This page has been archived.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)
Respendable Revenue | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
($ millions) | 2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | |||
Actual Revenue | Actual Revenue | Main Estimates | Planned Revenue | Authorities | Actual Revenue | |
Business Risk Management | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | - | 0.0 | - | - | - | - |
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) - Admin. Fees | 4.7 | 4.4 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.8 |
Total – Business Risk Management | 4.7 | 4.4 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.8 |
Food Safety and Food Quality | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.1 |
Total – Food Safety and Food Quality | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.1 |
Markets and International | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | - | 0.0 | - | - | - | - |
Total – Markets and International | - | 0.0 | - | - | - | - |
Environment | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | - | 0.7 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 0.1 |
Community Pastures | 12.9 | 17.0 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
Total – Environment | 12.9 | 17.7 | 23.5 | 23.5 | 23.5 | 18.1 |
Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Collaborative research agreements and research services | 2.6 | 5.1 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 9.8 |
Total – Innovation and Renewal | 2.6 | 5.1 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 9.8 |
Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency | ||||||
Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency Revolving Fund | 13.8 | 14.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 13.9 |
Total – Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency | 13.8 | 14.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 13.9 |
Total Respendable Revenue | 34.1 | 42.1 | 60.5 | 60.5 | 60.5 | 45.7 |
Non-Respendable Revenue | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
($ millions) | 2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | |||
Actual Revenue | Actual Revenue | Main Estimates | Planned Revenue | Authorities | Actual Revenue | |
Business Risk Management | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 3.7 | 0.9 | N/A | 1.3 | N/A | 0.4 |
Service and Service Fees | 1.0 | 0.9 | N/A | 0.8 | N/A | 0.9 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.4 | 0.5 | N/A | 0.4 | N/A | 0.3 |
Return on Investments | 1.4 | 1.5 | N/A | 0.4 | N/A | 1.0 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.6 | 0.3 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.5 |
Other non-tax revenues | 29.1 | 47.9 | N/A | 1.9 | N/A | 14.3 |
Total Business Risk Management | 36.2 | 52.0 | N/A | 4.9 | N/A | 17.4 |
Food Safety and Food Quality | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.1 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 0.0 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.3 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.3 | 0.3 | N/A | 0.4 | N/A | 0.4 |
Return on Investments | 0.5 | 0.6 | N/A | 0.2 | N/A | 0.5 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.2 | 0.1 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.2 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.0 | 0.7 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 0.7 |
Total Food Safety and Food Quality | 1.3 | 1.7 | N/A | 1.6 | N/A | 1.9 |
Markets and International | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.3 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.5 | N/A | 0.4 |
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 | 0.2 |
Return on Investments | 0.8 | 1.1 | N/A | 0.5 | N/A | 1.0 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.4 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.0 | 0.9 | N/A | 0.5 | N/A | 2.9 |
Total Markets and International | 1.4 | 2.3 | N/A | 1.7 | N/A | 4.5 |
Environment | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.3 | 0.2 | N/A | 1.4 | N/A | 0.3 |
Service and Service Fees | (0.0) | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.5 | 0.9 | N/A | 0.9 | N/A | 0.8 |
Return on Investments | 2.0 | 3.0 | N/A | 1.2 | N/A | 2.6 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 0.6 | 0.5 | N/A | 0.6 | N/A | 0.6 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.1 | 2.2 | N/A | 1.3 | N/A | 3.2 |
Total Environment | 3.4 | 6.9 | N/A | 5.3 | N/A | 7.7 |
Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.4 | 0.1 | N/A | 1.2 | N/A | 0.4 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | 0.6 | 5.1 | N/A | 4.6 | N/A | 4.5 |
Return on Investments | 2.3 | 2.6 | N/A | 1.1 | N/A | 2.3 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | 6.1 | 1.8 | N/A | 1.7 | N/A | 2.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.1 | 2.0 | N/A | 1.1 | N/A | 2.9 |
Total Innovation and Renewal | 9.4 | 11.7 | N/A | 9.8 | N/A | 12.1 |
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | 0.0 | 0.0 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.0 |
Service and Service Fees | 0.0 | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Return on Investments | - | - | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.2 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | 0.0 | 0.1 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.3 |
Total Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats | 0.0 | 0.1 | N/A | 0.3 | N/A | 0.6 |
National Farm Products Council | ||||||
Refund of Previous Years' Expenditures | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Service and Service Fees | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Privileges, Licences and Permits | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Return on Investments | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Proceeds from Sales of Crown Assets | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Other non-tax revenues | - | - | N/A | 0.0 | N/A | 0.0 |
Total National Farm Products Council | - | 0.0 | N/A | 0.1 | N/A | 0.1 |
Total Non-Respendable Revenue | 51.7 | 74.7 | N/A | 23.7 | N/A | 44.3 |
Total Respendable and Non-Respendable Revenue | 85.7 | 116.8 | 60.5 | 84.2 | 60.5 | 89.9 |
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) 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. Respendable revenues have increased mainly due to revenue collected under the collaborative research agreements and research services.
Non-respendable revenues include such items as refunds of previous years' expenditures, proceeds from the sales of Crown Assets, privileges, licenses and permits. Non-respendable revenues are lower this year mainly due to the fact that adjustments to prior year's payables were less in 2007-08 than in 2006-07.
The figures in the above tables have been rounded to the nearest millions of dollars. 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.
Statement of Operations | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | ||||
($ millions) | Actual | Actual | Main Estimates |
Planned | Authorized | Actual |
Respendable Revenue | 13.9 | 13.8 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 13.9 |
Expenses | ||||||
Operating: | ||||||
Salaries and employee benefits | 5.9 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
Depreciation | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
Administrative and support services | 8.7 | 8.1 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.1 |
Utilities, materials and supplies | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
Total Operating | 15.0 | 14.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 13.0 |
Surplus (Deficit) | (1.1) | (0.3) | - | - | - | 0.8 |
Statement of Cash Flows | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | ||||
($ millions) | Actual | Actual | Main Estimates |
Planned | Authorized | Actual |
Surplus (Deficit) | (1.1) | (0.3) | - | - | - | 0.8 |
Add non-cash items: | ||||||
Depreciation/amortisation | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
Other | (0.1) | 0.9 | - | - | - | (0.0) |
Investing activities: | ||||||
Acquisition of depreciable assets | (0.1) | (0.0) | (0.1) | (0.1) | (0.1) | (0.0) |
Cash surplus (requirement) | (1.2) | 0.8 | - | - | - | 0.9 |
Projected Use of Authority | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | ||||
($ millions) | Actual | Actual | Main Estimates |
Planned | Authorized | Actual |
Authority(1) | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Drawdown: | ||||||
Balance as at April 1 | 1.1 | (0.1) | - | - | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Projected Surplus (Drawdown) | (1.2) | 0.8 | - | - | - | 0.9 |
Total Drawdown | (0.1) | 0.7 | - | - | 0.7 | 1.6 |
Projected Balance at March 31 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
Notes:
(1) $2 million is the maximum amount that may be drawn down from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) at any time.
The figures in the above tables have been rounded to the nearest millions of dollars. 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. | 2007-08 | Planning Years | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
User Fee | Fee Type | Fee Setting Authority | Date Last Modified (B) | Forecast Revenue ($000) | Actual Revenue ($000) | Full Cost ($000) | Performance Standard | Performance Results | Fiscal Year | Forecast Revenue ($000) | Estimated Full Cost ($000) |
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act(FIMCLA) Registration Fees | R | FIMCLA Regulations | May 31, 1999 | 495.0 | 602.0 | 1,496.0 | Loans from lenders registered within 15 business days of receipt. Target is 90%. | 100% of loans were registered within 15 business days of receipt. | 2008-09 | 671.0 | 1,652.0 |
2009-10 | n/a | n/a | |||||||||
2010-11 | n/a | n/a | |||||||||
Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act (ATIA)(2) | O | Access to Information Act | 1992 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 738.4 |
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.
The Access to Information Act provides fuller details. |
Statutory deadlines met 94.3 % of the time | 2008-09 | 2.5 | 950.0 |
2009-10 | 2.5 | 950.0 | |||||||||
2010-11 | 2.5 | 950.0 | |||||||||
2007-2008 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | 495.0 | 602.0 | 1,496.0 | |||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Service | 2.5 | 2.5 | 738.4 | ||||||||
Total | 497.5 | 604.5 | 2,234.4 | ||||||||
2008-2009 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | 671.0 | 1,652.0 | ||||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Service | 2.5 | 950.0 | |||||||||
Total | 673.5 | 2,602.0 | |||||||||
2009-2010 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | n/a | n/a | ||||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Service | 2.5 | 961.0 | |||||||||
Total | 2.5 | 950.0 | |||||||||
2010-2011 | Sub-total (R) Regulatory Service | n/a | n/a | ||||||||
Sub-total (O) Other Products and Service | 2.5 | 950.0 | |||||||||
Total | 2.5 | 950.0 |
B. Date Last Modified: N/A
C. Other Information:
(1) The DPR instructions advised that this table be used only for revenues under the User Fee Act. The preliminary advice from our legal counsel indicated that only the FIMCLA program as well as the fees charged under ATIA are subject to the User Fee Act.
(2) It is the Department's practice to waive fees where the total owing per request amounts to less than $25.
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 Result | 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. | Although stakeholders were not consulted in the past, this will be done in 2008-09 for the establishment of the Performance Standard as well as for stakeholder satisfaction of the Performance Results |
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 94.3% 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. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-1/index.html | |||
Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) 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. Program year delivery occurs in the year following an economic event. The 2007 tax/program year final performance results related to delivery of ensuing payments to producers will not be available until the 2008/09 fiscal year, once the 2007 tax/program year is complete and applications are received. Therefore, results achieved are reported for the 2006 program year. |
As of July 30, 2007, where Canada delivers, all 2006 program year Interim application processing was complete, 77.5% of applications received were processed within the 30 day standard.
As of March 31, 2008, where Canada delivers 91.76% of the 2006 program year final applications were processing complete, 47% were processed within the 75 day standard. Complete information has not been received from other delivery agents to calculate an accurate National standard. The Administration has made steady progress on service standard performance from 2004 to 2005 (from 26 percent within standard to 38 percent), and this trend continued into 2006 CAIS processing. The Administration anticipates continuing these trends through 2007 application processing, which is currently underway. |
The ACS fee is established by Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) agreement.
The CAIS program service standards are communicated to producers through industry advisories and toll free speaking points. The Administration is working with provincial partners to meet the 75 day standard on a target of 75% of 2007 files. While this target has not been met in previous years, earlier system releases and preparation for 2007 processing will enable better performance for the program year. |
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 |
2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Main Estimates |
Planned Spending |
Authorities | Actual Spending | ||
Ontario (Ottawa), Skyline Campus 3 (Project Close Out Phase) |
14.1 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
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)4 |
125.0 | 6.5 | 3.8 | - | - | 16.2 | 5.0 |
Total Business Risk Management | 125.0 | 6.5 | 3.8 | - | - | 16.2 | 5.0 |
Environment | |||||||
Saskatchewan (Swift Current), Duncairn Dam/Water Infrastructure Upgrades (Project Close Out Phase)4 |
10.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | - | - | 0.0 | 0.0 |
National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS) (Project Definition Phase) |
100.1 | 14.9 | 21.3 | 28.3 | 28.3 | 25.3 | 25.3 |
Saskatchewan (Maple Creek), Junction Dam Rehabilitation (Project Construction Phase) |
7.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 3.9 |
Manitoba (Winnipeg), St.Boniface General Hospital (Project Close Out Phase) |
5.7 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Total Environment | 123.1 | 17.9 | 24.4 | 35.2 | 35.2 | 29.8 | 29.8 |
Innovation and Renewal | |||||||
Quebec (Lennoxville), Dairy Research Facility (Initial Planning and Identification Phase)5 |
10.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Ontario (Ottawa), Greenhouse and Growth Chamber Facility (Initial Planning and Identification Phase)6 |
10.9 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 7.6 | 7.6 |
Total Innovation and Renewal | 20.9 | 0.9 | 2.4 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 8.1 | 8.1 |
Total for Projects over $5 million | 283.1 | 27.0 | 32.0 | 49.6 | 49.6 | 55.2 | 44.1 |
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 2007-2008 and beyond.
3 Skyline Campus 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 Project work for the Business Risk Management Program Delivery System was delayed due to uncertainty surrounding the approval of funding
5 Final clean-up on Duncairn dam was completed in 2007/08.
6 Actual spending for the Dairy Resaerch Facility is lower than planned due to delays in construction in 2007-08. Actuals costs have been incurred for plans and estimates.
The figures in the above table have been rounded to the nearest millions of dollars. 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 or Agency: | 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 Sub-Contractors: | 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 Milestones | 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 |
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. Phase 3 will provide accessibility to new GIS applications and services to users across Canada. Direct access to geospatial data, maps and tools will be made available. Users will be able to access information and data in both official languages and in standardized formats.
No additional funding has been provided by the Treasury Board or by the department. NLWIS is currently running on budget with the completion date still estimated to be March 2009.
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.
Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food (ACAAF) (Voted)
AgriInvest Kickstart Program (Statutory)
AgriInvest Program (Statutory)
Payments in connection with the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (Statutory) - Advance Payment Program
Cull Breeding Swine Program (Statutory)
Control of Diseases in the Hog Industry- Circovirus Initiative (Voted) - Phase I - Circovirus Inoculation Strategy
Facilitating the Disposal of Specified Risk Materials (Voted)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)/Cull Cow (under the BSE Recovery Program Terms and Conditions - Statutory and Voted)
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS)/AgriStability & CAIS Inventory Transition Initiative (CITI) (Statutory Programs)
Cover Crop Protection Program (Voted)
Canadian Cattlemen's Association Legacy Fund (Statutory)
Canadian Farm Families Options Program (CFFOP) (Voted)
Cost of Production Benefit (Statutory)
Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Environment (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions -
Voted)
ontributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Food Safety and Food Quality (FSQ) (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk
Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Science and Innovation (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and
Conditions - Voted)
Production Insurance (under the Agricultural Policy Framework-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Statutory Program)
Plum Pox Eradication Program (PPEP) (Voted)
Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Renewal (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - International (Canadian Agriculture and Food International) (under the
Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Contributions in support of Rural Canada and of development in the area of Co-operatives (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and
Conditions - Voted)
pring Credit Advance Program (SCAP) and Enhanced Spring Credit Advanced Program (ESCAP) (under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) -Business Risk
Management Terms and Conditions - Voted & Statutory)
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food (ACAAF) (Voted)
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:
Pillar I: "Industry-Led Solutions to Emerging Issues";
Pillar II: "Capturing Market Opportunities By Advancing Research Results";
Pillar III: "Sharing Information to Advance the Sector".
In July of 2006, the Biofuels Opportunities for Producers Initiative (BOPI), a two-year, $20.0 million initiative under the ACAAF program was launched. It was designed to help farmers and rural communities conduct feasibility studies and develop sound, viable business proposals to create and expand biofuel production capacity involving significant ownership by agricultural producers. BOPI is delivered by the ACAAF regional Industry Councils. BOPI ended in March 2008.
The ACAAF Program was developed as the successor to the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (CARD) II Fund.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
In 2007-08, 376 new projects were approved. Of these, 29 new national projects, 300 new Industry Council regional projects and 47 multi-regional collective outcome projects were funded. The highest increase was in Pillar II projects that increased by 40% over last year. Under BOPI, 36 projects received funding in 2007-08. BOPI was completed in March 2008 with 90% of the funding
allocated to projects. Increased efforts on service standards have reduced project review times by 5%.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | 30.3 | 44.3 | 35.0 | 37.7 | 37.7 | (2.7) |
Total Contributions | 7.1 | 6.2 | 3.1 | 10.5 | 10.5 | (7.4) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 37.4 | 50.5 | 38.1 | 48.2 | 48.2 | (10.1) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities Treasury Board approval had not yet been received for the Biofuels Opportunities for Producers Initiative and as such, the Planned Spending does not reflect this funding.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: An evaluation of ACAAF was started in 2007-08 and will be completed in the fall of 2008.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: No program audits were done and none are planned.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: AgriInvest Kickstart Program (Statutory)
Start Date: October 25, 2007
End Date: March 31, 2009
Description: The $600 million Kickstart payment was a one-time federal initiative to seed AgriInvest accounts until producers can build up a balance in their accounts.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
The objective of AgriInvest Kickstart was to encourage producer participation in AgriInvest. As of March 30, 2008 the total number of letters to producers with calculated benefits was 154,731, number of responses received 75,030, total value of benefits for responses received $254.8 million.
Where Canada delivers: the number of payments to producers was 48,277, total value of payments to producers $180.8 million, total value of deposits to producer accounts $74 million.
Quebec: Number of payments to producers not available, total value of payments to producers $22.8 million, total value of deposits to producer accounts $27.9 million.
Kickstart payments will continue to be delivered into the 2008-09 fiscal year as the application deadline for new participants is April 14, 2008. and the deadline for receiving responses to letters with calculated benefits is June 30, 2008.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | 484.4 | 484.4 | (484.4) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 95.8 | 95.8 | (95.8) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 580.1 | 580.1 | (580.1) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such Planned Spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: There are no existing or planned evaluations for this program at this time.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: There are no existing or planned audits for this program at this time.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: AgriInvest Program (Statutory)
Start Date: December 19, 2007
End Date: March 31, 2012
Description: The AgriInvest program is designed to help producers stabilize their farm income on an individual basis by providing the opportunity for them to deposit money annually into their program savings account and receive matching government contributions. AgriInvest replaces the first 15% margin decline (first tier) coverage of CAIS. AgriInvest will play an important role in the new suite of BRM programs by providing producers with less complexity, more predictability and quicker access to program funding for small losses, thereby improving the predictability, bankability and responsiveness of the entire BRM suite.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Program Grants & Contributions are recognized here in the year that the related economic event occurs (i.e. the 2007 Program/tax year). However, performance results related to delivery of ensuing payments to producers will not be available until the 2008/09 fiscal year, once the 2007 tax/program year is complete and applications are received.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | 165.6 | 165.6 | (165.6) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 1.7 | 1.7 | (1.7) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 167.3 | 167.3 | (167.3) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 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: There are no existing or planned evaluations for this program at this time.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: There are no existing or planned audits for this program at this time.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Payments in connection with the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (Statutory) - Advance Payment Program
Start Date: 1997
End Date: On-going under the AMPA legislation
Description: The Advance Payments Program (APP) guarantees provides cash advances to eligible producers (recent amendments to AMPA increased the interest free portion of advances from $0.05 to $0.1 million, and the maximum advance from $0.25 to $0.4 million) to enable them to produce and market their agricultural products when market conditions are most ideal. Amendments now also allow livestock producers the ability to receive an advance under AMPA.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Legislative amendments on the AMPA were tabled in Parliament in May 2006, and the Enhanced Spring Credit Advance Program was announced as an interim measure. The AMPA received royal assent in June, 2006, and came into force in November, 2006.
On February 28th, 2006 AAFC launched the APP/SCAP Electronic Delivery System allowing producer organizations to submit producer level data electronically. AAFC now has greater access to more accurate reporting of advances and repayments across provinces and producer organizations.
As of April 1st, 2007, the first full production period for the new APP was launched (new APP 2007-08 production period). During the 2007-08 production period, $1.581 billion was advanced to 36,653 producers. The 18 month production period allows for advances and repayments during the first 12 months, and for repayments only during the final 6 months of the production period.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management |
||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 9.2 | 10.6 | 138.7 | 44.1 | 44.1 | 94.6 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 9.2 | 10.6 | 138.7 | 44.1 | 44.1 | 94.6 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
Due to the overlap of the old APP program and the New APP, statutory alloment was increased to $138.7M for the 2007-08 fiscal year only. Actual spending for the New APP for fiscal year 2007-08 was less than planned due to the implementation of the New APP program along with old APP still being completed, and we also were offering the interim ESCAP program concurrently. This allowed
for 3 different programs in which producers could choose from in order to receive an advance, which were being run concurrently. Uptake for all 3 programs was less than planned, but only due to a 3rd program being offered during the same time period.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation of the new APP program was completed during the 2007-08 fiscal year. As per AMPA legislation, a full evalution is to be completed every 5 years. With the last amendments completed to AMPA during 2007-08, the next evaluation is planned for 2012-13.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audit of the NAPP program was completed during the 2007-08 fiscal year.
($ 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 $225 per breeding animal. As of June 13, 2008, 477 claims have been received for a total of 105,292 animals.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | 38.0 | 38.0 | (38.0) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 38.0 | 38.0 | (38.0) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such Planned Spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: There are no existing or planned evaluations for this program at this time.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: There are no existing or planned audits for this program at this time.
($ 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
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.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
The delivery process of this program has now been fully automated in order to provide timely allocation of payments. We have processed over 1000 applications and dispersed over $11.5M to producers to inoculate the hog herd against PCVAD. In collecting the data through the application process, we have been able to map and demonstrate the occurances of CIP in Canada. This will further
our ability to administer future swine health initiatives.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 14.3 | 14.3 | (14.3) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 14.3 | 14.3 | (14.3) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such Planned Spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: This program has not been subject to an evaulation, and there is not one planned.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: This program has not been subject to an audit, and there is not one planned.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Facilitating the Disposal of Specified Risk Materials (Voted)
Start Date: December 14, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2009
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) for which 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 2008, approximately 216 infrastructure project and research iniatives were approved for a total commitment of $91 million to help the beef industry adapt to the enhanced feed ban. Facilities such as federal and provincial abattoirs, SRM rendering plants, research institutions are participating in the program. Further more, various technologies are being explored to seek
value added options for SRM.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | 4.4 | - | 22.8 | 22.8 | (22.8) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 4.4 | - | 22.8 | 22.8 | (22.8) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Main Estimates, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such Planned Spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: This program has not been subject to an evaluation, and there is not one planned.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: This program has not been subject to an audit, and there is not one planned.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)/Cull Cow (under the BSE Recovery Program Terms and Conditions - Statutory and Voted)
Start Date:
June 2003
End Date:
March 31, 2008
Description:
Purpose of Transfer Payment Program: The purpose of this program is to deal with the sudden impacts of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) on the beef industry. The aim of the program was to get the domestic market moving again and to improve returns to producers following border closure to Canadian cattle and beef.
Old programs included the BSE Recovery Program, which ran in 2003-04, and offered several price incentives to help keep the domestic market moving and provided improved returns to feedlots and processors to move product through the chain in light of severely depressed prices caused by the USA border closure;
The Cull Animal Program, which ran in 2003-04, made a payment to producers for each eligible older animal sold for slaughter; and; The Fed Cattle Set-Aside Program, the Feeder Calf Set-Aside Program, and the Managing Older Animals program ran in 2004-05 to 2005-06 and assisted balance animals supply and demand until normal trade patterns resumed and/or slaughter capacity increased.
To assure the future of the industry, additional funding has been provided for marketing assistance, increasing slaughter capacity and enhancing traceability.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Ruminant Slaughter Loan Loss Reserve Program:
In 2007-08 four projects were approved under the Ruminant Slaughter Loan Loss Reserve Program, for a total commitment of $29.1 million of the $41.7 million available through the program. Of that total, $24.9 million has been disbursed to lending institutions involved with the projects.
Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA):
In FY 2007-08 the CCIA integrated its old Cattle Tracking System (CTS) with a new internet-based system called the Canadian Livestock Tracking System (CLTS). The system tracks age verification (AV), premises identification and movement and sighting, and allows for new value-added services to be added to further enhance the CCIA's traceability program. Since its release, the CLTS has provided the cattle industry with a reliable and integrated method of information-keeping to re-open and keep international and domestic markets open to Canadian beef exports.
CCIA successfully completed and fully implemented a $3.7 million project - the Canadian Livestock Traceability System (CLTS) and has continued to be recognized, both domestically and internationally, as a multi-species leader in Animal Identification and Traceability. CCIA has reported that the program is industry supported, sustainable and has proven invaluable through the BSE and TB animal health investigations.
Canadian Integrated Traceability Program (CITP):
17 Pilot projects supported animal identification, tracking of animal movements and the tracking of meat products through the food value chain. Communicating the results of these 17 projects by the Recipients to interested public stakeholders was a key aspect of CITP. These projects will help to refine the traceability system for various commodities.
Canadian Livestock Identification Agency (CLIA):
The original mandate of the CLIA was to move forward as the administrator responsible for the development, administration and maintenance of a national traceability system for the livestock sector in Canada. However in the fall of 2007, CLIA changed its strategic direction as follows:
- Redefining CLIA's abiding purpose to provide the leadership that will build consensus across the livestock and poultry sectors specific to industry and government needs associated with individual animal and group identification.
- Establish two distinct divisions: (i) Technical Services that builds on the investment and capability already established by the CCIA that can in turn provide traceability and value added services to other livestock/poultry sectors; (ii) The Industry Forum that facilitates and encourages all livestock/poultry sectors to meet and
form policies specific to emerging traceability requirements (both private and public sector).
The total funding for the CLIA project was $1.1 million, however in light of the mandate changes the amount contributed was $765,000.
Canadian Radio Frequency Identification Reader Program (CRFID):
The objective of CFRID was to subsidize the purchase of radio-frequency identification Readers. These Readers are used to capture tracing and tracking information to facilitate recalls and quarantines in the event of a disease outbreak and reduce the negative economic and health effects associated with an outbreak. Organizations such as slaughter and processing plants, veterinarians, and commercial feedlots working in the cattle and/or bison industry beyond the farm gate were eligible. This program was established in April 2005 and expired in February 2008. Over the life of the program, 460 applicants were reimbursed for a total of $738,162.
Marketing Assistance
In the final year of the Genetics Marketing Program and the Other Ruminants Market Development Program $219,390 supported industry association projects to implement marketing strategies targeting traditional and non-traditional markets.
The Other Ruminants Market Development Program has been very successful for the bison industry. New markets were developed for the bison industry. There is now a need to identify ways to generate more returns from bison carcasses, and to identify production and risk management strategies that will assist in increasing industry returns to encourage investment for the industry to
grow.
Hurdles in international market development included obtaining protocol regarding the health requirements of other countries, suitable air transportation to countries of destination and the cost of air freight.
Shipment of goats and rabbits were sent to Trinidad and Tobago in the Fall of 2007. Orders of Boer goats have been received from Antigua, and enquiries for over 100 Boer goats to the Azores were received.
In the final year (2007-08) of the Sustaining the Genetic Quality of Ruminants Program provided $56,926 in support of industry association projects to help maintain Canada's reputation for genetics and the marketability of genetic ruminant products. A number of herds signed up under the New Herd Enrolment Program. An assessment to identify strategies to strengthen business development
activities were undertaken under the Harmonization of Classification Program. Preliminary work has been completed on the Electronic Animal OwnerShip Transfer (E-Paper) Program. Marketing and Business Resource staff conducted an analysis to redesign the website.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 59.5 | 23.1 | 12.4 | (6.6) | (6.6) | 19.0 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 59.5 | 23.1 | 12.4 | (6.6) | (6.6) | 19.0 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
In 2007-2008, it was anticipated that $12.4 million was required to fund various BSE programs. These programs initially were ending in fiscal year 2006-2007, however received a program extension to fiscal year 2007-2008. Approximately $3.4 million was spent. The remaining program authority that was not spent is mainly due to some projects that were to be initially funded through the
Ruminant Slaughter Loan Loss Reserve Program did not materialise or were funded through a different program.
Also the reversal of accruals of older BSE Recovery programs in the amount of $9.7 million contributes to the negative spending amount. These accruals were for programs which are complete. Therefore the outstanding estimated accruals are no longer necessary. In addition, provincial compliance audits results concluded that a minor reimbursement to Canada was required in the amount of approximately $220,000.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation has been completed, but not yet finalized at this time.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
An audit for the first three phases of the program has been completed, but not yet finalized at this time.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program : Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS)/AgriStability & CAIS Inventory Transition Initiative (CITI) (Statutory Programs)
Start Date: CAIS/AgriStability (April 1, 2003) CITI (May 18, 2006 )
End Date: CAIS/AgriStability (March 31, 2012) CITI (September 30, 2008 )
Description: CAIS was a margin-based program that integrated stabilization and disaster protection into a single program under the previous Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) (2003/04 - 2006/07). The program assisted the producers in protecting their farming operations from small and large drops in income. This was a whole-farm program available to eligible farmers regardless of the commodities they produced. Producers were eligible if they reported farm income or loss to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), had at least six months of farming activity and completed a production cycle in the program year. Producer margins are based on their eligible income less their eligible expenses for a program year and payments were triggered under the program when a producer’s margin for a program year dropped below their average historical margin for the past five years (less the highest and lowest years).
Repeated producer and industry concerns prompted the government to commit, in the 2006 Speech from the Throne and Budget, to replacing CAIS with more responsive, predictable and bankable programs. As a result, federal-provincial-territorial governments agreed to replace CAIS with a new suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs. In December 2007, the government announced the implementation of AgriInvest (income stabilization) which replaces the top tier (first 15% of margin decline) of CAIS and the implementation of AgriStability for the 2007 program delivery year. AgriStability is an improved margin-based program that provides producers with assistance for larger income declines. The program compensates producers when their margin in the program year is more than 15 percent lower than their reference margin from previous years (the second and third tiers of CAIS covering the disaster component of the program). AgriStability includes several enhancements to address industry concerns, including a better method for valuing producer inventories, expansion of the criteria for negative margin coverage to allow deeper coverage for back-to-back disasters and an automatic Targeted Advance Payment for when disasters occur. In addition to these parameter changes, governments have also worked to improve the service delivery of the program by introducing automatic sign-up for previous participants, more flexible deadlines, simplified forms and electronic filing, online calculators, national service standards, and clearer program statements.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
CAIS (2006 Program Year - see note below)
Of the 92.7% of 2006 program year applications processed the estimated out-going accuracy rate is 98.13% as of end of March, 2008.
Federal Delivery: 47,281 complete applications received. Total value of producer payments was $353,875,438 million as of end of March, 2008.
National Delivery: 125,092 complete applications received. Total value of producer payments was $822,655,450 million as of end of March, 2008.
AgriStability 2007 Program Year reporting had not begun as of end of March, 2008.
CITI Program National Delivery: A total of 147,463 producer payments have been paid for all program years. Total value of producer payments was $856.2 million for all program years as of end of March, 2008.
2003 Program Year - Federal Delivery: total value of producer payments was $214.1 million as of end of March, 2008.
2004 Program Year - Federal Delivery: total value of producer payments was $128.6 million as of end of March, 2008.
2005 Program Year - Federal Delivery: total value of producer payments was $59.9 million as of end of March, 2008.
Enhancements have been made to the AgriStability program including a better method for valuing producer inventories (CITI), expansion of the criteria for negative margin coverage to allow deeper coverage for back-to-back disasters and an automatic Targeted Advance Payment for when disasters occur. In addition, work has been done to improve the service delivery of the program by introducing things such as automatic sign-up for previous participants, more flexible deadlines, simplified forms and electronic filing, online calculators, national service standards, and clearer program statements.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants (CITI) | - | 431.0 | - | (0.7) | (0.7) | 0.7 |
Total Contributions (CITI) | - | 442.0 | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions (CAIS/AgriStability) | 1,068.7 | 933.3 | 570.5 | 377.3 | 377.3 | 193.2 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 1,068.7 | 1,806.3 | 570.5 | 376.6 | 376.6 | 193.9 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
Year to year G&C payments are directly related to the needs of the agriculture industry as CAIS/AgriStability is demand-driven rather than being funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. As such, in good years, the program will cost governments less, while in bad years (i.e., years with dropping commodity prices, disasters, etc.) the costs of the program will be higher.
The program does, however, include a payment cap of $3 million per participant per program year in order to control costs for governments and prevent larger operations from capturing a large share of program benefits.
Notably, 2007-08 G&C expenditures varied widely from previous years largely due to record market pricing in the Grains and Oilseed sectors during the 2006 program year.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
The Chapter Evaluation of the BRM programs was prepared to meet reporting requirements as stipulated in the Implementation Agreement. As the report had no targets, the OAG recommended targets be developed by December 31, 2007. These targets have been developed.
The Office of Audit and Evaluation reached an agreement with the ADM of Programs Branch to delay the CAIS evaluation until 2010. The delay is expected to allow program officials to act on the OAG recommendations and to develop performance information as well as establishing baseline information.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
The Office of the Auditor General released their report on the CAIS program in May 2007. The report and its findings can be found at:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/aud_parl_oag_200705_e_18289.html
Note: Program Grant & Contribution spending are recognized here in the year that the related economic event occurs (i.e. the 2007 Program/tax year). However, performance results related to delivery of ensuing payments to producers will not be available until the 2008/09 fiscal year, once the 2007 tax/program year is complete and applications are received. Therefore, results achieved are reported for the 2006 Program year.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Cover Crop Protection Program (Voted)
Start Date: June 8, 2006
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The Cover Crop Protection Program (CCPP) is a Federal only program aimed at assisting producers whose lands are adversely affected by excess soil moisture and flooding with the added costs of improving and protecting the soil until a commercial crop can be planted. Under this program, a fixed amount per acre is provided to assist in planting and maintaining a cover crop (a crop not intended for commercial sale that stabilizes the soil and helps to limit weeds and environmental degradation). Target clients are producers in the affected areas.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
There were 6,909 payments made to producers who where affected by excess moisture or flooding covering 852,031 acres in 2007/08. Of the 100% of known eligible recipients, those who had not applied were contacted and encouraged to apply which resulted in a participation rate of 95.5% of eligible applicants receiving a payment. Although no workshops/information sessions were held in
2007/08, 100% of eligible applicants received information describing best management practices related to soils with excess moisture or flooding.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | 78.0 | - | 22.1 | 13.2 | (13.2) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 78.0 | - | 22.1 | 13.2 | (13.2) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 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. In terms of the variance between actual spending and authorities, the designated area requirement limited the eligible acres and as a result lowered the overall program expenditures and commitments
to $13.2M from the authorities of $22.1M as provided per TB submission. The impact of designated areas was unknown at the time the authorities were obtained. As well, 2007/08 was drier than previous years.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: Office of Audit and Evaluation is planning to initiate an evaluation of the CCPP in July 2008 for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 program years with completion by December 2008.
Significant Audit findings and URL to last Audit: This program has not been subject to an audit, and there is not one planned.
($ 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 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. A grant totalling $50 million over 10 years will be provided to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association on behalf of the beef sector.
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 under utilization 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 2007, beef exports totalled $1.2 billion, down slightly from $1.3 billion in 2006. Sales of beef cattle genetics in 2007 were $7.2 million compared to $0 in 2006.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | 0.1 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | (2.0) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 0.1 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | (2.0) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
In developing the spending profile for the Legacy Fund annual expenditures were estimated by spreading the available funding over the ten year time frame in equal annual increments. However, funds are allocated based on the requirements outlined in an annual business plan which reflects the priorities of the three marketing groups. As such the funds needed in any particular year will
vary depending on the marketing program developed in that year. These forecasts are made even more difficult by challenges in predicting when a market might actually open to imports of Candian beef.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: An interim evaluation is expected to be finalized by August 2008 and a final evaluation will be completed by June 30, 2015.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: An audit has recently been completed by CCA which reported no significant findings. There is currently no URL for this audit.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Canadian Farm Families Options Program (CFFOP) (Voted)
Start Date: June 23, 2006
End Date:March 31, 2010
Description: The Options Program is a two-year 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 on 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 activity by November 20, 2008.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
As of March 31, 2008, $205.7 million was distributed to farmers and farm families, including the 2005 program year payments and the initial payments for the 2006 program year. With the final payment for the 2006 program year, the total payments will increase to $221 million for both program years. Of the 15,278 individuals and farm families who received a year 1 options payment, 9,019
of the participants in the first year of the program re-applied for funds in year 2. Approximately 80% of the 2005 Options applicants who received a payment have completed or are in the process of completing business planning and skills development activities. In 2007-08, a total of 9,101 farmers/farm families participated in business planning and skills development. Of these 9,101
farmers/farm families, 5,759 participated in Farm Business Assessment (FBA) and 2,951 in Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS).
Results from Canadian Farm Families Options client feedback forms received between July 1, 2007 and February 28, 2008 show that 73.4% of respondents were satisfied with the payment they received; 48% reported that the payment reduced financial pressures to a great or very great extent; and 88.3% reported that the payment received made it easier to participate in a Renewal program.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | 145.0 | 157.5 | 76.0 | 76.0 | 156.3 |
Total Contributions | - | - | 86.0 | 11.2 | 11.2 | 74.8 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | 145.0 | 243.5 | 87.2 | 87.2 | 156.3 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities, the amount allocated for CFFOP had not been finalized. On May 31, 2007 changes to the program were approved by Treasury Board. These changes resulted in the original $550.0 million budget being reduced to $304.0 million. Approval was obtained to reprofile the remaining funding to other intiatives.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
Findings relating to CFFOP have not been included in the Renewal Chapter Evaluation, as the program had not been in place long enough and there weas insufficient data to provide a basis for evaluating it. The report on the evaluation of the Renewal Chapter will be finalized by October 2008.
There is no summative evaluation of Renewal or the Options program scheduled for completion by March 31, 2008. Between November 2007 and March 2008, two Planning Studies were completion in preparation for future evaluations. Each study addressed selected and diferent Renewal programs. No decision has been taken yet as to when these evaluations will take place, as a new five-year plan is in development and has not yet been approved.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: No Program audit was conducted in 2007-08 and none is planned for 2008-09.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Cost of Production Benefit (Statutory)
Start Date: April 1, 2008
End Date: March 31, 2012
Description: The Cost of Production Direct Payment was intended to partially compensate producers for the decline in incomes experienced over the past four years due to production costs increasing at a faster rate than output prices. The payment was based on a percentage of their historical average net sales of eligible commodities.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Reduced producers income loss through participation in Business Risk Management programs. As of March 2008:
Applications received was 165,413
Number of zero payments 3,591
Number of payments 160,689
Applications remaining to be processed 1,133
Total value of payments were $343,857,477 not including the $44.4 million transferred to Quebec.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | 353.5 | 353.5 | (353.5) |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 44.7 | 44.7 | (44.7) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | - | - | - | 398.3 | 398.3 | (398.3) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities, Treasury Board approval for this program had not yet been received and as such Planned Spending is shown as zero.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: There are currently no existing or planned evaluation for this program.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: There are currently no existing or planned audits for this program.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Environment (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extension 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:
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Environment | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 48.6 | 97.0 | 111.0 | 198.8 | 198.8 | (87.8) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 48.6 | 97.0 | 111.0 | 198.8 | 198.8 | (87.8) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
Initial delays in signing provincial implementation agreements resulted in delays in project start up with consequential impacts on resource requirements. This required on-going reprofiling over the 5 year program which resulted in a significant variance in the final year as projects were completed.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: An evaluation was conducted of the Environment Chapter in 2007-08 and will be made official in the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: An internal audit of the Greencover Canada program was conducted in 2007-08 and officially signed off on June 10, 2008 by the AAFC Audit committee. This is currently not posted online.
The Office of the Auditor General is conducting an audit of the Environment Chapter Programs. It began in 2007-08 and will continue through to the 2008-09 fiscal year.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Food Safety and Food Quality (FSQ) (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extension 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:
The Canadian Food Safety and Quality Program is made up of three components: 1) Systems Development 2) On-Farm Implementation and 3) Food Safety Initiative.
The Systems Development component has three elements 1) Systems Development (On-Farm & Post-Farm), 2) Traceability and 3) Food Quality.
In 2007-08:
Under the On-Farm Implementation component, seven national commodity organizations offered workshops and technical support directly to producers to assist them to implement Food Safety systems. Three new projects worth $4.42M were approved.
Under the Food Safety Initiative component, PEI joined the initiative bringing the approved funding under this component to $50.4M for the seven provinces involved (BC. AB., SK., MB, ON, NS & PEI). All seven provinces participated in Outreach, Implementation and/or Research & Development (R&D).
As of March 31, 2008, $89.9M (46.8 percent of a total of $190.0M) of Agricultural Policy Framework funding for CFSQP has been approved for projects and $67.0M (74.5 percent of the $89.9M) has been spent.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Food Safety & Food Quality | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 6.1 | 10.5 | 71.4 | 45.9 | 45.9 | 25.5 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 6.1 | 10.5 | 71.4 | 45.9 | 45.9 | 25.5 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
The planned amount for 2007-08 was $71.4M which included $22.8M carried forward from unspent 2006-07 funding as well as $16M reallocated from the Canadian Farm Families Options Program. The initial planned amount in the TB submission for 07-08 was $36.08M. Actual expenditures for the year were $45.9M.
The overall increase in actual expenditure in 2007-08 of $35.4M over 2006-07 included $28M in the Food Safety Initiative component.
Under On-Farm Implementation, seven national organizations increased their spending from $2.2M in 2006-07 to $6.0M in 2007-08, an increase of about 276%, for workshops and technical support (services or equipment purchase) to farmers.
Systems Development (SD) is a 4-phase approach, most organizations developing post-farm food safety systems were at the later stages of developing systems or providing training which are more expensive than the beginning of Systems Development. These post-farm projects expenditures were about $2M (accounting for over 200% of the increase within the SD component) in 2007-08 compared to $0.6M in 2006-07. On the part of the on-farm food safety element, $2.7M expenditure was reported in 2007-08 compared to $1.9M in 2006-07, an increase of about 45% within the on-farm food safety element.
The CFSQP is a demand-driven program, and CFSQP projects typically take place over a 3-6 year period which is the length of time that most organizations typically require to complete development of their food safety or traceability system. Unlike short-term projects (less than 12 months - e.g. pilot projects), spending can often vary significantly from one year to the next, making program forecasting more difficult.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: According to the FSQ Chapter evaluation for Progress on Results undertaken in 2007, "food safety has remained very relevant and perhaps even more relevant today than at the beginning of the FSQ priority. At the project level, case studies showed that some important achievements and successes were made in individual projects funded by FSQ. But overall, progress in the Chapter was limited and slowed relative to original outcome goals and the emerging market requirements."
Lessons learned from the Evaluation include:
There is currently no URL for this evaluation.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: No Program audit was conducted in 2007-08 and none is planned for 2008-09.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Science and Innovation (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extension until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the Science and Innovation Transfer Payments Programs (TPP) 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. The programs are designed to bring together a full spectrum of organizations to develop ideas that will accelerate the adoption of innovation and the commercialization of products. The three major objectives of the program are; realigning of public science resources; co-ordination along the whole value chain; and the creation of an innovation climate. 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 micro organisms.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Funded sector-led projects to implement alternative value-added strategies for existing commodities and new products and markets
Improved collaboration along value chains to identify risks, opportunities and new markets.
Funded support for the development and start-up costs for centres of innovation and/or incubators or business mentoring.
Number of domestic and world agri-food research opportunities created.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 3.1 | 54.0 | 48.8 | 73.5 | 73.5 | (24.7) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 3.1 | 54.0 | 48.8 | 73.5 | 73.5 | (24.7) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
In the last two years of the Programs (2006-2007 and 2007-2008), unspent funds from other programs were reallocated to support the demand under the Science and Innovation Programs.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
Note: The Evalutation has not been posted to date
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: No audit of the Science and Innovation Transfer Payment Program has been conducted to date.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Production Insurance (under the Agricultural Policy Framework-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Statutory Program)
Start Date: April 1, 2003 for APF-Business Risk Management (BRM)
End Date: March 31, 2008 for APF-Business Risk Management (BRM) funding
Description: The purpose of the program is to seek to stabilize farm income through cushioning the producer against the economic impact of production losses arising from natural hazards like drought, hail, frost and diseases.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Producer participation in PI has 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 80% followed by Quebec at 71.2%. The national average was 57.9% 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 79%, while the other provinces range from 0% to 20% bringing the national average participation rate for the forage programs to approximately 19%. Overall, numerous enhancements were made this year and will continue to be made to the PI program including improvements for forage, horticulture, potato
storage, new crops and available coverage levels.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 345.9 | 343.1 | 407.0 | 416.4 | 416.4 | (9.4) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 345.9 | 343.1 | 407.0 | 416.4 | 416.4 | (9.4) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
The actual expenditures for 2007/08 are higher than what was originally planned due to a rise in grain and oilseed prices which have increased total premium costs. In addition, the overall higher federal cost-share has also contributed to the increase in premium costs.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to last Evaluation:
An evaluation that assessed the relevance, implementation, success and cost effectiveness of the PI program from 2003/04 to 2005/06 has been completed. The evaluation recommended the following for each item assessed:
There is currently no URL for this evaluation.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audience: Management has addressed the recommendations contained in the PI audit finalized in 2004.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Plum Pox Eradication Program (PPEP) (Voted)
Start Date:September 2004
End Date: March 31, 2011
Description: The purpose of this seven-year program (2004-05 to 2010-11) is to eradicate the Plum Pox Virus (PPV) in Canada while ensuring the viability of the industry. This program is a follow-up of the expired three-year program (2001-02 to 2003-04) which showed that the eradication of PPV was possible. 2007-08 was year 4 of the 7-year program. Additional funding for the PPEP program in the amount of $5.811M was approved by Treasury Board in September 2007. This additional funding will be used to continue intensive sampling activites of trees and to compensate producers for the removal of infected trees in the quarantine area. This additional funding has increasing planned contributions for 2007-08 from the original $3.1M to $8.9M.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System/Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
2007-08 was year 4 of the 7-year program. Surveillance for the virus continued by sampling trees in the quarantine area. Infected trees and trees in infected blocks that met the removal threshold were removed. Producers were financially assisted for the loss of trees.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Total Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | - | - | - | 6.9 | 6.9 | (6.9) |
Total Business Risk Management | - | - | - | 6.9 | 6.9 | (6.9) |
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 8.1 | 5.5 | 3.1 | - | - | 3.1 |
Total Innovation and Renewal | 8.1 | 5.5 | 3.1 | - | - | 3.1 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 8.1 | 5.5 | 3.1 | 6.9 | 6.9 | (3.8) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
At the time of preparation of the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities Treasury Board approval had not yet been received for additional funding for this program and as such Planned Spending does not reflect this funding.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: The PPEP has not been subject to an evaluation, and there is no evaluation planned.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: The PPEP has not been subject to an audit, and there is no audit planned.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - Renewal (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extension 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 enable them to pursue on- and off-farm income opportunities.
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS) - Three Renewal indicators were developed to measure the results of Renewal programs. Using baseline data from the 2004 National Renewal Survey (NRS), provincial working groups developed targets for each of the 3 Renewal indicators. The 2007 NRS was used to determine if producers have increased their level of knowledge and use of beneficial
management practices, and if targets are being met.
In addition, 4,638 applications were received for Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS) in 2007-08 (1,687 renewal applicants and 2,951 Options clients). 80% of CASS respondents to a Client Impact Assessment (CIA) survey conducted in 2007 reported that the skills and/or knowledge they developed through participation in CASS helped them in reaching their most important business goal. In 2007-08, 8,757 producers across Canada applied to participate in the Canadian Farm Business Advisory Service (CFBAS) and Planning and Assessment for Value-Added Enterprise (PAVE). Of those, 8,086 were for Farm Business Assessment (FBA), 643 were for SBPS, and 28 were for PAVE (6,150 of the 8,086 FBA applicants were Options clients). 55% of FBA CIA respondents and 71% of SBPS CIA respondents indicated that the program had been helpful in reaching their most important farm business goal.
Three Renewal indicators were developed to measure the results of Renewal programs. Using baseline data from the 2004 National Renewal Survey (NRS), provincial working groups developed targets for each of the 3 Renewal indicators. The 2007 NRS was used to determine if producers have increased their level of knowledge and use of beneficial business management practices, and if targets are being met.
On average, 70% agreed that these programs were beneficial in increasing understanding of the factors most critical to the success of the enterprise and creating the potential for increased profitability. 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 2007-08 to identify the new skills and learning opportunities needed in a knowledge-intensive economy.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Innovation and Renewal | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 15.3 | 31.6 | 5.6 | 55.0 | 55.0 | (49.4) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 15.3 | 31.6 | 5.6 | 55.0 | 55.0 | (49.4) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
The actual spending is higher than Planned due to the following:
1) A substantial number of applications received in late 2006-07 and which were paid in 2007-08;
2) Pressure by consultants to complete the work by March 2008 since there was uncertainty as to program availability and funding for fiscal year 2008-09; and
3) APF Renewal receives the majority of its funding as operating funding, and therefore contribution funds is reallocated from other APF initiatives during the fiscal year to meet requirements.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
A Renewal chapter evaluation has been completed and a draft report is currently receiving internal review at the Office of Audit and Evaluation. A final evaluation report is expected to be completed by September 31, 2008. The summative evaluation scheduled to be completed by March 31, 2010 is under review; decisions regarding evaluations will be completed once Growing Forward programs
have been determined.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: 5 compliance audits were undertaken in 2007/2008, including:
The compliance audit on the Canadian Agricultural Skills Service under the Canada-Ontario Implementation Agreement is on-going; and compliance audits for CASS-PEI and 4-H have been deferred.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-food Sector Assistance - International (Canadian Agriculture and Food International) (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extension until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the 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/Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
In 2007-08, the CAFI Program supported industry initiatives in targeted markets that aim to gain international recognition for Canadian agriculture, agri-food, beverage, and seafood products.
The CAFI program provides funding for industry initiatives designed to increase international sales of Canadian agriculture and food products, by building upon Canada's reputation as a provider of high-quality, safe and innovative agriculture, agri-food, beverage, and seafood products.
For example, in 2007-08, through initiatives funded under the CAFI program:
During 2007 the first major shipments of purebred Canadian cattle, since the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in 2003, were delivered to Russia, which imported more than 5000 head of Canadian cattle. Two further shipments, amounting to 3800 head in total took place during the first half of 2008 and additional orders are under negotiation. Canadian swine exporters
are also experiencing success in the Russian market. In 2006, over 2,000 breeding swine were exported to Russia valued at $1.8 million, while 10,447 breeding swine were exported in 2007 with a value of $9.1 million, making Russia the largest off-shore market for Canadian breeding swine in 2006 and 2007.
Pulse Canada efforts to reduce the risks of market access barriers has resulted in the transition to a tariff and quota-free environment, and access of beans to Mexico in January 2008.
Part of the strategy involved working with Mexico's bean sector on areas of mutual interest including research collaboration and increasing demand initiatives. Although continued monitoring of the market access situation is required, Pulse Canada is ready to shift focus to increasing demand initiatives in 2008-2009. The partnerships developed with Mexico industry and government through market access activities have paved the way for transition to take place.
The main objective of the Canadian Special Crops Association export market growth strategy was to create a vibrant business environment that promotes and facilitates export success for Canadian exporters of pulses and special crops. The total export value of mustard seed, sunflower seed, canary seed and buckwheat increased 80% from approximately $147M in 2005 to nearly $264M in 2007.
The Health and Antioxidant Super-fruit message continues to drive the demand for Blueberries and Wild Blueberries around the world, but winter damage and poor weather during pollination resulted in less production than anticipated. The industry will need 50-60 million pounds of Wild Blueberries to fulfill the strong demand worldwide. Processors are receiving excellent returns for their fruit, and this has put them in a stronger position to invest in the growth of the industry.
The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance Long Term International Strategy created the opportunity for industry members to network and gain valuable contacts from all aquaculture and seafood industries within the U.S. and other international markets. Contacts made at a CAFI funded marketing activity led to the selection of Canadian farmed Arctic Char as a sustainably farmed species featured at the Monterrey Bay Aquarium 6th Cooking for Solutions Gala Event.
Increased recognition of Canadian products and capabilities.
AAFC continued to work in 2007-08 to generate greater recognition for Canada by branding its achievements in food safety, traceability, animal health and environmental sustainability to maximize exports and generate greater sales for Canadian agriculture and agri-food products. The CAFI Program assists industry associations in undertaking activities with these objectives.
Canadian Pork International is the export promotion agency for the Canadian pork industry representing producers, processors and trading houses. In 2007, despite challenges, pork exports remain strong. Promotional campaigns, including retail promotions, have nearly doubled the sales of chilled pork over the last few years with a wider distribution in more than 20% of Japanese supermarkets. Chilled pork exports comprise of 30% of all pork exports to Japan along with a 225% growth in the same product to Korea. The launch of a promotional campaign in Singapore contributed towards exports of chilled pork increasing 250% over the previous year and accounting for 7% of exports to Singapore in 2007 versus 2% in 2006.
The CAFI Program is also committed to increasing international recognition of Canada's capabilities an 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. The Canadian Swine Exporters Association considers incoming missions a significant building block in their quest for increasing sales and developing new markets. In 2007 over 300,000 breeding swine were exported to 26 countries.
The challenges the pork sector faced were the increasing competitive export market, the increasing number of non-tariff barriers impacting market access, a strong Canadian dollar making Canadian product more expensive internationally and particularly less competitive versus US pork products, increasing hog cost of production contributing to uncertainty and rationalization in the sector and competitiveness challenges at processing (labour cost and availability, plant scale) contributing to the rationalization in hog processing.
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. The Canadian Swine Exporters Association (CSEA) considers incoming missions a significant building block in their quest for increasing sales and developing new markets. In August 2006 two Chilean veterinary inspectors came to Canada on an incoming mission and inspected approximately 20 farms in four provinces. As a result of the inspections several hundred breeding swine were shipped to Chile.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Markets and International | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 24.2 | 22.1 | 24.7 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 6.8 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 24.2 | 22.1 | 24.7 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 6.8 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
The variance between actual and planned spending for 2007-08 is due in part to the withdrawal / rejection of three proposals primarily due to delays in implementation.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
An evaluation was requested in 2006-2007 fiscal year, but could not be accommodated in the evaluation plan. The program is currently drawing on an evaluation from its predecessor program and observations from the evaluation of the APF International Chapter. Industry associations benefits from CAFI Program funding, and this demonstrates a positive impact on their members' export
performance.
As a result of close and ongoing consultation, which also take place with industry, numerous adjustments have been made to the Program.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: No audits have been completed and none are planned.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Contributions in support of Rural Canada and of development in the area of Co-operatives (under the Agricultural Policy Framework - Non-Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted)
Start Date: April 1, 2003
End Date: March 31, 2008 (extension until March 31, 2009)
Description: The purpose of the programs is to carry out plans for Rural and Co-operative development. The programming covers the following three initiatives:
Strategic Outcome: Innovation for Growth
Results Achieved:
Models for Rural Development -In 2007-2008, the 23 models were able to be replicated in more than 60 sites across rural Canada, involving more than 270 communities. Final Participatory Evaluation reports are being submitted which will serve as the basis for the body of knowledge regarding rural development. Most models completed their projects by March 31, 2008, however
certain models and/or sites, due to external factors beyond their control, did not have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Some short term incremental funding in 2008/2009 will allow them to achieve the best results possible. The Networking Initiative provided funding for over 253 projects to rural communities.
Co-operatives Secretariat - In 2007-08, a network of 20 provincial, regional, and sectoral partners delivered the Advisory Services component across the country. At the end of the third quarter, Advisory Services had assisted three new co-operatives to incorporate and provide technical assistance to 76 existing co-operatives in order to cope with internal issues or support business expansion. Under the Innovation and Research component, the Secretariat approved 41 new projects for a total of $1.4 million that addressed the six priorities of the program.
Also, the Agriculture Co-operative Development Initiative (Ag-CDI) was renewed for two years and for 2007-2008 a total of 28 biofuel and value-added co-op projects and other activities to enhance the co-operative sector development capacity were funded for a total value of $1.0 million. In both CDI and Ag-CDI, the expected result to commit 100% of our G & C budget was met. In 2007-2008, all budget for CDI was used. For Ag-CDI, 90.4 % of the budget was spent; the late start of the program (september 2007) explains the variance in results.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Rural and Cooperatives Secretariat | ||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 8.6 | 9.1 | 7.8 | 10.6 | 10.6 | (2.8) |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 8.6 | 9.1 | 7.8 | 10.6 | 10.6 | (2.8) |
Comment(s) on Variance(s):
The variance between Actual and Planned spending is due in part to additional funding received subsequent to the publication of the 2007-2008 RPP, specifically for Ag-CDI. Secondly, due to delays in the development of the Models for Rural Development in 2006-2007, funding was reallocated to other initiatives. This funding was then reallocated back to Rural Development in
2007-2008.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation: The Models for Rural Development Program is still receiving final evaluation reports and is therefore unable to provide any significant findings at this time. Audited financial statements from the proponents are due this year as well, which will faciliate the conclusion of the initiative.
In 2006 the Co-operative Development Initiative in 2006 conducted a mid-term evaluation and found that the program conformed to the mandate and was well received by communities as the demand for assistance exceeded the level of resources. Further information can be found at http://www.agr.gc.ca/info/audit-exam/pdf/cdi_idc_e.pdf or http://www.agr.gc.ca/info/audit-exam/index_e.php?page=cdi_idc
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit: Models for Rural Development and Networking Initiative: No evaluation is planned at this time; however this may be reconsidered if variances are noted on the submitted audited financial statements.
Co-operatives Secretariat: the CDI and Ag-CDI programs were not part of the Department Audit Plan for 2007-2008 and were not identified in 2008-2009 plan. An internal evaluation at the end of programs will be conducted, but an audit will be performed only if the finding of the evaluation indicates a requirement of further investigation.
($ millions)
Name of Transfer Payment Program: Spring Credit Advance Program (SCAP) and Enhanced Spring Credit Advanced Program (ESCAP) (under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) -Business Risk Management Terms and Conditions - Voted & Statutory)
Start Date: April 1, 2003 For APF-Business Risk Management (BRM)
End Date: 2007-2008 concurrent with the end of the APF
Description:The SCAP program has been in place since 2000. The Spring Credit Advance Program (SCAP) provides producer organizations and their lenders with a repayment guarantee for advances of up to $0.05 million which are issued to producers in the spring. The objective of the program is to assist producers with their spring production input costs.
The ESCAP program was put in place in 2006 as a transitional program to increase the amount of interest free benefit to $0.1 million while amendments were being made to Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (AMPA). The objective of ESCAP is to allow producers to make decisions based on sound production or marketing rationale rather than on the availability of operating cash. Such objectives will contribute to the overarching goal of the APF.
The benefits of ESCAP include:
- Minimizing the distortion of producers' marketing and production decisions; and
- Facilitating short-term cash flow and long-term planning by producers.
Strategic Outcome: Security of the Food System
Results Achieved:
Legislative amendments on the AMPA were tabled in Parliament in May 2006, and the Enhanced Spring Credit Advance Program was announced as an interim measure. The AMPA received royal assent in June, 2006, and came into force in November, 2006.
On February 28th, 2006 AAFC launched the Advance Payments Program (APP)/SCAP Electronic Delivery System allowing producer organizations to submit producer level data electronically. AAFC now has greater access to more accurate reporting of advances and repayments across provinces and producer organizations.
The ESCAP production period ended on September 30th, 2007. The ESCAP was an interim program while legislative changes were made to the AMPA in regards to the APP program. In total, $1.021 billion was advanced under the ESCAP to 29,625 producers. The average advance was $34,494 per producer, with an average interest savings of $915.41 per producer. With this access to capital, and interest savings, the ESCAP achieved it's expected results to provide producers with greater access to credit in the spring to assist with input costs; Improved cash flow; and allow for better farming practices by providing greater access to working capital.
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance between Actual and Planned |
|
Program Activity: Business Risk Management |
||||||
Total Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Total Contributions | 15.3 | 27.4 | 26.1 | 26.7 | 15.7 | 10.4 |
Total Transfer Payment Program | 15.3 | 27.4 | 26.1 | 26.7 | 15.7 | 10.4 |
Comment(s) on Variance(s)
Actual cost of ESCAP for 2007-08 was less than planned due to the implementation of the New APP program along with old APP still being completed. This allowed for 3 different programs in which producers could choose from in order to receive an advance, which were being run concurrently. Uptake for all 3 programs was less than planned, but only due to a 3rd program being offered during
the same time period.
Significant Evaluation Findings and URL to Last Evaluation:
No evaluation of the ESCAP program was completed during the 2007-08 fiscal year. As the ESCAP program is now complete, no evaluation of the program will be pursued in the future.
Significant Audit Findings and URL to Last Audit:
No audit of the ESCAP program was completed during the 2007-08 fiscal year. As the ESCAP program is now complete, no audit of the program will be pursued in the future.
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: Security of the Food System
Summary of Results Achieved by the Recipient: CAPI submitted their Business and Research Plans in 2007/2008 but the annual report containing information on the results achieved relative to the Business Plan and Research Plan is due July 31, 2008 under the agreement.
2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$ millions | Actual Spending | Actual Spending | Planned Spending | Authorities | Actual Spending | Variance(s) between Actual and Planned |
Program Activity: Business Risk Management | 0.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | - |
Comment on Variance(s): The CAPI agreement was signed on March 31, 2007 and the full amount was paid to the client in the 2006/2007 fiscal year in the form of an endowment to be drawn down at the rate of $1 million per year for 15 years.
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 will be submitted to us by July 31, 2008.
URL to Recipient's Site: http://www.capi-icpa.ca
URL to Recipient's Annual Report: Will be available after July 31, 2008.
A "horizontal initiative" is an initiative in which partners from two or more organizations have agreed under a formal funding agreement (e.g. Memorandum to Cabinet, Treasury Board submission, federal-provincial agreement) to work toward the achievement of shared outcomes.
The objective of reporting on horizontal initiatives is to provide Parliament and the Canadian public and government with an overall picture of public spending and results achieved by departments working together.
Horizontal initiatives listed below were led by AAFC and were allocated federal funds that exceed $100 million (counting all federal partners) for the duration of the program, or were allocated less than $100 million in federal funds but still considered to be key to the achievement of government priorities, or had a high public profile.
Following is a summary list of horizontal initiatives for 2007-08. More complete information on each initiative, including spending and results, is available on the Treasury Board Secretariat's Horizontal Results Database.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative:
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) (transition to AgriStability/ AgriInvest)
2. Name of Lead Department(s):
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity:
Business Risk Management
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2003
For Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) - Business Risk Management funding, which covers CAIS.
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
March 31, 2008
For APF-Business Risk Management funding, which covers CAIS.
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
$2.4 billion over five years.
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
Under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) 2003/04-2007/08, CAIS was one of two core business risk management (BRM) programs, together with Production Insurance. CAIS was a margin-based program that integrated stabilization and disaster protection into a single program, helping producers protect their farming operations from small and large drops in income. This was a whole-farm
program available to eligible farmers regardless of the commodities they produced.
As a result of producer and industry concerns with the responsiveness, timing of payments and predictability of the program, the government committed, in the 2006 Speech from the Throne and Budget, to replacing CAIS with more responsive, predictable and bankable programs. After consultations with industry and the provinces and territories, federal-provincial-territorial governments agreed to replace CAIS with a new suite of BRM programs which includes AgriStability, AgrInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery. Transition to the new programs began in the 2007-08 fiscal year. The application deadline for the 2007 program year is the fall of 2008.
AgriStability is an improved margin-based program that provides farmers with assistance for larger income decline. The program compensates producers when their margin in the program year is more than 15 percent lower than their reference margin from previous years (the second and third tiers under CAIS). While AgriStability is similar to CAIS, it includes a number of enhancements which have long been requested by industry leaders, including a better method for valuing producer inventories, expansion of the criteria for negative margin coverage to allow deeper coverage for back-to-back disasters and an automatic Targeted Advance Payment for when disasters occur. In addition to these parameter changes, governments have also worked to improve the service delivery of the program by introducing enhancements such as automatic sign-up for previous participants, more flexible deadlines, simplified forms and electronic filing, online calculators, national service standards, and clearer program statements.
The new AgriInvest program will allow producers to self-manage the first 15 percent of their losses (the first tier under CAIS), through producer-government savings accounts. Annual producer deposits will be matched by government contributions (cost-shared 60:40 by federal and provincial governments) into the producer's account. Producers will have full access to use their AgriInvest money to address their farm income losses or for investments to mitigate on-farm risks or otherwise enhance profitability. In addition, to ensure that AgriInvest accounts are effective in the first years of the program, before producers have had a chance to build up their AgriInvest balances, the federal government provided one-time "kick-start" contributions into accounts (which did not require a matching producer deposit).
Program costs, including program payments and administrative costs, are cost shared by the federal government and the provinces on a 60:40 basis, respectively as identified in the following authorities:
The program links to the departmental strategic outcome Security of the Food System.
8. Shared Outcome(s):
To assist producers in protecting their farming operations from drops in income due to circumstances beyond their control.
Performance measures are:
9. Governance Structure(s):
The CAIS program is part of the comprehensive APF developed by federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture, and falls under the Business Risk Management priority. Funding is 60% federal and 40% provincial/territorial.
The CAIS program is delivered in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon by a federal administration. In Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, the CAIS program is delivered provincially.
Governance structure consists of the following:
A similar structure is utilized for the new BRM programs AgriStability and AgriInvest.
10. Federal Partners |
11. Federal Partner Program Activity |
12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners |
13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) |
14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 |
15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 |
16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 |
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. AAFC (lead) | Business Risk Management | CAIS / AgriStability | $2.4 billion (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2007/08) | $610.5 million | $433.6 million |
Producers better supported and able to manage business risks
Increased sector viability and profitability |
A number of program enhancements have been implemented to better serve producers including: a better method for valuing producer inventories, expansion of the criteria for negative margin coverage to allow deeper coverage for back-to-back disasters and an automatic Targeted Advance Payment for when disasters occur. In addition, improvements have been made to service delivery by introducing automatic sign-up for previous participants, more flexible deadlines, simplified forms and electronic filing, online calculators, national service standards, and clearer program statement. |
AgriInvest | $172.5 M for fiscal year 2007-08 (This amount was diverted from the CAIS $2.4B as AgriInvest replaces the top 15% of CAIS) |
$168.3 M |
Producers better supported and able to manage business risks
Increased sector viability and profitability |
Fiscal year 2007-08 was a transition year for the AgriInvest program. As such, program development was the focus and actual program payments to producers were not made. However, Program Grants & Contributions are recognized in the year that the related economic event occurs (ie 2007 Program/tax year). Payments to producers happen the year following the program/tax
year (2008-09).
To help producers build their AgriInvest accounts, the federal government provided a one-time only initiative to seed AgriInvest accounts. The $600 million Kickstart payment was delivered to producers in the 2007-08 fiscal year (not included in spending figures). |
|||
Total | $2.4 billion | $610.5 million | $601.9 million |
18. Comments on variances:
Although the Administration costs remain relatively constant, the variance in year to year G&C payments is directly related to the needs of the agriculture industry. CAIS/AgriStability is demand-driven rather than being funded from a set allocation for each fiscal year. As such, in good years, the program will cost governments less, while in bad years (i.e., years with dropping
commodity prices, disasters, etc.) the costs of the program will be higher. The program does, however, include a payment cap of $3 million per participant per program year in order to control costs for governments and prevent larger operations from capturing a large share of program benefits.
The AgriInvest variance between planned and actual spending was due to the timing of the program approval which occurred after the preparation of the 2007-08 RPP.
19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
Joint planning and execution (federally and provincially) so provincial results are consistent.
The BRM Working Group has been working towards developing national performance indicators for program delivery. A national processing service standard for CAIS 2006 program delivery year was agreed upon. This was a key achievement and responded to the Treasury Board policy requiring departments to establish and monitor service standards. Ongoing discussions on the expectation of administrations for regular service standard reporting will be taking place.
20. Contact Information
Michele Taylor
Director General
Farm Financial Programs Branch
204-984-5645
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS)
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity
Innovation and Renewal
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$74.58 million over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
Farmers and/or their spouses are offered assistance for skills development and access to training that could result in increased on or off-farm income. Assistance is provided to access training in areas such as improved farm practices and farm business management including accounting, finance, human resource management; training for other employment; or training to acquire skills for
starting a new business. To access training, financial support such as tuition fees for courses, supplies for courses as well as travel and accommodation is provided. By providing assistance for skills development and training, this horizontal initiative contributes to the strategic outcome of innovation for growth. Further details can be found at the following web link: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1176222540186&lang=e
8. Shared Outcome(s):
(a) Farmers' profitability increased;
(b) Improved choices about sources of income; and
(c) Production of farm products based on market and consumer demands respecting food safety and food quality and environmentally-responsible production, and opportunities from science and innovation captured.
9. Governance Structure(s)
Program development with Renewal federal/provincial/territorial working group. Program delivery by Service Canada (Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC)), Provincial Governments and Third Party delivery agents.
10. Federal Partners | 11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 | 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please note that expected results are different from the ones expressed in the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities. Expected results presented here are consistent with those for Renewal Programs within the recently approved Performance Measurement Framework of the Management Resources and Results Structure. They also better reflect the outcomes of the program. | |||||||
1. AAFC Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) |
Innovation and Renewal | a. Canadian Agricultural Skills Service | $74.58 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09) | $29.4 million | $40.8 million | Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals | In 2007-2008, 4,638 producers participated (2,951 of these through the Canadian Farm Families Options Program), bringing the cumulative total to 13,807; 80% of CASS CIA respondents reported that the skills and/or knowledge they developed through participation in CASS helped them in reaching their most important business goal (60% of most important goals reported by CIA CASS respondents were financial goals). |
Total | $74.58 million | $29.4 million | $40.8 million | Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. | Of total 2007 NRS respondents 30% reported that their top business goal is maximizing return on investment, up from 26% in 2004; 96% reported to be meeting this goal to some extent in 2007. |
18. Comments on Variances
The delivery of CASS was in its third year in 2007-08. Increased awareness of the program, combined with the CASS cross compliance requirement under the Options program has resulted in higher uptake than originally anticipated for 2007-08.
19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
CASS is delivered through agreements with five provinces (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Prince Edward Island) and through Service Canada in the remaining four provinces and the Yukon (CASS is not available in Quebec and only available on demand in Nunavut and North West Territories). Of the 4,638 producers who participated in 2007-08, 4,449 were in the provinces with
provincial delivery arrangements and 189 were in the provinces/territories served by Service Canada. In the provinces with provincial delivery arrangements, participation was as follows: Ontario (841), Manitoba (739), Saskatchewan (2,070), Alberta (764), and PEI (35). In provinces covered by Service Canada, participation was as follows: British Columbia (125), New Brunswick (25), Nova
Scotia (37) and Yukon (2). Overall, analysis to date indicates that 79% of CASS participants from provinces with provincial delivery were satisfied or very satisfied with the services provided for the development of their individual learning plan.
20. Contact Information:
Johanne Métayer, Director
Renewal Division, Farm Financial Programs Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
613-759-6689
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Co-operatives Secretariat
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$22.0 million over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
The Co operatives Secretariat was established in 1987 to help the Government of Canada respond more effectively to the concerns and needs of Canadian co-operatives. The Secretariat advises the government on policies affecting co-operatives, co-ordinates the implementation of such policies, promotes co-operatives within the federal government, and provides a link between the
co-operative sector and the many federal departments and agencies with which they interact.
8. Shared Outcome(s)
The end outcome of the Government of Canada with respect to co operatives is the expanded use of the co-operatives model to enhance the economic growth and social development of Canadian rural and urban society. The objectives are to:
-raise awareness of the co operative model and of the role that co operatives can play in both social and economic development;
-promote policies, programs and legislation that support co operatives development to achieve federal policy objectives, and greater harmonization of efforts; and
- encourage the growth of existing co operatives and the creation of new co-operatives to meet the social and economic needs of Canadians.
9. Governance Structure(s):
The Co-operatives Secretariat was created to improve the relationship between Canadian co operatives and the 17 federal departments and agencies currently known to have legislation, policies or programs affecting co operatives. Formal mechanisms for collaboration include the Interdepartmental Committee on Co operatives, dialogue with provincial collaborators and sector working groups.
The Co-operatives Secretariat, working closely with the Minister responsible for co-operatives, acts as a coordinator for interaction between the government and the co operative sector. The Secretariat is headed by an Executive Director, and administrative services for the Secretariat are provided by AAFC. More details
on the functions of the Secretariat are available.
10. Federal Partners Involved | 11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 | 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Co-operatives Secretariat/ AAFC
A listing of the 17 departments and agencies with legislation, policies and programs affecting co-operatives is available at: http://www.agr.gc.ca/rcs-src/coop/index_e.php?s1=leg&page=intro#CIC. |
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats | Co-operative Development Initiative (CDI): - Advisory Services - Innovation & Research |
$22.0 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09) |
$4.1 million | $9.3 million | Enhanced capacity for development of co operatives. | Network of 20 provincial, regional and sectoral partners involved in the delivery of CDI - Advisory services |
Increased opportunities, barriers mitigated and enhanced capacity of co-operatives development through government policies, programs and services. | During 2007-08, the Ag-CDI was extended for 2 years which will enable partnership with the co-op sector to assist farmers who want to explore the co-op approach to capture new agricultural value-added opportunities, including biofuels. | ||||||
Total | $22.0 million | $4.1 million | $9.3 million |
18. Comments on variances:
The Ag-CDI funding renewal during the year increased available funding by $1M which was essentially expended.
19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
Not applicable
20. Contact Information:
Donna Mitchell
Executive Director
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats
613-759-7113
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative:
AAFC-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) MOU on Agri-Food Specialists Positions Abroad
2. Name of Lead Department(s):
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity:
Markets and International
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
2003-04 fiscal year
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
2007-08 fiscal year (extended to March 31, 2009)
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
$44.4 million over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative:
This MOU was established under the 5 year Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) which ended in 2007/2008. The APF was extended for one year in order to facilitate the transition to Growing Forward, AAFC's new policy framework. The MOU establishes the operational principles, management practices and performance measurement criteria for the 34 agriculture and agri-food specialist
positions abroad. The objective is to enhance the delivery of the services to Canadian exporters in areas such as agriculture and agri-food business development, investment promotion, market access and advocacy, through Canadian Embassies and High Commissions located in key export markets.
8. Shared Outcome(s):
(a) Improved capacity within DFAIT's Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) to deliver in-market support to Canadian agriculture and food exporters;
(b) Increased recognition in targeted markets of Canada's ability to supply high quality, safe and innovative agriculture and food products produced in an environmentally responsible manner; and
(c) Improved market access in key markets for Canadian agriculture and food products.
9. Governance Structure(s):
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) The Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) Deputy Ministers who review and recommend the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommend the Ministers' approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort dispute resolution.
A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the JMC.
This MOU Governance Structure was supported in 2007-08 by the International Markets Coordination Unit (IMCU), which will evolve in 2008-09 into the Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioner Service (AFTCS) at AAFC. Operating under the guidance of the relevant Directors General of AAFC and DFAIT and the Senior Director at TBS, IMCU consults with appropriate AAFC and DFAIT officials from
the geographic, trade policy, investment, performance measurement, and human resources teams.
10. Federal Partners |
11. Federal Partner Program Activity |
12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners |
13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) |
14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 |
15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 |
16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 |
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. AAFC | Markets and International | a. International Team Program Delivery | $13.8 million | $2.5 million | $1.7 million | 1. Recognition gained and markets built through the implementation of Canada's branding strategy. | Agri-food specialists contributed to branding Canada abroad through timely information provided to potential customers, trade show participation, missions abroad, incoming buyer missions, etc. Examples include: participation in 5 international food shows in Russia, including the International VIV Show in Moscow; Foodex in Japan; the European Seafood Exposition in Brussels; HoFex in Hong Kong; Mexican buyers mission to Boston Seafood Show. |
2. Improved market access | Market access improvements have been made at several posts abroad. Key achievements include: Partial beef market opening in Indonesia; full beef access restored in the Philippines; maintained beef market access for under-thirty-months boneless beef to Hong Kong despite more BSE outbreaks in Canada; in June 2007 the market for Canadian beef was re-opened in Taipei, with conditions (de-boned meat from animals over 30 months of age). | ||||||
3. Technical barriers overcome | Overcame technical barriers for some key agri-food products. Examples of achievements: Korean Food and Drug Administration added the specifications for oxygenated products in its regulations. This has effectively removed an obstacle preventing access for Canadian oxygenated water; for salmon roe in Taipei export certificates are no longer required to certify that the wild fish from which the roe is taken are free of a number of several diseases endemic to the species; the EU reduced the end-use restriction on the cooked and peeled shrimp quota, increasing it to 20,000 tonnes. This change significantly opens the market to greater volumes of Canadian shrimp. | ||||||
b. Agricultural Policy Framework (For 10 additional positions and regularizing the 6.5 existing positions transferred) | $15.8 million (involves funds transferred from AAFC to DFAIT for work that supports AAFC and DFAIT Strategic Outcomes) | $3.2 million (involves funds transferred from AAFC to DFAIT for work that supports AAFC and DFAIT Strategic Outcomes) | $3.2 million | 1. Workplans developed for all agri-food positions abroad, harmonized as much as possible with DFAIT's planning and reporting requirements. | Workplans and reports developed. They will continue to be refined and updated as the work progresses. Progress has been made to integrate processes of both departments. | ||
2. Vacant positions staffed. | Candidates selected for New Delhi, Dubai and Singapore. Temporary duty assignments filled for Moscow, New York and Miami. |
||||||
3. Training and pre-posting tour arranged for new agri-food specialists | Outreach and training provided for India and Moscow trade commissioners. | ||||||
4. Review of agricultural and food positions abroad in line with priority markets. | Review completed. | ||||||
5. Re-integration strategy developed for returning agri-food specialists. | Returning officers successfully reintegrated according to new processes, however, a formalized strategy is to be developed. | ||||||
c. Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) (for original positions) | $9.5 million (involves funds transferred from AAFC to DFAIT for work that supports AAFC and DFAIT Strategic Outcomes) | $1.9 million | $1.9 million | ||||
2. DFAIT | Investment, Innovation and Sectors | Client Service Fund (for general expenditures in support of the positions) | $5.3 million | $1.1 million | $1.1 million | ||
Total | $44.4 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09 | $8.7 million | $7.9 million |
18. Comments on variances:
n/a
19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners (if applicable):
n/a
20. Contact Information:
Bruce Howard, Director - Agriculture and Food Trade Commissioner Service
Room 1059A
935 Carling Ave. Ottawa, ON K1A 0C5
613-759-6284
howardb@agr.gc.ca
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts identified in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Farm Business Services
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity
Innovation and Renewal
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$109.0 million over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
These services will provide eligible farmers access to financial consultants who will help them assess their finances and develop succession, action plans and business plans (financial, marketing, value-added). By providing access to financial consultants, this horizontal initiative contributes to the strategic outcome of innovation for growth.Further details can be found at the
following web link: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1177623682220&lang=e
8. Shared Outcome(s)
(a) Farmers' profitability increased;
(b) Improved choices about sources of income; and
(c) Production of farm products based on market and consumer demands respecting food safety and food quality and environmentally responsible production, and opportunities from science and innovation captured.
9. Governance Structure(s)
Program development and performance measurement by Renewal federal/provincial/territorial working group.
10. Federal Partners | 11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 |
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please note that expected results are different from the ones expressed in the 2007-08 Report on Plans and Priorities. Expected results presented here are consistent with those for Renewal Programs within the recently approved Performance Measurement Framework of the Management Resources and Results Structure. They also better reflect the outcomes of the program. | |||||||
1. AAC | Innovation and Renewal | a. Farm Business Assessment (FBA). This included for the beginning period of the FBA program, in cases where provinces had not yet signed their respective APF Implementation Agreements, the Farm Consultation Service (FCS), which was an existing program similar to FBA. Costs to deliver FCS have been included in FBA allocations. | $55.8 million | $15.3 million | $14.3 million | Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. |
In 2007-2008, 8,086 producers participated in FBA, 5,759 of these through Options.
55% of FBA Client Impact Assessment (CIA) respondents indicated that the FBA had been helpful in reaching their most important farm business goal. Of all FBA CIA respondents approximately 77% of most important goals reported were financial goals. |
b. Specialized Business Planning Services (SBPS) | $26.5 million | $5.5 million | $7.2 million | Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. | 643 producers participated in SBPS in 2007-2008, with a cumulative total of 1,817. 71% of SBPS CIA respondents reported that the SBPS program had assisted them in reaching their most important business goal. Of all SBPS CIA respondents 49% of most important goals reported were financial goals. | ||
c. Planning and Assessment for Value-added Enterprises (PAVE) | $26.7 million | $1.5 million | $0.6 million | Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. | 28 producers participated in PAVE during 2007-2008, with a cumulative total of 161. | ||
Total | $109.0 million (fiscal years 2003/04 to 2007/2008) | $22.3 million | $22.1 million | Farmers and farm families meet their financial goals. |
The 2007 National Renewal Survey (NRS) results show that 41% of farmers and farm families are meeting their business and personal goals; up from 37% in 2004. In addition, 30% reported that their top business goal is maximizing return on investment, up from 26% in 2004.
From 2003-2008 21,144 producers participated in FBA, SBPS, or PAVE |
18. Comments on Variances
Increased awareness of the FBA program, combined with the FBA cross compliance requirement under the Options program has resulted in higher uptake than originally anticipated for 2007-08. Further, uptake of the SBPS program was similar to 2006-07, and a slight decline in PAVE program uptake occurred in 2007-08.
19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
Planning and execution done jointly (federally and provincially) so provincial results do not differ.
20. Contact Information
Johanne Métayer, Director
Renewal Division, Farm Financial Programs Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
613-759-6689
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
MOU with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on Food Safety and Quality
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity
Food Safety and Food Quality
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003 for both initiatives
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008 for Medicated Feeds initiative and
March 31, 2009 for On-Farm Food Safety Recognition initiative
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$29.4 over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
To establish minimum standards, as well as inspection and enforcement strategies for manufacturers of medicated feed for food producing animals. Also to establish the On-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program (OFFSRP), which provides for government recognition of HACCP - based food safety systems developed and implemented by national producer associations.
Specific activities under the medicated feeds initiative will:
- promulgate and implement medicated feed regulations establishing minimum standards for manufacturers of medicated feed for food producing animals; and
- establish standards and policies supporting the design and implementation of an inspection and licensing system for these feed mills and farms by evaluating their manufacturing procedures and records.
Specific activities under the on-farm food safety recognition initiative will:
- establish a recognition system for on-farm food safety programs, which will ensure that adequate government oversight mechanisms are in place to maintain the confidence of Canada=s trading partners and facilitate open access to marketplace.
8. Shared Outcome(s) (MOU, section 1.2)
(a) protect human health by reducing exposure to hazards; and
(b) increase consumer confidence in the safety and quality of food produced in Canada
9. Governance Structure(s)
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) the Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) the Deputy Ministers' Committee which reviews and recommends the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommends the Minister's approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) the Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort for dispute resolution.
A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the first committee.
10. Federal Partners |
11. Federal Partner Program Activity |
12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners |
13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) |
14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 |
15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 |
16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 |
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. AAFC (work performed by CFIA) |
Food Safety and Food Quality (AAFC)
2007-08 Food Safety and Public Health (CFIA) |
a. On-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program (OFFSRP) | $ 10.0 million for 2003/04 to 2007/08 plus $2.4 million for 2008/09 totalling $12.4 million over 6 fiscal years.(APF plus first year of Growing Forward) | $1.98 million | $1.5 million | OFFSRP Development - The requirements, criteria, and procedures for the 3rd party audit accreditation process developed and finalized |
- 3rd party audit accreditation process finalized. |
- Assessment process implemented (industry management system) - On-going monitoring process. Conduct - Pilots on accreditation and implementation assessment processes conducted - Training to industry and government partners on the details of the above processes provided |
- The latter stages of the OFFSRP developed in consultation with industry and FPT governments. | ||||||
OFFSRP Implementation - Ongoing technical review of industry-submitted generic HACCP models and producer manuals - Pilot on management system conducted. |
- Technical reviews completed on 2 more industry-submitted generic HACCP models and producer manuals, and 4 more were initiated. - Pilot completed on industry management system |
||||||
- Ongoing technical review of industry procedures manual, management system documents and manuals.
Expanded Activities (from re-profiled funding) |
- No additional industry management systems were submitted for review.
- The existing information & supplemental information for the HDB were reviewed and updated. |
||||||
- The web-based application for the provision of the HDB technical information to stakeholders developed and implemented. | - The web-based application has been developed and implemented. | ||||||
Generic Models - On-farm and / or post-farm HACCP generic models for identified products developed. Guidelines |
- HACCP generic models and Food Safety Practices Guidance documents for Sprouts, RTE Fresh Cut Vegetables, and Spices were fully developed and released to stakeholders - Work done in this area conducted through other activities |
||||||
Enhanced knowledge skills - Work continued with provinces and stakeholders to identify knowledge and information gaps and integrate into generic plans and hazard data base as appropriate. Post Farm Recognition |
- Work done in this area conducted through other activities.
- Analysis on stakeholder need and OFFSRP completed. Preliminary work conducted on the conversion of OFFSRP manuals for use with the proposed PFFSRP |
||||||
- Implementation strategy developed | - Program development and implementation plan created | ||||||
- Technical review process for HACCP plans and participant manuals piloted | - Pilot will be conducted following identification of both government and industry bodies to participate | ||||||
- Technical review process related to management systems developed | - Preliminary work conducted on the conversion of OFFSRP manuals for use with the proposed PFFSRP | ||||||
Technical Advice - Timely scientific and technical advice to AAFC and AAFC stakeholders provided. |
- Timely scientific and technical advice provided to AAFC and AAFC stakeholders. | ||||||
Information gathering and sharing - Workshop conducted with provincial partners to identify information needs, objectives and information management options. |
- work done in this area conducted through other activities. | ||||||
Surveillance - Current knowledge on the prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella and Campylobacter in food-producing animals and meat products marketed in Canada assessed. - Critical gaps in industry food safety plans that require action are identified. Strengthening Food Safety Programs - Key food safety, traceability and quality strategies development through work with interdepartmental colleagues as well as consultation with P/T Governments and external stakeholders. - Risk modelling tool to evaluate risk profiles development. |
The Survey design for the Surveillance study was completed.
- CFIA participation and input on various intradepartmental and interdepartmental committees and working groups - e.g. the FPT Food Safety Committee, FPT Strategy for Safe Food sub-committee and working groups, FPT HACCP Recognition sub-committee, AAFC's Growing Forward development, and the proposed Agriculture-Health Agenda. |
||||||
2. CFIA | b. Animal and Plant Resource Protection | Medicated Feed Regulations | $ 17.0 million for 2003/04 to 2007/08. |
$ 3.36 million | $2.6 million |
Development of the Proposed Regulations
- Regulatory text developed and finalized, including Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and other required documents; Regulatory proposal published in Publish Gazette I and II |
Development of the Proposed Regulations
After consultations with stakeholders the regulatory text was developed and is currently with the Department of Justice for review. It is anticipated that the regulations may be published in Gazette Part 1 in late 2008. The Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement was reviewed and revised. |
- Continued participation in bilateral and multi-lateral stakeholder meetings and conferences to discuss the regulatory proposal |
Stakeholder meetings held to determine the controls necessary to meet regulatory outcomes and develop the Manual of Procedures outlining how to implement and assess the proposed controls,
Twelve information sessions held across the country to inform stakeholders about the proposed regulation. |
||||||
- Environmental scan prepared on effective licensing options
- Functional licensing office opened |
A risk ranking model to assist in determining the risk of carryover medication residues to animal and human health. The draft model was presented to stakeholders, USFDA and gFARAD. Work is ongoing.
A decision was made not to spend significant amounts of funds evaluating options and open an office until the final the regulations were approve |
||||||
Lab Accreditation
- Development continued on a lab accreditation system for medication guarantees and residues |
Lab Accreditation Ongoing work to support ISO 97025 accreditation through SCC Development of new methodologies to determine trace levels of medicating ingredients. |
||||||
Development of Training Program/Inspector Certification
-National documented training and assessment program for feed inspection staff developed |
Development of Training Program/Inspector Certification
A series of Training Manuals, E-Learning Courses and Workshop Templates were developed. The Launch of the Training Program is tentatively scheduled for July 2008. Facility Inspection |
||||||
Computer Applications
- IT system to ensure availability of accurate, comprehensive electronic compliance information is improved |
A Compliance Verification System for feed facility inspection was developed.
Computer Applications Medicated Feed Team Staff coordinated Feed Program Submission for the improvements to the MCAP System, including reporting capabilities. |
||||||
Total | $29.4 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09; (funds transferred from AAFC to CFIA) | $5.34 million | $4.1 million |
18. Comments on variances:
OFFSRP development is still on-going since further discussions to be held with industry and FPT governments regarding need and scope of latter stages of recognition process. As part of the Quality Assurance process, the web-based application and user acceptance testing is being conducted for the Hazard Database. OFFSRP development is continuing under a Memorandum of Understanding for
2008-09. Under the Medicated Feed Regulations a decision was made not to spend a significant amount of funds evaluating licensing options and opening an office until the final regulations are approve.
19. Results to be Achieved by Non-federal Partners (if applicable)
Not applicable
20. Contact Information
Anita Stanger
Director
Food Safety and Quality Programs Division
613-759-6054
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
MOU with Health Canada (HC) on Food Safety and Quality and Environment
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity
Food Safety and Food Quality
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative
April 1, 2003
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$56.5 million over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
To conduct research-related work in support of standard setting, on-farm food safety standards, national integrated enteric pathogen surveillance, and human health impact of on-farm anti-microbial use.
Specific activities will include:
8. Shared Outcome(s):
(a) protect human health by reducing exposure to hazards;
(b) increase consumer confidence in the safety and quality of food produced in Canada; and
(c) reduce agricultural risks to the environment and provide benefits to health and supply of water, with key priority areas being nutrients, human pathogens, pesticides and water conservation. [MOU, section 1.2]
9. Governance Structure(s)
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) the Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) the Deputy Ministers' Committee which reviews and recommends the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommends Ministers' approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort for dispute resolution.
A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the JMC.
This MOU Governance Structure is supported by the Interdepartmental Director General Working Group, whose members are the relevant Directors General from AAFC, HC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and a Senior Director from TBS.
10. Federal Partners | 11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 |
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. HC, PHAC and AAFC | Food Safety and Food Quality | a. HC On-Farm Food Safety Standards | $11.9 million | $2.5 million | $2.5 million | Increased quality, quantity and availability of information relevant to on-farm food safety issues. Policies and risk management strategies applicable on-farm |
- Developed CANLINE, a centralized, searchable database on levels of chemical contaminants in food: data generated by the HC and NCR will be readily accessible for use in health risk assessments and policy development activities within the department. |
Industry developed on farm food safety programs are recognized by on-farm food safety recognition programs
Ongoing collaborations with F/P/T governments on issue identification, gap analysis and data collection in support of research and or policy development. |
- Completed Strategy for Safe Food and obtained agreement in principle from the FPT Food Safety Committee to use the Strategy to identify key activities and priorities for the consideration of FPT ADMs of Agriculture and Health. | ||||||
b. HC Research in Support of Standard Setting | $9.2 million | $2.0 million | $2.0 million |
Increased capacity to identify and monitor key foodborne pathogens and chemical contaminants in food and food inputs at the farm level.
Increased scientific knowledge of key pathogens and chemical contaminants in food and food inputs at the farm level. Increased scientific contribution to the development of evidence-based on-farm food safety intervention strategies Established and/or strengthened partnerships among government policy makers, government researchers, academia and industry associations to optimize coordinated on-farm food safety research. (Work to be done by HC to pursue AAFC and HC Strategic Outcomes) |
- Conducted surveillance of raw agricultural products, animal feeds and composted manure from farms to better understand the transmission of Shigella, Salmonella, viruses such as the noroviruses, and other key pathogens through the food system. This will allow identification of key areas of interventions to manage microbiological risks, and to
develop Codes of Practice and educational materials. - Contributed to finding that human strains of noroviruses can be found in animals and be transmitted to humans through the food chain. Discovery could have a huge impact on policy. - Discovered a high prevalence of Giardia and Cryptosporidium (human parasites) on farms and the potential zoonotic transmission of these pathogens through direct contact, water or foods. This discovery could have a huge impact on policy. - Determined residue levels in single serving commodities at the farm level to establish the impacts of composting. These data provided knowledge of chemical contamination and residue drift within a growing operation, and to occupational exposure to these contaminants. - Conducted a large review on allergens and produced an Information Update document on the safety of including limited amounts of pure oats in the diet of Celiac patients. - Reviewed current risk assessment of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs. As a result, the HC's tolerable daily intake (TDI) for dioxins (and dioxin-like PCBs) has been revised and reduced almost 5-fold. |
||
c. PHAC - National Integrated Enteric Pathogen Surveillance | $3.3 million | $0.7 million | $0.7 million |
An integrated enteric pathogen sentinel site surveillance program is operational in one sentinel site (human, food, food animal, water) Data synthesis and analysis with respect to trends / emerging issues.
(Work to be done by PHAC to pursue AAFC, HC, and PHAC Strategic Outcomes) |
- Developed Framework for National Sentinel Surveillance - Consulted with National and International Stakeholders - MOUs and Agreements developed and signed. - Implemented and Maintained Pilot Sentinel Site using the region of Kitchener-Waterloo. - Reports, Publications, Presentations |
||
d. PHAC - Human Health Impact of On-Farm Antimicro-bial Use | $3.3 million | $0.7 million | $0.7 million |
Farm level studies on antimicrobial use and development of resistant pathogens. Data synthesis and analysis with respect to trends / emerging issues.
(Work to be done by PHAC to pursue AAFC HC, and PHAC Strategic Outcomes) |
- Consensus obtained among stakeholders contributed to the establishment of a sentinel vet/farm-based framework design where herd biosecurity and data confidentiality are protected. - This national program is active in the 5 major pork producing provinces, involving 28 veterinarians and 108 sentinel farms. - Additional support from BC, AB and SK provided better data in those provinces. Support included funds and in kind contributions. - On-farm surveillance provides the only usable data on antimicrobial use (AMU) in animals that is currently available in Canada. - Provincial, federal and industry funding agencies have funded on-farm research that will direct the expansion of this surveillance program to other commodities. - This infrastructure provides a platform to address new issues as they arise, e.g. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in farmers. - This pilot will provide direction on the activities that contribute to core public health surveillance of the food-chain. |
||
e. HC - Water Quality Surveillance | $4.8 million ($4.0 million for HC; $0.8 million for AAFC) | $0.7 million | $0.7 million |
Define whether agriculture is a contributor of microbiological (faecal) contamination at drinking water supply intake points in three distinct watersheds; which will, in turn, contribute to the development of policies/strategies that will reduce human exposure to faecal contaminants (refer to logic model and HC PAA).
(Work to be done by HC and AAFC to pursue AAFC and HC Strategic Outcomes) |
- Strategic planning meetings held each year; finalized study activities for years 1 through 5. - Sampling using optimized MST methods (water and faecal) conducted on South Nation Watershed from 2004 to November 2007. - Comprehensive science reports completed annually. - Results presented at national and international fora, thereby contributing to the advancement of the field of MST. - Mining of data continues |
||
2. AAFC (work performed by AAFC) | AAFC - Research in Support of APF Priorities | $24.0 million | $4.0 million | $4.0 million | Scientific knowledge advanced and data on food safety provided. | Research activities were conducted on the effect of antimicrobial use in foods, alternative strategies to reduce antibiotic use in animals, improved detection and control of food borne viruses, bacteria and chemical toxicants including mycotoxins, enhanced knowledge of biochemical mechanisms and processes as they affect sensitivity to allergens and development of a comprehensive understanding of microbial interactions during food production from the farm to the plate and the impact of these interactions on the safety of food | |
Methodologies developed to detect and quantify foodborne viruses, food borne pathogens, allergens and mycotoxins in food nutrices. | - Allergic reactions appear to be on the rise in Canada. The impacts of AAFC research in this area include: AAFC scientists supplied control allergen reference materials for use in method development, evaluation and validation in support of Health - Canada's allergen policy development for detection of peanut allergens in chocolate. Identification of the potential sources of allergen cross-contamination during food processing was evaluated to provide allergen free product to sensitive consumers. - Samples of allergenic materials were provided to European scientists to be used in a human double blind food allergy challenge study by Europrevall. - North American study (26 Canadians and Americans) was completed and 13 allergens (5 novel) were identified and the frequency among the population of patients with soybean allergy was determined. In addition, over 2,500 soy lines were screened for hypo-allergenic material and antibodies developed against one. Detailed characterization of allergenic proteins continues as soy allergens are considered as one of the 10 allergens most frequently affecting people. |
||||||
Continue to design and evaluate strategies to control pathogenic agents in food matrices, through food productive, processing, distribution, continuum. | - Through partnerships with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada and provincial organizations, the food virology group has made breakthroughs in the methodology to detect and quantify food-borne pathogenic viruses in complex food matrices. Jointly, AAFC, HC, CFIA, and PHAC initiated a 4 year integrated national project to provide potential solutions to recurring incidents of contamination of fresh horticultural products including the detection and control of verotoxigenic E.coli (VTEC; includes E.coli O157:H7 and similar strains). Of special interest, research into the effect of beneficial bacteria - probiotics - on virulence of E. coli O157:H7 (bacteria responsible for "hamburger disease") produced results that indicate a role for probiotics in the treatment of E. coli O157:H7 infections. - An integrated study of the impact of pathogens and antibiotic use in beef and swine on the safety throughout the farm to food continuum progressed. Results will provide insight into potential of decreasing antibiotic use in animals therefore decreasing antibiotic resistance. |
||||||
Total | $56.5 million (portions where AAFC is listed as a partner and work is performed by HC and/or PHAC involves funds transferred from AAFC to HC - see note) | $10.6 million (portions where AAFC is listed as a partner and work is performed by HC and/or PHAC involves funds transferred from AAFC to HC) | $10.6 million |
18. Comments on variances:
MOU ended March 31, 2008. All funds were dispersed. HC and PHAC are looking forward to further collaboration.
19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners (if applicable):
Not applicable
20. Contact Information:
Dr. Maria Nazarowec-White
Program Coordinator
Research Branch
Food Safety and Quality
613-759-6378
Note: Planned Spending and total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates. Total Allocation for 2008-09 and beyond is dependent upon finalization of an extension MOU with PHAC, and is therefore not included in the Total Allocation.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
MOU with Environment Canada (EC) on the National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI)
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
Environment Canada
3. Lead Department Program Activity
AAFC: Environment
EC: Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Program
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2004
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$25.0 million over four years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
This initiative involves the development of non-regulatory agri-environmental "performance standards" (i.e., outcome-based standards) that will address both desired levels of environmental quality, and the levels that are considered achievable based on available technology and practice. These standards will act as benchmarks and targets against which environmental performance can be
assessed. They may also help guide development of practices used by producers and industry to help reduce environmental risks and provide benefits to the health and supply of water, the health of soils, the health of air and the atmosphere, thus ensuring compatibility between biodiversity and agriculture. Standards will be developed in four theme areas: Air, Water, Biodiversity and
Pesticides.
Funding for NAESI was allocated to EC under the APF and allotments were released to EC annually following the Deputy Ministers Committee decision based on the recommendation of the Joint Management Committee.
8. Shared Outcome(s)
(a) Consistent national agri-environmental standards are available to support, assess, and demonstrate progress towards the goal of environmentally sustainable agriculture in Canada;
(b) Recognition of Canada's role as a world leader in environmentally responsible agricultural production is advanced;
(c) Environmental farm planning and the move towards environmental farm certification is supported;
(d) Uptake of national standards to benefit the health and supply of water, soil, air and atmosphere; and
(e) Compatibility between agriculture and biodiversity is ensured.
9. Governance Structure(s)
The MOU Governance Model includes three levels:
(1) the Joint Management Committee (JMC) which approves costed work plans with milestones, targets and indicators; reviews expenditures; and reports semi-annually on results to the Deputy Ministers' Committee;
(2) the Deputy Ministers Committee which reviews and recommends the annual release of funds that are held in frozen allotment by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), and recommends Ministers' approval of changes, where objectives of this MOU change materially; and
(3) Ministers who approve changes where objectives of this MOU change materially and who constitute the last resort for dispute resolution.
A TBS official sits as an ex-officio member on the first committee.
This MOU Governance Structure is supported by the Interdepartmental Director General Steering Committee, whose members are the relevant Directors General from AAFC and EC and an Executive Director from TBS.
10. Federal Partners | 11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 | 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAFC | Environment | MOU with EC on NAESI | $25.0 million (for fiscal years 2004-05 to 2007-08) | $4.3 million | $4.3 million | - Completed protocols and standards for the water, biodiversity, air and pesticide themes - Completed science assessment for the air theme - Recommendation for standards use and draft implementation plan prepared - Stakeholder communication materials prepared and workshop held |
- EC developed approximately 90 metric-specific environmental performance standards related to water (nutrients, pathogens, sediments, in-stream flow, availability), biodiversity (habitat), pesticides (ideal and achievable standards for high risk pesticides, risk-based standards, meteorological standard for spray application, mixture and commodity
based standards) and air (agricultural ammonia emissions and its role in PM formation). - Ammonia science assessment completed. - Analysis of the maturity of standards for use to be completed this fiscal year. - Two newsletters and 2007 technical reports published. |
EC | Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Program | MOU with AAFC on NAESI | Same as above | Same as above | |||
Total | $25.0 million (work to be done by EC to pursue joint EC/AAFC Strategic Outcomes) | $4.3 million | $4.3 million |
18. Comments on Variances
19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
There are no non-federal partners involved in NAESI.
20. Contact Information:
Sarah Kalff
Manager, Biophysical Information and Analysis
Agri-Environmental Policy Bureau
613-715-5195
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative
Production Insurance (PI)
2. Name of Lead Department(s)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity
Business Risk Management (BRM)
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2003
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative
March 31, 2008
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date)
$2.0 billion estimated over five years.
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement)
Under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF), PI is one of two core federal-provincial-territorial BRM programs available to Canadian Producers. PI is designed to stabilize producers' incomes by minimizing the economic impacts of production losses arising from natural hazards like drought, hail, frost, and excessive moisture, as well as uncontrollable pests and diseases. The program
is cost-shared by producers and governments. It is delivered by the provinces, with the federal government contributing a portion of total premiums and administrative costs. By stabilizing producers' income, this horizontal initiative contributes to AAFC's strategic outcome "Security of the Food System".
8. Shared Outcome(s)
Expand production loss protection to a broader range of agricultural commodities to further reduce the need for ad hoc compensation.
9. Governance Structure(s)
PI is a provincial-territorial program to which the federal government contributes financially under federal-provincial-territorial APF Implementation Agreements. Governance structure includes various national standards outlined in federal PI Regulations and federal-provincial committees (Production Insurance and BRM Working Groups as well as Policy Assistant Deputy Ministers).
10. Federal Partners | 11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 | 17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. AAFC | Business Risk Management | Production Insurance | $2.0 billion (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2007/08) | $407.2 million | $422.1 million | 1. Increased number of new programs and options available to farmers, including new plans for horticulture, forage and livestock sectors. | 12 new plans, programs and options. |
2. Increased producer participation in provinces and territories that have amended existing plans and that are implementing new plans and options. | 2,047 new contracts | ||||||
Total | $2.0 billion (see note) | $407.2 million (see note) | $422.1 million |
18. Comments on Variances
Total expenditures for 2007/08 were higher than what was planned due to rise in grain and oilseed prices which have increased total premium costs.
19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
N/A
20. Contact Information:
Michel Massé
A/Director
Production Insurance and Risk Management Division
Farm Financial Programs Branch
613-759-6179
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates. Planned spending includes Production Insurance premiums, Production Insurance administration expenses, Wildlife Damage Compensation, and Wildlife Damage Compensation administration expenses.
See also the related horizontal initiative: Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program
1. Name of Horizontal Initiative:
Rural Development
2. Name of Lead Department(s):
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
3. Lead Department Program Activity:
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats
4. Start Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
April 1, 2003
5. End Date of the Horizontal Initiative:
March 31, 2008 (extended to March 31, 2009)
6. Total Federal Funding Allocation (start to end date):
$69.4 million over six years
7. Description of the Horizontal Initiative (including funding agreement):
The Government of Canada has mandated the Rural Secretariat with developing, coordinating, and implementing a national, coordinated, cross-government approach to better understand the issues and concerns of rural Canadians and to encourage federal departments and agencies to make adjustments to their policies, programs and services to reflect the unique needs of rural communities. In
conjunction with 34 federal departments and agencies - the Canadian Rural Partnership - the Government of Canada aims to integrate its economic, social, environmental and cultural policies to enhance the quality of life for rural Canadians.
8. Shared Outcome(s):
The outcome is enhanced access by rural Canadians to opportunities which will allow them to contribute to and benefit from Canada's prosperity and success. It is based on the following six guiding principles:
9. Governance Structure(s):
The federal partnership - the Canadian Rural Partnership - is managed by the Rural Secretariat based in AAFC in cooperation with an Assistant Deputy Minister Steering Committee and an Interdepartmental Working Group with representatives from 34 federal departments and agencies involved in the rural agenda. Horizontal coordination and leadership are provided by the Rural Secretariat
under the direction of the Minister. This collaborative effort is reinforced by Rural Teams in each province and territory comprised of the federal government in the region with most teams also including members from the provincial or territorial government and/or sectoral stakeholders. At the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (F/P/T) level there is an Assistant Deputy Ministers
Committee and a Working Group reporting to FPT Ministers responsible for the Rural file.
10. Federal Partners Involved in each program |
11. Federal Partner Program Activity | 12. Names of Programs for Federal Partners | 13. Total Allocation (from start to end date) | 14. Planned Spending for 2007-2008 | 15. Actual Spending for 2007-2008 | 16. Expected Results for 2007-2008 |
17. Results Achieved in 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rural Secretariat
A listing of the 34 departments and agencies of the Canadian Rural Partnership isa available at http://rural.gc.ca/part_e.phtml. |
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat | 1. Rural Dialogue 2. Rural Lens 3. Rural Research and Analysis 4. Outreach 5. Rural Programs |
$69.4 million (for fiscal years 2003/04 to 2008/09) | $11.3 million (for all program elements) |
$18.2 million (for all program elements) |
A stronger rural voice | More than 300 regional initiatives (including learning events, workshops, dialogues and research projects) were achieved |
Enhanced capacity for development of rural communities | The Community Information database (CID) has shown continued strong usage (800-1,000 visits per month – comparable to last year) | ||||||
Increased opportunities, barriers mitigated and rural development capacity enhanced through Government policies, programs and services. | Rural Development Network (RDN) involves members from 29 depts - held 18 inter-departmental activities. Consolidated membership (24 depts last year). | ||||||
Total | $69.4 million | $11.3 million | $18.2 million |
18. Comments on variances:
Models for Rural Development program had unused funding in 2006/2007 which was carried over into the 2007/2008 fiscal year.
19. Results Achieved by Non-Federal Partners:
Not applicable
20. Contact Information:
Donna Mitchell
Executive Director
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats
613-759-7113
Note: Planned Spending and Total Allocation figures represent the amounts included in Estimates.
AAFC's fourth Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS), Making Progress Together can be found on AAFC's website at: www.agr.gc.ca/sds
1. SDS Departmental Goals: AAFC's fourth SDS presents eight outcomes (goals) to indicate what the Department plans to accomplish by the target date of 2009.
2. Federal SD Goal (s) including GGO goals, if applicable: 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.
3: Department's Expected Results for 2007-2008
(SDS commitments continue until 2009) |
4. Supporting Performance Measure(s) | 5. Achieved SDS Departmental Results for 2007-2008 |
---|---|---|
1. The Next Generation of Agricultural Policy is in place and operational. | The number of new policies, programs and research initiatives that consider the three pillars of sustainable development as determined through application of the SD Test Questions. | The SD Test Questions, now referred to as Sustainability Questions, are not being consistently completed. The overall participation rate since 2006 is 26 percent. An approach has been developed to address the poor application of the questions. |
A suite of policy, program and research activities in place to support the objectives of the next generation of agricultural policy. | The new framework, Growing Forward, was developed and its BRM component was ready for implementation by the end of the fiscal year. As well, arrangements were made for 2008-2009 to be a transition year during which the rest of the Growing Forward initiatives will be implemented and the FPT framework agreement signed. | |
Number of stakeholders (both internal and external) from various disciplines involved in the development of the next generation of agricultural policy. | Consultations included meetings with a broad range of external stakeholders from across the country in May 2007 and February 2008, with 41 organizations represented at the May meeting and 59 at the February meeting. As well, extensive discussions were held on an ongoing basis with internal stakeholders through, for example, internal committees at various levels. | |
2. Government policies, programs, and services increase opportunities for, and mitigate barriers, to sustainable rural community development. At output (deliverable) level: Link to Federal SD Goals -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 seventeen (17) Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) meetings, analysed 96 Memoranda to Cabinet (MCs), and provided input to 48 briefing notes or MCs in applying the Rural Lens to federal policies and programs. |
Number of partnership plans with key federal, provincial and territorial, and First Nation partners. |
Established the Interdepartmental working group on resource-based communities with NRCan and DFO. Ongoing work with Regional Development Agencies and Metropolis on a strategic policy research topic including publishing an article on the regionalization of immigration. Coordinated ten other departments to prepare the Canadian submission in the 16th report of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development - Rural Development. Elaboration of a bioeconomy action plan in collaboration with federal departments. Through the Rural Teams 345 partnership initiatives were achieved for 2007-2008. For example:
|
|
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 Goals - 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. | Increased knowledge and technological advances did not take place since the ABIP Networks had not yet initiated R&D activities. |
Increased number of effective networks/clusters involving Canadian-based researchers. | Out of 100 proposal synopses initially submitted to AAFC, a total of 78 eligible Full Network Proposals were received. Fifteen (15) network proposals were recommended for funding by a review committee of external international experts. These Networks were directed to submit reduced plans to meet a national allocation of the ABIP funds expected to be available. The 15 networks received a draft template agreement at the end of the fiscal year to be used to effect the negotiation of contributions. | |
Improving transfer of knowledge, technology and expertise to organizations that can commercialize these innovations. | Technology management plans were not implemented since the ABIP Networks had not yet initiated R&D activities. | |
An ABIP that considers each of the three pillars of SD. | The program is specifically designed to build on the three pillars of SD. | |
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 - |
Increased awareness of sustainable development within the Department | Sustainability Questions are operational. |
SD was promoted during Environment Week. | ||
An SD information session was developed for AAFC employees. | ||
Each pillar of SD is taken into consideration together and not in isolation through the application of the SD Test Questions. |
The Sustainability Questions ask policy makers to identify how their new policy or program contributes to a stronger economy, an improved environment or enhanced health and social well-being. While the questions are not being consistently completed, when they are completed, the responses provide policy makers with information on all three pillars of SD to consider in
their decision-making.
An approach has been developed to address the poor application of the questions. |
|
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, 76 percent of new policies, plans and programs have gone through the SEA process. This represents 94 percent of all MCs and 63 percent of all TB submissions. |
The results of SEAs are accurately reported on in all Memoranda to Cabinet (MCs) and Treasury Board (TB) submissions. | Seventy-six (76) percent of all new policies, plans and programs went through the SEA process and in all of these cases, the results of the SEA was 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 achieved 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 - 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. | Four of the original AEIs used for the APF Outcome Target Analysis were placed on the NLWIS system to facilitate integrated analysis. Methods to place all the new AEIs on NLWIS have been determined. |
Number of requests for integrated analyses and incorporation of results into the policy decision making process. | Completed Phase I analysis looking at enhance production of bioenergy, assessing GHG and energy efficiency. Assessments of CAIS, Production Insurance, and APF are underway. | |
The development of the integrated modeling system considers all three pillars of SD (particularly the economic and environmental pillars) | The modeling system has been extended to look at upstream and downstream economic impacts for the bioeconomy in conjunctions with environmental impacts. | |
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 August 2007 to discuss development of valuation research at AAFC. |
Increased public awareness of the need for, and the practical application of environmental valuation. | The Full-cost Accounting Framework for Agriculture, developed by International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) was applied to one watershed in Manitoba. Report completed June 2008. | |
Number of estimated economic values assigned to environmental effects of specific agricultural practices at specific locations in Canada. | Two AAFC valuation pilots developed survey instruments to measure public benefits from Ecological Goods and Services (EG&S) in selected watersheds. Expected completion in December, 2008. | |
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 - 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 the focus on economic and environment performance, the focus was shifted to identify other factors, beyond economics, that influenced innovation. Report published by IISD. |
Number of links established between social issues affecting the agriculture sector and related economic and environmental issues. | Social networking opportunities were identified as critical to learning process by the agricultural sector. This is part of larger effort to determine link between BMP uptake and economic and environmental performance | |
Number of methods available for sharing information on social issues affecting the agriculture sector. | A variety of social networking and learning opportunities were defined as they link to innovation and economic and environmental performance. | |
6. Research: To increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, reduce GHG 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 GHG calculator for evaluating innovative technologies. |
The first phase of the development of the GHG calculator was recently completed and the software tool, now called Holos, was released in March 2008. The software and installation instructions are freely available for download on the following ftp site.
During the winter and spring of 2008, Holos was demonstrated at the Technical Advisory Committee of the Renewables Integration and Assessment Group of NRCAN, at the AGM of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and during Environment Week at AAFC. Further, Holos is featured on the Integration of Renewable Energy on Farms website. As a result, Holos and its abilities have been recently communicated to a diverse audience. |
Number of confirmed contribution of the program to various offset system pilot projects. | A total of 7 protocols related to the agricultural sector for quantifying potential GHG reductions from agriculture have been approved in the province of Alberta. AAFC scientists have been involved in the development of most of these protocols, either as members of the National Offset Quantification Teams or have contributed original research that have assisted in the development of these protocols. Further, a protocol for quantifying potential GHG reductions for the Canadian dairy industry is currently being prepared by the Atlantic Dairy and Forage Institute, based in New Brunswick, and several AAFC staff members were included on the Technical Advisory Committee | |
Enhanced integration of the three pillars of SD by identifying and promoting farming practices that consider all three pillars of SD. | Several management practices have been identified and promoted as a beneficial management practices 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. | An EG&S policy framework that is science-based will obtain more insight from eight pilot projects currently operating across Canada. When completed in 2009, the pilots will provide new science-based and measurable information to the framework. |
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 that adheres to three pillars of the SDS is in place. | |
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: 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. | Development of Watershed MAPS (Watershed Management And Planning System) – a geo-spatial information management system (tool) for supporting decision-making in watersheds in Manitoba. (90% complete) |
Percentage of watershed planning and management activities that apply the IWRM approach to managing resources in watersheds. |
Implementation of Manitoba's Integrated Watershed Management Planning strategy in 10 priority watersheds in agricultural Manitoba for which PFRA&E has also provided technical support.
There has been significant progress on Saskatchewan's Integrated Water Management (IWM) Strategy. A governance structure model has been developed as part of the IWM Strategic Framework for consideration by Provincial cabinet (SK) in the fall of 2008. Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Initiative is benefiting from technical capacity related to group environmental farm plans provided by AAFC in collaboration with other federal and provincial partners. In general, increased number of requests from watershed authorities and provincial departments for technical support in IWRM activities. |
|
Percentage of partners and watersheds with capacity-building or decision-making tools, plans and instruments that consider the three elements of sustainable development |
Utilizing the governance established by the AAFC Strategic Water Framework, the department has been an active participant on the interdepartmental Water ADM's Committee on Water Policy where IWRM as a governance model is a common thread to the priorities under consideration.
Technical support and decision-making capacity was provided in the development of 19 watershed- and geographically-based group environmental farm plans in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to support on-farm and watershed level decisions for agri-environmental improvements. As a result, financial support was provided for the implementation of approximately 500 BMP's through the NFSP. Technical information and financial support was provided to the Prairies Provinces Water Board, the International Red River Board - International Joint Commission and Red River Basin Commission to enhance 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. | Seventeen (17) percent of Co-operative Development Initiative (CDI) projects (07/08) were initiated in new and emerging areas of the economy. |
Percentage of new co-operatives in areas of federal priority. | Ninety-one (91) percent of CDI projects (07/08) are within CDI Federal priorities. | |
Percentage of new co-op funded projects within priority areas that integrate the three pillars of SD. | One-hundred (100) percent of CDI projects (07/08) meet at least one pillar of SD; 32 percent meet all 3 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 | Skills of low-income farm families were enhanced in 2007-08 through the Canadian Agricultural Skills Service (CASS) program, targeted to farms where the net family income does not exceed $45,000 per year. In a CASS impact survey of participants in 2007, 53 percent reported that the training completed through CASS had led to an increase in income. Commonly cited reasons given for the positive impact on farm income included being more employable off-farm (most common at 46 percent), cutting farm costs, increasing farm productivity and improving marketing. |
Increased skills of farmers and farm families. | The Farm Business Assessment program had positive impacts on income for 49 percent of participants. Two thirds of the participants in this program in 2007-08 were low income. Commonly cited benefits were increased understanding of the farm financial situation and improved farm planning. | |
Enhanced integration of the three pillars of SD (particularly the social and economic pillars). | The two-year pilot Canadian Farm Family Options Program provided short-term income support to 23,393 participants (8655 in 2007/08), both families with less than $25,000 in income and individuals with less than $15,000 in income, conditional on participating in a farm business assessment and/or training. Participants could also use the business assessment and training to identify and develop strategies to address environmental issues. |
A Government Response was tabled in the Commons on April 16, 2007 in response to the SCAAF's report entitled Report on the Review of the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission conducted by COMPAS Inc. Legislation was introduced in the House of Commons on December 13, 2007 to amend the Canada Grain Act based on the SCAAF report, the COMPAS study, and the general policy direction of the government.
A report by the Committee entitled “Growing Forward” was tabled in February 2008, with a Government Response requested by July 16, 2008. This report was a result of extensive hearings across Canada, including Ottawa with recommendations to the Government with strong emphasis on primary production research and innovation.
The Committee also tabled a report entitled “Study on the Collapse of the Beef and Pork Sector Revenues” in December 2007. The Committee requested a comprehensive Government Response which was tabled on April 10, 2008. This was a unanimous report by the committee members, undertaken due to the income crisis suffered by the beef and hog farmers in Canada. It included calling for measures to enable immediate cash-flow to producers, measures to improve the responsiveness of Business Risk Management programs as well as recommending that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada review program funding as it pertains to the implications of ruminant specified risk material.
On February 27, 2008, the Committee reported back to the Commons on Bill C-33, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Bill would enable the introduction of regulations with respect to the renewable content in fuels. It also provides for a periodic and comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada by a parliamentary committee and be reported to Parliament.
On June 16, 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts tabled its 18th report in the House of Commons, entitled “Chapter 4, Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada of the May 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.” This report, building on an audit of the CAIS program conducted by the Office of the Auditor General, made five recommendations to the department, including improving program transparency, program evaluation, and performance monitoring and reporting. A government response to the report, currently under development, must be tabled in the House of Commons on or before October 14, 2008.
Chapter 4 of the May 2007 OAG report related to AAFC's Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program.
An audit was conducted by the OAG at the request of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It examined how the department processes applications for income support, ensures that all parties are respecting the various monitoring provisions set out in the federal-provincial-territorial agreements, and measures and reports its performance to Parliament.
AAFC agreed with the Auditor General's recommendations and is acting on them as part of its continued effort to improve delivery of farm financial support programs to clients across Canada.
The detailed May 2007 report and a listing of recommendations with departmental responses can be found on the Auditor General's website
1. Name of Internal Audit | 2. Audit Type | 3. Status | 4. Completion Date | 5. Electronic Link to Report |
---|---|---|---|---|
Management of IST Taxi Voucher Usage | Financial Management Controls | Completed | September 2007* | ** |
*Reports are considered complete when approved by the Departmental Audit and Evaluation Committee.
**Because of a backlog in preparation of reports for posting (translation, etc), this report has not yet been posted to the AAFC website. The new DG is addressing this backlog.
1. Name of Evaluation | 2. Program Activity | 3. Evaluation Type | 4. Status | 5. Completion Date | 6. Electronic Link to Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Province-based Programs | Non-BRM | Summative | Completed | 2007-08* | ** |
Production Insurance | Business Risk Management | Summative | Completed | 2007-08* | ** |
Chapter Evaluation Food Safety and Quality | Food Safety and Quality | Formative | Completed | 2007-08* | ** |
Chapter Evaluation of Environment | Environment | Formative | Completed | 2007-08* | ** |
Chapter Evaluation Business Risk Management Programs | Business Risk Management | Formative | Completed | 2007-08* | ** |
Chapter Evaluation of Science and Innovation | Innovation and Renewal | Formative | Completed | 2007-08* | ** |
The Department Evaluation Plan is scheduled for approval in the Autumn of 2008 and has not yet been posted to the AAFC website. |
* Reports are considered complete when approved by the Departmental Audit and Evaluation Committee.
** Because of a backlog in preparation of reports for posting (translation, etc), this report has not yet been posted to the AAFC website. The new DG is addressing this backlog.
Business Risk Management 2007-08
Environment 2007-08
Food Safety and Food Quality 2007-08
Innovation and Renewal 2007-08
Markets and International 2007-08 SO1
Markets and International 2007-08 SO3
Rural and Co-operatives Secretariats 2007-08
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Enhanced producer capacity to manage risk
Increased sector viability and profitability |
Producers better supported and able to manage business risks
Increased sector viability and profitability Increased producer capacity to manage operations (cashflow) throughout the production year |
Level of variability of farm income over time | Yes | N/A |
Level of sector farm income over time | Yes | N/A | ||
Level of farm capital investments over time | Yes | N/A | ||
Programming that is more responsive and predictable | Industry reaction to changes made to BRM programming | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Additional Production Insurance plans and benefits in place | No |
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Improved environmental sustainability of the industry by preserving the quality and availability of resources - air, water, soil, and biodiversity - for present and future generations | Environmental components of new agreements on agricultural policy developed with provinces | Environmental components included in implementation agreements signed with all provinces and territories | Yes | N/A |
Enhanced environmental performance of the Canadian agricultural system
Enhanced understanding of Canadian bioresources and protection and conservation of their genetic diversity |
Number of scientific publications (number of peer-reviewed articles in scientific and technical literature, etc.), cooperative research (number of signed agreements with industry partners, etc)., technology transfer activities (number of oral communications, posters, reports, press articles, etc.), innovations (number of licenses, royalties, copyrights, patents, etc.), recognition and influence (number of invited presentations, prizes, awards, etc.) | Yes | N/A | |
Increased access to authoritative data via the National Land and Water Information Service | Completion of the National Land and Water Information Service project - Phase 2: Establish geospatial environment | Yes | N/A | |
Increased accuracy and currency of data | Implementation of the National Land and Water Information Service project – Phase 3: National Source for Agri-Environmental Geospatial Information | Yes | N/A | |
Increased content and coverage of data | Increased usage of the National Land and Water Information Service | Yes | N/A | |
Growers have greater access to new pest management technologies, thereby increasing their competitiveness domestically and abroad | Number of minor use and reduced risk pesticide regulatory submissions made to Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency | Yes | N/A | |
Number of crop profiles, risk reduction strategies, research projects and new products, practices or technologies that can be utilized by growers | Yes | N/A | ||
Creation of a governance structure for AAFC water-related activities | Governance structure is operational | Yes | N/A | |
Establishment of an annual forum on water in agricultural landscapes | Annual meeting of the forum on water in agricultural landscapes | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator; contribution of expected result to strategic outcome not clear | |
Staff and provinces will have a better understanding of AAFC's role in water | AAFC staff using the strategic water plan as a work planning and policy-development tool | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator; contribution of expected result to strategic outcome not clear | |
More focused partnerships developed with provinces | Feedback from the provinces | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
AAFC better positioned to contribute to the federal water strategy discussions | IWRM partnership developed with Manitoba and Environment Canada as a pilot | Yes | N/A | |
AAFC becomes significant contributor in federal water policy discussions | Yes | N/A | ||
Increased uptake of Environmental Farm Plans
Increased adoption of on-farm beneficial management practices by agricultural producers in the management of land, water, air, and biodiversity |
Number of reviewed (i.e. completed) Environmental Farm Plans and/or Equivalent Agri-Environment Plans | Yes | N/A |
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Minimized risk and impact of food borne hazards on human health
Increased consumer confidence and improved ability of the sector to meet or exceed market requirements for food products Increased value-added opportunities through the adoption of food safety, food quality and traceability systems |
Farmed animals can be traced from birth throughout their life cycle | Regulatory strategy for priority livestock species animal identification is complete and costs and benefits have been identified | Yes | N/A |
Livestock movement strategies drafted for priority species | Yes | N/A | ||
Number of successfully completed projects that demonstrate traceability | Yes | N/A | ||
Number of RFID readers adopted by industry (higher number = more successful) | Yes | N/A | ||
Completion of priority activities, including a well-documented business plan | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | ||
Waste disposal infrastructure in place | The number of successfully completed projects that enhance SRM disposal capacity | Yes | N/A | |
Development and adoption of industry-led and government-recognized on-farm food safety process control systems by all commodities in the primary production sector | Number of systems developed in the various stages (phases) of SD component | Yes | N/A | |
Development and participation in food safety systems, developed by the industry and recognized by government, by other sectors of the agri-food continuum | Number of organizations participating in OFI systems | Yes | N/A | |
Development and government recognition of food quality process control systems at minimum in the sectors required by market specification | Progress of provinces in implementation of FSI initiatives | Yes | N/A |
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Industry equipped with new business and management skills, bioproducts, knowledge-based production systems and strategies to capture opportunities and manage change |
Funding support to organizations to develop sector-based, innovative, market-focused strategies that utilize science to transform commodities into new value-added or bio-product opportunities for processors, producers and rural communities, and new life sciences products for consumers
Increased opportunities for the agriculture and agri-food sector in existing and new markets |
Funded sector-led projects to implement alternative value-added strategies for existing commodities and new products and markets | Yes | N/A |
Improved collaboration along value chains to identify risks, opportunities and new markets | Yes | N/A | ||
Funded support for the development and start-up costs for centres of innovation and/or incubators or business mentoring | Yes | N/A | ||
Increased value for research investments through better alignment of research activities and resources with departmental, government and sector priorities Increased research capacity to exploit Canada's natural advantage in biomass to develop new economic opportunities for agriculture in the areas of bioproducts and bioprocesses |
Science and Innovation Strategy research implemented | Yes | N/A | |
Number of domestic and world agri-food research opportunities created | Yes | N/A | ||
Increased contribution of bioproducts and value-added agricultural products by agriculture | Yes | N/A | ||
Utilization of advances in value-added research that enable farmers, processors, rural communities, and service providers to differentiate their products and services | Number of science and innovation clusters and networks established to bring together stakeholders to form complete innovation chains | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Improved co-ordination of national research efforts and resources along the innovation chain in priority areas of focus for the agriculture and agri-food sector Increased co-operation among federal and provincial departments and agencies, academic, institutions, industrial organizations, and not-for-profit science and research entities Market-responsive research collaboration among national players to accelerate the transformation of knowledge from the bench to the marketplace |
Number of research agreements between AAFC and industry | Yes | N/A | |
Sound, well-documented business plans and feasibility studies, with significant producer ownership, developed which support the creation and expansion of the biofuel production capacity | Number of biofuels pilot projects funded with successful results and targets met | Yes | N/A | |
Increased awareness and benefits of Renewal programs by providing the income support necessary for farmers to take advantage of the opportunity to increase their business management capacity and skills learning
Canadian farmers increase their knowledge of business management practices Canadian farmers increase the use of tools available through renewal programming and services in order to increase profitability Enhanced and integrated approach to Innovation and Renewal Policy |
Level and use of Renewal programs | Yes | N/A | |
Number of Options payment receipts compared to total eligible per year | Yes | N/A | ||
Total value of payments issued per year | Yes | N/A | ||
Percentage of Options payment recipients enrolled in Renewal programming | Yes | N/A | ||
Percentage of Options payment recipients who have met their business and personal financial goals | Yes | N/A | ||
ACAAF most effectively positioned to respond to new emerging issues while fostering innovative technologies
Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector positioned at the leading edge to seize new opportunities |
Increased number of national, multi-regional (collective outcome), and regional Pillar I, II and III projects | Yes | N/A | |
Number of projects addressing current and emerging issues | Yes | N/A | ||
Number of pre-commercialization activities | Yes | N/A | ||
Number of policy dialogue events and market and trend studies | Yes | Expected results not clearly measurable via performance indicators | ||
Increased farm equity investment in biofuels facilities | Number of biofuels facilities | Yes | N/A | |
Agricultural producers more aware of consumer requirements for renewable fuel | Value of producers' investment in biofuels facilities | Yes | N/A | |
Successful launch of the Agri-Opportunities program
Increased market opportunities for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector which benefit primary producers Enhanced industry competitiveness and prosperity through new and value-added areas of opportunity |
Number of new products, processes or services commercialized or being commercialized | Yes | N/A |
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Expanded international opportunities for the Canadian agriculture and food sector | Canadian interests strategically advanced through participation in WTO Committee on Agriculture, WTO agriculture trade and accessions negotiations | Analysis of World Trade Organization (WTO) notifications, submitting written questions to Members for clarification, responding to questions from countries and participation at WTO Committee on Agriculture | Yes | N/A |
Canadian approaches fully informed through outreach activities with agriculture sector and provincial and territorial governments | Records of meetings and teleconference calls with provinces, territories and industry stakeholders | No | Expected results not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Canadian interests strategically advanced through regional/bilateral trade negotiations
Canadian approaches fully informed through outreach activities with agriculture sector and provincial and territorial governments |
Participation in bilateral WTO accession meetings to negotiate favourable market access conditions for Canada's agricultural export interests; analysis of documents prepared by the Secretariat, other WTO Members and acceding parties on multilateral issues | Yes | N/A | |
Canadian interests advanced through strategic participation in offensive trade cases
Canadian policies and programs adequately defended as required |
||||
Increased influence in the development and application of international rules, technical standards and policies governing the trade of agriculture
Gradual opening of international markets for cattle and livestock products |
Number of initiatives where objectives were met towards prevention, minimization or resolution of international trade barriers and other irritants through trade advocacy, bilateral negotiations and/or dispute resolution | Yes | N/A | |
Canadian positions informed and influence international technical trade discussions to advance Canada's agri-food sector's interests; and development of domestic policies in line with Canada's (existing or evolving) international obligations | Participation at international fora concerning multilateral technical trade issues | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Industry responsiveness to consumer and buyer demands for product differentiation based on quality-related product attributes facilitated through development of quality standards and analysis- based recommendations made on food industry technical and regulatory issues |
Number of new or updated, consensus-based, whole value-chain agreements leading to national standards/guidelines, assurance programs, regulations, and/or audit/ enforcement provisions
Number of analytical reports, briefings, workshops and/or presentations completed for use in regulatory decision-making processes |
No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Industry responsiveness to consumer demands for specific attributes facilitated by the use of effective communication of data and analysis on new and emerging trends | Number of new or updated data purchases, briefings, reports, media articles, meetings, workshops, and presentations completed for the department and industry | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Industry responsiveness to market demands | Number of industry initiatives aimed at marketing Canadian products based on healthy-quality attributes | Yes | N/A |
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Expanded international opportunities for the Canadian agriculture and food sector | Increased exports of Canadian agriculture and food products | Change in international market share of Canadian agriculture and food exports | Yes | N/A |
Increased recognition of Canadian products and capabilities over the long term | Number of communications and marketing tools developed to facilitate integration of branding strategy into stakeholder planning and activities | Yes | N/A | |
Number of projects completed to facilitate integration of branding strategy into stakeholder planning and activities | Yes | N/A | ||
Number of outreach meetings held and usage agreements signed to facilitate integration of branding strategy into stakeholder planning and activities | Yes | N/A | ||
Increased awareness of global market demands and opportunities, development and implementation of value chain strategies for each sector with established roundtables and industry engagement in the development of a Brand Canada strategy | Industry Satisfaction with VCRT Meetings | Yes | N/A | |
Number of research projects completed in conjunction with Industry to support strategic development | Yes | N/A | ||
Foreign markets engaged by focusing on highest potential Canadian agriculture & food products & investment prospects, in conjunction with government and industry partners, to build markets; and increase investment | Partner satisfaction with investment promotion activities | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
Number of market development initiatives completed in priority markets | No | |||
Market development activities aligned with strategic direction | No | |||
Perception of Canada as a leader in the development of certain advanced food technologies and agri-related biotechnologies is enhanced | Number of joint activities carried out to promote Canada as a leader in the development of advanced food technologies and agri-related biotechnologies | No | Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator | |
International market access to ruminants and ruminant products enhanced | Key markets identify Canada as a preferential North American supplier | Yes | N/A | |
Key markets (Korea/Taiwan) previously closed to Canada but open to the US become open | Yes | N/A | ||
Expansion of range of products eligible for export (SRM free tallow to China, SRM free MBM to Indonesia, over thirty month beef, under thirty month and over thirty month bone-in beef, live cattle) | Yes | N/A | ||
Canada’s relations with developing countries strengthened to enhance and support bilateral trade and policy relations with an emphasis on agriculture and food products | Number of capacity building training modules on Food Safety, Business Risk management and Agri-Environmental Policy delivered in target countries | No |
Expected result not clearly measurable via performance indicator
No measurable link between number of capacity building training modules and strengthened relations with developing countries |
|
Market development strategy for AAFC engagement with commodities sectors | Strategies in place for each commodity sector group in AAFC | Yes | N/A |
Revised Expected Result(s) | Original Expected Result(s) | Performance Indicators | Included in DPR template | Justification |
---|---|---|---|---|
Better co-ordination of government policy responses to rural community priorities
Government policies, programs and services increase opportunities, mitigate barriers and enhance capacity for co-operative development Increased capacity of co-operatives to meet the needs of Canadians |
Better co-ordination of government policy responses to community priorities
More informed decisions by governments and rural communities through evidence-based research and analysis and improved accessibility of information |
Economic stability | Yes | |
Economic competitiveness | Yes | |||
Social progress | Yes | |||
Local institutional capacity | Yes | |||
Government policies, programs and services increase opportunities, mitigate barriers and enhance capacity for co-operative development
Increased capacity of co-operatives to meet the needs of Canadians |
Number of partnerships established and maintained with sectoral organizations, other federal departments and provinces | Yes | ||
Change in available research pertinent to co-operatives and co-operative development | Yes | |||
Use of or reference to research and tools | Yes | |||
Number of co-operative initiatives supported by the CDI program | Yes |
Expected Results | Performance Indicators |
---|---|
Leads an integrated, government-wide approach, called the Canadian Rural Partnership, through which the government aims to co-ordinate its economic, social, environmental and cultural policies towards the goal of economic and social renewal of rural Canada.
Facilitating relations between cooperatives and federal departments and agencies with legislation or policies affecting cooperatives. As well, the Secretariat provides advice across government on policies affecting cooperatives, coordinates the implementation of such policies, and acts as a centre of expertise on cooperatives within the federal government. |
|
Better co-ordination of government policy responses to community priorities
More informed decisions by governments and rural communities through evidence-based research and analysis and improved accessibility of information |
Economic stability
Economic competitiveness Social progress Local institutional capacity |
Government policies, programs and services increase opportunities, mitigate barriers and enhance capacity for co-operative development
Increased capacity of co-operatives to meet the needs of Canadians |
Number of partnerships established and maintained with sectoral organizations, other federal departments and provinces
Change in available research pertinent to co-operatives and co-operative development Use of or reference to research and tools Number of co-operative initiatives supported by the CDI program |
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-08:
Continue to work with partners to replace Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization with distinct programs for agricultural income stabilization and disaster relief
AAFC's approach to ensuring the agriculture and agri-food sector is viable and profitable involves ensuring that producers have access to the tools they need to be successful. The Agreements reached by Governments in December 2007 to launch a new suite of BRM programs for the 2007 program year combined with an increase in aggregate farm income in 2007 supported by significant government payments to the sector during that year demonstrate Governments' commitment and success in contributing to increase the sector's viability and profitability.
The CAIS program has been the subject of much criticism since its inception in 2003. The extraordinary financial pressures put on CAIS by events such as markets closing due to BSE, avian influenza, and rapidly rising input costs gave rise to the primary complaints that the program does not provide timely assistance, nor does it provide a predictable level of assistance.
In light of these continued criticisms, and given the opportunity to establish a new policy framework with the expiration of the APF in March 2008, consultations with governments and industry stakeholders across Canada were held.
As a result, federal, provincial and territorial governments signed agreements in 2007-08 to launch a new suite of business risk management programs for the 2007 program year that replace CAIS and include separate income stabilization and disaster components. These new programs - AgriInvest, AgriStability, AgriRecovery, and AgriInsurance - provide more predictable, bankable and responsive support as part of Growing Forward, the new policy framework for Canada's agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products industry.
The federal government also committed an additional $1 billion to assist producers with the transition to the new programming, with the bulk of this payment delivered by March 31, 2008. This was comprised of $600 million to kickstart new AgriInvest accounts, which began going to producers in January 2008, and $400 million as a one-time payment to help producers address the challenge of rising input costs.
Develop and implement new products under Production Insurance for horticulture, forage and livestock
Deliver new Advance Payments Program resulting from amended Agricultural Marketing Programs Act
Initiate enhancements to existing Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loan Act (FIMCLA) to provide support to beginning farmers and intergenerational farm transfers
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-08:
Accelerate development and implementation of comprehensive and integrated traceability systems across the Canadian meat and livestock industry
Continue to support industry's efforts to develop food safety, quality and traceability systems
Implement three key science priorities designed to improve the agriculture and agri-food sector's ability to respond to food safety and security issues, while creating opportunities for the sector through food innovation
The Food Safety and Quality Science program, through its three key science priorities, contributed to improving the agriculture and agri-food sector's ability to respond to food safety and security issues, while creating opportunities for the sector through food innovation. The three priorities are:
Enhancing human health and wellness through food, nutrition and innovative products
Enhancing the quality of food and the safety of the food system
Allergic reactions appear to be on the rise in Canada. The impacts of AAFC research in this area include:
Through partnerships with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada and provincial organizations, the food virology group has made breakthroughs in the methodology to detect and quantify food-borne pathogenic viruses in complex food matrices.
Research in food quality is closely linked to industry and AAFC research is having impacts on food industry. Progress made in 2007-08 included:
Enhancing the security and protection of the food supply
Work with provincial and territorial partners and with industry to develop the next generation of agriculture and agri-food policy
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-08:
Work through agriculture negotiations and other WTO activities to promote and defend Canada's interests
Manage bilateral and regional trade agreements and negotiations
Work bilaterally and multilaterally to influence the development of technical trade policies, measures and international standards
Engage in litigation when necessary, and increase Canada's trade advocacy efforts abroad through targeted initiatives
Work to ensure that the interpretation and implementation of existing international obligations do not unnecessarily restrict trade, and continue working toward re-opening and expanding markets for Canadian beef and cattle that were closed following the discovery of BSE in 2003
Review regulatory environment to enhance the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture
Continue to support industry associations in gaining recognition for the safety and quality of Canadian agriculture and food products
Despite making requested improvements to the Winery Inspection Manual and committing to the industry to develop software to help facilitate the introduction of a National Wine Standard, efforts in conjunction with CFIA and the wine industry to complete national wine standards did not sufficiently progress in 2007-08. There is a difference of opinion on the content of these standards and on their value to the industry as a whole. AAFC and the sector are pursuing the development of a much simplified National Wine Standard over the course of the next several months.
Support industry initiatives aimed at marketing Canadian products based on healthy-quality attributes
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-2008:
Develop and implement policy options to achieve environmental goals under the next generation of agriculture and agri-food policy, including a biofuels strategy
The implementation of Growing Forward in conjunction with the provinces will result in a more profitable and environmentally sustainable agriculture sector.
EG&S will provide new information on potential policy options for Growing Forward and beyond.
AAFC's work on climate change in 2007-08 resulted in a contribution to the Government of Canada's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and ensuring clean air, water, and land for Canadians.
Develop the knowledge to improve the environmental performance of the Canadian agricultural system, foster greater scientific collaboration among partners, and develop an enhanced understanding of the country's bioresources and their protection
Results from 2006 are being utilized to help develop agri-environmental policies that will contribute to AAFC's commitment to further enable the sector to address environmental priorities while building profitability in the industry;
Continue to implement the National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS)
Internal and external audits and reviews have given the project the opportunity to realize its full investment by making improvements in the areas of: promoting a shared vision, clear outcomes and best practices for business requirements management; strengthened governance with well defined roles and responsibilities and supporting processes; and rigorous project management including calculating and reporting monthly earned value.
Enhance the availability of minor-use pesticides, risk-reduction products and beneficial management practices to improve the health of the environment while contributing to the competitive position of Canadian farmers
Develop an AAFC water strategy related to agricultural sustainability through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
Continue to support Environmental Farm Plans and the development and adoption of on-farm beneficial management practices through financial and technical assistance
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-2008:
Enhance the innovative capacity of the sector through support for strategy development and better opportunities to capture the benefits of science and innovation
In 2007-08 AAFC's Sustainable Production Systems program made considerable progress towards increasing the adoption of innovative products and technologies that will equip industry with the bioproducts, knowledge-based production systems and strategies to capture opportunities and manage change:
Implement AAFC's Science and Innovation Strategy
Implement the newly established external peer-review process for the selection of departmental research projects and the allocation of resources
This evaluation process gives strategic focus to AAFC's research activities, and is the first of its kind to be put in place in government-led research.
In 2007-08, 254 projects were reviewed. Of this, 233 projects were funded. Most projects have a long-term focus of three years or more. It will be important for AAFC to secure funding each year to ensure the completion of the approved projects in order to get the expected results. This risk will be mitigated through effective planning of resources and communication of priorities.
Implement the new Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program
Implement the Biofuels Opportunities for Producers Initiative
Implement the Agri-Opportunities Program
Work strategically with the sector to identify and enhance skills and learning opportunities needed to succeed in the increasingly knowledge-intensive economy
The ACAAF delivery model is designed to have industry identify issues and decide the response required within the parameters of the program, both at a national and regional level. The delivery structure provides national and regional flexibility, enhanced accountability, continued cost effectiveness, encourage collaboration and the dissemination of ideas across regions, and the ability to capture value-added opportunities and to facilitate transfer of applied research and technology.
BOPI was introduced, implemented and delivered in a timely manner to the sector through the ACAAF Industry Councils. The Councils were well suited to administer and deliver BOPI as it is consistent with their mandate to position the sector at the leading edge to seize new opportunities. This resulted in rapid delivery of the program with minimal administrative costs.
Develop and implement a national innovation co-ordination mechanism
Develop and implement a new investment model for innovation
Industry equipped with new business and management skills, bioproducts, knowledge-based production systems and strategies to capture opportunities and manage change
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-2008:
Continue to support Canada's agriculture, food and seafood industry associations in their efforts to gain and expand international recognition for Canadian agriculture and agri-food products
Continue to support Canada's agriculture, food and seafood industry associations in their efforts to gain and expand international recognition for Canadian agriculture and agri-food products
As a result, AAFC immediately increased the frequency of its Branding electronic newsletter to five-times-a-year from three, and scheduled one-on-one training sessions and group seminars on brand integration for the fall of 2008. Other improvements implemented as a result of survey recommendations included improving website naming conventions to make some tools easier to find and adding photos to the web site photo library for members.
Continue to promote Value Chain Roundtables and other collaborative mechanisms
Develop an investment strategy for innovation
AAFC achieved results against the following key commitments for 2007-2008:
Provide effective pari-mutuel supervision
The CPMA deploys officers to oversee and report on the operation of all pari-mutuel systems in Canada. Historically, this has placed the greatest emphasis on live horse-racing. However, Canadian horse racing fans have more recently been showing a growing interest for betting on foreign or 'simulcast' racing products.
Consequently, in 2007-08 the CPMA began an exploration into developing a comprehensive approach to fulfilling its supervisory responsibilities; one that provides greater oversight of simulcast and remote (ie, 'theatre') betting. It is expected that a transition in the CPMA's approach to pari-mutuel supervision will be necessary to maintain the level of oversight that Canadian horseplayers have grown to expect.
Sustainable development integrates environmental, economic, and social considerations allowing today's needs to be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the context of Canadian agriculture and agri-food production, sustainable development means producing, processing, and distributing agricultural products in a manner that supports or enhances the high quality of life we enjoy in Canada, both today and into the future.
The focus of AAFC's fourth Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS IV) Making Progress Together is to enhance the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development (SD) - economic, environmental, and social. Through various initiatives, AAFC strives to strengthen linkages between the three pillars to ensure a seamless approach to sustainable development. AAFC's ongoing efforts to integrate its work under the three pillars of SD will support truly sustainable agriculture in Canada - agriculture that attends to the needs of people, protects the environment and makes judicious use of its resources, and ensures the economic viability of farms and other components in the chain of food production, processing, and distribution.
SDS IV highlights the ongoing implementation of the Agricultural Policy Framework and examines progress towards sustainable agriculture in Canada. The SDS also helps to lay the groundwork for the next generation of agricultural policies and programs.
In preparation for the fourth round of SDSs, departments worked together to improve coordination and build coherence among the strategies through a set of common federal goals. These goals comprise three environmental quality goals - clean water, clean air, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. They also include three SD management goals - sustainable communities, sustainable development and use of natural resources and governance for SD. Departments are also taking a coordinated approach to greening government operations. AAFC indicated how the department contributes to these federal goals in SDS IV.
For more information about how AAFC is implementing SDS IV commitments, please refer to the online table.
In addition to promoting sustainable economic, social and environmental development in the agriculture and agri-food sector, AAFC is committed to greening its own operations by reducing reliance on natural resources and by limiting potential damage to the environment caused by on-going activities.
The 2008 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development included a chapter on Greening Operations, which examined how departments used the guidance issued by the Office of Green Government Operations (OGGO) to develop SDS targets. In a case study of various departmental approaches, AAFC was chosen as the example of a department which followed the guidance and included all the suggested targets. In some target areas, AAFC has been collecting baseline data to enable future reports on progress. Overall, progress against the SDS IV commitments appears on track and achievable.
Several new initiatives undertaken in 2007-08 year at AAFC. A Green Information Technology (IT) working group was formed to further green the department's IT environment. The group has decided on an agenda of issues to investigate and resolve, starting with the implementation of a plan to change default settings of all printers which have duplex capability to two-sided copying. This will save a considerable amount of paper and contribute significantly to AAFC's SDS targets. The progress of this initiative will be reported on next year. Other energy saving and waste reduction initiatives have been implemented and more are being considered for 2008-09.
Reporting on AAFC's Greening Operations targets can be found online.