Bill C-18 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act
An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 18, 2011
- Debated in principleOct. 24, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 28, 2011
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2011
- Became lawDec. 14, 2011
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
- Donald Neil PlettSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ted Menziesspeaks in favour of the marketing freedom for grain farmers act and says he has waited 35 years to deliver this speech.
- Lynne YelichArgues that western grain farmers want and deserve the same marketing freedom as others.
- Pierre LemieuxExpresses strong approval for giving farmers marketing choice and passing the bill to end the monopoly.
- David AndersonDescribes the bill as historic and bringing freedom to producers.
- Brian JeanSupports the bill as benefiting wheat farmers in his constituency.
- Chris WarkentinExplicitly rises to support the legislation for giving farmers marketing freedom.
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.
What it set out to do
On 18 October 2011, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board introduced Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts (Marketing freedom for grain farmers Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 of Bill C-18 amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act to change the governance structure of the Canadian Wheat Board and to make other changes in preparation for the implementation of Parts 2 and 3. Part 2 replaces the Canadian Wheat Board Act with a new Act that continues the Canadian Wheat Board and charges it with the marketing of grain through voluntary pooling. Part 3 provides for the possible continuation of the Board under other federal legislation, while Part 4 provides for its winding up if no such continuation occurs. Finally, Part 5 provides for the repeal of the new Act enacted by Part 2.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2011-10-20 · Passed
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,767 words introduced, 11,255 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill gained two new transitional sections allowing the Wheat Board to sign grain contracts before Part 2 took effect. Core governance changes, voluntary pooling, and wind-up provisions stayed in place with only renumbering and minor wording tweaks.
- Added explicit authority for the Board to enter forward grain contracts during the transition.
After: “tion may agree to buy or sell grain if the agreement provides for purchase or sale to occur on or after the day on which Part 2 of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act comes into force.”
- Inserted a parallel exception clause in the preliminary-period amendments.
After: “9.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 18:”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'considers necessary', 'in the opinion of the Minister' and 'reasonable grounds to believe', plus broad catch-all powers. These leave wide room for argument over what conduct is allowed or required.
Open to argument
“that the Corporation considers necessary for risk management purposes”
Uses the Corporation's own subjective view rather than an objective test.“any information that the Minister considers appropriate”
Ties disclosure to the Minister's personal judgment without defined criteria.“on any terms that the Corporation considers appropriate”
Grants open-ended discretion over contract terms with no statutory limits.“unless there are reasonable grounds to believe”
Introduces a fact-specific reasonableness standard open to prolonged dispute.
Clear-cut
“having so cohabited for a period of at least one year”
Supplies a clear numerical threshold for common-law partner status.“not exceeding one year in the aggregate”
Fixes a definite maximum duration for pool periods.“Four directors are appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister”
States an exact number and appointment mechanism without qualifiers.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Governor in Council to designate pooling points and grains by regulation, to the Minister to approve plans, exclude report information and appoint a liquidator, and to the Corporation to set contract terms and decide what actions are 'necessary or incidental'.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'considers necessary' and 'in the opinion of the Minister' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused parties could readily dispute whether conduct met subjective tests such as 'reasonable grounds to believe' or what the Corporation 'considers appropriate'.
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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.