Bill C-44 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 25, 2008
- Debated in principleFeb. 25, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 25, 2008
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 27, 2008
- Became lawFeb. 28, 2008
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
- Robert W. PetersonSenate · SenatorThe bill improves cash advances for livestock producers and provides useful tools during the current crisis.
- The Deputy Speakernotes unanimous agreement on passing the bill
- Peter Van Loanbacks expedited handling of the bill
- André Bellavancestates the party fully supports the bill
- Guy Lauzonpraises government action to help farmers via the bill
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
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,503 words introduced, 1,920 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with most substantive provisions intact but some clauses on emergency advances, livestock conditions, and regulatory powers were reworded or slightly expanded. A few administrative details and cross-references were adjusted between introduction and royal assent.
- Refined wording on maintaining livestock quality until disposal.
Before: “it is of marketable quality and maintained so as to remain of marketable quality until disposed of in accordance with the repayment agreement;”
After: “it is of marketable quality and maintained so as to remain of marketable quality until disposed of in accordance with the repayment agreement;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes hard numbers and fixed percentages with several subjective triggers and open-ended regulation powers. This creates clear rules in some places but leaves key eligibility questions open to argument.
Open to argument
“has difficulty producing the producer's agricultural product because of unusual production conditions that are attributable to weather or natural disaster, if it is reasonable to expect that the agricultural product will be marketable”
Relies on undefined 'unusual' and reasonableness judgment rather than objective criteria.“prescribing criteria for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(b)”
Leaves core definition of when emergency advances are available to future regulations.
Clear-cut
“the lesser of $25,000, or the amount fixed by regulation, and 50%, or the percentage fixed by regulation”
Fixes concrete dollar and percentage ceilings that can be applied without further interpretation.“No action or proceedings may be initiated by the Minister to recover any amounts, interest and costs that are owing more than six years after the day on which the Minister is subrogated”
States a clear six-year limitation period with a fixed starting point.“"livestock" means cattle, sheep, swine and bison and any other animals that may be designated by regulation”
Provides an exhaustive initial list plus explicit regulation power, reducing ambiguity about core term.
Discretion. Ministers and the Governor in Council retain wide power to set criteria, amounts, percentages, additional requirements and to declare economic hardship, with many provisions applying only 'unless the agreement specifies otherwise'.
Challenging the law itself. The phrases 'severe economic hardship' and 'likely be substantially mitigated' could be attacked for vagueness under Charter s. 7 liberty or s. 2 economic rights, though success is uncertain given the economic subject matter.
Disputing a charge under it. A producer could readily dispute whether conditions were 'unusual' or hardship 'severe' or whether mitigation was 'likely', forcing factual and interpretive arguments before any recovery action.
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?
effective
Official AAFC evaluations and mandatory five-year parliamentary reviews of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (AMPA) programs, particularly the Advance Payments Program impacted by the 2008 amendments, conclude that the programs achieve their core objectives of providing low-cost capital, enabling marketing flexibility, and improving producers' cash flow and risk management. The 2008 changes expanding livestock eligibility and emergency advances for severe economic hardship are integrated into a framework found relevant, effective, and aligned with statutory goals, with producers reporting measurable benefits like increased revenues from delayed sales.
- Report to Parliament on the Review of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (2016–2021)reviewThe APP is widely used, aligns with AMPA objectives of improving marketing opportunities through cash advances, enables producers to delay marketing to opportune times, and complements business risk management programs.
- Evaluation of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (2019–2025)evaluationThe APP provided Canadian producers with increased cash flow for improved marketing flexibility and contributed to most of its outcomes, though administrative efficiency and administrator interest rate spreads require ongoing attention.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.