Bill C-15 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 18, 2006
- Debated in principleJune 5, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 5, 2006
- Passed the second chamberJune 19, 2006
- Became lawJune 22, 2006
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Leonard J. GustafsonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- André Bellavancestates continued support for the bill as an improved version of prior legislation
- Wayne Eastercongratulates the government and calls the bill good legislation
- Chuck Strahlexpresses pleasure and honour in supporting the amendments
- Alex Atamanenkoexplicitly states support for the bill while noting a minor concern to watch
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (8,754 words introduced, 5,670 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of updating advance guarantee rules but saw 77% of the introduced text changed through removals, rewordings, and additions. New sections on administrator obligations and guarantee exceptions were inserted while some production-period restrictions and definitions were dropped or altered.
- The sentence on agreements where a guarantee already exists was completed with new wording.
Before: “(2) Paragraph 5(3)(i) and, unless the agree- ment specifies otherwise, section 23 do not apply in respect of an advance guarantee agreement that th”
After: “(2) Paragraph 5(3)(i) and, unless the agree- ment specifies otherwise, section 23 do not apply in respect of an advance guarantee agreement that the Minister enters into without making the guarantee referred to in paragraph 5(1)(a).”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies many defined terms, dollar caps, percentages and time limits that create clear eligibility rules. Yet repeated references to ministerial opinion, prescribed regulations and broad designation powers leave key boundaries open to argument.
Open to argument
“the Minister has determined, taking into account any criteria prescribed by regulation, that the agricultural product is not processed”
Subjective ministerial determination plus open-ended regulatory criteria invite disputes over coverage.“must not exceed 50%, or the percentage fixed by regulation, of the average price that in the Minister's opinion will be payable”
Reliance on the Minister’s opinion and future regulations makes the price ceiling variable and contestable.
Clear-cut
“period of up to 18 months — or any longer period that is fixed by the Minister”
Clear default duration with explicit ministerial extension mechanism.
Discretion. Ministers may designate additional products, set or amend regulatory percentages and criteria, approve interest rates, fix production periods beyond 18 months, and decide what constitutes an acceptable administrator or average price.
Challenging the law itself. Phrases such as 'in the Minister’s opinion' and 'marketable condition' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter, though the many defined terms and numeric limits weaken the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A producer accused of default or ineligible use can readily dispute whether the product remained 'marketable' or whether the Minister’s price opinion was correctly applied, but the bright-line liability caps and age requirements are harder to contest.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
Official AAFC evaluations and statutory parliamentary reviews of AMPA programs (primarily the Advance Payments Program enabled by the 2006 amendments) confirm they generally achieve intended outcomes of providing low-cost capital and marketing flexibility to producers, though participation targets were only partially met and smaller or newer producers remain underrepresented. Multiple five-year legislative reviews and departmental evaluations since 2012 document successful implementation of broadened access but note ongoing issues with ad hoc changes and administrator consolidation.
- Report to Parliament on the Review of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (2016 – 2021)reviewThe majority of program changes from the previous review were successful in streamlining processes and enhancing efficiency; the APP remains relevant and improves access to affordable short-term credit.
- Evaluation of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (2019-20 to 2024-25)evaluationThe APP contributed to most of its outcomes by enabling producers to improve financial resilience through delayed marketing, but ad hoc interest-free limit changes increased costs and smaller producers are underrepresented.
- Regulatory Stock Review Plan for Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadareviewThe 2023 AMPA Review found the APP aligned with its objective of improving marketing opportunities through cash advances and complemented Business Risk Management programs.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.