exercise to determine its internal audit priorities and considers risks related to this program. This program is not currently included in AAFC's Three Year Risk-Based Audit Plan 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Note:
The Plum Pox Eradication Program includes two components: survey/research component which accounts for $6.2 million annually; and the financial assistance component which is $2.4 million annually. The annual $2.4 million allocation is sourced from funding available for the AgriRecovery. This amount is reported as part of the costs for that program and is not included in the numbers above.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: AgriStability Program (Statutory)
Start Date: December 19, 2007
Agreements were signed with the provinces to implement the program starting in the 2007 program year.
End Date: March 31, 2012
AgriStability is statutory and ongoing; however, the current policy and program authorities expire on this date.
Description: The AgriStability program is one of four core pillars of the new business risk management (BRM) suite available to producers under Growing Forward.
AgriStability is a margin-based program that provides support when a producer experiences larger farm income losses, which are drops in their margin (eligible farm income, less eligible farm expenses) for the program year of more than 15 percent of the producer's average margin from previous years (i.e., their reference margin). Thus, a payment is triggered under the program when a producer's program year margin drops below 85 percent of their reference margin. AgriStability also includes coverage for negative margins, as well as mechanisms to advance a participant a portion of their expected payment during the year when a significant decline in income is expected (interim payments and Targeted Advance Payments). In combination with the AgriInvest program, it is the successor to the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program. AgriInvest replaces coverage for smaller income declines where AgriStability assists producers in managing larger losses.
Federal AgriStability Website
AgriStability in Alberta (Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC))
AgriStability in Ontario (Agricorp)
AgriStability in Quebec (La Financière agricole du Québec)
AgriStability on Prince Edward Island (PEI Agricultural Insurance Corporation)
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
AgriStability payments are based on tax information for the program year. Although much of the processing of payments for the first year of AgriStability (2007 program year) was done in the 2008-09 fiscal year, processing will be finalized and performance data will be analyzed in the 2009-10 fiscal year. AAFC tracks, and makes public, applications processed and the percent of applications processed within established service standards.
This information is available at AgriStability Program Statistics Website.
As of March 29, 2009:
For the 2008 AgriStability Program:
45.0% of received and complete 2008 program year applications have been processed. The out going error rate is based on sampling, and as of March 31, 2009 all files for 2008 were being reviewed, so no accuracy rate had been established at that time.
National Delivery: 5,838 complete applications received. Total value of producer payments was $248,527,017 at the end of March 2009.
Federal Delivery: 926 complete applications received. Total value of producer payments was $53,021,050 at the end of March 2009.
For the 2007 AgriStability program:
83.8% of received and complete 2007 program year applications have been processed and the estimated out-going accuracy rate is 96.85% as of the end of March 2009.
National Delivery: 118,910 complete applications received. Total value of producer payments was $554,242,637 at the end of March 2009.
Federal Delivery: 42,883 complete applications received. Total value of producer payments was $165,011,400 at the end of March 2009.
Performance data collected and analyzed in 2008-09 related to the 2006 CAIS program. The program covered 52 percent of Canadian producers (including those in the supply-managed sectors), representing 66 percent of total market revenue. Although this is below the target of 75 percent, it still represents a significant portion of the industry. It is also anticipated that participation will improve under the new suite of BRM programs. 40 percent of participants received a payment under the 2006 CAIS program, which contributed to increasing the margins of participants from 60 percent of their reference margins to 86 percent. This was above the target of 80 percent.
With respect to the processing of 2007 and 2008 AgriStability payments: Where requested by provinces, the Targeted Advance Payments (TAPs) mechanism provided quicker access to these payments for hog and cattle producers ($98 million to 1,713 hog producers for 2007 and $167 million to 3,767 hog and cattle producers for 2008). Changes such as deeper negative margin coverage and an improved inventory valuation method are also expected to benefit those faced with declining incomes and consecutive years of loss. Details of the processing of payments under AgriStability will be provided in 2009-10.
A Performance Measurement Framework is in place for the new BRM suite, which includes Performance Indicators and Targets. Federal and provincial governments are now working to collect the information necessary for reporting and expect to be ready to report on the performance of the new suite of programs in early 2010.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 377.3 | 655.2 | 340.5 | 340.5 | 314.7 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 377.3 | 655.2 | 340.5 | 340.5 | 314.7 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
AgriStability is demand-driven rather than being funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. Although the administrative costs remain relatively constant, the variance of the year to year grant and contribution payments is directly related to participation and the needs of the agriculture industry. 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 variance between planned and actual spending for 2008-09 can be largely attributed to the recent increase in the value of grains and oilseeds (G&O). Historically, G&O has accounted for a significant portion of coverage under CAIS and higher prices in the sector resulted in both reduced participation and a decrease in the number of payments being triggered as margins in the sector increased.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of AgriStability was not undertaken in 2008-09. It is currently expected that it will be evaluated in 2011-12 in accordance with AAFC's Five-Year Strategic Evaluation Plan (2009-10 to 2013-14), prepared by AAFC's Office of Audit and Evaluation. This program may be evaluated individually or together with a cluster of other Business Risk Management programs.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An internal audit of AgriStability was not undertaken in 2008-09. A Follow-Up Audit of the program is currently planned to begin in 2009-10 and will be conducted jointly with the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) as a follow-up to the OAG's Audit of the similar and now sunsetting Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) Program (May 2007), as well as AAFC's Audit of CAIS, which was completed in June 2008.
Note:
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | |
---|---|---|---|
CITI Grants: | 431.0 | (0.7) | 8.4 |
CITI Contributions: | 442.0 | - | 3.7 |
CITI Program Expenditures | 873.0 | (0.7) | 12.1 |
CAIS Program Expenditures | 933.3 | 377.3 | - |
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Private Sector Risk Management Partnership (PSRMP) Program (Voted)
Start Date: January 6, 2009
End Date: March 31, 2012
Description: The PSRMP Program is designed to facilitate the participation of the private sector financial services industry (FSI) in addressing agricultural risks not presently covered by existing risk management tools. It provides financial and technical assistance to assist non-governmental agricultural organizations in the design, development, and delivery of a business case for the development of new business risk mangement products and services to assist producers in mitigating and responsing to their farm-level business risk management issues.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
In 2008-2009, PSRMP carried forward 12 projects from Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) (no new applications accepted after March 31, 2008) - all projects continued to meet objectives per signed Contribution Agreements.
Project Results Achieved:
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 6.9 | 5.1 | (5.1) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 6.9 | 5.1 | (5.1) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
At the time of preparation of the 2008-09 Report on Plans and Priorities, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such, planned spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation was conducted for PSRMP in 2008-09.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audit was conducted for PSRMP in 2008-09.
Note:
Expenditures for the PSRMP Program (under APF) were $3.8 million in 2006-2007 and $4.1 million in 2007-2008.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Facilitating the Disposal of Specified Risk Materials (Voted)
Start Date: December 14, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2009 (extended to March 31, 2010)
Description: The federal government continues to provide BSE related assistance to Canada's cattle industry to support its efforts to recover from the impacts of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) first discovered in Canada in May 2003. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has implemented an enhanced feed ban, which is a significant step towards eliminating BSE from the national cattle herd.
This program will help the beef industry mitigate the cost of adapting to the July 12, 2007 enhancements to the feed ban enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The enhancements regulate the disposal of specified risk material (SRM) and adequate disposal infrastructure is required.
Cost-shared federal-provincial programs are in place and offer $127.5 million in financial assistance to the industry (federal: $76.5 million; provincial: $51 million). The program is administered provincially and federal funds are used to support projects that have been approved through the provincial government process.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
As of March 2009, approximately 259 infrastructure project and research iniatives were approved for a total commitment of $105.1 million to help the beef industry adapt to the enhanced feed ban. Facilities such as federal and provincial abattoirs, SRM rendering plants, research institutions are participating in the program. Furthermore, various technologies are being explored to seek value added options for SRM.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 4.4 | 22.8 | 38.5 | 21.0 | 19.2 | 19.3 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 4.4 | 22.8 | 38.5 | 21.0 | 19.2 | 19.3 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The reason for the difference in planned spending versus actual spending is due to the reprofiling of $17.5 million from 2008-09 to 2009-10. The program was extended to support provincial initiatives that required a one-year extension in order to meet the objectives of the program.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluations were conducted in 2008-09 and none are planned.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audits have been conducted in 2008-09. No audits are planned other than the standard end of program audit.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Payments in connection with the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (AMPA) (Statutory) - Advance Payment Program
Start Date: 1997
End Date: On-going under the AMPA legislation
Description: The Advance Payments Program (APP) guarantees cash advances to eligible producers (2006 amendments to AMPA increased the interest free portion of advances from $50,000 to $100,000, and the maximum advance from $250,000 to $400,000) to enable them to produce and market their agricultural products when market conditions are most ideal.
Amendments also now allow livestock producers the ability to receive an advance under AMPA. In February 2008, amendments to the AMPA allowed for emergency advances for livestock producers to address the needs of the livestock industry during unfavourable competitive circumstances. The amendments allowed for a reduced legislative requirements for emergency advances which are issued up to March 31, 2009.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
The AMPA was amended in 2006 to expand eligibility to the livestock sector, increase loan limits to $400,000, increase interest free loan limit to $100,000, and extend the production period to 18 months.
The AMPA was further amended in February 2008 to improve the delivery of the APP to the livestock sector. These amendments removed the requirement for livestock producers to secure advances with a Business Risk Management (BRM) program such as AgriStability. Advances are now secured using the animals as collateral. The amendments also expanded the circumstances under which an emergency APP advance can be issued to include situations of "severe economic hardship".
For the 2008-09 production period, 61 agreements were signed to deliver the APP with producer organizations and approximately $2.72 billion was issued in advances to approximately 40,539 producers. Of that, $312 million was for emergency advances to hogs and $143 million was for emergency advances to cattle.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 10.6 | 44.1 | 137.5 | 37.0 | 37.0 | 100.5 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 10.6 | 44.1 | 137.5 | 37.0 | 37.0 | 100.5 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The variance between actual and planned spending is due to many factors. The main cause for the variance is due to lower default payments than originally forecasted, as well as a lower interest rate than anticipated for the fiscal year.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation of the new APP program was completed during the 2008-09 fiscal year. As per AMPA legislation, a full evalution is to be completed every 5 years.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
Formal audits of participating producer organizations in the APP are completed each fiscal year. The current target for formal audits is 6 producer organizations per fiscal year. Due to contract tendering restraints, AAFC did not get the audits completed in 2008-09, and will be completing a total of 12 formal audits of producer organizations during the 2009-10 campaign.
Note:
Enhanced Spring Credit Advance Program (ESCAP) Expenditures for 2007-2008 - $6.8 million
Spring Credit Advance Payment Program (SCAP) Expenditures for 2007-2008 - $8.9 million
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Cost of Production Benefit (Statutory)*
Start Date: April 1, 2008
End Date: March 31, 2010
Description: The one-time $400 million federal Cost of Production Benefit (COPB) was announced in March 2007 and was intended to partially compensate producers for the decline in incomes experienced over the previous four years due to production costs increasing at a faster rate than output prices.
Under the COPB, payments were made in two installments, with initial payments beginning in June 2007 based on 2.36 percent of participants' average allowable net sales for 2000 to 2004 and final payments beginning in December 2007 based on 0.36 percent of participants' average allowable net sales for 2000 to 2004. The program was delivered by the federal government in all provinces except Quebec.
Websites:
Federal Delivery
AgriInvest in Quebec (La Financière agricole du Québec)
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
With the COPB, AAFC met its objective of increasing participating producers' farm revenue for 2007 by 1 percent based on program and Statistics Canada data.
As of March 2009:
The numbers above reflect only where Canada delivers payments (i.e., all provinces except Quebec). An additional $44.7 million was transferred to Quebec to allow the province to make similar payments to its producers.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | 353.5 | - | 8.7 | 8.7 | (8.7) |
Total Contributions | - | 44.7 | - | (0.0) | (0.0) | (0.0) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 398.3 | - | 8.7 | 8.7 | (8.7) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
As a result of an over-estimation of the final payment rate under the COPB, additional funding of approximately $9 million was required to fully meet AAFC's commitments under the program. This funding was sourced from within existing departmental levels.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of the Cost of Production Benefit program was not undertaken in 2008-09. There are currently no existing or planned evaluations for this program.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An internal audit of the Cost of Production Benefit was not undertaken in 2008-09. AAFC's office of Audit and Evaluation performs an annual risk assessment exercise to determine its internal audit priorities and considers risks related to this program. This program is not currently included in AAFC's Three Year Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2009-10 to 2011-12.
*For the related $100 million Cost of Production Element program, no payments were triggered in 2008-09 primarily due to a strong rise in crop receipts - mainly in the grains and oilseeds sector, for 2008 over 2007.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Control of Diseases in the Hog Industry- Circovirus Initiative (Voted) - Phase I - Circovirus Inoculation Strategy
Start Date: September 27, 2007
End Date: March 31, 2009 (extended to November 30, 2009)
Description: The Circovirus Inoculation Strategy (CIS) is an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) initiative aimed at providing assistance in minimizing the overall potential effect of the Porcine Circovirus Associated Diseases (PCVAD) on the Canadian hog herd. AAFC is to provide financial assistance towards the identification and mitigation of the virus.
The overarching goal of the Initiative for the Control of Diseases in the Hog Industry, and the specific goal of its CIP element, is to improve the health of the Canadian hog herd, which will help sustain the long-term viability and profitability of the sector. Encouraging producers to increase disease detection and prevention activities will reduce the number of hog mortalities, and result in healthier Canadian hogs going to market.
The funds are provided to producers through the Circovirus Inoculation Program (CIP). The program is being delivered in all provinces directly to producers by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It consists of two elements.
Under the CIP's diagnostic testing element, eligible applicants are eligible for 50 percent in compensation up to $2,000 per fiscal year and $4,000 over the life of the program. Under the vaccination element, eligible applicants are eligible for 50 percent in compensation to a maximum of $1.00 per piglet and $7.00 per sow, gilt and boar. The maximum assistance over the life of the program is $500,000 per applicant.
Circovirus Inoculation Program Website
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
To date, over 3,500 applications have been approved delivering over $30 million is assistance to Canadian hog producers to detect the disease and inoculate hogs. The program deadline has been extended to August 31, 2009 and applications are still being processed.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 14.3 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 10.8 | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 14.3 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 10.8 | - |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
N/A
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of this initiative was not undertaken in 2008-09. It is currently expected that it will be evaluated in 2010-11 in accordance with AAFC's Five-Year Strategic Evaluation Plan (2009-10 to 2013-14), prepared by AAFC's Office of Audit and Evaluation.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An internal audit of this initiative was not undertaken in 2008-09. AAFC's office of Audit and Evaluation performs an annual risk assessment exercise to determine its internal audit priorities and considers risks related to this program. This program is not currently included in AAFC's Three Year Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2009-10 to 2011-12.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Cull Breeding Swine Program (Statutory)
Start Date: March 6, 2008
End Date: March 31, 2012
Description: The purpose of the Cull Breeding Swine Program program is to assist in restructuring the Canadian swine industry by facilitating a reduction of the breeding herd. This $50 million initiative is a grant to the Canadian Pork Council (CPC). The objective is to reduce the national breeding herd size by up to 10% over and above normal annual reductions.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Financial assistance is provided to the hog industry to assist producers that wish to downsize or exit the industry. $38 million has been transfered to the CPC in 2007-08 for reimbursement of slaughter and disposal costs and payment of $225 per breeding animal. The Program was amended allowing for the program start date to be reset to August 1, 2007 from November 1, 2007. As of June 10, 2009, 649 claims have been received for a total of 124,370 animals.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | 38.0 | - | 12.0 | 12.0 | (12.0) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 38.0 | - | 12.0 | 12.0 | (12.0) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The approval of this grant was received after the preparation of the 2008-09 Report on Plans and Priorities, therefore it was not identified in the planned spending.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
There are no existing or planned evaluations for this program at this time.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
There was no audit completed in 2008-09. An audit of the 2008-09 fiscal year is targeted for the 4th quarter of 2009-10.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Environment (Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the Environment programs is to support the adoption of management practices on farms across Canada, which are beneficial to the environment and economically sustainable.
Strategic Outcome: Health of the Environment
Results Achieved:
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Environment | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 97.0 | 198.8 | 45.6 | 93.3 | 78.2 | (32.6) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 97.0 | 198.8 | 45.6 | 93.3 | 78.2 | (32.6) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Actual spending is higher than the planned due to delays in program implementation in previous years.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of the Environment Chapter was commenced in 2007-08 but still has not been completed.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
The following OAG Managing Environmental Programming Audit was completed in 2008-09.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Food Safety and Food Quality (FSQ) (Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009)
Description: The objective of the program is to assist industry in developing and implementing government-recognized food safety, traceability and quality process control systems throughout the agri-food continuum, in order to:
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
One of the key food safety control tools is the On-Farm Food Safety Recognition (OFFSR) Program which is part of a Horizontal Initiative between AAFC, the lead partner, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). This program recognizes food safety systems that have been developed and implemented by national producer organizations that are based on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) process, a preventive approach to food safety.
During this year, seven national producer organizations were participating in OFFSR program. Two organizations were issued letters from CFIA recognizing completion of a technical review stage of the OFFSR program. Since 2004, eighteen such letters have been issued by CFIA.
During this transitional year, the Canadian Food Safety and Quality program (CFSQP) was continued while new food safety programming under Growing Forward was designed.
CFSQP had three components:
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Food Safety & Food Quality | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 10.5 | 45.9 | 24.9 | 29.7 | 16.3 | 8.6 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 10.5 | 45.9 | 24.9 | 29.7 | 16.3 | 8.6 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The CFSQP is a client driven program. CFSQP projects typically require 3 to 6 years to complete the development and implementation of food safety and traceability systems. The initial planned amount for 2008-09 was $24.9 million. A key challenge was forecasting the client's requirements because 2008-09 was a transitional year. Also some organizations were unable to complete their activities as originally planned due to the complexity of negotiating new agreements at the beginning of the transitional year. During this fiscal year $16.3 million was spent, $3.8 million on Systems Development projects, $4.4 million on On-Farm Implementation projects and $8.1 million on Food Safety Initiatives.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation was conducted in 2008-09.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
The Canadian Food Safety & Quality Audit Plan provided for nine project-specific compliance audits. Three audits were completed and two are on-going into 2009-10. The findings of the three completed audits are not considered significant in nature and actions have been taken by the clients to implement the recommendations of the audit reports. There are currently no URLs for these three audits. The remaining audits were not conducted as the projects were assessed to be of low risk and therefore the audit expenditures were not warranted.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food (ACAAF) (Voted) (Grants and Contributions to facilitate adaptation and rural development within the agriculture and agri-food sector)
Start Date: April 1, 2004
End Date: March 31, 2009
Description: The purpose of the ACAAF program is to position Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector at the leading edge to seize new opportunities. It is based on a three-pillar approach, including:
Industry-Led Solutions to Emerging Issues;
Capturing Market Opportunities By Advancing Research Results;
Sharing Information to Advance the Sector.
The ACAAF Program was developed as the successor to the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (CARD) II Fund.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
For this last year of ACAAF, 337 new projects were approved and funded. They consisted of 10 new national projects, 265 new Industry Council regional projects and 62 multi-regional collective outcome projects. Most projects were Pillar I initiatives.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | 44.3 | 37.7 | 30.3 | 33.0 | 31.9 | (1.6) |
Total Contributions | 6.2 | 10.5 | 3.1 | 13.7 | 13.3 | (10.2) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 50.5 | 48.2 | 33.4 | 46.7 | 45.2 | (11.8) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Planned spending for 2008-09 reflects only the funding presented in the 2008-09 Report on Plans and Priorities. The over expenditures for the last year of the program (2008-09) was due to underspending in the first few years; total program spending still falls within the total five year authority of the program.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
The ACAAF Evaluation, which began during the 2007-08 fiscal year, assessed the relevance, success/progress and cost effectiveness of ACAAF in meeting its objectives. Conclusions were generally favorable and the recommendations following the evaluation have been incorporated in the planning of the successor program, Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP).
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
Initially, one National project recipient was to be selected for a compliance audit. However, due to time constraints and unforeseen delays in setting up the contract for the audit, it was decided to forego the compliance audit. Active monitoring of the National project files and financial audits ensured due diligence was met.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Agri-Opportunities Program (New Opportunities for Agriculture Initiatives) (Voted)
Start Date: December 14, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The Agri-Opportunities program is a $134 million program, ending March 2011, that focuses on new innovative value-added agricultural, agri-food and agri-based products, services or processes that are currently not commercially produced or available in Canada and that are ready to be introduced into the marketplace. The program provides repayable contributions for commercialization projects that are expected to increase market opportunities for the Canadian agricultural industry across the value chain and to increase demand for primary agricultural products.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
The Agri-Opportunities program has signed agreements to fund 13 innovative commercialization projects for a total of $31,759,712 helping to accelerate the pace of innovation in Canada.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 2.1 | 40.8 | 12.3 | 9.0 | 31.9 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 2.1 | 40.8 | 12.3 | 9.0 | 31.9 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Actual expenditures were less than planned primarily due to the global economic crisis at that time, which was having a serious impact on the Canadian investment climate, particularly the availability of debt and equity financing to companies.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation was conducted in 2008-09. An evaluation is planned for 2009-10.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
There was no audit conducted this year. An audit is planned for 2010-11.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program (Voted)
Start Date: December 14, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program (ABIP) is an initiative designed to strengthen the capacity of Canadian science providers and industry through the creation of networks for research, technology development, and commercialization of agricultural bioproducts and bioprocesses.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Nine Networks have been approved for funding under the Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program (ABIP). Currently the program is fully subscribed and no new proposals are being accepted. In support of the work to be undertaken by the approved networks, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has signed nine (9) Contribution Agreements with recipients external to the federal government. In addition, eight (8) Agency Agreements between Recipients and the Recipient Agent, and eight (8) Letters of Understanding (LOUs) with other government departments and agencies have been executed.
AAFC will report on the activities and the execution of the Network Agreements negotiated to deal with governance, intellectual properties and related issues with the parties involved in the nine approved ABIP Networks in the next FY 2009-10.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 0.6 | 20.7 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 13.4 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 0.6 | 20.7 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 13.4 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The variance of $13.4 million in planned versus actual spending is due to the delay in the development and signing of Network Agreements. This new program is utilizing novel structures and requires appropriate lead time for the development of communication and administration tools and access to resources to ensure that internal and external stakeholders are provided clear, consistent, timely and accurate messages on all aspects of program requirements.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
There was no evaluation undertaken in 2008-09.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
Recipient Auditing: The ABIP Secretariat has adopted a risk-based approach to the selection of contributions for audit. The audit risk of each contribution agreement will be assessed annually. The intent is to audit contributions where the ABIP Secretariat has identified some specific concerns.
There were no audits conducted in 2008-09. The intent for fiscal year 2009-10 is to complete two recipient audits.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Canadian Farm Families Options Program (Options) (Voted)
Start Date: June 23, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2010
Description: The Canadian Farm Family Options program is a pilot program that provides short-term financial assistance to low-income farm families and provides eligible clients with access to farm business assessment and training services that could help them increase their long-term on- and off-farm income opportunities. Income payments are issued to eligible applicants based on information for the 2005 and 2006 tax years. Eligible applicants commit to completing a Renewal activity, either a Farm Business Assessment or Canadian Agricultural Skills Service, or an approved equivalent by November 20, 2008.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
The Canadian Farm Family Options Program paid more than $145 million to over 15,000 farm families in its first year (2005 applicants) and more than $76 million to over 9,300 farm families in its second year (2006 applicants). Farmers qualified for Options if their total family income, as submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in their tax return, fell below $25,000 (below $15,000 for individual farmers). Payments were calculated to bring an individual farmer's total income up to the $15,000 threshold, and a farm family's total income up to the $25,000 threshold.
In total, participants received approximately $221 million, resulting in a total average payment of $17,000. 80.7% or 12,280 of Options participants completed their Renewal requirement (Farm Business Assessment, skills development or equivalent). Of these, 1,898 participated in more than one activity per application, with a total of 14,178 program activities resulting from the Options program. Final payment cheques were mailed to eligible applicants in early August, 2008 and the Options program reached its end on November 20, 2008.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | 145.0 | 76.0 | - | - | (1.0) | 1.0 |
Total Contributions | - | 11.2 | 16.0 | 14.2 | 10.3 | 5.7 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 145.0 | 87.2 | 16.0 | 14.2 | 9.3 | 6.7 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
On May 31, 2007 changes to the Options program were approved by Treasury Board. These changes resulted in the original $550.0 million budget being reduced to $303.3 million. Approval was obtained to reallocate the remaining funding to other initiatives. Actual spending was lower than planned in 2008-09 as funding for year two was only made available to qualified applicants from year one.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
There were no previous evaluations and none conducted in 2008-09. An evaluation of the Options program is to be completed by March 31, 2010.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
There were no previous audits and none conducted in 2008-09. An audit of the Options program is to be completed by March 31, 2010.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Canadian Cattlemen's Association Legacy Fund (Statutory)
Start Date: June 27, 2005
End Date: March 31, 2015
Description: The purpose of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association Legacy Fund is to support to the Canadian beef sector to develop markets for beef cattle, beef cattle genetics, beef and beef products in a post-BSE environment. Grants totalling $50 million over 10 years will be provided.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Industry is struggling to manage the ongoing impact of BSE and simultaneously regain its competive position given the rapid appreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar, increased feed prices and underutilization of packing capacity. Notwithstanding these challenges, Legacy Funds enabled the Beef Information Centre, Canada Beef Export Federation and Canadian Beef Breeds Council to undertake significant market development programs focussed on key Canadian, US and Asian beef markets. In 2008, beef exports totalled $1.35 billion, up from $1.24 billion in 2007. Sales of beef cattle genetics in 2008 were $26.65 million compared to $14.32 million in 2007.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | 4.9 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | (2.0) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 4.9 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | (2.0) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
In developing the spending profile for the Legacy Fund, annual expenditures were estimated by spreading the available funding over the ten year time frame in equal annual increments. However, funds are allocated based on the requirements outlined in an annual business plan which reflects the priorities of the three marketing groups. As such the funds needed in any particular year will vary depending on the marketing program developed in that year. These forecasts are made even more difficult by challenges in predicting when a market might actually open to imports of Candian beef.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
The contract with CCA requires a mid-term and a final evaluation.
A third-party review of the grant and the results achieved to date was conducted for the period September 29, 2005 to June 30, 2008. The review determined that the objectives of the grant have been met and the funds were administered in an efficient and effective manner in accordance with the funding agreement.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audits were completed in 2008-09 and none are planned at this time.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: EcoAgriculture Biofuels Capital Initiative (Voted)
Start Date: March 29, 2007
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The ecoAgriculture Biofuels Capital initiative (ecoABC) is a four-year, $200 million federal initiative that provides conditionally repayable contributions towards the construction or expansion of biofuel facilities that have equity investments from farmers and use agricultural feedstock. The initiative, which is part of the federal renewable fuels strategy, is providing an opportunity for farmers to benefit from the emerging renewable fuels industry while helping the government to achieve its targets for renewable fuel content in gasoline and diesel fuel.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
EcoABC has six signed contribution agreements totalling $44.5 million. These projects have encouraged private sector investment of $42.0 million by 502 agricultural producers, helping to broaden their economic base beyond the farm gate.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 0.6 | 75.0 | 18.1 | 17.4 | 57.6 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 0.6 | 75.0 | 18.1 | 17.4 | 57.6 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Actual expenditures were less than planned primarily due to the global economic crisis at that time, which was having a serious impact on the Canadian investment climate, particularly the availability of debt and equity financing to emerging industries such as biofuels. Companies were finding it very difficult to secure the financing needed to move forward with their planned biofuels facilities. This in turn slowed the uptake for the EcoABC program which was contingent upon projects being fully financed prior to federal funding approval.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation was completed in 2008-09. An evaluation is planned for 2009-10.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audit was undertaken in 2008-09. An audit is planned for 2011-12.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Plum Pox Eradication Program (PPEP) (Voted)
Start Date: April 19, 2004
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The Plum Pox Eradication Program (PPEP) provides funding for activities aimed at eradicating the Plum Pox Virus (PPV) from the Niagara region of Canada while ensuring the viability of the tender fruit industry (peaches, plums, apricots, nectarines). The bulk of the funding supports an extensive survey of tender fruit orchards, research and financial assistance for tender fruit producers whose orchards are affected by the PPV. The program also includes an asset loss compensation component. This seven-year program (2004-05 to 2010-11) is a follow-up of the original three-year program (2001-02 to 2003-04).
The program is jointly funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Website: Plum Pox Virus
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
2008-09 was year five of the seven-year program. Surveillance for the virus continued by the sampling of trees in the quarantine area. Infected trees and trees in infected blocks that met the removal threshold were removed. In 2008, the Plum Pox Virus infection rate has fallen for the third consecutive year. The rate fell from 0.00046% in 2007 to 0.000173% in 2008, a significant decrease.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 6.9 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 | - |
Total Business Risk Management | - | 6.9 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 | - |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 5.5 | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Innovation and Renewal | 5.5 | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 5.5 | 6.9 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 | - |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
N/A
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of the Plum Pox Eradication Program was not undertaken in 2008-09. It is currently expected that it will be evaluated in 2010-11 in accordance with AAFC's Five-Year Strategic Evaluation Plan (2009-10 to 2013-14), prepared by AAFC's Office of Audit and Evaluation.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An internal audit of the Plum Pox Eradication Program was not undertaken in 2008-09. AAFC's office of Audit and Evaluation performs an annual risk assessment exercise to determine its internal audit priorities and considers risks related to this program. This program is not currently included in AAFC's Three Year Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Note:
The PPEP includes two components: the survey/research component which accounts for $6.2 million annually, and the financial assistance component which is $2.4 million annually. The annual $2.4 million allocation is sourced from funding available for the AgriRecovery/Agricultural Disaster Relief Program (ADRP).
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Renewal (Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009)
Description: Through Renewal programming, AAFC aims to provide producers with the tools and skills they need to make business decisions based on good knowledge. Renewal programming is built on the concept of continuous learning, and is designed to help producers assess their situations and plan for the future during critical transition times. Renewal programs enhance producers' access to information, advice and training, and enables them to pursue on- and off-farm income opportunities.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS) - 697 applications were received in 2008-09.
In 2008-09, more than 2,384 producers across Canada applied to participate in the Canadian Farm Business Advisory Service (CFBAS) and Planning and Assessment for Value-Added Enterprise (PAVE): 1,835 for Farm Business Assessment (FBA), 510 for Specialized Business Planning Services (SBPS), and 39 for PAVE.
To help producers acquire the skills they need to adapt to rapid changes in the industry, AAFC continued to work strategically with the agriculture and agri-food sector in 2008-09 to identify the new skills and learning opportunities needed in a knowledge-intensive economy.
Funding to National Organizations:
In a 2007 Client Impact Survey with 703 participants of Renewal programs, results showed that program participation was a vehicle for change. Respondents reported that the programs strengthened their understanding of their business; reduced stress; improved communications with family, partners and other business partners; enabled participants to consider their original plans and make changes; had a direct impact on their incomes; and contributed toward the achievement of their goals.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 31.6 | 55.0 | 3.0 | 32.5 | 25.9 | (22.9) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 31.6 | 55.0 | 3.0 | 32.5 | 25.9 | (22.9) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Actual spending was higher than planned since planned spending only included approved amounts for the 2008-09 Main Estimates. Additional funding was approved later in the year.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation of Renewal programs was conducted in 2008-09 but has not been finalized yet. An evaluation of funding to national organizations will be conducted in 2009-10.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
Recipient compliance audits have been undertaken in 2008-09 for the following: The delivery of the Canadian Agricultural Skills Service under the Canada-Manitoba Implementation Agreement and under the Canada-Ontario Implementation Agreement, the Managing Risk Education Program under the Canada Implementation Agreement and the Contribution Agreement for the Agricultural Management Institute between Canada, Ontario and the Agricultural Adaptation Council. Final reports are pending.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Science and Innovation (Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the Science and Innovation Transfer Payments Program is to accelerate innovation adoption in agriculture. Science and innovation are the cornerstone of efforts to make the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector the world leader in food safety, innovation and environmentally responsible production and to support its future success and prosperity. Advances in agri-food science and technology are accelerating the development of a wide range of new industrial, health and nutritional products obtained from plants, animals and microorganisms.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
The Broker and Agri-Innovation program successfully concluded March 31, 2009 exceeding the target of 10 collaboration partnerships.
Overall 18 Contribution Agreements were signed during 2008-09 in support of establishing agri-innovations partnerships.
The Broker portion of the program funded 15 projects that supported the development of 11 innovation value chains and the creation of 14 strategies.
The Agri-Innovation portion of the program advanced four strategies that were created with support from the Broker portion of the program.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 54.0 | 73.5 | 6.9 | 10.8 | 9.2 | (2.3) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 54.0 | 73.5 | 6.9 | 10.8 | 9.2 | (2.3) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The variance between the planned and actual spending is due to an increase in spending of $2.3 million required for additional project activities for recruitment, equipment, and renovations for the Vineland Connections Project at the Vineland Innovation Research Centre.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation of the Program was carried out in 2008-09. A Chapter evaluation, performed in 2007-08, included the Science and Innovation program.
Each recipient submitted a final report which was evaluated before final payment was released.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
A compliance audit for one project was carried out in the 2008-09 fiscal year. The sampled invoices and claims did not show any significant discrepancies during the compliance audit.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Orchards & Vineyards Transition Program (Voted)
Start Date: October 25, 2007
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: This program funds plant removal which is the very first step towards replanting orchards and vineyards or planting other crops to help producers compete in the changing global markets. The program also responds to the market pressure by funding strategic planning activities which will increase the industry's knowledge and help the industry make decisions. The program operates in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Plant Removal: About 1250 applications were approved to remove about 10,180 acres of old tree fruit and grapes from orchards and vineyards in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Strategic Planning: $1,736,500 worth of strategic plan projects have been approved across Canada. Industry associations are currently developing the approved strategic plan projects.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 0.7 | 15.2 | 13.4 | 11.4 | 3.8 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 0.7 | 15.2 | 13.4 | 11.4 | 3.8 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
While the program uptake met or exceeded forecast demand in most provinces (i.e. British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), the uptake in Quebec was much lower than expected. This accounts for the difference between planned and actual spending.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
There was no evaluation conducted in 2008-09. A summative evaluation will be conducted during fiscal year 2010-11.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audit was completed in 2008-09. Any recipient audits will be determined based on the audit work plan. The need for an internal audit will be determined by the Office of Audit and Evaluation.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Tobacco Transition Program (TTP) (Voted)
Start Date: February 12, 2009
End Date: March 31, 2010
Description: The Program facilitated the transition of Ontario flue-cured tobacco quota holders wishing to exit the industry.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
The Tobacco Transition Program, (TTP) is now completed. The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board (the delivery agent) replaced the production controls with a licensing system and 1,050 quota holders applied to the TTP. The total program cost was $284,879,885 to retire 99.8% of the quota (271,134,732 pounds of Basic Production Quota) and pay for the administrative costs incurred by the delivery agent.
As of May 1, 2009, all payments had been received by TTP participants.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 287.9 | 284.9 | (284.9) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 287.9 | 284.9 | (284.9) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
At the time of preparation of the 2008-09 Report on Plans and Priorities, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such planned spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation was conducted in 2008-09. A summative evaluation will be conducted during fiscal year 2011-12.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
A program implementation audit was conducted in March-April 2009 to ensure that the delivery agent had put in place all the necessary processes to implement the program. The implementation audit found that the delivery agent put in place the necessary processes to ensure that the program would be delivered as per the programs guidelines and that the intent of the program would be upheld. Recipient audits are planned during fiscal year 2009-10. The need for an internal audit will be determined by the Office of Audit and Evaluation.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions in support of Rural Canada and of development in the area of Co-operatives (Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the programs are to carry out plans for Rural and Cooperative development.
The programming covers the following three initiatives:
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Rural Development
Funding ($226,000) was provided to complete projects under the Models Program. Fifty projects were funded as part of the Rural Partnership Development Program for a total value of $1.575 million. Project final reports are due by June 30, 2009. Partnership projects brought together an average of 6 partners per project.
Total Contributions under Rural Development: $1.8 million.
Co-operative Development
Under CDI, 35 funded projects were undertaken and completed. There was on-going management of 2 existing contribution agreements for CDI-Advisory Services and Ag-CDI. Under Ag-CDI, 45 value-added agricultural co-operatives were supported.
Total Contributions under Co-operative Development: $4.5 million.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Rural and Cooperatives Secretariat | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 9.1 | 10.6 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 6.3 | (0.4) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 9.1 | 10.6 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 6.3 | (0.4) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Planned spending only included amounts approved at the time that the 2008-09 Report on Plans and Priorities was prepared. Additional funding for the program was approved later in the year.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
In October 2008, the Office of Audit and Evaluation completed an Assessment of the Canadian Rural Partnership Program (CRP). This assessment relied on a new Value-for-Money tool created by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
Key findings were:
Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Co-operative Development Initiative
Assessment of the Canadian Rural Partnerships Program
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audits were undertaken in 2008-09.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - International (Canadian Agriculture and Food International Program) (Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the Canadian Agriculture and Food international (CAFI) program is to provide support to industry to gain and expand international recognition for Canada and enhance market opportunities for Canadian agriculture and food products. The program replaces and improves on AAFC's Agri-Food Trade Program (AFTP).
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
In 2008-09, the Canadian Agriculture and Food international (CAFI) program, continued to fund industry activities to improve international markets development and gain recognition for Canada as a leader in supplying high-quality, safe and innovative agriculture, agri-food, beverage and seafood products. The CAFI program provided funding to 49 industry associations - over $22.8 million in support of industry activities including $17.5 million for long-term international strategies and $5.3 million for projects.
In 2008-09, some results achieved included:
The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance developed a booklet "Top 10 Things Consumers Don't Know About Aquaculture" to showcase how the BC industry focuses on environmental issues such as sustainability and protection of wild salmon. To ensure that the booklet was well received by target audiences, focus groups were conducted to develop and fine tune the copy and overall messaging. The booklet was mailed to buyers, distributors, influencers, and Trade Commissioners in key US markets for BC farmed salmon. The booklet was also distributed at the San Francisco Fancy Food Show in January 2009.
The Canadian Bison Association advertised in the Fall 2007 edition of Flavourful, a magazine which highlights Canadian foods for international tables. 7,000 copies of the magazine were printed and circulated to the Canadian Embassies and trade posts based on language requirements. It was printed in English and French, English and Spanish, English and Japanese, and English and Mandarin. 1000 copies were circulated to the Hospitality, Restaurant, and Hotel Associations. Others were circulated to Food writers. Copies of the magazine were also used by marketers and the association to promote bison products in response to inquiries about bison.
The CAFI program is also committed to increasing international recognition of Canada's capabilities as a net exporter of agriculture, agri-food, and seafood products. To this end, the CAFI program supported numerous incoming missions of international delegations interested in learning about the superior capabilities of the Canadian industry first-hand.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned | |
Program Activity: Markets and International | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 22.1 | 17.9 | 24.8 | 22.8 | 22.3 | 2.5 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 22.1 | 17.9 | 24.8 | 22.8 | 22.3 | 2.5 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
Actual spending was less than planned spending due to the fact that some associations were unable to spend all of their approved funding. All of CAFI's recipients are associations that are undertaking activities in foreign markets and due to the global downturn, some associations were not able to undertake and/or complete some of their activities.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation of the CAFI Program was done in 2008-09.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audits were completed in 2008-09.
Name of Recipient: Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI)
Start Date: December 14, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2022
Total Funding: $15.0M
Description: To encourage independent policy research benefitting the Canadian agricultural sector. The conditional grant for CAPI will ensure continued success in building an inclusive and forward looking dialogue on the future of Canadian agriculture, and provide a stable and sustained forum to discuss issues of importance to the industry.
Strategic Outcome(s): Security of the Food System
Summary of Results Achieved by the Recipient:
CAPI submitted their Business and Research Plans for 2008-09 but the annual report containing information on the results achieved relative to the 2008-09 Business and Research Plan is due July 31, 2009 under the agreement.
2007-08 Results
CAPI undertook major new projects in our three key thematic areas: health, sustainability, and competitiveness.
2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$ millions | Actual Spending |
Actual Spending |
Planned Spending |
Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance(s) between Actual and Planned |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management |
15.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | - |
Comments on Variance(s):
The CAPI agreement was signed on March 31, 2007 and the full amount was paid to the client in the 2006-07 fiscal year in the form of an endowment to be drawn down at the rate of $1 million per year for 15 years ending March 31, 2022. The CAPI Business and Research plan for 2009-10 will be received by the end of June 2009.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
A Performance Evaluation will be done in 2010.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
The annual audit for the year ending March 31, 2008 was received July 31, 2008, was reviewed by departmental experts and CAPI was provided comments.
URL to Recipient's Site
URL to Recipient's Annual Report:
2007-08 Annual Report
The 2008-09 Annual Report is due July 31, 2009.
AgriInsurance (AI)
AgriInvest
AgriRecovery - Agricultural Disaster Relief Program (ADRP)
AgriStability
Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS)
MOU with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on Food Safety System Recognition
Co-operatives Secretariat (Co-operative Development Initiative)
AAFC-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Agri-Food Specialists Positions Abroad
Farm Business Services
Rural Development
Name of Horizontal Initiative: AgriInsurance (AI)
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Business Risk Management (BRM)
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative: April 1, 2008
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative: March 31, 2012
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $1.6 B
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
AI includes the Production Insurance program which will aim to reduce the financial impact on producers of production losses caused by uncontrollable natural perils.
Shared Outcome(s):
Expand production loss protection to a broader range of agricultural products to further reduce the need for ad hoc compensation.
Governance Structure(s):
AI is a provincial-territorial program to which the federal government contributes financially under the federal-provincial-territorial Growing Forward Agreement. Governance structure includes various national standards outlined in federal Production Insurance Regulations and federal-provincial-territorial committees (AgriInsurance and Business Risk Management Working Groups as well as Policy Assistant Deputy Ministers).
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 | Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | BRM | AgriInsurance | $1.6 B
2008-09 to |
$388.7 M | $549.9 M | Increased number of new programs and options available to farmers, including new plans for horticulture and livestock sectors. Increased producer participation in provinces and territories that have amended existing plans and that are implementing new plans and options. | The number of new programs increased by 13 and there are 19 more options available to farmers.
The total coverage increased by $2.2 B and the acres insured increased by 3.4 M in provinces that have amended existing plans and/or are implementing new plans and options. |
Total $1.6 B |
Total $388.7 M |
Total $549.9 M |
Note: Planned spending figures represent the amounts included in Main Estimates. It does not include any additional amounts that may be brought into the Department's reference levels.
Comments on Variances:
The increase in grant and contribution payments is as result of the substantial increase in premiums caused by the increase in grain prices which are reflected in the insurable values.
Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable):
Planning and developments are done jointly with the provinces. Therefore, the expected results are the same, but the achieved results will vary by province.
Contact Information:
Sheldon Friesen
A/Director
Production Insurance and Risk Management Division
Farm Financial Programs Branch
613-773-2068
Name of Horizontal Initiative: AgriInvest (Statutory)
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Business Risk Management (BRM)
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
Agreements were signed with the provinces December 6, 2007, to implement the program for the 2007 program year.
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
AgriInvest is statutory and ongoing; however, the current policy and program authorities expire March 31, 2012.
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
As the program is statutory and demand-driven, it is only possible to provide an estimate of the total cost of the program. The current estimate is that it will cost $847.1 M over five years (2007-08 to 2011-12 fiscal years).
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
AgriInvest allows producers to self-manage, through producer-government savings accounts, the first 15 per cent of their margin losses for a production year and/or make investments to reduce on-farm risks or increase farm revenues. Under the program, annual producer deposits of up to 1.5 per cent of their allowable net sales are matched by government deposits. Government deposits are cost-shared 60:40 by federal and provincial governments. In combination with the AgriStability program, AgriInvest is the successor to the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program. AgriInvest replaces coverage for smaller income declines while AgriStability assists producers in managing larger losses.
AgriInvest provides producers with a secure, accessible, predictable, and bankable source of income assistance to address small drops in farm income and manage on-farm risks.
Authorities for the program include Section 4 of the Farm Income Protection (FIPA), as well as “Growing Forward: A Federal-Provincial-Territorial Framework Agreement on Agriculture, Agri-Food and Agri-Based Products Policy” and “Federal / Provincial / Territorial Agreement with Respect to AgriStability and AgriInvest”.
The program links to the new, 2009-10 departmental strategic outcome of “a competitive agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector that proactively manages risk” and the Government of Canada’s outcome of “Strong Economic Growth.”
AgriInvest in Quebec (La Financière agricole du Québec)
Shared Outcome(s):
To mitigate the impacts of smaller income losses through the availability of timely and predictable funds.
Governance Structure(s):
The AgriInvest program is part of the comprehensive Growing Forward agricultural policy framework developed by federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture, and falls under the BRM priority. Program costs, including program payments and administrative costs, are cost shared by the federal government and the provinces on a 60:40 basis, respectively.
The AgriInvest program is delivered in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and Yukon by the federal government. Governments are currently working with financial institutions to set up the infrastructure necessary for them to establish and hold AgriInvest accounts. In Quebec, the AgriInvest program is delivered provincially by La Financière agricole du Québec.
Like the other BRM programs, the governance structure for the program consists of working groups and committees, including the federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) BRM Working Group and FPT Administrators Working Group, as well as the National Program Advisory Committee (NPAC) which includes FPT and industry representatives. These groups examine BRM policy and program issues and, as requested, develop options to be brought forward to senior management, including FPT Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs), Deputy Ministers and Ministers. NPAC provides advice through FPT ADMs.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 | Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | BRM | AgriInvest | $847.1 M (for fiscal years 2007/08 to 2011/12) |
$170.5 M | $197.4 M | Reduce producers income loss through participation in BRM programs | As of March 31, 2009, approximately $525 M has been made available to producer to seed their AgriInvest accounts through the federal Kickstart initiative. As of this date, approximately $291 M had been withdrawn and $234 M remained in accounts for producers to access when needed to address small income losses and to invest in their farming operations. On March 31, 2009, federal program administrators began mailing out letters notifying participants of their benefits under 2007 AgriInvest, their total account balances and how to access the funding in their accounts. Work continues toward full implementation of AgriInvest, where producer deposits and government contributions will be held by financial institutions for the 2009 program year. |
Total: $847.1 M (See note) |
Total: $170.5 M (See note) |
Total: $197.4 M |
Note:
Planned spending figures represent the amounts included in Main Estimates. Spending reflects all costs incurred by the department (salary, operating, transfer payments). See also the related horizontal initiative on AgriStability, AgriInsurance, and AgriRecovery.
Comments on Variances:
AgriInvest is demand-driven, rather than being funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. Although the administrative costs of the program remain relatively constant, the variance of the year-to-year grant and contribution payments is directly related to both participation and commodity prices, as producer deposits and government contributions are based on a percentage of their income generated from the sale of commodities for a production year.
The variance between planned and actual spending for 2008-09 can be largely attributed to an increase in the value of grains and oilseeds for the 2007 production year, which resulted in higher than anticipated allowable net sales.
A performance measurement framework is in place for the new BRM suite, which includes performance indicators and targets. Federal and provincial governments are now working to collect the information necessary for reporting and expect to be ready to report on the performance of the new suite of programs in early 2010.
Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable):
Coordination of program oversight and delivery with the federal government will ensure that the program is delivered consistently across provinces and that program objectives and reporting requirements are met.
Contact Information:
Danny Foster
Director General
BRM Program Development
613-773-2100
Name of Horizontal Initiative: AgriRecovery - Agricultural Disaster Relief Program (ADRP)
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Business Risk Management (BRM)
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
On December 6, 2007, program authorities were obtained to implement the ADRP under the AgriRecovery disaster relief framework beginning with the 2007-08 fiscal year.
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
Program authorities for the ADRP expire on March 31, 2011.
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
Authorities for the program consist of $440.7 M over four years (2007-08 to 2010-11 fiscal years). This funding is sourced from the $500 M per year in incremental funding for agriculture established in the 2006 federal budget.
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
AgriRecovery facilitates the process for federal, provincial and territorial governments to provide short-term, timely assistance to help producers quickly re-establish their income stream and contain the long-term impacts after a small- to mid-size disaster (e.g. disease, pest, weather). Programs under AgriRecovery are developed on a case-by-case basis after an assessment is completed and it is determined that there is need for assistance not covered by existing programs, such as AgriInvest, AgriStability and AgriInsurance.
Under AgriRecovery, the ADRP helps focus the coordination effort, providing fast-tracked programs of up to $20 M (up to $122.6 M per fiscal year) to quickly fund initiatives under AgriRecovery. Programming not eligible under the ADRP may still utilize the AgriRecovery framework and approval from Treasury Board would be required.
Authorities for the program include sub-section 12(5) of the Farm Income Protection Act (FIPA), as well as various agreements for individual programming developed under AgriRecovery. The program links to the Security of the Food System Strategic Outcome in the 2008-09 Program Activity Architecture (and to the new, 2009-10 departmental strategic outcome of a competitive agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector that proactively manages risk) and the Government of Canada’s outcome of Strong Economic Growth.
Links to the federal AgriRecovery Website
Shared Outcome(s):
Reduce the economic impact of catastrophic natural disasters on producers through timely assistance not otherwise provided by other programs.
Governance Structure(s):
The AgriRecovery framework, including the ADRP, is part of the comprehensive Growing Forward policy framework developed by federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture, and falls under the Business Risk Management priority. Under the ADRP, program costs, including program payments and administrative costs, are expected to be cost-shared by the federal government and the provinces on a 60:40 basis, respectively. For AgriRecovery programming outside the ADRP, funding options are negotiated with the provinces on a case-by-case basis.
Like the other BRM programs, the governance structure for the program consists of working groups and committees, including the federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) BRM Working Group and FPT Administrators Working Group, as well as the National Program Advisory Committee (NPAC) which includes FPT and industry representatives. These groups examine BRM policy and program issues and, as requested, develop options to be brought forward to senior management, including FPT Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs), Deputy Ministers and Ministers. NPAC provides advice through FPT ADMs.
Specific to AgriRecovery and the ADRP are FTP Task Teams, which are initiated on a case-by-case basis when requested to analyze a disaster and its impacts and, if needed, develop options for an individual disaster assistance program to be brought forward to participating FTP Ministers.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 | Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | BRM | AgriRecovery (including the ADRP) | $440.7 M ($72.9 M for FY 2007/08 and $122.6 M per year for FYs 2008/09 to 2010/11) | $122.6 M | $56.3 M (see Comments on Variance) | Reduce producers income loss through participation in BRM programs | The ADRP has demonstrated its flexibility and ability to meet the objectives of providing timely assistance to minimize/contain the impacts of disasters on agricultural producers, address disaster-specific costs and losses not covered by other government programs and help farming operations return to business operations more quickly.
During the 2008-09 fiscal year, AgriRecovery was utilized by federal and provincial governments to respond to six disasters, including the Duponchelia moth in Ontario, Golden Nematode in Alberta, Bovine Tuberculosis in British Columbia, drought in areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and flooding in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. |
Total: $440.7 M (See note 1 and 2) | Total: $122.6 M | Total: $56.3 M (see Comments on Variance) |
Notes:
Comments on Variances:
Actual spending for 2008-09 includes total spent for completed programs (Duponchelia, Alberta Potatoes and Bovine TB) and the full funding for programs which have had their unspent funding put into Payables at Year End (PAYE) accounts (Manitoba Forage, Manitoba Forage Restoration and Feed Assistance, PEI Potatoes, and Saskatchewan Drought). Actual spending for all programs to date is estimated at $19.2 M, the rest is currently in PAYE accounts. Actual spending is approximately one-half of the planned spending. This is due to the unpredictable nature of both the occurrence and scope of agricultural disasters.
A performance measurement framework is in place for the new BRM suite, which includes performance indicators and targets. Federal and provincial governments are now working to collect the information necessary for reporting and expect to be ready to report on the performance of the new suite of programs in early 2010.
Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable):
Joint planning and execution (federally and provincially) will be undertaken so that results are consistent.
Contact Information:
Danny Foster
Director General
BRM Program Development
613-773-2100
Name of Horizontal Initiative: AgriStability (Statutory)
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Business Risk Management (BRM)
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
Agreements were signed with the provinces December 19, 2007, to implement the program for the 2007 program year.
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
AgriStability is statutory and ongoing; however, the current policy and program authorities expire March 31, 2012.
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
As the program is statutory and demand-driven, it is only possible to provide an estimate of the total cost of the program. The current estimate is that it will cost $3,189 M over five fiscal years (2007-08 to 2011-12 fiscal years).
For the period of 2007-2008, the funding in the amount of $607.5 M pertains to the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) program which preceded AgriStability.
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
AgriStability is one of the four core pillars that make up the Business Risk Management Suite under Growing Forward.
AgriStability is a margin-based program that provides support when a producer experiences larger farm income losses, which are drops in their margin (eligible farm income, less eligible farm expenses), for the program year of more than 15 per cent of the producer's average margin from previous years (i.e., their reference margin). Thus a payment is triggered under the program when a producer’s program year margin drops below 85 per cent of the reference margin. AgriStability also includes coverage for negative margins, as well as mechanisms to advance a participant a portion of their expected payment during the year when a significant decline in income is expected (interim payments and Targeted Advance Payments). In combination with the AgriInvest program, it is the successor to the CAIS program. AgriInvest replaces coverage for smaller income declines while AgriStability assists producers in managing larger losses.
Authorities for the program include Section 4 of the Farm Income Protection Act (FIPA), as well as “Growing Forward: A Federal-Provincial-Territorial Framework Agreement on Agriculture, Agri-Food and Agri-Based Products Policy” and “Federal / Provincial / Territorial Agreement with Respect to AgriStability and AgriInvest.”
The program links to links to the Security of the Food System Strategic Outcome in the 2008-09 Program Activity Architecture (and to the new, 2009-10 departmental strategic outcome of a competitive agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector that proactively manages risk) and the Government of Canada's outcome of Strong Economic Growth.
Federal AgriStability Website
AgriStability in Alberta - Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC)
AgriStability in Ontario (Agricorp)
AgriStability in Quebec (La Financière agricole du Québec)
AgriStability on Prince Edward Island (PEI Agricultural Insurance Corporation)
Shared Outcome(s):
To mitigate the impacts of larger income losses with margin protection.
Governance Structure(s):
The AgriStability program is part of the comprehensive Growing Forward agricultural policy framework developed by federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture, and falls under the BRM priority. Program costs, including program payments and administrative costs, are cost shared by the federal government and the provinces on a 60:40 basis, respectively.
The AgriStability program is currently delivered in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon by the federal government. In Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, the AgriStability program is delivered provincially.
Like the other BRM programs, the governance structure for the program consists of working groups and committees, including the federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) BRM Working Group and FPT Administrators Working Group, as well as the National Program Advisory Committee (NPAC) which includes FPT and industry representatives. These groups examine BRM policy and program issues and, as requested, develop options to be brought forward to senior management, including FPT Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs), Deputy Ministers and Ministers. NPAC provides advice through FPT ADMs.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Expected Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | BRM | AgriStability | $3,189 M for the fiscal years 2007-08 to 2011-12 ($607.5 M pertains to the period of 2007-08 for CAIS which preceeded AgriStability) | $699.3 M | $377.0 M | Reduce producers' income loss through participation in BRM programs | AgriStability payments are based on tax information for the program year. Although much of the processing of payments for the first year of AgriStability (2007 program year) was done in the 2008-09 fiscal year, processing will be finalized and performance data will be tallied in the 2009-10 fiscal year.
Performance data collected in 2008-09 related to the 2006 CAIS program. The program covered 52 per cent of Canadian producers (including those in the supply-managed sectors), representing 66 per cent of total market revenue. Although this is below the target of 75 per cent, it still represents a significant portion of the industry. It is also anticipated that participation will improve under the new suite of BRM programs. 40 per cent of participants received a payment under the 2006 CAIS program, which contributed to increasing the margins of participants from 60 per cent of their reference margins to 86 per cent. This was above the target of 80 per cent. With respect to the processing of 2007 and 2008 AgriStability payments: Where requested by provinces, the Targeted Advance Payments (TAPs) mechanism provided quicker access to these payments for hog and cattle producers ($98 M to 1,713 hog producers for 2007 and $166 M to 3,767 hog and cattle producers for 2008). Changes such as deeper negative margin coverage and an improved inventory valuation method are also expected to benefit those faced with declining incomes and consecutive years of loss. Details of the processing of payments under AgriStability will be provided in 2009-10. |
Total $3,189 M for the fiscal years 2007-08 to 2011-12 |
Total $699.3 M (See note) | Total $377.0 M |
Note: Planned spending figures represent the amounts included in Main Estimates. It does not include any additional amounts that may be brought into the Department's reference levels. Spending reflects all costs incurred by the department (salary, operating, transfer payments). See also the related horizontal initiative on AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery.
Comments on Variances:
AgriStability is demand-driven rather than funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. Although the administrative costs remain relatively constant, the variance of the year-to-year grant and contribution payments is directly related to participation and the needs of the agriculture industry. 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 variance between planned and actual spending for 2008-09 can be largely attributed to an increase in the value of grains and oilseeds for the 2007 production year. Historically, grains and oilseeds have accounted for a significant portion of coverage under CAIS and higher prices in the sector resulted in both reduced participation and a decrease in the number of payments being triggered as margins in the sector increased.
A performance measurement framework is in place for the new BRM suite, which includes performance indicators and targets. Federal and provincial governments are now working to collect the information necessary for reporting and expect to be ready to report on the performance of the new suite of programs in early 2010.
Results to be achieved by non-federal partners (if applicable):
Coordination of program oversight and delivery with the federal government will ensure that the program is delivered consistently and that program objectives and reporting requirements are met.
Contact information:
Danny Foster
Director General
BRM Program Development
613-773-2100
Name of Horizontal Initiative: Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS)
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative: April 1, 2003
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative: March 31, 2008, extended to March 31, 2009 (Program has ended)
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $74.58 M over six years
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
Farmers and/or their spouses were offered assistance for skills development and access to training that could result in increased on-farm or off-farm income. Assistance was provided to develop an individual learning plan and 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. Financial support for training such as tuition fees for courses, supplies for courses as well as travel and accommodation was also provided. Further details.
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.
Governance Structure(s):
Program development with Renewal federal/provincial/territorial working group. Program delivery by Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), provincial governments and third-party delivery agents.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC/Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) | Innovation and Renewal | Canadian Agricultural Skills Service | $74.58 M | $12 M | $16.3 M | (1) Increased implementation by low-income farmers and farm families of skills-based income strategies
(2) Farmers express satisfaction with CASS |
(1) 65% have decided to budget for training in the future, compared to 21% in the past.
(2) 89% expressed satisfaction with CASS. |
Total $74.58 M |
Total $12 M |
Total $16.3 M |
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
Comments on Variances:
The delivery of CASS was in its fourth year in 2008-09. Increased awareness of the program, combined with the CASS cross compliance requirement under the Canadian Farm Families Options Program, resulted in higher uptake than originally anticipated for 2008-09.
Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable):
CASS was delivered through agreements with five provinces (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Prince Edward Island) and through HRSDC (Service Canada) in the remaining four provinces and the Yukon (CASS was not available in Quebec and only available on demand in Nunavut and Northwest Territories). Provinces that previously delivered the CASS program continued to do so, thereby contributing to AAFC's expected results for the program. Non-federal partners also continued to participate in the Renewal federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) working group, where program issues were addressed as the program entered its last stages. Planning and execution were done jointly (federally and provincially/territorially), so provincial and territorial results to be achieved are aligned.
Contact Information:
Johanne Métayer
Director
Renewal Division
Farm Financial Programs Branch
613-773-2006
Name of Horizontal Initiative: MOU with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on Food Safety System Recognition
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Food Safety and Food Quality
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
Original start date under Agricultural Policy Framework was April 1, 2003. The start date for this 2008-09 MOU is April 1, 2008.
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
The end date is March 31, 2009. A new four-year MOU under Growing Forward is expected to be signed during 2009-10.
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $12.4 M over six years
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
The following Food Safety System Recognition initiative will be performed by the CFIA under the MOU during 2008-09:
The System Recognition initiative will provide government recognition of on-farm and post-farm food safety systems developed by national industry organizations. The CFIA will continue the development and delivery of food safety system recognition programs and provide scientific and technical advice to support food safety system development based on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP).
The four elements of this initiative are:
Shared Outcome(s):
Governance Structure(s):
The overall administration of the MOU is delegated to the Director General, Agriculture Transformation Programs Directorate, AAFC and the Executive Director, Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate, CFIA.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Expected Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | Food Safety and Food Quality | Work performed by CFIA | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
CFIA | Food Safety and Public Health | On-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program (OFFSRP) | $10.0 M for 2003-04 to 2007-08 under APF and $2.4 M for 2008-09 under the first year (continuity) of Growing Forward | $2.4 M | $2.4 M | OFFSR Development The latter stages of the OFFSRP piloted in consultation with industry and FPT governments |
Latter stages of the recognition process were ready to pilot pending decision by FPT committees on implementation options regarding audits and assessments. |
Training to industry and government partners on details of above processes provided | Training was delayed until the above decision made. | ||||||
Implementation On-going technical review of industry-submitted generic HACCP models and producer manuals |
Technical review was completed for 1 industry-submitted generic HACCP model and producer manual, and 2 more were initiated. |
||||||
On-going technical review of industry procedures manual, management system documents and associated manuals | Technical review was completed for 1 industry-submitted management manual and associated materials. | ||||||
Post-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program (PFFSRP) | Options for a post-farm food safety recognition program developed | Options for a post-farm food safety recognition program are developed and ready for review by FPT committees and industry groups. | |||||
Scientific and Technical Support | Timely scientific and technical advice to AAFC and AAFC stakeholders provided | Timely scientific and technical advice was provided to AAFC and AAFC stakeholders. | |||||
Other Activities in support of food safety system development | Hazard Data Base (HDB) |
Hazard Data Base user acceptance data testing complete. Analysis of test results to be finalized. |
|||||
Generic Models On-farm and/or post-farm HACCP generic models for identified products developed |
Generic HACCP models for moulded chocolate and fresh alimentary paste were fully developed and released to stakeholders. |
||||||
Guidelines Reference documents for on-farm and/or post-farm that will serve as a tool for industry regarding the safety of identified products/ commodities developed |
Food Safety Practices Guidance documents for moulded chocolate and fresh alimentary paste were fully developed and released to stakeholders. |
||||||
Medicated Feeds Regulations | Medicated Feeds Regulations Regulatory text developed and regulations implemented. |
Due to changing priorities, Medicated Feeds Regulations Initiative expired on March 31, 2008 and therefore was not funded in 2008-09. Originally, $17M was allocated to this element and transferred to CFIA. |
|||||
Total $12.4M |
Total $ 2.4 M |
Total $ 2.4 M |
Comments on Variances:
Piloting of the final stages of the OFFSRP was delayed due to the competing priorities of Growing Forward and Food Safety Action Plan and re-structuring within the responsible FPT committees. User acceptance testing analysis must be finalized to complete HDB project.
Results to be achieved by non-federal partners (if applicable): Not applicable
Contact information:
Shelley Monlezun
Director
Food Safety and Traceability Programs Division
613-773-1930
Dr. Robert Charlebois
Executive Director
Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
613-773-5445
Name of Horizontal Initiative: Co-operatives Secretariat (Co-operative Development Initiative)
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative: April 1, 2003
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative: March 31, 2009 (Renewed to March 31, 2013)
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $22.0 M over six years
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. The Co-operatives Secretariat is managing the Co-operative Development Initiative (2003-09) and the Agricultural-Co-operative Development Initiative 2006-09.
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:
Governance Structure(s):
The Co-operatives Secretariat was created to improve the relationship between Canadian co-operatives and federal departments and agencies. Formal mechanisms for collaboration include the Interdepartmental Committee on Co-operatives, dialogue with provincial collaborators and sector working groups. The Co-operatives Secretariat acts as a coordinator for interaction between the government and the co-operative sector. The Secretariat is headed by a Director, and is part of the Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat within AAFC. For more details on the functions of the Secretariat, visit their website.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Expected Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC/ The Co-operatives Secretariat is liaising with key departments and agencies with legislation, policies and programs affecting co-operatives. A listing of the 17 departments is available upon request. |
Co-operative Development Initiative (CDI): - Advisory Services - Innovation & Research
Agricultural Co-operative Development Initiative |
Not applicable | $22.0 M (for fiscal years 2003-04 to 2008-09) |
$5.1 M | $5.4 M | Innovative Canadian communities benefiting from economic opportunity | Partnership with the co-op sector in CDI program delivery was enhanced by broadening services delivered by the sector. Progress was made to develop a partnership approach involving the sector and academics in building a common research agenda on co-operatives.
Under Ag-CDI, farmers and rural communities were provided with assistance to establish bio-fuel and value added agricultural projects. During the program 45 co-operatives were supported. In addition, the capacity to support the development of agricultural co-operatives was enhanced through creation of tools, learning exchange activities, and research activities which empowered farmers, agricultural stakeholders and communities. |
Total $22.0 M |
Total $5.1 M |
Total $5.4 M |
Comments on Variances: Spent $300K more than projected to enhance CDI Advisory Services
Results to be achieved by non-federal partners (if applicable): Not applicable
Contact information:
Donna Mitchell
Executive Director
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat
613-759-7113
Name of Horizontal Initiative: AAFC-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Agri-Food Specialists Positions Abroad
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Markets and International
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative: 2003-04 fiscal year
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative: March 31, 2008 (extended until March 31, 2009 while an updated MOU was drafted).
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $55.464 M
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
The aim of the Program Activity Markets and International is to contribute to the Strategic Outcome (Security of the Food System) through expanding international opportunities for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. Activities under this MOU contributed to the maintenance and development of a competitive agriculture and agri-food sector that has the necessary attributes to position itself strategically to take advantage of new market opportunities, and/or to reposition itself to protect against changing market risks.
A key objective of the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) International component was to strengthen Canada's market access and market development capacity and gain recognition for Canada's world-leading capabilities to meet the quality demands of highly segmented and increasingly competitive global markets.
This MOU established the operational principles, management practices and performance measurement criteria for the 34 agriculture and agri-food specialist positions in Canadian Embassies and High Commissions located in key export markets. The agricultural specialist's role is to enhance the delivery of services to Canadian agricultural exporters in areas such as agriculture and agri-food business development, investment promotion, market access and advocacy, and market penetration. These 34 positions were transferred to AAFC on April 1, 2008 as a result of the expiry of the MOU respecting how the two departments would manage the positions. However, the two departments saw value in renegotiating a new MOU in 2008-09 which focused on a joint, comprehensive platform to strengthen and enhance the contribution of the two departments to Canada's success in international commerce for agriculture and agri-food products and to advance the interests of Canada in the global market place. The new MOU takes into account the international component of AAFC's Growing Forward framework agreement and DFAIT's Global Commerce Strategy.
Shared Outcome(s):
Governance Structure(s): Joint Management Council of Assistant Deputy Ministers
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | Markets and International | Negotiation of a new MOU | $0 M | $0 M | $0 M | Interdepart-mental relationship and roles clarified; investment for subsequent years agreed | An updated bilateral MOU guiding the relationship and shared interests between AAFC and DFAIT was negotiated as a draft in 2008-09 and will be signed in 2009-2010. |
Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioners (formerly Agriculture and Agri-Food Specialists Abroad) program was extended by one year pending the approval of Growing Forward by the Treasury Board | $42.5 M for 2003-04 to 2007-08, and $7.5 M for a one year extension for 2008-09 |
$7.5 M | $7.5 M | Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioners deliver in-market support to Canadian exporters, contributing to market development, improved market access and promotion of the Canada brand for food and agriculture. | Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioners contributed to an increase in exports of Canadian agriculture, food and beverage products of 20%, from $35 B in 2007-08 to $42.5 B in 2008-09. |
||
DFAIT | International Commerce | Client Service Fund (CSF) | $0.464 M | $0.464 M | $0.563 M | Support initiatives related to agriculture, food and seafood sector | Local market CSF was used to leverage funds from the private sector, provinces and AAFC (amounts included above) for specific activities related to increasing exports for the sector. |
North America Partnership Program (NAPP) | $5.0 M
for 2008-09 to 2012-13 |
$1.0 M | $1.0 M | Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioners deliver in-market services to industry, and market development/ promotion and trade advocacy in United States markets | The $1.0 M was used to fund 4 positions in US missions and to conduct specific activities in US markets aimed at increasing exports to the US. | ||
Total $55.464 M | Total $8.964 M | Total $9.063 M |
Comments on Variances:
Sixty-six DFAIT Missions abroad allocated in total $0.1 M more funds under their Client Service Fund allocations to the agriculture, food and seafood sectors due to growing interest from companies (as measured by greater financial partnership in local market initiatives by companies), often resulting in a consequent changing priority for the sector in some markets abroad.
Results to be achieved by non-federal partners (if applicable): Not applicable
Contact information:
Bruce Howard
Director, Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioner Service
613-773-1571
Name of Horizontal Initiative: Farm Business Services
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative: April 1, 2003
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative: March 31, 2008, extended to March 31, 2009 (Program has ended)
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $109.0 M over six years
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
These services provided eligible farmers with access to financial consultants who helped them assess their finances and develop succession, action plans and business plans (financial, marketing, value-added). Further details can be found at the following web link.
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.
Governance Structure(s):
Program development and performance measurement by Renewal federal/provincial/territorial working group.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners |
Total Allocation (from start to end date) |
Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | Innovation and Renewal | a. Canadian Farm Business Advisory Services (CFBAS), which has two phases: | |||||
i. Farm Business Assessment (FBA) | $55.8 M over six years, 2003/04-2008/09 |
$8.8 M | $10.2 M | (1) Increased implementation by farmers of business development strategies (2) Farmers are satisfied with programs. |
(1) 85% would consider using a consultant in the future (25% were budgeting for this).
(2) 88% were satisfied with the FBA program. |
||
ii. Specialized Business Planning Services (SBPS) | $26.5 M over six years, 2003/04-2008/09 |
$3.1 M | $3.2 M | (1) Increased implementation by farmers of business development strategies (2) Farmers are satisfied with programs |
(1) 92% would consider using a consultant in the future (62% were budgeting for this).
(2) 89% were satisfied with the program. |
||
b. Planning and Assessment for Value-Added Enterprises (PAVE) | $26.7 M over six years, 2003/04-2008/09 |
$.4 M | $.4 M | (1) Increased implementation by farmers of business development strategies (2) Farmers are satisfied with programs |
(1) 91% would consider using a consultant in the future (45% were budgeting for this).
(2) 70% were satisfied with the program. |
||
Total $109 M over six years, 2003/04-2008/09 |
Total $12.3 M |
Total $13.8 M |
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
Comments on Variances:
Increased awareness of the FBA program, combined with the FBA cross compliance requirement under the Canadian Farm Families Options Program, resulted in higher uptake than originally anticipated for 2008-09 (uptake of SBPS and PAVE was similar to previous years).
Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable):
Delivery was primarily federal. Non-federal partners delivered Renewal programs where collateral agreements were signed (Quebec and the First Nations Agricultural Council of Saskatchewan Inc.). Non-federal partners participated in the Renewal federal-provincial-territorial working group, where program issues were addressed. Planning was done jointly (federally and provincially) so provincial results to be achieved do not differ.
Contact Information:
Johanne Métayer
Director
Renewal Division
Farm Financial Programs Branch
613-773-2006
Name of Horizontal Initiative: Rural Development
Name of Lead Department(s): Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Lead Department Program Activity: Rural and Co-operative Secretariats
Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative: April 1, 2003
End Date of the Horizontal Initiative: March 31, 2008, extended until March 31, 2009 (A renewed Canadian Rural Partnership was approved at the end of the year.)
Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date): $ 71.6 M over six years
Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
The Rural Secretariat, through the Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP), helps government to better understand the issues and concerns of rural Canadians and to encourage federal departments and agencies to adjust policies, programs and services to reflect the unique needs of rural communities. Through the CRP, the Government of Canada aims to enhance the quality of life for rural Canadians.
Shared Outcome(s):
The outcome is to enable rural communities to use their innovative capacity to capture the value of local amenities and achieve greater local economic competitiveness. It is based on the following six guiding principles:
Governance Structure(s):
The CRP is managed by the Rural Secretariat. It contributes to raising awareness and inclusion of rural Canada in federal policies and programs. For example:
These efforts are reinforced by Rural Teams in each province and territory comprised of federal government representatives; most teams also include members from the provincial or territorial government and/or sectoral stakeholders.
Federal Partners | Federal Partner Program Activity | Names of Programs for Federal Partners | Total Allocation (from start to end date) | Planned Spending for 2008-09 |
Actual Spending for 2008-09 |
Planned Results for 2008-09 |
Results Achieved in 2008-09 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC/Rural Secretariat
A listing of the 27 departments and agencies part of the Rural Development Network |
Rural and Co-operative Secretariats | The Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP) | $71.6 M for fiscal years 2003-04 to 2008-09 | $11.6 M | $9.9 M | Innovative Canadian communities benefiting from economic opportunity
New policies and programs that address rural issues |
The Rural Secretariat was instrumental in developing partnership projects, such as the Nunavut Economic Forum, to advance Rural Canada’s social and economic agendas. A renewed CRP was approved at the end of the year. |
Total $71.6 M |
Total $11.6 M |
Total $9.9 M |
Comments on Variances:
Spending under Grants and Contributions were $1.8 M lower than planned due to the fact that the period for program intake was shorter than expected, and that funding was limited to short term projects because of the one-year funding extension to the program.
Results to be achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable): Not applicable
Contact Information:
Donna Mitchell
Executive Director
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat
613-759-7113
AAFC's fourth Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS), Making Progress Together, can be found on AAFC's website.
1. SDS Departmental Goals: AAFC's fourth SDS presents eight outcomes (goals) to indicate what the Department planned to accomplish by the target date of 2009. These comprise the Department's Expected Results identified below.
2. Federal Sustainable Development (SD) Goal(s) including Greening Government Operations (GGO) goals: AAFC supports these priorities and contributes to the Government of Canada's long-term goals for sustainable development. Linkages are made in the details below where applicable.
3. Department's Expected Results for 2008-2009 | 4. Supporting Performance Measure(s) | 5. Achieved SDS Departmental Results for 2008-2009 |
---|---|---|
1. The Next Generation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Policy is in place and operational. | The number of new policy, programs and research initiatives that consider the three pillars of sustainable development (SD) as determined through application of the SD Test Questions. | The overall participation rate for completing the SD Test Questions, now referred to as Sustainability Questions, is 34% which has risen from 26% in 2007-2008. The Sustainability Questions are in the process of being enhanced to improve their application. |
A suite of policy, program and research activities in place to support the objectives of the next generation of agricultural policy. | Growing Forward Business Risk Management (BRM) programming was launched as of April 1, 2008. In addition, in 2008/09 FPT governments signed 12 out of 13 bilateral agreements outlining eligible programs, funding levels and performance indicators to facilitate implementation of non-BRM programming. | |
Number of stakeholders (both internal and external) from various disciplines involved in the development of the next generation of agricultural policy. | Input received directly from over 3000 stakeholders, as well as from provinces and territories and other Government of Canada departments, and through the Growing Forward Website. | |
2. Government policies, programs,
and services increase opportunities for, and mitigate barriers,
to sustainable rural community development. 4.1.1 “Communities are well positioned to advance sustainable social development.” 4.2.1 “Communities are well positioned to adapt and to maintain or generate sustainable economic activities.” |
Percentage of federal policies and programs that consider the rural perspective. | Rural Secretariat staff attended seven Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) meetings, and provided input to 48 briefing notes or MCs by applying the Rural Lens to federal policies and programs. Coordinated with 10 other departments to prepare the Canadian submission in the 17th report of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development - Rural Development. |
Number of partnership plans with key federal, provincial and territorial, and First Nation partners. | Through Rural Teams, involving federal/provincial/territorial government representatives, eleven initiatives were undertaken in support of rural community development. Example: The Northern Economic Development Conference, held in December 2008, aimed at developing working relationship with organizations who have a vested interest in the economic growth of the North. | |
Percentage of departments and agencies reached through federal engagement strategy activities including: Rural Teams, Rural Research Network Rural Development Network. | The Rural Secretariat is engaging relevant federal department and agencies through:
|
|
3. Increased value-added opportunities
for the agri-food sector from innovative use of agricultural bioresources
as a result of R&D, technology transfer, and commercialization
network activities.
At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goal - 3.2.2 “Renewable and clean energy is promoted.” 3.2.1 “Support for clean technology is provided
(such as building, transportation, and industrial processes).” |
Increased knowledge and technological advances produced by the Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program (ABIP) networks with the potential to strengthen Canada’s industrial base and generate wealth. | Initial research activities began May 2008. Networks have begun reporting knowledge and technological advances in their reports which are currently being submitted for the program to the ABIP secretariat. |
Increased number of effective networks/clusters involving Canadian-based researchers. | A total of nine new networks were approved for funding by the Minister. These nine networks have now executed Contribution Agreements, Letters of Understanding and Agency Agreements. | |
Improving transfer of knowledge, technology and expertise to organizations that can commercialize these innovations. | The execution of agreements through the fiscal year 2008-2009 allowed the nine Networks to initiate the implementation of their work plan activities. ABIP Networks are working to improve knowledge, technology, and expertise transfer via the development of individual technology management plans associated with the protection and application of intellectual property developed by ABIP networks. In addition, the Networks have begun work toward the publication of research and extension information in scientific, industry and media, presentations at conferences in related sectors, and the hiring and training of highly qualified personnel (HQPs) aimed at adding value to Canada’s capacity to deliver and implement innovation. | |
An ABIP that considers each of the three pillars of SD. | The ABIP considers the three pillars (economic, environmental and social) of SD. The economic pillar is expanded upon via the development of valuable traditional and non-traditional feedstocks, new bioproducts from agricultural feedstocks, and the creation of and connection to new and more diverse market opportunities for crop and biomass conversion products. ABIP Networks are building on the environmental pillar with research into new environmentally friendly processing techniques for whole crop utilization and decreased environmental impact of processing via co-location of processing waste streams. Finally, the ABIP program takes also into account the social pillar through research on how the science and technology developments of the networks are anticipated to support community capacity building and other quality of life improvements in Canada. | |
4. Sustainable development
is integrated into the Department's decision making and
AAFC's fourth SDS is utilized by AAFC employees and external
stakeholders.
At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goals - 4.3.1 “Canadian communities are actively engaged in sound environmental and natural resource management practices, stewardship initiatives and biodiversity conservation.” 5.2.1 “Sustainable consumption and production of natural resources is promoted.” 6.1.2 “Clear and effective governance mechanisms to integrate sustainable development into decision making (e.g. Strategic Environmental Assessment).” 6.1.1 “SDS commitments are integrated into the
key planning and reporting processes of departments and agencies.” |
Increased awareness of sustainable development within the Department | Efforts were made to increase awareness of SD through:
The review of the Sustainability Questions process with plans to enhance and improve their application. The development and delivery of an SD information session to AAFC employees. Initiating a discussion on SD among AAFC employees through the Associate Deputy Minister's blog. The discussion explored employee awareness and understanding of SD. Developing a series of articles to illustrate to AAFC employees, integration of the three pillars of Sustainable Development, and how they apply to programs and policies offered by AAFC. |
Each pillar of SD is taken into consideration together and not in isolation through the application of the SD Test Questions. | The Sustainability Questions were developed to ensure policy makers identify how their new policy or program contributes to all three pillars of SD (a stronger economy, an improved environment or enhanced health and social well-being). The Sustainability Questions are in the process of being enhanced to improve their application. | |
5. Information and Tools:
A. Environmental considerations are incorporated into the development of public policies at AAFC on the same level as economic and social considerations At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goal -
6.1.2 “Clear and effective governance mechanisms
to integrate sustainable development into decision making (e.g.
SEA).” |
Percentage of new policies, plans and programs that have gone through the SEA process. | Overall, 85 percent (up from 76 percent in 2007-2008) of the new policies, plans, and programs that required an SEA, went through the SEA process. This represents 69 percent of all MCs and 96 percent of all TB submissions. |
The results of SEAs are accurately reported on in all Memoranda to Cabinet (MCs) and Treasury Board (TB) submissions. | Eighty-five (85) percent of all new policies, plans and programs went through the SEA process and in all of these cases, the results of the SEA were accurately reported on in the MC or TB submission. | |
Increased knowledge of the SEA requirement and its application in the Department. | Knowledge of the SEA requirements and its application in the Department was increased through:
|
|
B. Models inform the ongoing policy decision making process for priority agricultural issues by providing integrated quantitative analyses of the economic and environmental impacts. At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goals - 4.2.1 “Communities are well positioned to adapt and to maintain or generate sustainable economic activities.”
6.1.2 “Clear and effective governance mechanisms
to integrate sustainable development into decision making (e.g.
SEA).” |
An improvement in the capacity to predict environmental impacts from agriculture resulting in informed decision making with respect to agricultural policies and programs that are consistent with both economic and environmental objectives. | Existing integrated economic and environmental models (both mathematical optimization programs and spreadsheet models) have been improved and new integrated models have been developed to enhance AAFC’s capacity to predict environmental impacts with respect to biofuels, land use, water, climate change and business risk management.
The Canadian Regional Agriculture Model (CRAM), which is a mathematical optimization programming model, has been enhanced to deal with biofuels and risk. A water demand module has been completed while a water supply module is being developed. |
Number of requests for integrated analyses and incorporation of results into the policy decision-making process. | As many as three specific requests have been met for analyses on a) biofuels and carbon footprint, b) climate change mitigation options, (in support of AAFC policy development) and c) environmental assessment of the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program and Production Insurance. This analysis has helped inform the decision making process as well as allowed the department to meet its legislative obligations with respect to required environmental assessment of programs. | |
The development of the integrated modeling system considers all three pillars of SD (particularly the economic and environmental pillars) | The integrated modeling system encompasses environmental indicators, economic information as well as social pillar in the form of employment and welfare measurement. | |
C. Initial research is conducted and measures are in place to determine economic values corresponding to bio-physical changes in the environment resulting from agriculture. At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goal - 4.2.1 “Communities are well positioned to adapt
and to maintain or generate sustainable economic activities.” |
Number of stakeholders (both internal and external) from various disciplines involved in the development of AAFC economic valuation studies. | A committee of academics and government officials convened in 2008 to discuss the development of valuation research at AAFC. The meeting helped inform the approach AAFC is undertaking with respect to economic valuation studies |
Increased public awareness of the need for, and the practical application of environmental valuation. | AAFC, working with local stakeholders, completed two economic valuation studies in 2008/09, one in King’s County, Nova Scotia, and one in the tributaries of the St.Lawrence River. Regional awareness was raised through AAFC’s cooperation with local stakeholders. Large samples of local residents were contacted about the importance they place on environmental improvements. | |
Number of estimated economic values assigned to environmental effects of specific agricultural practices at specific locations in Canada. | AAFC completed two studies that measured the value to local residents of improved water quality, biodiversity and other attributes through changes in agricultural practices. The Annapolis study estimated the value of four different sets of improvements, while the St. Lawrence study measured the value of three sets of improvements. Both studies measured the variation in value among different segments of the population. | |
D. A suite of social indicators
is in place to help monitor and assess trends of social issues
affecting the agriculture sector and to inform decision making.
At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goals - 4.1.1 “Communities are well positioned to advance sustainable social development.” 6.1.2 “Clear and effective governance mechanisms to integrate sustainable development into decision making (e.g. SEA).” |
The successful development of a defined social dimension of sustainable agriculture. | Given AAFC's focus on economic and environmental performance, the focus of the social indicators was to identify social factors that influence innovation.
On behalf of AAFC, a report was written and published by International Institute for Sustainable Development in 2008. The report identified farmer’s cultural and social capital as being highly correlated with innovation and can be used in program development which targets the uptake of environmental BMPs. |
Number of links established between social issues affecting the agriculture sector and related economic and environmental issues. | Progress is being made on understanding factors influencing innovation and adoption of environmental beneficial management practices, including social factors. Work is underway to link Ag Census social variables data with Farm Environmental Management Survey data and further explore causal linkages between social factors and adoption of beneficial management practices. The final report will be published in the 2009/10 fiscal year. | |
Number of methods available for sharing information on social issues affecting the agriculture sector. | AAFC has developed methods such as social networking and learning opportunities to link innovation, economic and environmental performance.
To share this information, AAFC held a seminar in 2008 and IISD published the material. |
|
6. Research: To increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production, and enhance the synergy between agriculture and the environment. At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goal - 3.2.1 “Support for clean technology is provided (such as building, transportation, and industrial processes).” |
Improved communication between researchers, policy makers and producers, by demonstrating an increase in the use of AAFC’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) calculator for evaluating innovative technologies. | AAFC’s GHG calculator is being used increasingly to identify ways of reducing emissions. For example, the software is being used in a national effort, coordinated by the Soil Conservation Council of Canada (SCCC), to disseminate information on GHG mitigation to Canadians. |
Number of confirmed contributions of the program to various offset system pilot projects. | AAFC scientists have had a major role in providing scientific advice for developing protocols for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture. These protocols are intended to help farmers obtain Carbon or GHG credits for adopting beneficial management practices. Five of these protocols, which have been funded by the Alberta government, have recently been approved (3 beef protocols, one on biofuels and one on energy efficiency of barns). Four other protocols are under development: A dairy protocol funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, a nitrous oxide reduction protocol funded by the Canadian fertilizer Institute and reduced summerfallow and beef residual feed intake protocols funded by the Alberta government. (http://www.carbonoffsetsolutions.ca/offsetprotocols/ finalAB.html). | |
Enhanced integration of the three pillars of SD by identifying and promoting farming practices that consider all three pillars of SD. | Management practices such as no-till, reduced summer fallowing and more perennial forages have been identified and promoted as a beneficial management practice that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. | |
7. Work with the sector to
apply and perfect integrated approaches:
A. The development of the National Ecological Goods and Services (EG&S) Policy Framework benefits from research gathered through EG&S policy pilot projects and through other research initiatives. At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goals - 4.2.1 “Communities are well positioned to adapt and to maintain or generate sustainable economic activities.” 4.3.1 “Canadian communities are actively engaged in sound environmental management practices, stewardship initiatives and biodiversity conservation.” 5.2.1 “Sustainable consumption and production of natural resources is promoted.” 5.3.1 “Environmentally sustainable use of natural resources is promoted.” |
An EG&S policy framework that is science-based will have measurable outcomes for evaluation. | AAFC’s EG&S policy framework was approved in 2006. Eight EG&S pilot projects were completed in 2008/09, each providing environmental benefits and insights into future EG&S policy design. The environmental benefits of the EG&S policies tested in the pilot projects were measured in biophysical terms, such as adoption rates for Beneficial Management Practices and improvements in water quality. |
An EG&S policy framework that considers each of the three pillars of SD, through application of the SD Test Questions, is in place. | An EG&S policy framework was developed and implemented in 2006. The framework adheres to the three pillars of the SD as demonstrated through the implementation of pilot projects. EG&S policy research shows that potential policy options will: improve the environment through new beneficial management practices; provide the agricultural sector with potential economic benefits through market-based instruments such as permit-trading; and in turn, communities will be well positioned to adapt and generate sustainable economic activities. | |
B. Increased adoption of and
support for applying an Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM) approach to watershed planning and management activities
that will improve the protection of water quality from agriculture
impacts, secure water supplies for agricultural needs, and consider
the three elements of sustainable development.
At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goals - 1.3.2 “Knowledge of water resources is increased.” 1.2.1 “Water efficiency and sustainable water use is improved.” |
Percentage of transferable tools, knowledge activities and instruments that support IWRM and decision making. | Progress on drafts of new web-based tools (e.g. National Water Atlas (NWA), Rural Water Resources Planner) which provide water resource information for decision-making at the watershed level.
A prototype of the NWA is available through GCPedia and draft products are being developed. Planning is under development to incorporate the Rural Water Resources Planner into NLWIS. |
Percentage of watershed planning and management activities that apply the IWRM approach to managing resources in watersheds. | 50% of provinces are now formally using IWRM approaches in watershed planning and management activities.
On-going development and implementation of Integrated Watershed Management Plans in 21 priority watersheds in agricultural areas in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for which AAFC provided technical support and decision-making capacity. Co-ordinated Ag-Water Forum III which facilitated networking and information sharing on climate change adaptation between federal and provincial departments and the agriculture sector in Saskatoon, SK on Feb 18 & 19, 2009. |
|
Percentage of partners and watersheds with capacity-building or decision-making tools, plans and instruments that consider the three elements of sustainable development. | Approximately 25% of partners and watersheds are using tools, plans and instruments that consider the three elements of sustainable development – economic, environmental and social (health, education and fostering the values and principles of resource stewardship).
Group farm plans, developed using watershed management activities, contributed to the implementation of over 1200 additional Beneficial Management Practices for agri-environmental improvements. Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Initiative and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement benefit from AAFC’s collaboration with federal and provincial partners. Four working groups were established by the federal Interdepartmental Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Water Committee on Water Policy to draft policy papers on the following priority topics - a) Contaminants, b) Excess Nutrients c) Assessing Water Availability and d) Reducing Water Use / Water Efficiency. Initial drafts of two policy papers have been prepared and circulated for review. Technical information and financial capacity was provided to the Prairie Provinces Water Board, Red River Basin Commission, International Water Institute and the International Joint Commission to enhance basin and watershed-based decisions regarding flooding, drainage and drought issues in agricultural areas. |
|
8. Programs:
A. To develop new co-operatives that respond to the needs of citizens, and that fall into areas of federal priority. At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goal - 4.2.1 “Communities are well positioned to adapt and to maintain or generate sustainable economic activities.” |
Percentage of co-operatives initiated in new and emerging areas of the economy. | 20% of Co-operative development (CDI) projects (08/09) were initiated in new and emerging areas of the economy. |
Percentage of new co-operatives in areas of federal priority. | 100% of CDI projects (08/09) are within federal CDI priorities. | |
Percentage of new co-op funded projects within priority areas that integrate the three pillars of SD. | 100% of CDI projects (08/09) meet at least one pillar of SD; 14% integrate all three pillars of SD. | |
B. Low-income farm families
have found ways to increase their family incomes.
At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goal - 4.2.1 “Communities are well positioned to adapt and to maintain or generate sustainable economic activities.” |
Increased on-or off-farm income for farm families. | 55% of Farm Business Assessment respondents indicated the program helped them reach their most important goal and for 48% of respondents, their most important goal was to be more profitable.
80% of Canadian Agricultural Skills Service respondents indicated the program helped them reach their most important goal and for 60% of respondents, their most important goal was financial. 49% of Farm Business Assessment respondents indicated that the program had a positive impact on their income. 53% of Canadian Agricultural Skills Service respondents indicated that the program has a positive effect on their income. |
Increased skills of farmers and farm families. | The business management knowledge and skills of farmers and farm families are being increased through improved access to business management tools, information and services. | |
Enhanced integration of the three pillars of SD (particularly the social and economic pillars). | The integration of the three pillars of SD is enhanced as farmers’ social, economic, and environmental circumstances and goals are considered in the provision of business management tools, information and services through such programs as the Canadian Farm Business Advisory Services. | |
Greening Government Operations: As part of their SDS commitments, and consistent with the Policy on Green Procurement, departments and agencies are required to set 4 green procurement targets over three years, one of which is training. | ||
1. A 10% per year increase in the number of duplex printers in operation across the department. | Number and % of additional duplex printers in use | AAFC has 1005 printers enabled for duplex printing. Of the 1005 enabled printers, approximately 300 are set as default for duplex, compared to only 130 last year, an increase of over 100%. |
2. Reduction of 3% per year in paper consumption at the NCR Headquarters facility. | Change in volume of paper used compared to baseline | AAFC has met its reduction target in the NCR with a decrease in paper consumption (# of sheets) by 24% since the 2005 baseline year. |
3. Inclusion of green technical specifications where possible in building cleaning contracts for facilities, e.g. use of green products/practices. | Number of contracts considered and number where green specifications included | All of the submissions for janitorial related contracts incorporated the use of green products and practices (i.e. 100% of major contracts). Seven contracts were awarded. |
4. 100% of new materiel managers and procurement officers receive procurement training, either through the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Professional Development and Certification program or other green procurement course offerings. Note: AAFC has already trained existing contracting staff as of 2005. | Number and % of staff who have received training | Ongoing provision of green procurement training to the procurement community within AAFC, either through the TBS Professional Development and Certification Program or other green procurement course offerings. Benefits: Improved awareness and application of the green procurement policy. Through this awareness and knowledge, the procurement community can integrate green procurement practices in their areas of responsibility. AAFC is ensuring that procurement officers and functional specialists receive all mandatory training which includes green procurement elements. AAFC has registered 110 staff as procurement, material management and real property (PMMRP) functional specialists. Of these individuals, 43% have completed all training requirements while 57% are registered and will attempt to complete all their mandatory courses, depending on availability. (Most require only 1 or 2 courses). All overview courses became available on-line in 2008-2009 free of charge making them more accessible to employees. |
Green Fleet All gasoline purchased for federal road vehicles to be ethanol blended, where available by 2010 |
% of AAFC road vehicles that are ethanol blend-compatible | AAFC has a total of 367 road vehicles representing 28.4% of our total fleet which are ethanol compatible. |
By 2010, reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle kilometre of the departmental fleet to 15% below 2002-2003 levels. | Estimated annual average GHG emissions per vehicle/kilometre | AAFC has not completed the calculations at this point in time since it is not cost effective to undertake this annually. AAFC is committed to undertaking this analysis in 2009 at the end of our SDS commitment and to report accordingly. In the interim, a number of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emission from vehicles have been taken: use of E-5 and E-10 fuel is being promoted as is fuel-efficient driving techniques, and newly purchased fuel-efficient vehicles are replacing older less fuel efficient models. |
Energy Reduction of the department’s overall greenhouse gas emission levels accounted for by operations to 8.5% below 1998 business-as-usual levels by 2010. |
AAFC’s annual greenhouse gas emission level, calculated using recorded quantities of annual energies consumed within AAFC buildings and fleet. | GHG emissions at AAFC continue to decrease. Based on a combination of estimated and actual data, 2007/08 saw an annual GHG emission decrease of 2.5%. This means, as of 2007/08, AAFC is 7.7% below the target reduction level for building related GHG. |
Contaminated Sites Completion of third-party Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) by 2009 at all AAFC research properties with potential for contamination. |
Number and % of third-party Phase I ESAs completed at research properties with potential for contamination per approved plan. | Goal achieved. Third-party Phase I ESAs at all research properties with the potential for contamination have been completed by the target date of 2009 (100%). |
Halocarbon Management Up-to-date inventory of halocarbon equipment and refrigerants. |
Inventory verified and updated each year. | 90% of the research sites have completed their inventory. There are a limited number of outbuildings that have not been captured for fridges and small appliances due to extremely low volume. |
Halocarbon management and compliance program delivered. | Plan delivered per schedule each year (reporting of releases, site visit reports and follow-up annual report). | Two formal reminders were issued to all AAFC sites regarding reporting of releases and reporting of releases twice annually to Environment Canada on time per regulations.
Two Working group meetings were held as per the annual request for halocarbon releases and biannual request for leak testing and accuracy verification of inventory. In addition, the revised Halocarbon Management Digest (a desk manual for local management of halocarbons per regulations in October 2008) was published. |
Species at Risk Assessment of research and rangeland sites for potential or actual presence of species at risk (SAR) and SAR habitat by 2009. |
Number and % of Community Pasture SAR and SAR habitat assessments completed. | Several community pastures were surveyed
by outside organizations, principally by Environment Canada, in
2008-2009 for specific SAR, bringing the total of surveyed pastures
to 51of 85 (60%). Most of the remaining 34 pastures all have the
potential to support grassland bird Species at Risk and will be
investigated in future years. A field survey for plant SAR was conducted at AAFC Frelighsburg (QC). A desktop SAR analysis was completed for three BC sites (Agassiz, Kamloops and Pass Lake). This brings the overall assessment of AAFC research sites that have sufficient potential wildlife habitat to support SAR to 100%. However, as a follow-up to the desktop assessments, field surveys are required to confirm the presence of SAR at the three BC sites identified above. |
Completion of a management plan for each research site with high SAR/SAR habitat potential by 2009. | Number and % of management plans completed. | A SAR management plan was developed for AAFC’s Frelighsburg (QC) research sub-station site, bringing the total of management plans to 3. Three other sites with a high potential to support SAR remain outstanding but cannot be completed until field surveys have been completed (2009-2010). Overall percentage complete: 50% |
Water Quality Implementation of a departmental potable water quality management plan by 2009. |
Number and % of sites with a potable water quality management plan in place. | AAFC has a departmental potable water management plan and 100% of AAFC-owned facilities have site specific potable water management plans. Implementation of site specific water quality management plans are occurring and are at various stages. Full implementation will be completed as financial and human resources allow the completion of sanitary surveys for each site. |
Has the department incorporated environmental performance considerations in its procurement decision-making processes?
Yes
Summary of initiatives to incorporate environmental performance considerations in procurement decision-making processes:
Green Procurement has been a focus of federal greening efforts as reflected in the Green Procurement Policy, based on the approach that life-cycle management of assets begins with procurement. Integrating environmental performance into planning, acquisition, use and disposal can improve the purchasing of green products, reduce the in-use costs and impact, and ensure disposal is in accordance with environmental standards. Purchasing greener products, whether more energy efficient, less harmful or containing a higher percentage of recycled material, can make a significant impact. The government-wide guidance document on greening operations had specific suggestions for green procurement, green fleet and greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. In support of the environmentally focused efforts being made by the department and the federal government as a whole, AAFC has placed significant focus on the need to "green" its departmental operations where possible. The department continues to explore greener options related to vehicle acquisition processeses, and has increased the number of ethonol blend rated and hybrid vehicles in the department's fleet. The departmental Procurement Review Board reviews all significant procurement activities and strives to incorporate environmental performance considerations where practical and feasible. The department also continues to educate clients on the importance of incorporating green elements into procurement requirements where feasible. For example, AAFC only approves a major cleaning-services contract if the client incorporates green initiatives into the Request for Proposal. The department is also actively engaged in seeking a means to promote and make mandatory the use of duplex printing to decrease paper consumption; it also considers duplex capability in its acquisition plans.
Results achieved:
AAFC has been successful in incorporating green elements into the procurement approval process. AAFC awarded seven contracts for cleaning services in 2008-09 (total value of $5.3 million), all of which incorporated the use of green products and practices where feasible.
Contributions to facilitate government-wide implementation of green procurement:
AAFC strives to share any success stories with other departments and welcomes any best practices that have been established. Members of the Asset Management Team attend various government-wide working groups and encourage government-wide implementation.
Green Procurement Targets
Has the department established green procurement targets?
Yes
Are these green procurement targets the same as those identified in your Sustainable Development Strategy?
Yes
Summary of green procurement targets:
AAFC has identified four green procurement targets, which are included in its Sustainable Development Strategy:
Benefits: Improved awareness and application of the Green Procurement Policy. Through this awareness and knowledge, the procurement community can integrate green procurement practices in their areas of responsibility.
Benefits: Reduced paper usage has a direct and positive impact on the environment through energy savings and less waste.
Benefits: Increased use of green products and practices has a direct and positive impact on the environment.
Benefits: Assist the department in its goal to decrease paper consumption.
Results achieved:
AAFC has registered 110 staff as PMMRP (procurement, materiel management, real property) functional specialists. Of these individuals, 43 per cent have completed all training requirements, while 57 per cent require only one or two courses.
AAFC has met its paper-use reduction target with a decrease in paper consumption (# of sheets) by 24 per cent since the 2005 baseline year.
AAFC awarded seven contracts for cleaning services in 2008-09; all of which incorporated the use of green products and practices where feasible.
AAFC has 1005 printers enabled for duplex printing. AAFC is currently exploring the feasibility of setting the majority of its duplex printers to default for this function.
The SCAAF requested a comprehensive Government Response to its report entitled Growing Forward which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 29, 2008. The Government Response was tabled on July 16, 2008.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada launched programs, such as the ecoAgriculture Biofuels Capital (ecoABC) Initiative and the Agri-Opportunities Program, that address a recommendation for the federal government to increase funding for agricultural research and innovation activities. Several Government initiatives address another recommendation by the Committee to bring a marketing perspective to the environmental component of Growing Forward. They include the work of federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) governments with Canadian businesses to position their products better in key markets through the Brand Canada strategy as well as the Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food Program, which assists industry in measuring and marketing the environmental attributes of Canadian agricultural products. Also, to ensure a successful implementation of non-Business Risk Management programs, the Government has proposed that efforts be made to strengthen industry-led partnerships that is a key focus of the science and innovation-related initiatives proposed under the Growing Forward policy framework.
The Committee also requested a comprehensive Government Response to its report entitled Study on the Collapse of the Beef and Pork Sector Revenues which was tabled in the House of Commons in December 2007. The Government Response was tabled on April 10, 2008.
To deal with the short-term liquidity issues and with immediate cash flow needs, FPT Ministers of Agriculture announced the first stage in a national action plan to help with the serious pressures faced by Canada's cattle and hog producers which would provide cattle and hog producers with accelerated access to the new suite of Business Risk Management programs. Additional assistance included amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Products Act that would provide producers with easier access to immediate cash flow.
In response to a recommendation that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food conduct a complete review of regulatory measures in addressing Canada's competitiveness in the meat industry, one of many initiatives was a joint Industry-Government Livestock Task Team that was struck in October 2007 to address challenges faced by the beef and pork sectors.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts requested a comprehensive Government Response to its report entitled Chapter 4, Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada of the May 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 2009. The Government Response was tabled on July 22, 2009.
The Office of the Auditor General's (OAG) audit chapter focused on how well AAFC processes Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program applications and how it meets the monitoring requirements of the federal-provincial-territorial agreements and measures. The Standing Committee held one meeting on April 1, 2008 to examine this chapter where the Auditor General's office and the DM of AAFC appeared.
The Department will report through its annual Departmental Performance Report on the suite of Business Risk Management programs under Growing Forward; as part of its performance framework, AAFC has developed a performance measurement strategy for CAIS successor programs; AAFC is establishing realistic service standards for processing farm income support program applications and has also acted to address conflict of interest concerns related to the CAIS program and to strengthen its values and ethics program.
Chapter 3 of the December 2008 CESD Report related to Managing Environmental Programming at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The overall audit objective was to determine whether AAFC could demonstrate that it was managing the Environment Chapter of the Agricultural Policy Framework to achieve its environmentally sustainable agriculture objectives. The audit covered five contribution programs: Environmental Farm Plan (EFP); National Farm Stewardship Program (NFSP); Greencover Canada Program; National Water Supply Expansion Program (NWSEP); and Environmental Technology Assessment for Agriculture (ETAA) and a major Crown project: National Land and Water Service Information Service (NLWIS).
AAFC agreed with the Auditor General's recommendations and is taking action to address the recommendations. The detailed December 2009 report and a listing of recommendations with departmental responses can be found on the Auditor General's website.
The OAG completed audits on the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) Program for the years ending March 31, 2004 to March 31, 2008. The objective of these audits was to provide independent opinions "on whether the final statements have been fairly presented, in all material respects, in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles". The audit reports contained no recommendations.1
The March 2009 report covers OCOL's audit of AAFC that was carried out between November 2006 and November 2007. The audit assessed the services offered in both official languages by AAFC's designated bilingual offices. The audit aimed to examine the management framework and mechanisms implemented by the Department to fulfill its obligations in this regard, pursuant to the Official Languages Act. The department agreed with the recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them. The report and departmental responses can be found on OCOL's website.
1Please note that the NISA audits will not be posted on the OAG website.
Following is a list of key internal audits that pertain to the department's work during the reporting period, including electronic links to completed internal audits, where available.
Name of Internal Audit | Audit Type | Status | Completion Date | Electronic Link to Report |
---|---|---|---|---|
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program (CAIS) | Transfer Payment | Completed | April 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234816387758&lang=eng |
National Land & Water Information Service (NLWIS) System Under Development | System Under Development | Completed | October 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1233606529174&lang=eng |
Greencover Canada Program | Control Framework | Completed | June 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234817744362&lang=eng |
Management of Federal/Provincial Agreements for the Delivery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) | Transfer Payment | Completed | June 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234818543627&lang=eng |
Farm Income Payment Program (FIPP) Direct Payment | Transfer Payment | Completed | October 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234381558869&lang=eng |
Farm Income Payment Program (FIPP) General Payment | Transfer Payment | Completed | October 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234380698498&lang=eng |
Grains & Oilseeds Payment Program (GOPP) | Transfer Payment | Completed | October 2008 | http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234381202793&lang=eng |
Community Pasture Program (CPP) | Management Control Framework | In progress | FY 2009-10 | Not available yet |
Privacy Act | Compliance | In progress | FY 2010-11 | Not available yet |
Integrated Services Function at Research Centres | Compliance | In progress | FY 2009-10 | Not available yet |
Note: Some audits originally planned for 2008-09 were cancelled because they had not been identified through a risk-based planning process, and a risk-based planning process completed in spring 2008 did not identify as them as priorities. Audit work then focused on projects identified in the Risk Base Audit Plan 2008-09 to 2010-11. The discontinued audit projects were the following: Follow-up Audit of Information Security; Official Languages Follow-up Assessment; Temporary Help Services; Follow-up audit of Pay and Benefits; Promotional Activities; Compliance to Network Wireless Access Policy; Section 33 Financial Administration Act Processes and Control; and Management of Capital Assets.
Following is a list of all evaluations that pertain to the department’s work during the reporting period, including the program activity, if applicable, the program activity to which the evaluation was applied. Electronic links are only provided where an evaluation report has been approved by the departmental Evaluation Committee.
Name of Internal Audit/Evaluation |
Program Activity | Evaluation Type | Status | Completion Date | Electronic Link to Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Innovation and Renewal | Transfer Payment | Reporting | June 2009 | |
Canadian Agricultural and Food International (CAFI) Program | Markets and International | Transfer Payment | Cancelled1 | n/a | |
Office of Conflict Resolution | Internal Service | Senior management request | Completed | June 2009 | |
Interdepartmental APF Memorandum of Understanding with Health Canada | Food Safety and Food Quality, and Environment | Transfer Payment | Led by Health Canada2 | tbd | |
Canadian Agriculture Skill Service (CASS) | Innovation and Renewal | Transfer Payment | Cancelled3 | n/a | |
Value Chain Round Table | Markets and International | Senior Mgt. Request | Postponed4 | n/a | |
Renewal Programs Undertaken by National Organizations | Innovation and Renewal | Transfer Payment | In progress | March 2010 | |
National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI) | Environment | Transfer Payment | Led by Environment Canada5 | July 2009 | |
Business Risk Management (BRM) Ad Hoc Assistance Program | Business Risk Management | Transfer Payment | Cancelled6 | n/a | |
Science Program | Food Safety and Food Quality, Environment, and Innovation and Renewal | Governance | In progress | March 2010 |
1As CAFI was replaced by a program in support of Market Information and Export Capacity Building, plans for its evaluation were discontinued. The replacement program, part of the Growing Forward initiative, will be evaluated in 2012-13.
2Health Canada has taken the lead for this evaluation as the department responsible for its delivery (AAFC funding is provided by Memorandum of Understanding).
3Plans for this evaluation were discontinued when the program expired.
4This evaluation was re-scheduled for 2012-13; it will be covered in a cluster evaluation of sector competitiveness programs.
5Environment Canada has taken responsibility for this evaluation.
6Plans for this evaluation were discontinued when BRM Ad Hoc programs expired.