Supporting Information on Lower-Level Programs, 2015-16 Departmental Performance Report

Program: Producer Protection Program

Sub-Program 1.4.1: Licensing and Security

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)
2015–16 Planned Spending 2015-16 Actual Spending 2015-16 Difference (actual minus planned)
Program Expenditure Spending 1,291,199 1,197,953 93,246
Revolving Fund
Total revenue (1,291,199) (1,792,388) (501,189)
Surplus to fund future expenditures - - -
Revenue allocated to (from) other programs - 594,435 594,435
Revenue used to offset expenditures (1,291,199) (1,197,953) 93,246
Voted and Statutory
Voted and Statutory Spending - - -
Human Resources (Full-Time Equivalents, FTEs)
2015–16 Planned 2015-16 Actual 2015-16 Difference (actual minus planned)
12 12 -
Performance Results
Expected Results Performance Indicators Targets Actual Results
Risks to producers of not being properly compensated for grain delivered to a CGC licensee is mitigated Percentage of producers who agree that the CGC's licensing and security program reduces the risk of not being properly compensated for grain delivered into the licensed grain handling system 75 percent Results are based on a triennial survey. Plans to conduct a survey in 2015-16 were delayed due to other priorities. A survey is planned during 2016-17.

Sub-Program 1.4.2: Producer Car Allocation

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)
2015–16 Planned Spending 2015-16 Actual Spending 2015-16 Difference (actual minus planned)
Total Program Expenditure Spending 297,832 209,140 (88,692)
Revolving Fund
Total revenue (297,832) (182,220) 115,612
Surplus to fund future expenditures - - -
Revenue allocated to (from) other programs - (26,920) (26,920)
Revenue used to offset expenditures (297,832) (182,220) 115,612
Voted and Statutory
Voted and Statutory Spending - - -
Human Resources (FTEs)
2015–16 Planned 2015-16 Actual 2015-16 Difference (actual minus planned)
3 3 -
Performance Results
Expected Results Performance Indicators Targets Actual Results
Producers are able to bypass the primary elevator system and ship grain to port position or another destination of their choosing The number of formal justifiable complaints related to producer car access and availability Zero Zero
Percentage of producers who use the producer car allocation program who are satisfied with the program 75 percent Results are based on a triennial survey. Plans to conduct a survey in 2015-16 were delayed due to other priorities. A survey is planned during 2016-17.

Sub-Program 1.4.3: Producer Support Programs

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)
2015–16 Planned Spending 2015-16 Actual Spending 2015-16 Difference (actual minus planned)
Total Program Expenditure Spending 1,974,691 2,104,193 129,502
Revolving Fund
Total revenue (1,974,691) (261,658) 1,713,033
Surplus to fund future expenditures - - -
Revenue allocated to (from) other programs - (1,842,535) (1,842,535)
Revenue used to offset expenditures (1,974,691) (261,658) 1,713,033
Voted and Statutory
Voted and Statutory Spending - - -
Human Resources (FTEs)
2015–16 Planned 2015-16 Actual 2015-16 Difference (actual minus planned)
15 15 -
Performance Results
Expected Results Performance Indicators Targets Actual Results
Risk to producers of not receiving fair compensation for the quality of grain delivered into the licensed grain handling system is mitigated Percentage of producers who agree that access to CGC third party quality information reduces their risks of not receiving fair compensation for the quality of their grain upon delivery into the licensed grain handling system 70% (based on a survey of producers to be conducted every three years) Results are based on a triennial survey. Plans to conduct a survey in 2015-16 were delayed due to other priorities. A survey is planned during 2016-17.
Date modified: