Public Accounts Committee on May 14th, 2014

[Rosser Lloyd]

That was a production problem. We have production insurance called AgriInsurance.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I have to draw you back, because now you're into discussion with me about apples. I actually asked you a specific question about how many times the federal government in the last two years has initiated, without waiting for the province, an agri-recovery program.

[Rosser Lloyd]

We're constantly in contact with our—

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I know that. How many times did you initiate, sir?

[Rosser Lloyd]

We generally look to the province to make the call.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I know you do. Sir, I hate to interrupt you again. How many was it? Do you know or not?

[Rosser Lloyd]

No, I do not know. I would suggest it was very few.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Okay.

Let me ask through the chair, since the witness really doesn't know, whether he could provide that to you, as chair. I would appreciate it. That's an important number to know, since by Mr. Lloyd's own words earlier, either the federal government or the provincial government can initiate AgriRecovery—either one, isn't that right?

Let me go back. I know we want to talk about this, but we're going to talk about another piece.

In the Auditor General's report, at paragraph 8.54, we talk about lessons learned. We talked about lessons learned with the payments, because that was actually the problem with AgriStability.

Mr. Lloyd, you mentioned AgriStability, and you're absolutely correct. With AgriInvest, AgriStability, and AgriRecovery, Mr. Falk's analogy is that it is the goaltender at the end. He is absolutely right; it is. The dilemma was that AgriStability couldn't pay, in some cases, for more than two years, never mind ten and a half months. That was what the Auditor General told us in 2011 about that program—the lesson to be learned with the timeliness issue.

Let me quote what the report says at the end, and then ask you to comment on it: We concluded that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not adequately manage the federal role in providing disaster relief to producers.

How did we not learn from the previous program about timeliness issues and getting money to producers, and end up where we are now, when we knew before that another program had the same dilemma this one now has as well?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I'll start and attempt to answer that question.

In respect of the question that was asked as to whether or not the federal government...or to give the number of instances where the federal government would have instituted an AgriRecovery program, we'll come back with an answer to that question. But I suspect the answer is zero times, because at the end of the day, I think, where it's either the federal government or the province, it's around the assessment process: it's who institutes a call for the start of the framework. The framework, as I've said before, has steps to it. There's a pre-assessment phase and an assessment phase, and either the federal government or the provincial government can launch that assessment process.

In terms of the actual initiative itself, those are initiatives that are delivered by provinces. It's not the federal government that's delivering the initiative. It's the province or territory that's delivering the initiative, and it's an initiative, then, that would have been agreed to by both levels of government. So think there's a slight difference, perhaps, in relation to how we would respond to that question.

In regard to your reference to the previous audit that was done on AgriStability and AgriInvest, yes, there have been findings in relation to that audit around timeliness, and there were concerns about the timeliness of payments in the context of the AgriStability program in particular. I can tell you that for the last program year the federal administration actually exceeded our published service standards for AgriStability and AgriInvest. For AgriStability, 91% of the files were processed in 75 days or less, and the target we have set for ourselves in the context of that program is actually 75% in 75 days. For AgriInvest, 97% of the files were processed in 45 days or less, and our target is actually 80%.

So in relation to that last audit, we did take the findings quite seriously and work to try to improve our service standards, but I am sure those individuals who fall outside that 97% are dissatisfied with the speed with which we are responding to their particular application. I can assure you that we work hard on every single one of them to try to respond in a timely fashion, but sometimes there are issues that prevent us from being able to do that quickly.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Your time has well expired.

We'll go over to Mr. Albas.

You have the floor, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony today.

Obviously, AgriRecovery is a new approach, founded in 2007 and working hand in hand with the provinces to try to find better ways to serve. I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Allen's assessment that the federal government needs to be the crusading person. What I think most of my constituents would like to see is all governments working hand in hand.

My understanding from the testimony here today is that it is a framework, so that when a disaster happens, both the federal and the provincial governments, and any other relevant authorities, work together to try to find a way to mitigate damage and to make sure that we have a strong stable food supply but that we also have a growing economy. There's only one taxpayer, so I don't think the constituents in my riding really care if it's the federal government or the provincial government leading the charge, as long as the results are assured.

Mr. Auditor General, thank you for coming in. I have a few questions in regard to the survey.

I'm really rather confused, because in paragraph 8.16 regarding the 9-month target, it says quite clearly:

We examined whether the Department had met its payment target and found that it had. The Department met its 9-month target for 84 percent of initiatives”. Your report also found that the communications efforts “work well after an AgriRecovery initiative is approved.

I'm very happy to hear some of these things, but what gets me is that about one third of the surveyed food producers.... By “food producers”, it's not the actual farmers who use the program but the industry associations, is that not correct? Or am I wrong in that?

[Michael Ferguson]

It was the producer organizations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Okay. So it's not the people who access the program directly. It was food producers that are detached from the actual people, is that correct?

[Michael Ferguson]

The actual producers, of course, would be represented by—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Sure.

[Michael Ferguson]

—organizations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

And I'm sure that many of them have industry experience and whatnot, but it wasn't the actual people who were receiving the cheque. Is that correct?

[Michael Ferguson]

That's correct. We surveyed the producer organizations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Now, on that survey, again, we have the objective criteria in exhibit 8.3. Again, 84% of payments were coming in on target and on time, so it just seems strange to me that one third would have a bad experience. Is there any way you could table that survey, just so I can get a sense of it? I ask because we have an objective measure and a survey, not of the actual people who were affected but of the industry associations, and there seems to be a measure of difference here. Is it possible to have that survey tabled?

[Michael Ferguson]

I would have to get legal advice on all of that. We did promise when we did the survey that it would be confidential—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'm not speaking about the actual return surveys, Mr. Auditor General. I'm just talking about the general survey so I can get an idea of what questions were asked.

Going back to our first point of constituents’ not caring whether it's the provincial government or the federal government—did you specifically say in that survey that it was the federal AgriRecovery component and timeliness? Did you also put down any of the expected timelines, because if I'm a business owner and I know that I'm waiting for a cheque and I don't know necessarily what the timelines are, I want it by tomorrow, or actually yesterday.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I don't think I've ever met a business owner that says the federal government actually—or any level of government—is actually faster than the pace of business.

[Michael Ferguson]

Actually, we did have two of the 29 who said that the payments were very timely.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Isn't that great?

[Michael Ferguson]

Also, 17 said it was somewhat timely. We were asking about whether they were satisfied with both the amount of the assistance and the timeliness.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

They found it very timely, but I don't think they found it faster than they expected. Again, I appreciate that.

If you could find out about tabling that document—I want to get a sense of why you would have a subjective survey that would have almost completely different results, with 84% coming in on time—I really would appreciate that.

Moving over to the officials, I'm getting the impression that this particular program does not exist in isolation. There are three other programs, and that's just from the federal government; that doesn't also say anything about complementary provincial programs. Is that correct?