Report to Parliament on the Review of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act

Alternative Formats

November 2012

Honourable Gerry Ritz
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food


1. Introduction

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, is required to review, every five years, the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (AMPA) and the operations of its programs. This report to Parliament covers the five-year period from 2006 to 2011. The research components of the review were initiated in the fall of 2010 and completed in 2011.

In addition, as required by subsection 42(1.1) of the AMPA, the review also considered the emergency advances for severe economic hardship provisions, which were added to the legislation following an amendment in 2008.

This report to Parliament is in accordance with those provisions of the AMPA.

2. The Programs

The programs under AMPA are designed to improve marketing opportunities for program participants by improving their short term cash flow requirements.

AMPA provides for three programs: the Advance Payments Program (APP); the Price Pooling Program (PPP); and the Government Purchases Program (GPP).

Advance Payments Program (APP)

The Advance Payments Program (APP) is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers access to credit through cash advances based on the value of their agricultural products during a specified period. The objective of the program is to improve producers' cash flow throughout the year, allowing them to meet their immediate financial obligations while delaying the sale of their agricultural products to take advantage of higher prices. Eligible commodities include field crops, livestock, animals (e.g. goats, bison) and an extensive variety of horticultural products.

The program guarantees the repayment of the advances made by producer organizations to eligible producers. The guarantees help the producer organization (the program administrator) borrow money from lenders to make the advances to producers. The federal government also pays the interest on the first $100,000 of an advance issued to a producer, with a maximum advance of up to $400,000. The advances are repaid as the agricultural product is sold. Before an advance is issued, the producer must provide a first rank security on the agricultural product for which the advance is issued or a Business Risk Management (BRM) program (i.e. AgriStability or AgriInsurance) where an agricultural product is in the course of being produced.

If a producer fails to repay the advance to the producer organization, the Government repays the advance (less a small portion considered to be the administrator's liability) on the producer's behalf, after which the producer is indebted to the federal government for the amount of the payment.

On average, during the period of 2007 to 2011 Footnote 1, the program has provided $1.93 billion in guaranteed advances per production period to 28,591 producers, with an annual cost of $23 million for the interest-free provision and $17 million under the guarantee provision, part of which is recovered as the Government continues collection action on defaults. Historically, payments under the government guarantee have been approximately one percent of the dollar value of advances issued during a production period.

Emergency Advances – Severe Economic Hardship under the APP

In 2008, through an amendment to AMPA, a provision for emergency advances for severe economic hardship (SEH) was added to the APP. This type of advance can be authorized only by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance, where the advance is expected to help mitigate the hardship.

The main difference between regular and emergency advances for SEH pertains to the security attached to the advance. For an SEH advance, a first rank security on the agricultural product for which the advance is issued is not required nor is the use of a BRM program to secure the advance for an agricultural product in the course of being produced. The financial risk associated with defaulted advances is therefore higher for the government. However, by waiving these requirements, the APP becomes available to producers who would not, under normal conditions, be eligible.

These provisions were extended to the livestock sector in 2008 as it was facing significant income challenges due to low prices, the rapid rise of the Canadian dollar, record-high feed costs, and other input costs, as well as the lingering impacts of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) on the cattle sector and circovirus on the hog sector. An impact analysis on the use of emergency advances for SEH in these circumstances can be found in section 4.6.

Price Pooling Program (PPP)

The Price Pooling Program (PPP) provides a price guarantee (generally equal to 65% of the expected average wholesale price of a product) to cooperative marketing agencies, allowing them to protect themselves and their producers against large, unanticipated declines in the market price of the products covered under the guarantee. This guarantee assists the agencies in obtaining financing from financial institutions, which allows them to issue initial and interim payments to producers, and to cover marketing costs directly related to the pools. The program is designed to support cooperative marketing of eligible agricultural products by improving producers' cash-flow, through initial and interim payments to producers, for the product they deliver to the agency to market. A final payment is made once all of the delivered products are sold by the agency and average prices can be determined. If the final average price received for the product falls below the guaranteed price, the Government pays the difference to the marketing agency.

For the evaluation period, through Price Guarantee Agreements (PGA) with these marketing agencies, the PPP has guaranteed between $42 million to $85 million in payments per year. On average, 1,000 producers are participating in the program in any given year. The program has not incurred any costs related to the guarantee provision since no claims have been made under the PGAs since 1997.

Government Purchases Program (GPP)

The GPP authorizes the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to buy, sell, import, export, transport or process agricultural products. This program would be used only under unusual market circumstances where market stability is threatened. It has not been used during the evaluation period and, consequently, a comprehensive review of the program was not conducted.

3. The Review

The Review consisted of three components that addressed different aspects of the AMPA. Together, they provide a holistic review of the Act:

The sources of information used to complete the above activities included:

4. Summary of the review findings

4.1 Relevancy of the APP

The APP's origins can be traced back to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act (PGAPA), which was enacted in 1957. The program was created to respond to congestion in the elevator system in Western Canada at that time, and to provide producers with the necessary cash flow to enable them to delay marketing their harvested crops until prices increased in the spring. A similar program was created in 1977 under the Advance Payments for Crops Act (APCA) to offer the same support to producers outside the Prairie region.

In this regard, the third party review found that, generally speaking, the industry conditions leading to the creation of loan guarantee programs no longer persist as the elevator system is no longer congested. However, with the amalgamation of the two legislations in 1997, the Government of Canada confirmed its ongoing commitment in providing producers with the working capital needed to meet their short-term payables and enables them to store their products for sale later in the year, when prices tend to be more favorable.

In brief, the review concluded that:

  • The APP is helping producers' access low-cost financing. Also, the APP is especially important for those producers who would not qualify for conventional financing at affordable rates. In fact, about two-thirds of Canadian producers under the age of 35 are participating in the program. Further, loans obtained through the APP typically have more favorable terms and conditions than those offered through the private sector, which contributes to the program's objectives.
  • For many farms, the amount of financing accessed through the program is a small portion of the farm's overall financing. Consequently, the relevance and level of farm financing the APP provides to a producer is dependent on farm size and commodities. In addition, the program's uptake is strongest among storable commodities, such as field crops, which represent the majority of eligible commodities against which advances are issued under the program.
  • While the APP does not create marketing opportunities for producers, it is designed to improve their ability to market based on a strategy rather than a need for cash. Broadly speaking, key informants reported that the APP achieves its objectives by placing producers in a better position to negotiate the sale of their product and increases their liquidity so they can stagger marketing. This finding was confirmed through the survey of APP participants, which found that about three-quarters (74%) of the respondents agreed that the APP helps them improve the marketing of their products.
  • For advances on non-storable products or certain categories of livestock, the APP's role in marketing is slightly different since producers involved in cyclical production sell their product on a relatively regular basis or have a short window of opportunity to sell a product before it becomes perishable. In these circumstances, advances are typically used to assist with production planning, and improve cash flow at the beginning of the production cycle to pay for inputs. Improved cash flow means that producers can make business decisions based on the marketing opportunities of their products. However, the cases above represent a variance of the original marketing support intent of the program.
  • Stakeholder engagement sessions showed a high level of support for the program among producers and producer organizations who administer the program on behalf of AAFC. From an industry perspective, there is consensus that the APP is efficient and working well overall. Producers and producer organizations indicated that the APP does not compete with financial institutions and does not displace other financial tools. The APP is perceived as one tool in the financial tool chest of a producer.
  • It is also worth noting that industry stakeholders indicated that some traditional lenders are becoming less inclined to issue credit to agricultural producers, especially those involved in sectors experiencing financial difficulty. If this situation persists or becomes more widespread, the uptake of the program will increase as the APP will become more attractive for producers. They also mentioned that program uptake will likely increase in the coming years due to the restraint in the lending market and higher interest rates.

4.2 Impact of Farm revenue and low-cost borrowing

4.2.1 Impact on farm revenue

The third-party evaluation concluded that for storable commodities, depending on the timing of harvest and sales, delaying marketing can significantly impact the prices received by producers. Assuming optimal marketing decisions, in the 2008 and 2009 production years, depending on the commodity considered, price increases may have ranged anywhere from 8% to 43%. For a 500-acre farm, this would have increased revenue anywhere from $16,000 to $85,000. Conversely, suboptimal decisions could have seen prices decrease anywhere from 15% to 50%, which would have reduced revenue by $17,000 to $193,000. In many cases, maximization of revenues and net income depends on the management acumen of the producer.

4.2.2 Low-cost borrowing Impact

In addition to provide producers with the flexibility to market their agricultural product at an optimal time, the program also gives producers access to low-cost financing. To measure the impact of the low-cost borrowing aspect of the APP to producers, the third-party review estimated the amount of interest that could be saved by participating in the program. Several scenarios, all assuming a prime rate of 2.77% were analyzed:

  • If used to its maximum potential, the interest-free provision alone could save a producer over $9,000 in interest.
  • When used in combination with the maximum interest-bearing advances, a producers' total savings could increase to over $23,000.
  • Given that, in 2010, the average value of advances issued per producer was about $62,700 and between 2007 and 2010, only 1% of producers (n=1,255) obtained a maximum advance of $400,000, the actual savings to producers ranges from $870 to $5,650.


4.3 Costs and Benefits of the APP

4.3.1 Cost

The review of program operations concluded that the APP's program costs are influenced by fluctuating interest rates and defaults that in turn affect the government's financial liability under the program.

For the evaluation period, program expenditures have been considerably low given the historic low interest rates and a low default rate (approximately 1% of the total advances) in recent years. The following table outlines program expenditures for the review period:

APP Program Expenditures, 2006-07 to 2010-11 ($ million)
2006-07* 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total
Source: APP Financial Summary and APPEDS
*Program expenditures for 2006 were lower as the majority of producers opted for the Spring Credit Advance Program, this program was amalgamated with the APP in 2006 through an amendment to AMPA. Note: The majority of default payments do not pertain to advances issued during the same fiscal year, in a single fiscal year, default payments can be pertaining to as many as five different production year.
Interest paid ($M) $11.27 $33.96 $35.95 $14.40 $18.33 $113.91
Default amount ($M) $5.88 $14.65 $5.24 $19.35 $21.91 $67.03
Program Administrative Costs ($M) $5.78 $3.49 $2.98 $3.01 $2.81 $18.07
Total Program Operating Cost ($M) $22.93* $52.10 $44.17 $36.76 $43.05 $199.01

4.3.2 Benefits

AAFC developed a comparison between interest free benefits to producers and interest costs to the government. Assuming a prime lending rate of 4%, the direct benefit to a producer is between $1.45 to $2.38 for every dollar of interest paid by the federal government.

4.4 Management Effectiveness of the APP

The review of administrative efficiency component of the AMPA review concluded that the implementation of an electronic delivery system in 2006 has reduced program administrative costs. The following table depicts program administration costs for the review period:

APP Operating Cost 2006-07 to 2010-11 ($ millions)
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
5.78 3.49 2.98 3.01 2.81

The review concluded that the program's operating costs are comparable to, or less than, those of other federal loan programs with similar delivery mechanisms and objectives.



4.5 Delivery Model of the APP

According to the survey of APP participants, more than 8 producers out of 10 (83%) would prefer to receive their advance from a producer organization, as is currently the case. Moreover, 92% of producers agreed that they were satisfied with the services they received from the administrator who issued their last advance.

Program officials, administrators, lenders, and stakeholders participating in the engagement meetings also believe that the current third-party delivery model is appropriate. They noted that the program has successfully used this delivery model for more than 20 years. Key informants said that the advantages of the current delivery model are that producer organizations are:

  • familiar with the agricultural industry and understand the business situations producers are facing;
  • have well-established relationships with producers; and,
  • are located in communities across the country and are therefore easily accessible by producers.

A weakness of the current model resides in the fact that producers may have to apply to multiple administrators for their advances. Consequently, they may have to pay multiple and/or varying administration fees, have security registered multiple times ($20 to $30 per registration), and/or make in-person visits to multiple administrators. Despite the approval rating in the above paragraphs, as the realities of the agricultural sector evolve, AAFC is committed to enhance the delivery model through improvements and efficiencies.

4.6 Emergency Advances for Severe Economic Hardship

4.6.1 Background

The Advance Payments Program (APP) has provisions for two types of emergency advances:

  • Weather or Natural Disaster: Individual producers facing production difficulties due to weather or natural disasters can receive an advance where it is reasonable to expect that their product will be marketable. The maximum amount of the emergency advance is the lesser of $25K or 50% of the anticipated regular advance.
  • Severe Economic Hardship (SEH): Introduced in the legislation as a response to the crisis in the livestock sector in 2008, these advances are authorized by the Governor in Council if deemed that a class of similar producers is experiencing severe economic hardship, emergency advances can be issued, where the provision of the advance is expected to substantially mitigate the situation. The maximum amount of the emergency advance is up to $400K or 100% of the anticipated regular advance.

4.6.2 SEH advances to the livestock sector

Emergency advances due to severe economic hardship were granted only once. Advances were granted to the livestock sector in 2008, to assist producers experiencing significant income challenges due to low prices, the rapid rise of the Canadian dollar, record-high feed costs, and other input costs, as well as the lingering impacts of BSE on the cattle sector and of circovirus in the hog sector.

The intent was to address acute cash flow pressures and provide temporary “bridge” financing to prevent otherwise viable producers from having to make precipitous business decisions and leave the sector unnecessarily.

In total, $142 million in emergency advances were issued to 1,503 cattle producers and $312 million were issued to 1,812 hog producers.

Originally, these advances were intended to be repaid by September 30th, 2009. However, given the economic situation was still not favorable, two consecutive stays of default were granted to extend the repayment deadline. The second stay brought the repayment deadline to March 31, 2012 for cattle producers and March 31, 2013 for hog producers. For producers who were or will not be in a position to repay within the new deadlines, terms and conditions of the stay allow them to enter into a five year repayment agreement at low interest rates.

As of September 2012, it is estimated that the total cost pertaining to emergency advances (interest and default costs) will reach $183.4 million.

4.6.3 Review of SEH provisions

Through engagement sessions with the sector on the issue, industry stakeholders confirmed that emergency advances provided considerable relief to program participants. Advances provided timely assistance and were relatively easy to access during a difficult financial period for the sector.

However, they also informed AAFC that it was not realistic to expect repayment on the advances within the original timelines, given the severity of the situation. The lack of significant market recovery over the advance period further limited the ability of producers to generate income to pay back their advances within the prescribed deadlines. Given the prolonged effect of the economic downturn and the limited repayment period provided in the legislation, the tool is not considered to have been the most appropriate response to the sector's economic hardship.



4.7 Areas of improvements for the APP

A compilation of the comments and analysis gathered through the different activities of the review revealed many possible improvements to the APP that could ease access to the program, improve delivery efficiencies, and better align the program with current sector realities. The following depicts amendments to the legislation that would be beneficial for industry participants:

  • Allow for multi-year Advance Guarantee Agreements and repayment agreements in order to reduce red tape and delays when producers apply for an advance;
  • Enhance entry requirements under the program by expanding options to secure an advance outside the eligible Business Risk Management programs which would remove barriers to participation and allow some producers to maximize their eligible advance amounts;
  • Allow administrators to offer advances on any eligible commodity. This would alleviate the burden for producers of mixed operations who currently have to apply to multiple administrators;
  • Revise the related producers and attribution provisions to reduce red tape and complexity;
  • Improve the interaction between the AMPA and Farm Debt Mediation Act to improve the mediation process and make it more efficient for producers who defaulted on their APP advances;
  • Improve the provisions pertaining to default and repayment requirements that respectively facilitate the recovery of defaulted advances and or offer more options to producers to repay their advances.

4.8 Review of the PPP

Price pooling can serve as a risk management strategy for producers; for example, producers can choose to market some of their product through a marketing agency that provides a price guarantee and sell the rest on their own.

Over the years, participation in the PPP has been steady with five to seven marketing agencies delivering the program per crop year. The PPP has guaranteed between $42 million and $85 million in price guarantees per year through Price Guarantee Agreements with these marketing agencies. Marketing agencies use these guarantees to provide approximately 1,000 producers with initial payments for their commodities every year. As there have been no claims against the PPP since 1997, the only costs associated with the program are internal operating costs. The number of potential program participants is constant and very low with less than 20 eligible marketing agencies across the country at this time.

Two sources of information were used to analyze the program: a stakeholder engagement meeting with PPP administrators and a third-party review.

Key stakeholders said price pooling provides producers with another marketing tool and helps them manage risks. They reported that the initial price and loan guarantee available through the PPP helps the agencies managing the pools to obtain a line of credit from their lenders, which encourages participation in the pools. They believe it would be more difficult, but not impossible, to operate the pools outside of the PPP given their long-standing experience in managing pools and relationships with financial institutions. They also cited that the program is an important tool for new and recently established marketing agencies in helping them to secure financing.

Participating Marketing Agencies are satisfied with the PPP and did not identify any issues with the delivery model, application process, program guidelines, or reporting requirements. However, they noted that the initial price guarantee is conservative and could be revised at harvest. They suggested using a floating initial price based on a four-month working average.

Marketing agencies also agreed that the PPP provides the following benefits:

  • Improves the cash flow position of producers by providing an initial payment on delivery. It also protects members of the marketing agencies from severe unexpected declines in the marketplace.
  • Provides a price guarantee as security to obtain credit.
  • Provides a risk management strategy for producers that is relatively cost-free for the government. For example, producers can choose to market some of their product through a marketing agency that provides a price guarantee and sell the rest on their own.

4.9 Contribution to the Departmental Mandate and Priorities

AAFC, in partnership with the provinces and territories, has a comprehensive suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs to equip producers with the tools and capacity to manage farm business risks. These programs consist of coverage for small income declines through AgriInvest, margin-based support for larger income losses through AgriStability, assistance to producers with the extraordinary costs associated with disasters through the disaster relief framework AgriRecovery, and protection against production losses due to uncontrollable natural hazards through AgriInsurance.

Providing short term advances to producers or price guarantees through AMPA supports AAFC's strategic outcome for “a competitive agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector that proactively manages risk” and complements the above BRM programs. Although the APP and the PPP do not stabilize prices, they help producers manage risk individually or collectively. Along with private sector credit, they provide producers with flexibility to take advantage of markets when prices are beneficial.

Both programs contribute to the viability of farms. The programs help producers better manage their cash flow, which improves the financial stability of farm operations. The APP provides producers with access to low-cost financing and complements their working capital, which puts them in a good financial position to continue farming.

5. Conclusion

The APP is efficiently managed and delivered. In addition to improving the financial situation of program participants, it is an important financing tool for a majority of young farmers and it helps producers access low-cost financing to market their products based on opportunities. Its main benefit is that it helps improve cash-flow which allows for more marketing opportunities and lowers the cost of borrowing for farmers.

Based on the comments made during consultation and analysis of the various reviews, a number of areas were identified where improvements could be made to ease access to the program, increase delivery efficiencies, and better align the APP with current sector realities.

The PPP is well-designed and delivered. The program encourages price pooling by assisting marketing pools in accessing credit. The Marketing Agencies did not report any difficulties with the program. However, they suggested basing the initial payment on a four-month working average to increase benefits from initial payments at harvest.

Annex A
Program Use and Activity

Advance Payments Program

The use of the APP has varied over the evaluation period, going from 30,948 producers in 2007 to a high of 35,090 in 2008, and falling back to 25,087 in 2010. Advances issued also varied over the same period increasing from $1.6 billion in 2007 to $2.3 billion in 2008, and falling to $2 billion in 2009 (see Table 2). Additionally, in 2008 the APP issued $454 million in emergency advances to 3,212 cattle and hog producers.

These figures indicate that the APP is a widely used program in the agriculture industry. According to the 2006 Agricultural Census, there are 210,144 farm operations in Canada, excluding those that are supply-managed. About 14% of these farm operations participate in the APP.

APP participation has seen a decline since 2008, this can be attributed to:

  • Flooding in Western Canada which reduced the seeded acreage in 2010 by 14.5% compared to 2009.
  • Higher commodity prices have encouraged producers to sell their product at harvest and not rely on fall advances to hold their product.
  • Some cattle and hog producers may not have applied to the program in 2009 or 2010 as they received a stay of default for their 2008 advances, which do not have to be repaid until 2012 for cattle and 2013 for hogs.

By commodity group, field crop producers are the largest users of the program as 23% of all field crop producers in Canada participate in the APP. The next largest users of the program at 13% are horticultural producers. Livestock and other animal (e.g. goats, bison) producers complete the list at 4% and less than 1% respectively.

The typical APP participant produces field crops and is located in one of the Prairie provinces. As can be noted in the following table (Table 1), the special crops sector has had the lowest level of participation, averaging 1.9%, and the grains, oilseeds, and pulses sector has the highest participation rate, with 75.8% of total APP participants taking advantage of the program.

APP users tend to have higher farm revenues, farm assets, and liabilities than non-users. Additionally, the APP is attracting participation by young farmers as about two-thirds of Canadian producers under the age of 35 are participating in the APP.

Table 1 - Advance Payments Program

Table 1a. Participation by Region and Farm Type in the 2009 Production Period: Grains, Oilseeds & Pulse
Farm Type and Region $ Advanced % of Total Advances
Atlantic $5,092,087 0.3%
Quebec $94,466,731 4.7%
Ontario $101,004,331 5.0%
Manitoba $291,821,485 14.5%
Saskatchewan $733,762,938 36.5%
Alberta $289,580,542 14.4%
British Columbia $5,415,690 0.3%
Total Grains, Oilseeds & Pulse $1,521,143,804 75.8%
Table 1b. Participation by Region and Farm Type in the 2009 Production Period: Fruits and Vegetables
Farm Type and Region $ Advanced % of Total Advances
Atlantic $43,155,766 2.2%
Quebec $20,225,000 1.0%
Ontario $29,930,624 1.5%
Manitoba $3,528,595 0.2%
Saskatchewan nil nil
Alberta $4,611,962 0.2%
British Columbia $15,645,699 0.8%
Total Fruits and Vegetables $117,097,646 5.8%
Table 1c. Participation by Region and Farm Type in the 2009 Production Period: Special Crops
Farm Type and Region $ Advanced % of Total Advances
Atlantic $533,934 0.03%
Quebec $371,487 0.02%
Ontario $18,606,581 0.9%
Manitoba $1,667,066 0.08%
Saskatchewan $12,436,644 0.6%
Alberta $2,068,713 0.1%
British Columbia $1,689,076 0.08%
Total Special Crops $37,373,501 1.9%
Table 1d. Participation by Region and Farm Type in the 2009 Production Period: Livestock
Farm Type and Region $ Advanced % of Total Advances
Atlantic $3,827,518 0.2%
Quebec $6,415,733 0.3%
Ontario $41,633,530 2.1%
Manitoba $18,036,380 0.9%
Saskatchewan $40,704,692 2.0%
Alberta $58,712,412 2.9%
British Columbia $6,581,232 0.3%
Total Livestock $175,911,497 8.8%
Table 1e. Participation by Region and Farm Type in the 2009 Production Period: Other Farm Types
Farm Type and Region $ Advanced % of Total Advances
Atlantic $9,780,602 0.5%
Quebec $124,486,461 6.2%
Ontario $2,549,633 0.1%
Manitoba $5,265,315 0.3%
Saskatchewan $5,520,633 0.3%
Alberta $6,719,093 0.3%
British Columbia $353,858 0.02%
Total Other Farm Types $154,675,595 7.7%


Table 2 - Advance Payments Program

Amount of Advances and Number of Producers by Province 2007-2010

The number of producers represents the number of unique producers participating in the APP. Many producers receive multiple advances during a production period.

Note that the 2006 production period figures have not been included as they do not reflect true program participation since the majority of producers opted for the Spring Credit Advance Program (SCAP), this program was amalgamated with the APP in 2006 through an amendment to AMPA.

Table 2a. 2007 Production Period
Province Advances $Million Number of Producers
N.L. 1.1 9
P.E.I. 18.2 240
N.S. 8.75 105
N.B. 12 154
Que. 160.3 6,284
Ont. 216.9 3,180
Man. 271 4,242
Sask. 557 10,803
Alta. 313.4 5,292
B.C. 24 638
Total $ 1.58 Billion 30,948
Table 2b. 2008 Production Period
Province Advances $Million Number of Producers
N.L. 1.3 15
P.E.I. 40.6 323
N.S. 12.5 145
N.B. 17.8 194
Que. 67.6 7,321
Ont. 354 3,702
Man. 456.1 4,947
Sask. 943.4 11,744
Alta. 498.6 5,972
B.C. 36.7 727
Total $2.7 Billion 35,090
Table 2c. 2009 Production Period
Province Advances $Million Number of Producers
N.L. 1.4 15
P.E.I. 35 247
N.S. 10.5 107
N.B. 15.8 190
Que. 246 5,944
Ont. 193.7 2,245
Man. 320.3 3,975
Sask. 792.4 10,918
Alta. 361.7 4,925
B.C. 29.7 613
Total $2 Billion 29,179
Table 2d. 2010 Production Period
Province Advances $Million Number of Producers
N.L. 1.2 12
P.E.I. 37.7 247
N.S. 11.1 101
N.B. 15.9 190
Que. 227.2 5,861
Ont. 174.9 1,993
Man. 237.4 3,350
Sask. 494.8 7,953
Alta. 348.3 4,840
B.C. 28.2 540
Total $1.58 Billion 25,087

Price Pooling Program

There are six organizations using the program out of a potential of twenty, representing an average total of 1,000 producers, and guarantees of $53.68 million.

Guarantees and Number of Organizations by Participating Province (Crop Years) 2006-2011
Province 2006, $M 2006, No. of Org. 2007, $M 2007, No. of Org. 2008, $M 2008, No. of Org. 2009, $M 2009, No. of Org. 2010, $M 2010, No. of Org. 2011, $M 2011, No. of Org.
Note: M=Million
Alta. 18.33 1 22.99 1 19.38 1 14.7 1 13.99 1 17.3 1
B.C. 6.97 1 7.15 1 6 1 6.48 1 7.47 1 9.37 1
Ont. 34.45 3 3.73 3 16.9 2 19.68 2 19 2 12.49 2
P.E.I. 4 1 8.6 1 4.3 1
Que 7.99 1 9.5 1 8.2 1 7.98 1 7.68 1 7.5 1
Total 67.74 6 47.37 7 59.08 6 53.14 6 48.14 5 46.66 5

Catalogue No. A72-116/2012E
ISBN 978-1-100-21346-0
AAFC No. 11910E

For more information: (toll-free) 1-855-773-0241

Alternative Formats

Help with Alternative Formats

Report to Parliament on the Review of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, (PDF Version, 2.7 MB)

Date modified: