Bill C-13 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
COVID-19 Emergency Response Act
An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 24, 2020
- Debated in principleMarch 24, 2020
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 24, 2020
- Passed the second chamberMarch 25, 2020
- Became lawMarch 25, 2020
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes a few fixed dates, dollar thresholds and defined terms with repeated grants of power that turn on a minister's opinion or what the minister considers necessary or appropriate. This leaves most key decisions open to argument rather than settled by the text itself.
Open to argument
“in the Minister’s opinion, is operating in Canada”
The definition hinges on a subjective ministerial view rather than an objective test.“any steps and do anything that it considers necessary or desirable”
The phrase supplies no objective limit on what Export Development Canada may do after the period expires.“the Minister of Health determines that there is a public health event of national concern”
The trigger for payments rests on the minister's determination after consultation, not on fixed statutory criteria.“to the extent necessary to respond to a public health emergency that is a matter of national concern”
The scope of the patent authorization is defined by a broad and contestable purpose rather than a measurable standard.
Clear-cut
“eligible period means the period beginning on March 18, 2020 and that ends on June 19, 2020”
The dates are fixed and require no further judgment.“Restriction (9) The Commissioner shall not make an authorization under subsection (1) after September 30, 2020”
A clear calendar cutoff removes discretion on timing.“has a total income of at least $5,000”
A numerical threshold supplies an objective income test.
Discretion. Ministers and officials are repeatedly authorized to decide what is necessary, appropriate or in their opinion required, and to make regulations that fix amounts, exclude classes of income or set payment levels, leaving the practical reach of the Act largely to administrative choice.
Challenging the law itself. Broad emergency language and repeated use of 'opinion' and 'considers appropriate' create the kind of vagueness that could support a Charter challenge under section 7, yet the temporary and spending-focused nature of the provisions makes success difficult on the text alone.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching a requirement could readily argue that the minister's opinion or the 'necessary' extent was not actually met, because those standards are subjective and lack measurable benchmarks.
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.