Evaluation of AgriStability

Abbreviations

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

BRM

Business Risk Management

FPT

Federal–Provincial–Territorial

Executive summary

Purpose

The Office of Audit and Evaluation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) conducted an evaluation of AgriStability to assess relevance, design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness.

Scope and methodology

AgriStability activities from 2016-17 to 2020-21 were evaluated using multiple lines of evidence: a review of program documents, files, and literature; interviews with internal and external stakeholders; and analysis of secondary and administrative data.

Background

AgriStability is one of four core programs within AAFC's Business Risk Management (BRM) suite of programs. BRM programs are the tools that provide agricultural producers with protection against income and production losses, helping them manage risks that threaten the viability of their farms. As an individualized (tailored), margin-based (that is, allowable sales minus allowable expenses) program that provides whole-farm coverage for producers, providing protection for producers farm income based on all of commodities produced. AgriStability is intended to support producers facing large margin declines (that is, a yearly margin falls below 70% of the producer's average margin). From 2016-2017 to 2020-21, program costs exceeded $2 billion, with $1.1 billion in federal expenditures.

Findings

• There is a need for whole-farm risk mitigation strategies like AgriStability.
• During the reference period, federal and provincial administrators have implemented changes to AgriStability to better support producers. However, more needs to be done to address issues of timeliness and predictability of payments.
• Program payments are not always timely as over 40% arrived 8 months after the end of the program year.
• Producers view interim payments as being unpredictable, and as a consequence are rarely used (one% of program payments are interim payments).
• Though the Program is intended to be universal (open to any producer) the actual program design leaves many producers underserved. For example, smaller producers who have greater variability in their income are less likely to have their margins stabilized or their expenses covered.
• Program complexity continues to be a major barrier to participation for producers, in particular smaller producers, who often need to source accounting expertise to assist with Program applications.
• There are barriers to participation for underrepresented populations such as young farmers, women, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities.
• AgriStability is expensive to administer due to its tailored (individualized) and complex nature.
• AgriStability provides access to individualized whole-farm protection from large income declines, and helped protect producers' incomes, in particular for large producers, but did not always meet performance targets.

Conclusion

AgriStability has the potential to provide a broader level of support for Canada's agricultural sector and support a larger number of small operations. However, current design and delivery favours larger operations and sectors with narrow margins. Program payment predictability, timelines and program complexity continue to be an issue. Tailored communications and capacity building activities with underrepresented groups could improve their participation in the program.

Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in consultation with provincial administrators, should:

• Recommendation 1: identify ways to simplify AgriStability to reduce producer administrative burden.
• Recommendation 2: find ways to make interim and final payments more predictable and to improve the timeliness of final payments.
• Recommendation 3: develop and implement a means to increase access to AgriStability by underrepresented populations.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them by April 1, 2024.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of Audit and Evaluation conducted an evaluation of AgriStability as part of the 2021-22 to 2025-26 Integrated Audit and Evaluation Plan. Findings from this evaluation are intended to inform current and future program and policy decisions and the department's next policy framework.

2.0 Scope and methodology

This evaluation assessed the relevance, design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness of AgriStability activities from 2016-17 to 2020-21. Activities out of scope for this evaluation include any changes to the program after June 1, 2021, and temporary emergency programs implemented during COVID-19.

The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including: a review of program documents, files and literature; interviews with AAFC officials, provincial government officials, federal–provincial–territorial (FPT) committee members, producer associations and financial institutions; and an analysis of secondary and program administrative data. For the detailed evaluation methodology, see Annex A.

AgriStability activities were most recently evaluated through the Evaluation of AgriInvest, AgriStability, AgriInsurance and the Wildlife Compensation Program (2016-17) and the Evaluation of Income Stability Tools – AgriStability and AgriInvest (2011-2012).

3.0 Program profile

3.1 Overview of AgriStability and the Business Risk Management suite

AgriStability is a statutory program, legislated under section 4(2) of the Farm Income Protection Act, and is one of four core programs within AAFC's BRM suite of programs. Under the current agricultural policy framework, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (2018-2023), the BRM suite is intended to help farmers protect their income and manage risks beyond their control (for example, drought, flooding, market declines and increased input costs). Canadian farmers can participate in one or more BRM programs to help them adapt to changing markets, stabilize income over the long-term, mitigate financial losses and adopt technological innovations.

AgriStability is a risk management program available to farms of all sectors and sizes, and is tailored to each individual farm. It is a margin-based program that provides whole-farm coverage to producers facing large margin declines. A margin is defined as a producer's allowable revenues minus their allowable expenses each year. Whole-farm coverage provides protection for producers farm income based on all eligible commodities produced. Producers proactively apply for AgriStability in advance of needing it, and receive an AgriStability payment if their current year margin falls below 70% of their reference margin (that is, the average program margin for the past five years, with the highest and lowest values dropped). AgriStability is intended to enable producers to recover from large losses and adapt to market signals without influencing producers' decision on what to produce, or how it is produced.

3.2 Governance

AgriStability governance is shared between the BRM Programs Directorate, which manages the federal government's role in the administration of the Program, and the Farm Income Programs Directorate, which delivers the federally administered portion of the Program.

The BRM Programs Directorate undertakes program analysis, program development and performance reporting, as well as liaison activities with provinces and industry associations including the FPT BRM Policy Working Group. In addition to delivering AgriStability in several provinces/territories (Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon), the Farm Income Programs Directorate operates a Contact Centre which handles AgriStability inquiries, plays a leadership role on BRM-related working groups, and provides comptrollership support for the BRM suite of programs. The Farm Income Programs Directorate Management Accountability and Control Framework, a compilation of documents with controls to mitigate the risks to meeting BRM objectives and priorities, informs the Farm Income Programs Directorate. Other responsibilities of federal and provincial AgriStability administrators include setting up, processing, administering and recording applications for the Program.

Provincial governments deliver the Program in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. Government contributions and costs to administer AgriStability are cost-shared between federal (60%) and provincial (40%) governments.

Several committees and working groups support the design and delivery of BRM programming:

• The National Program Advisory Committee (established as outlined in Section 5(3) of the Farm Income Protection Act) is comprised of producer representation from across Canada, federal officials and provincial/territorial officials. This committee's responsibility is to regularly review AgriStability and AgriInvest and provide advice on program administration.
• The FPT BRM Policy Working Group is comprised of policy and subject matter experts who represent federal government and each province/territory. This working group evaluates BRM policy and program issues and develops recommendations for resolution for the FPT Policy Assistant Deputy Ministers.
• The FPT Administrators Working Group, comprised of provincial and federal employees, develops and maintains program guidelines, evaluates the parameters of AgriStability and AgriInvest, assesses any processing issues, and helps to ensure consistency in national delivery.

3.3 Resources

From 2016-17 to 2020-21, AgriStability has cost FPTs nearly $2.1 billion, including almost $1.1 billion in federal expenditures by AAFC. Salary comprised about 6% of AAFC program spending; non-pay operating expenses about 2%; and program payments almost 92% (see Table 1). AAFC employed an average of 155 full-time equivalent employees each year to deliver AgriStability.

Table 1: AgriStability expenditures by fiscal year 2016-17 to 2020-21

	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	Overall
Administrative ($)	68,411,214	67,170,890	65,252,189	64,410,600	63,526,926	328,771,819
AAFC	11,335,850	13,337,292	11,533,332	12,539,317	13,719,904	62,465,695
Provincial Partners	57,075,364	53,833,598	53,718,857	51,871,283	49,807,022	266,306,124
Grants & Contributions ($)	578,168,093	102,698,920	358,740,573	324,720,862	359,684,228	1,724,012,677
AAFC	346,900,856	61,619,352	215,244,344	194,832,517	215,810,537	1,034,407,606
Provincial Partners	231,267,237	41,079,568	143,496,229	129,888,345	143,873,691	689,605,071
Other (AAFC Only) ($)	−192,210	547,045	494,071	110,960	1,398,686	2,358,552
Total ($)	646,387,098	170,416,855	424,486,834	389,242,422	424,609,840	2,055,143,048
AAFC	358,044,496	75,503,689	227,271,747	207,482,794	230,929,127	1,099,231,853
Provincial Partners	288,342,602	94,913,166	197,215,087	181,759,628	193,680,713	955,911,195
Full-time equivalents (AAFC)	162	155	153	156	150	N/A
Notes Federal expenditures and full-time equivalents exclude internal services. Administrative costs include salary and non-pay operating. Provincial partner Grants and Contributions expenditure is estimated based on 60:40. Other expenditures include capital expenditures and revenues from fees paid by producers. Source: Corporate Management Branch reports (April 5) and Program financial data

3.4 Intended outcomes

The following immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes were examined as part of this evaluation:

• Immediate outcome: Producers have access to individualized whole-farm protection from large income declines
• Intermediate outcome: Producers' incomes are protected from severe income declines
• Ultimate outcomes for the suite of BRM programs:
  • The agricultural sector is financially resilient
  • Producers see value in the BRM suite in managing their business risks
  • Cost effective programming
  • Industry is able to better manage business risks and remain viable in the long-term

For the full AgriStability logic model, see Annex B.

4.0 Relevance

This section summarizes evaluation findings on the relevance of AgriStability; specifically, whether there is a continued need for the Program, the extent to which AgriStability meets that need, and Program alignment with departmental and government roles, responsibilities and priorities.

4.1 Continued need for AgriStability

Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry is a major driver of Canada's economy, contributing over two million jobs and over $140 billion in gross domestic product (GDP).^{Footnote 1} It is anticipated that the industry will continue to grow, as demand for Canadian agricultural products increases with global economic growth and a growing population. Despite this potential for further growth, the agriculture and agri-food industry is regularly exposed to a multitude of risks that can be difficult to predict and mitigate. These risks can impact the sector's production and/or demand and can have devastating impacts for agriculture and agri-food producers, including cash flow problems and bankruptcy.

Examples of risks that producers can face include:

• extreme weather, pests and disease, which can impact landscapes and production and cause crop and animal loss;
• trade disputes and non-tariff barriers, which can lead to reduced market access;
• changing global commodity and rising input prices;
• lower demand for products in domestic and international markets;
• global crises (for example, the COVID-19 pandemic), which can impact supply chains; and,
• labour shortages.

Canadian farmers face production risks due to weather and climate-related events; for example, droughts and cold weather in Western Canada, heavy rain and flooding in the prairie region and extreme weather in Eastern Canada. Further, producers can experience a high degree of variability in farm income, mostly due to causes outside of their control, such as the risks identified above.^{Footnote 2}

To protect the livelihoods of Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers, as well as the sector, and enable producers to stay competitive in the international marketplace, federal risk mitigation strategies address the impacts of income and production declines. For the last six decades, BRM programs such as AgriStability have been offered as one mechanism to protect against risk. Literature and interviews with AAFC staff and producer associations, noted how the private sector does not offer tools to mitigate catastrophic loss due to high costs. Provincial programs, where available, usually complement federal programs and tend to operate on the assumption that federal programs are the first line of defense.

AgriStability is the only program that provides coverage against most potential risks for the whole farm, regardless of type of commodities being produced. Specifically, AgriStability provides coverage against market risks, which are significant but less frequent at the regional-level (for example, drops in production, variable input and commodity prices).^{Footnote 3} Programs such as AgriStability have been shown to mitigate the impact of margin declines, which increased farm survival rates and encouraged growth.^{Footnote 4}

The evaluation found that AgriStability is not adequately meeting the needs of all producers for managing risk. For example, prior to its removal in 2020, the reference margin limit meant farms with low eligible cost structures were less likely to trigger payments, while the program cap of $3 million makes the program less effective for larger operations experiencing large declines in their margin. Analysis of 2019 Farm Financial Survey data found that more than half of producers did not find AgriStability to be an important government-funded risk management program for the effective management of business risk and disaster situations. Interviewees, including AAFC staff and producer associations, explained that this may be because AgriStability does not directly address risks related to trade issues/market closures, exchange rates, transportation issues, prolonged market downturns and multi-year disasters.

However, the evaluation identified a potential renewed need for AgriStability as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for producers that supply food processors and the food service industry, as well as producers in sectors that are labour intensive (for example, greenhouses and nurseries, fruit and vegetable producers, livestock producers). Labour intensive sectors are more likely to rely on non-family labour, which is an eligible expense under AgriStability, and was in short supply and/or was more costly during the pandemic.

4.2 Alignment with AAFC and government priorities, roles and responsibilities

'Sector risk,' one of AAFC's three core responsibilities, is a key part of AAFC's departmental mandate and an ongoing function for AAFC. As part of this responsibility, “AAFC provides tools to mitigate the financial impact of risks beyond producers' control that threaten the viability of their operation [and] works with the sector to ensure that systems, standards and tools are developed to support its ability to prevent and control risks and address market demands.”^{Footnote 5} AgriStability, legislated under section 4(2) of the Farm Income Protection Act is one such tool that is intended to help mitigate risks for producers.

The Act provides authority for FPT agreements to protect the income of agricultural producers. Further, BRM programming is aligned with the Canadian Agricultural Partnership policy framework; specifically, the ‘risk management' priority area for action. According to the 2018 external panel of expert review of BRM programs, the suite is intended to provide coverage against severe risks that threaten farm viability. AgriStability aligns with this objective by mitigating margin declines, particularly for producers with the narrowest margins who are more susceptible to changes in the market.

5.0 Program design and delivery

This section summarizes evaluation findings on the design and delivery of AgriStability, starting with the Program's integration with the BRM suite of programs.

5.1 Integration of AgriStability with the core BRM suite of programs

The BRM suite is comprised of four programs that work together to help producers manage risk:^{Footnote 6}

• AgriStability: for producers experiencing a large margin decline;
• AgriInvest: cash flow to offset small income declines;
• AgriInsurance: cost-shared insurance against natural hazards that reduces the financial impact of production or asset losses;
• AgriRecovery: an FPT disaster relief framework to help producers with the extraordinary costs associated with recovery following natural disaster events.

The BRM suite of programs, functioning together, are intended to provide protection against a full range of risks that threatens farm viability. For example, when a producer's crops are damaged by natural calamities, AgriInsurance can cover production losses, while AgriInvest and AgriStability can cover additional costs and lost income (see Figure 1).

Description of above image

Figure 1: Relationship between the BRM programs with frequency of events and source of risk

Frequency of events is depicted on the Y axis, ranging from rare and severe events to frequent and less severe events. The source of risk is depicted along the X axis, indicating: production, price and input, and extraordinary costs. AgriInvest addresses production, and price and input risks, that are frequent and less sever. AgriStability addresses production, and price and input risks, that are rare and sever. AgriInsurance addresses production risks that are frequent and less sever through its standard layer; as well, as rare and sever events through its catastrophic layer. AgriRecovery addresses extraordinary costs for rare and severe events.

Source: Adapted from Antón, J., S. Kimura, & R. Martini's (2011) OECD risk management in agriculture in Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's (2012) Evaluation of income stability tools – AgriStability and AgriInvest.

BRM programs are intended to provide support in a predictable, timely and comprehensive way. A review of program documents found that no one program can meet all three of these criteria; for example, AgriStability provides individualized support to producers as payments are directly tied to their operations past and current performance, however, this level of complexity causes AgriStability to be less timely and more difficult to understand than other programs in the BRM suite.

Producers are encouraged (but not required) to take advantage of all BRM programming to ensure their operations are protected against production and income losses. The 2019 Farm Financial Survey showed producers rarely participated in AgriStability alone, often participating in two or three other BRM programs (see Table 2). Over 90% of producers participating in AgriStability also participated in AgriInvest, likely because the administrative data collected for AgriStability is used for AgriInvest as well.

Table 2: Participation of AgriStability participants in other BRM programs

Participation in BRM Programs	Percent of AgriStability Participants
AgriStability only	1.6
AgriStability and one other BRM program	14.9
AgriStability and two other BRM programs	44.0
All four BRM programs	39.5
Source: 2019 Farm Financial Survey – Weighted dataset

It is likely (and part of the intended design of the BRM suite) that different combinations of BRM programming provide the best protection for different producer needs. The challenge, however, is that users sometimes do not fully understand the synergistic design of the suite and do not use BRM programs in a complementary way. Further, the evaluation found some BRM program combinations may work more effectively for certain producers than others. For example, AgriStability is an excellent complement to AgriInsurance for crop producers; the two programs generally do not provide overlapping coverage for production loss, while AgriStability provides protection for price declines and cost increases. For small farm operations, AgriInvest and AgriStability work particularly well together, whereas larger farms may not fully benefit due to program caps which limit payments and savings contributions.

Currently, apart from AgriStability and AgriInvest which share a common application form and personal identification number, examining the interrelated use of multiple BRM programs is not feasible because each BRM program assigns a unique identification number to its users. In light of this limitation, AAFC is considering the use of business numbers in addition to program identification numbers to better track participation and program impact across BRM programming.

5.2 Evolution of AgriStability

BRM programming has evolved alongside changes to the AAFC policy frameworks:

• During the Agricultural Policy Framework (2003-07), the focus of BRM shifted from safety nets for producers to risk management.
• During Growing Forward (2007-13), AgriStability's predecessor (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program) began providing coverage for all risks.
• During Growing Forward 2 (2013-18), governments moved away from income stabilization and focused coverage on risk events that threatened farm viability, resulting in changes to AgriStability.
• The Canadian Agricultural Partnership (2018-23) continued the policy focus of Growing Forward 2, with some specific updates to AgriStability.

Growing Forward 2 moved away from income stabilization, which was seen to interfere with market signals and hinder producer adaptation. Program staff suggested private sector interventions (for example, insurance programs) may help to cover less severe margin declines.

5.2.1 Design and delivery concerns

The evaluation identified several concerns with the current design and delivery of AgriStability that are consequences of the individualized nature of the Program: high complexity, a lack of timely payments and disparity of benefits for participating producers. Program consultations with producers indicated the importance of having a program that is individualized to meet the unique needs of each farm while also providing timely payments, but these two criteria have proven to be incompatible.

The evaluation found that the highly complex nature of AgriStability is one of the largest barriers to participation for producers. AgriStability requires a large amount of production and financial information from participants (including revenues, expenses and changes to inventory) which is validated by AAFC and provincial delivery partners. Producers can submit their financial information on a cash or accrual basis. A source of confusion was the accrual accounting adjustment calculation on those who submit on a cash basis (which producers typically use).^{Footnote 7} The Program's information requirements enables program staff to tailor payments based on the specific circumstances of each operation; however, compiling this information requires a significant amount of effort from producers. Further, producers must have a sufficient level of financial literacy to understand and assess the benefits of AgriStability for their operation, or hire accountants to do this work for them. Additionally, participants face multiple deadlines in the application process and must follow a complicated and lengthy application guide when submitting information.

Timeliness of payments was identified by the evaluation as a limitation with AgriStability. Significant administrative effort is required to calculate, validate and distribute payments. At the end of their fiscal year, a producer submits a completed statement of farming activities form, which is typically processed within three months; however, those submissions that trigger a payment typically take nearly four months to process. The timeliness of processing AgriStability forms is related to the complexity of the file, with larger operations and/or larger claims taking longer for payments to be issued. Further, payments do not address income declines as they occur, with only 57% of payments distributed within eight months after the end of a program year (see Figure 2). This means producers would need to address income declines within their operations or through other mechanisms such as AgriInvest or other loan programs prior to receiving payment through AgriStability.

Source: Program administrative data

Description of the above image

Figure 2: Cumulative percentage of program dollars disbursed in an average program year (2007 to 2017)

The figure shows the cumulative percent of program dollars distributed by AgriStability.

Time	Percent of program dollars distributed (cumulative)
4 months before end of program year	4%
8 months after end of program year	57%
20 months after end of program year	94%
32 months after end of program year	99%
44 months after end of program year	100%

Producers experiencing a decline who believe that it is sufficient to trigger an AgriStability payment are eligible to receive interim payments. Interim payments, which provide an advance of 50% of an expected final payment following an operation's production cycle but before the operation's financial year has ended. Interim payments are typically processed within 22 days, though payments may be issued to producers within 24 hours of receiving the necessary financial information. However, from 2016 to 2019, less than 1% of participants used interim payments in part due to the fear of receiving overpayments that require repayment. Overpayments can result from participants over-estimating their losses, changes in fair market value of agricultural products, payments received from other BRM programs, and differences between historic and actual expenses. About 21% of interim payments from 2016 to 2019 resulted in an overpayment, and roughly half of overpayments required a full repayment of the interim payment, including any interest accrued if not repaid within 30 days. There is the view amongst producer associations interviewed, as well as producers surveyed, that interim payments are unpredictable. Program administrative data corroborates this, as it shows that only 57% of applications for interim payments from 2016 to 2019 resulted in a payment.

The evaluation found AgriStability is better designed to reach larger, established producers due to the complexity of the program and application process, whereas smaller producers are less likely to find the process worth the effort or be able to afford the necessary resources to complete an application. Producers of certain commodity types are also more likely to benefit, as they trigger a payment more frequently, making it worth their time to enrol in the Program.

5.2.2 Recent changes to AgriStability

Several significant changes to the design and delivery of AgriStability during the evaluation reference period were implemented to address the stakeholder concerns identified above. However, qualitative evidence suggested many of these concerns still remain. A sample of key changes include:

• In 2021, the reference margin limit for AgriStability was removed. The reference margin limit, introduced in 2013, was intended to ensure support was provided to producers whose farm viability was threatened (rather than protecting against profit fluctuations). However, it became more difficult for producers (especially those with low allowable expenses) to qualify for AgriStability payments, while also reducing the size of payments producers received.
• As of 2020, private insurance claims no longer impacted AgriStability payments if program premiums are producer-funded and insure against price, revenue, production or margin-related losses. Previously, private insurance claims were counted as allowable income in payment calculations, reducing payments and functioning as a disincentive to purchasing private insurance.
• With the shift from Growing Forward 2 to the Canadian Agricultural Partnership framework, AAFC implemented the late participation mechanism which enabled producers to enroll for the program post-deadline with a 20% reduction in benefits.
• In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the program administrations increased interim payments from 50% to 75% in most regions. This resulted in, for example, a 300% increase in producers requesting interim payments in 2020 in the province of Ontario.
• For the 2019, 2020 and 2021 program years, AAFC granted a two-month extension to the AgriStability application deadline to better facilitate program participation and support producers impacted by market or production disruptions.

Several provinces also implemented their own changes to the design and delivery of AgriStability during the evaluation reference period including:

• implementing the cash reference margin pilot in 2020 to simplify the application process by limiting historical information required (Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador). This pilot has the potential to improve program reach by limiting the burden of information required and the need for an accountant;
• piloting a simplified application process in 2020 using tax return information in select jurisdictions; and
• increasing the provincial portion of the compensation rate for producers from 70% to 80% in 2021 to improve support for farmers (Ontario and British Columbia).

Feedback on recent changes has been positive, especially regarding the removal of the reference margin limit and changes to private insurance considerations. Most interviewees across all stakeholder groups stated that the reference margin limit removal has made AgriStability more equitable, simpler and more predictable for producers, and will likely lead to more payments to farmers. Although there is not yet sufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the change to private insurance considerations has led to greater uptake of private insurance by producers, five interviewees from different stakeholder groups argued the change is a positive one; it will likely encourage producers to have different levels of coverage and should encourage private sector development of risk management tools.

5.3 Promising practices and lessons learned

AAFC has implemented a number of promising practices in its design and delivery of AgriStability including:

• Partnering with industry and other levels of government to identify and plan for BRM program improvements;
• Producing a departmental Service Pledge which asks delivery staff to provide service that is client-focused, helpful, accountable, respectful, timely and accurate;
• Improving communication to AgriStability clients by updating the AgriStability Handbook and program websites with plain language and introducing an online AgriStability Estimator for producers to estimate payments in different situations;
• Monitoring performance of the Farm Income Programs Directorate contact centre's toll-free line for BRM programming on a weekly basis and conducting quarterly analysis to identify ways to improve client service; and
• Conducting a two-year cash reference margin pilot process in three jurisdictions where the program is federally delivered, as well as Ontario. The pilot simplifies the application process by enabling producers who file taxes using cash accounting processes to calculate their reference margins without making accrual adjustments. A program review of the pilot will assess the efficiency, relevance and effectiveness/consistency of the pilot to compare the accrual and cash approaches before rolling out the change on a broader scale.

6.0 Performance

This section provides an overview of the performance of AgriStability, including its efficiency and achievement of expected outcomes.

6.1 Efficiency

The efficiency of AgriStability was measured by the Program's ability to remain within budget and meet financial performance metrics, as well as program performance with respect to the administrative cost.

6.1.1 Planned budget vs. actual spending

AAFC works with provinces and territories to forecast BRM expenditures for upcoming years. These forecasts help with performance monitoring, budgeting and the development of policies and programs. As a demand-driven program, AgriStability expenditures fluctuate from year to year due to changes in market conditions and program participation, and therefore cannot be precisely forecasted. As such, AgriStability's actual spending was below budget on average over the evaluation reference period (see Annex C for budget breakdown).

6.1.2 Service standards

The evaluation found AgriStability staff have been efficient in meeting service standards. From a review of the AgriStability Contact Centre's service standard statistics, nine to 13% of calls received are related to AgriStability. On average, in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020 staff met or exceeded the 90% program target for percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds. Service standard statistics for AgriStability processing in provinces where the program is delivered federally (that is, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Yukon) showed that, on average, staff surpassed the program target of processing 75% of completed applications within 75 days of receipt in each year of the reference period.

6.1.3 Administrative dollars per producer enrolled

The evaluation found that the average cost to administer AgriStability per participant (that is, someone who has submitted and had processed all of the necessary paperwork) from 2016-17 to 2020-21 was almost $1,239 in direct costs (which includes salary, employee benefit payments and non-pay operating costs). AAFC's federally delivered approach had the highest average administrative cost per participant ($2,096), when compared to other provincially delivered jurisdictions. However, federal delivery included other activities not incurred by provincial partners, such as managing the cost-sharing agreement, providing national administrative reports, forecasting program payments, conducting analyses of changes to the program and managing the Canada Revenue Agency agreement/data. Some provinces had provincial-only programs with linkages to AgriStability which resulted in reduced AgriStability administrative cost per participant compared to the average.

The administrative cost decreased between 2016-17 and 2020-21 by over 7% (see Figure 3). However, the number of producers enrolled decreased by over 18% during the same period. As a result, the cost per application form processed has increased by over 14%. The number of producers enrolling in AgriStability has been declining, with smaller operations exiting the program at a faster rate than larger operations (see Section 6.2.1 above). The higher proportion of larger operations participating, which are typically more complex to process and thus requiring more effort from AgriStability staff, is also attributed to the increased cost per form processed.

Description of the above image

Figure 3: Administrative cost per participant and total administrative cost (2010-11 to 2020-21)

The figure depicts a decreasing total administrative cost of AgriStability, and a cost per application that is slowly increasing.

Program year	Total administration cost (millions of dollars)	Cost per application ($/application)
2016-17	68.4	1,121
2017-18	67.2	1,287
2018-19	65.3	1,385
2019-20	64.4	1,295
2020-21	63.5	1,281
Source: Program financial data

Program costs were partially offset by participation fees and an administrative cost share fee. Participation fees of $315 for every $100,000 of reference margin were intended to cover a portion of program payments, while the administrative cost share fee of $55 per applicant was intended to cover a portion of the administrative cost of the program. From 2013 to 2017, producers paid, on average, $679 to participate in AgriStability. This covers over half (54%) of the administration cost associated with applications. However, participation fees are only intended to cover payments paid to producers and are not used to cover administration costs.

Between 2016-17 and 2020-21, $1.7 billion was distributed to producers, with an associated administrative cost to AAFC and its provincial partners of $329 million. Overall, AgriStability cost $1 for every $5.54 distributed to producers, which is 16% of program costs incurred by provincial administrators and AAFC. This was higher than the administrative costs for the Advance Payments Program (13% from 2014-18), AgriInsurance (seven% from 2010-15) and AgriInvest (four% from 2016-21).

The evaluation also compared current costs to that of other AAFC BRM programs as a benchmark. AgriStability was found to be more expensive per applicant than AgriInvest at $100 per applicant and comparable to AgriInsurance at $1430 per farm in the previous evaluation^{Footnote 8}; however, this was expected due to the complexity and information requirements to participate in AgriStability. In addition, the cost per applicant was compared to the previous evaluation period. Program costs have increased over time; however, the rate of increase from 2016 to 2021 was estimated to be lower than that experienced in 2010 to 2015, indicating the program is being delivered more efficiently.

6.1.4 Observations on how efficiency of program delivery could be improved

AgriStability is a highly complex program, with several AAFC staff and provincial/territorial officials, as well as one Assistant Deputy Minister FPT Policy Table member, describing the Program as inefficient to deliver. As noted in section 5.2.1, the Program requires a large amount information from participants that must be validated to determine a producer's reference margin and if a payment is triggered. To improve efficiency, interviewees recommended several changes including:

• rethinking the program design to make AgriStability less specific and complex (for example, a blanket payment to all eligible enrolled producers);
• focusing improvements on IT and software to make administration more streamlined or automated;
• calculating program margin and reference margin from Canada Revenue Agency tax information (for example, the cash reference margin pilot); and,
• improving communications with producers and producer access to information.

While program efficiencies could be improved through sole federal delivery, this would result in a loss of provincial expertise which could negativly impact the program. Additionally, the loss of provincial administration would limit the Program's ability to vary across provinces and the loss of provincial flexibility.

6.2 Access to individualized whole-farm protection from large income declines

6.2.1 Participation rates and market revenue coverage

The evaluation found that AgriStability has provided access to individualized whole-farm protection from large income declines for all agricultural sectors. However, the level of access and participation rates have varied depending on type of operation and participation has been declining over time.

The stated goal of AgriStability is to provide coverage for 65% of total farm market revenues of the sector and for 50% of producers. In 2017, AgriStability covered 54% of agricultural market revenues and 30% of Canadian farms (see Figure 4). These findings indicate that the Program is helping to mitigate income declines of approximately half of the industry, with higher participation and coverage rates in larger operations (greater than $1,000,000 in annual revenue). The evaluation identified the following possible reasons for lower than expected participation rates: lack of information; less perceived need for the program due to better market conditions; farm consolidation; changes to program design that excluded or discouraged participation; and concerns previously noted related to program complexity, timeliness and predictability.

Source: Program administrative data and agricultural tax data program

Description of the above image

Figure 4: AgriStability's coverage of producers and farm market revenues compared to program targets

The figure shows the declining farm market revenue coverage of AgriStability, and declining producer coverage. Producer coverage in 2017-18 is just over half of what it was in 2007-08; while farm market revenue coverage in 2017-18 is just under three-quarters of what it was in 2007-08.

Program Year	Producer Coverage (Target = 50%)	Farm Market Revenue Coverage (Target = 65%)
2007-08	57%	75%
2008-09	53%	70%
2009-10	53%	73%
2010-11	52%	73%
2011-12	48%	68%
2012-13	43%	65%
2013-14	37%	63%
2014-15	33%	59%
2015-16	36%	59%
2016-17	32%	56%
2017-18	30%	54%
Source: Program administrative data and agricultural tax data program

Alongside declining overall participation and agricultural market revenue coverage rates, participation is lower for smaller operations compared to larger operations (see Figure 5). This may be due to barriers that prevent smaller farms and some sectors from participating: the large amount of information required to participate and the likely need for an accountant to participate.

Source: Program administrative data and agriculture tax data program

Description of the above image

Figure 5: Average AgriStability participation rates by farm size (overall 2013-2017)

The figure shows the average number of farms by revenue class, the average number of AgriStability participants by revenue class, and the average percent of farms participating by revenue class between 2013-17.

Revenue class	Average number of farms	Average number of AgriStability participants	Average percent of farms participating in AgriStability
Less than $250,000	108,671	29,639	27%
$250,000 to $999,999	39,410	18,279	46%
$1,000,000 and over	15,120	7,951	53%

Source: Program administrative data and agriculture tax data program

6.2.2 Access for underrepresented groups

A Gender-Based Analysis Plus assessment conducted by the Department for the Canadian Agricultural Partnership policy framework found BRM programming was unlikely to have different impacts for specific demographic groups, nor would it reinforce imbalances based on gender and other characteristics. Documents highlighted the following ways that BRM programming supports underrepresented groups (that is, youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities and other groups who are under-represented in agriculture):

• enabling all farmers to participate through the use of income tax data; processes are in place to accommodate new farmers (who may not have reported previous farming income) and Indigenous Peoples (who may not file income tax returns);
• omitting demographic characteristics as part of program eligibility criteria; and
• targeting education and awareness activities at women and young farmers.

However, since the Gender-Based Analysis Plus assessment was conducted, documents reviewed indicated more can be done. For example, there is a need for BRM programming to be more accessible to young farmers, women, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities by addressing challenges that can hinder participation of these underrepresented groups. For example:

• For women, the lack of daycare and family-friendly spaces can make attending engagement sessions difficult.
• For young and early career producers, debt/asset ratios and stability of production can impact debt risk and limit access to capital.
• For Indigenous producers, lack of land ownership can impact access to capital. Distrust of federal government and language barriers may deter applications, and lack of reliable internet services and remote locations may limit access to markets.

A 2020 Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food heard from witnesses that BRM programming is not equitable, as the suite provides better support for larger farming operations when compared to smaller ones. Logistical challenges may be a barrier; for example, smaller farms with fewer staff may miss the application window if preoccupied with work on-the-farm.

Literature points to underrepresented groups such as young farmers, women, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities more likely to operate smaller farms. The 2017 Farm Financial Survey shows female operators are under-represented in agriculture, with less than 30% of farm operators being female. Female-operated farms tend to be smaller than male-operated farms, and thus less likely to participate in AgriStability. In 2017^{Footnote 9}, less than 24% of farms operated solely by females participated in AgriStability, compared to 37% of farms operated solely by males. Young operators (40 years of age and under) were found to be less likely to participate in AgriStability. Twenty-five% of farms with young operators participated in AgriStability, compared to 34% of farms with older operators.

The 2019-20 Departmental Results Report noted that work to enhance access for underrepresented populations is ongoing, including examining participation rates of diverse groups and identifying barriers to access; however, it is difficult to assess how well the Program supports different priority population groups because demographic data is not captured. According to program documents, AAFC's Service Delivery Advisory Centre has strongly encouraged the inclusion of Gender-Based Analysis Plus questions in data collection tools for BRM programming, to better understand reach and barriers to access for underrepresented groups. Further, it was noted that there is a need to tailor communications and capacity building activities for women, agricultural college students and Indigenous groups/Elders to improve participation rates.

6.3 Protection against severe income declines and stabilized financial viability of producers

From 2016-17 to 2020-21, producers received over 29,600 final AgriStability payments worth $1.7 billion and 723 interim payments worth $71 million. The number and value of AgriStability payments suggests AgriStability provided some protection against severe income declines and stabilized financial viability for Canadian producers through financial support. However, rather than supporting the entire sector, AgriStability unevenly supported certain sectors and sizes of farms. The majority of program payments went to support the largest operations (greater than $1,000,000), while sectors with narrower margins, such as hogs and cattle, were more likely to trigger AgriStability payments (and more sizeable payments) during a margin decline compared to sectors with wider margins.

AgriStability's ability to assist operations in recovery is captured in program performance data, between 2013 and 2017, 67% of participants receiving program payments had their margins stabilized by AgriStability payments (that is, to achieve 55% of their reference margin after program payments); however, this falls short of the program's target of 75%. Even though AgriStability fell short of its target to stabilize margins it was shown to meet the performance target of 95% of participants receiving program payments being able to cover their eligible expenses, meeting the target of 95% between 2013 and 2017.

AgriStability's payments were found to reduce income variability of program participants from 10% to 4%, though impacts were experienced unevenly across the agricultural sector. Income variability was inversely related to revenue size; the smallest operations ($10,000 to $25,000 in annual revenue) had twice the variation in income when compared to the largest operations (greater than $1,000,000 in annual revenue) (33% versus 15%). The higher income variability of smaller operations (less than $250,000 annual revenue) made them more likely to trigger AgriStability payments (see Figure 6). Smaller operations were also found to experience greater margin declines compared to larger operations, making them less likely to stabilize their margin through AgriStability and less likely to be able to cover their eligible expenses after program payments.

Source: Program administrative data

Description of the above image

Figure 6: AgriStability participants with a margin decline equal to or greater than 30% (2013-14 to 2017-18)

The figure shows the percent of program participants of whom have a program margin less than 70% of their reference margin. The smaller the farm the greater percent had a program margin less than 70% of their reference margin.

Revenue class	Percent of participants with PM less than 70% RM
$10,000 - $24,999	20.8%
$25,000 - $49,999	16.0%
$50,000 - $99,999	13.6%
$100,000 - $249,999	12.1%
$250,000 - $499,999	10.1%
$500,000 - $999,999	8.6%
$1,000,000 and over	9.8%

Source: Program administrative data

The larger relative declines experienced by smaller operations contributed to the Program's challenges in meeting performance targets, including 75% of producers having their margin stabilized and 95% of producers able to cover eligible expenses (see Figure 7). This indicates that AgriStability is not supporting smaller operations ($250,000 in annual revenue) as intended; their incomes vary too much for program payments to provide stability and program payments are insufficient to cover their eligible expenses. Nothing in the Program documentation suggests this variance in experience across sectors and producer sizes is by design.

Note: Margin stabilized is defined as an operation's margin is greater than or equal to 55% of its reference margin after receiving a program payment.

Source: Program administrative data

Description of the above image

Figure 7: Recovery of AgriStability participants by farm size, including program targets (2013-14 to 2017-18)

Figure showing the relationship between revenue class and the impact of program payments to stabilize margins. A margin is considered stabilized if the operation's margin is greater than or equal to 55% of its reference margin.

Revenue class	Percent of operations where margin is stabilized after program payment (target 75%)	Percent of operations where margin isn't stabilized after program payment (but able to cover eligible expenses)	Percent of operations unable to cover eligible expenses after program payment (target less than 5%)
$10,000 - $24,999	49.3%	39.4%	11.3%
$25,000 - $49,999	57.3%	35.2%	7.5%
$50,000 - $99,999	63.3%	31.2%	5.5%
$100,000 - $249,999	70.5%	26.1%	3.4%
$250,000 - $499,999	75.8%	21.7%	2.5%
$500,000 - $999,999	78.1%	19.4%	2.5%
$1,000,000 and over	70.9%	24.9%	4.2%
Overall	67.0%	28.0%	5.0%

Note: Margin stabilized is defined as an operation's margin is greater than or equal to 55% of its reference margin after receiving a program payment.

Source: Program administrative data

AgriStability has met some, but not yet all performance targets based on data from 2013-14 to 2017-18. This suggests that there may be program design and delivery considerations that need to be implemented for the achievement of targets; or that targets may not be appropriate to program performance. The timeliness of payments, program caps and producer expectations for compensation rate and trigger may also have impeded full achievement of immediate and intermediate outcomes. Further, a few interviewees (including provincial/territorial officials and producer associations) with a strong understanding of the program suggested that the high trigger point for payments make AgriStability better suited to disaster management than mitigating margin declines.

6.4 Ultimate BRM outcomes

There are four ultimate outcomes intended to capture the long-term impact of the BRM suite as a whole:

• The agricultural sector is financially resilient;
• Producers see value in the BRM suite in managing their business risks;
• Cost effective programming; and
• Industry is able to better manage business risks and remain viable in the long-term.

Achievement of these outcomes are not dependant on AgriStability alone, but are supported by various programs in the BRM suite, other non-BRM programs and other extenuating factors (for example, improved market conditions). This evaluation found that program design and delivery constraints have limited AgriStability's ability to fully contribute to these long-term outcomes.

Eight AAFC programs contribute to making the agricultural sector financially resilient: AgriStablity; AgriRecovery; AgriRisk; AgriInsurance; AgriInvest; Farm Debt Mediation Service; Loan Guarantee Programs; and the Advance Payments Program. In recent years for which there is program data (2013 to 2017), results show performance targets for financial resiliency (that is, ‘sector's income as a proportion of historical income' and ‘percentage of financially healthy farms') have been met or exceeded. Interviews with program staff, provinces and associations described the agricultural sector as showing signs of financial resiliency, including low financial stress and ‘healthy' balance sheets. Further, data showed the revenue growth rate of program participants has closely matched that of the broader industry, outperforming it in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Nonetheless, these interviewees also explained that AgriStability is likely not a key driver of financial resiliency due to low participation rates and lack of timely payments. Other factors faced by the agricultural sector, such as increased land values, investments, low interest rates and market-driven price increases, as well as participation in a number of BRM programs simultaneously, also help with financial resiliency.

Producer reliance on AgriStability is dependent on market trends, where periods of high prices mean less of a need or demand for the program. Net cash income, the main metric used by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to measure farm income, has been increasing since 2018 and is forecasted to reach record high values in 2021 and 2022 due to rising commodity prices. However, net operating income, the measure of profitability of a farming operation, is forecasted to increase in 2021 only for operations $250,000 or larger. As a result, smaller operations will still have a need for support from programs such as AgriStability.

Almost all interviewed producer groups said the BRM suite is a valuable support for producers in managing their business risks. The importance of AgriStability varied widely among producers, according to the 2019 Farm Financial Survey. Even though the majority of producers did not view AgriStability as an important government-funded risk management tool, 72% of AgriStability participants viewed the program as important. Larger farms were more likely to find AgriStability important compared to smaller operations, while those in the Fruit, Vegetable, and Potatoes sector and the Hog sector generally had a more positive view of the program, regardless of farm size.

The evaluation found that over time the costs to administer the BRM suite of programs rose less than the consumer price index from 2013-14 to 2017-18, which indicates cost effective programming. Interviewees suggested AgriStability could be administered more cost-effectively, but that this would likely require a simplification of the program that would erode its specificity.

Interviewees across different stakeholder groups indicated that the agricultural industry is better able to manage business risks and remain viable in the long-term; however, most noted AgriStability is likely not the key driver behind this outcome. Changes within the industry and other methods of risk management (for example, diversifying commodities, adopting technologies, using other BRM programs) likely contributed more to this outcome than AgriStability. Nonetheless, the top three risks producers perceive to their operations are weather, commodity prices and input prices, and AgriStability and AgriInvest are the only BRM programs that addresses the latter of these three risks.

7.0 Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation confirmed that federal risk management programming like AgriStability helps to protect against severe income losses due to a wide array of risks. AgriStability fills gaps within the suite of BRM programming, specifically those relating to fluctuations in commodity prices and input prices. The program provides regional flexibility and the ability for provinces to pilot changes to the program. AgriStability is expensive to administer and contributed somewhat to immediate and intermediate outcomes but, the evaluation found several key areas for improvement.

First, intensive information requirements, various deadlines, and complicated guidelines and calculations created administrative burden on producers, added to the complexity of the program and were barriers to participation for some producers. This complexity of AgriStability likely dissuaded participation by some producers (for example, small farms with less than $250,000 in annual revenues) who do not have the time or resources required to benefit from the program. Small farms were found to have a greater need for AgriStability due to their larger variability in income and higher likelihood of experiencing a significant decline in margin.

Second, program payments where not timely with over 40% of payments taking more than eight months to issue and, in some cases, over a year. Producers noted that program payments being unpredictable, which dissuaded their use of interim payments as an option to bridge the gap between an income decline and final payment.

AgriStability's ability to reach underrepresented populations has been limited. Underrepresented populations are more likely to operate smaller farms, yet, smaller operations have participated less frequently in AgriStability. Pilotted programs such as those targeting smaller operations and new entrants could prove effective. It was found that tailored communications and capacity building activities for underrepresented groups could improve participation rates.

Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in consultation with provincial administrators, should:

• Recommendation 1: identify ways to simplify AgriStability to reduce producer administrative burden.
• Recommendation 2: find ways to make interim and final payments more predictable and to improve the timeliness of final payments.
• Recommendation 3: develop and implement a means to increase access to AgriStability by underrepresented populations.

Management response

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them by April 1, 2024.

Annex A: Evaluation methodology

Document, file, and literature review

To assess program relevance, design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness, the evaluation reviewed internal program documents and files. With support from the Canadian Agriculture Library, the evaluation also examined select literature to support the assessment of relevance.

Key informant interviews

Interviews were conducted with internal and external stakeholders to assess program relevance, design and delivery, efficiency, and effectiveness. The evaluation involved 40 interviews with 43 stakeholders, including AAFC staff (8), national and regional producer associations (17), provincial or territorial officials (11), Assistant Deputy Minister FPT Policy Table representatives (4) and financial institutions/accounting firms (3).

Analysis of secondary and administrative data

The evaluation analysed disaggregated summary data files for program participants between 2013 and 2017. The evaluation supplemented the primary data analysis with data from the Agriculture Taxation Data Program (2013-20), the Farm Financial Survey (2017 and 2019) and the Business Risk Management Survey (2016). Secondary and administrative data was used to assess the program's relevance, design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness.

Methodological limitations

The following methodological limitations were considered in interpreting the data:

Table 3 : Methodological limitations

Limitation	Mitigation strategy	Impact on evaluation
Response bias: Key informants who participated in the evaluation may have a vested interest in the continuation of BRM programming.	Interviews with participants from five different stakeholder groups generated a variety of perspectives. Data was synthesized within and across stakeholder groups, and triangulated with other lines of evidence where possible to eliminate potential bias.	Low
Data limitation 1: Lack of recent program administrative data.	Utilized available program administrative data from 2013 to 2017 to understand program need and use. Results from this period were generalized over the period to eliminate variances from year to year. Other lines of evidence were used to offset a lack of 2018-2021 program administrative data.	Low
Data limitation 2: The evaluation made use of existing secondary data to address evaluation questions: 2019 Farm Financial Survey did not accurately capture sentiment of AgriStability participants about program's timeliness, responsiveness, predictability or clarity. Farm financial survey not weighted to reflect participation in AgriStability. Population participating in AgriStability were over-sampled.	Utilized 2016 Business Risk Management Survey results to cross reference where needed. While certain indicators were not weighted for program participation, they were deemed appropriate for analysis purposes.	Low-Medium

Annex B: Agristability logic model

BRM suite ultimate outcomes

• The agricultural sector is financially resilient
• Producers see value in the BRM suite in managing their business risks
• Cost effective programming
• Industry is able to better manage business risks and remain viable in the long-term

Intermediate outcomes

Producers' incomes are protected from severe income declines.

Immediate outcomes

Producers have access to individualized whole-farm protection from large income declines.

Outputs

Provide a tool to help manage large margin declines at the whole farm level.

Activities

• Receive, review and process applications from eligible producers
• Making AgriStability applications available to producers
• Processing AgriStability applications and issuing Enrolment Notices, Confirmation of Benefits Notices and tax slips
• Making and recording all payments to eligible recipients
• Responding to producer inquiries
• Administering application appeals
• Recovering overpayments
• Financial monitoring and reporting on AgriStability progress/results
• Ensuring effective program delivery, resources management and due diligence
• Performing producer audits
• Develop a national client-focused delivery model with consistent standards for aspects of program delivery, and
• Meet with producers and/or accountants to communicate program changes and what the administration requires

Source: Performance Information Profile for the AgriStability Program

Annex C: AAFC Agristability budget (2016-17 to 2020-21)

	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	Overall
Salary
Budgeted	12,077,611	11,923,034	12,047,168	12,057,626	12,005,338	60,110,777
Actual	8,607,163	10,294,261	8,869,990	9,966,040	10,607,900	48,345,354
Variance	−3,470,448	−1,628,773	−3,177,178	−2,091,586	−1,397,438	−11,765,423
Non pay operating
Budgeted	6,072,427	6,072,427	4,462,080	5,435,021	5,962,080	28,004,035
Actual	2,728,687	3,043,031	2,663,342	2,573,277	3,112,004	14,120,341
Variance	−3,343,740	−3,029,396	−1,798,738	−2,861,744	−2,850,076	−13,883,694
Grants & Contributions
Budgeted	260,300,000	260,300,000	424,150,000	424,150,000	424,150,000	1,793,050,000
Actual	346,900,856	61,619,352	215,244,344	194,832,517	215,810,537	1,034,407,606
Variance	86,600,856	−198,680,648	−208,905,656	−229,317,483	−208,339,463	−758,642,394
Capital
Budgeted	141,000	141,000	2,000,000	1,000,000	500,000	3,782,000
Actual	211,339	904,444	877,049	447,961	1,735,687	4,176,480
Variance	70,339	763,444	−1,122,951	−552,039	1,235,687	394,480
Revenue
Budgeted	−1,000,000	−1,000,000	−1,000,000	−1,000,000	−1,000,000	−5,000,000
Actual	−403,549	−357,399	−382,978	−337,001	−337,001	−1,817,928
Variance	596,451	642,601	617,022	662,999	662,999	3,182,072
Total
Budgeted	277,591,038	277,436,461	441,659,248	441,642,647	441,617,418	1,879,946,812
Actual	358,044,496	75,503,689	227,271,747	207,482,794	230,929,127	1,099,231,853
Variance	80,453,458	−201,932,772	−214,387,501	−234,159,853	−210,688,291	−780,714,959
Note: Excludes expenses associated with internal services. Source: Corporate Management Branch