Bill C-14 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2
A second Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 11, 2020
- Debated in principleApril 11, 2020
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 11, 2020
- Passed the second chamberApril 11, 2020
- Became lawApril 11, 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
13% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,221 words introduced, 4,212 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core measures on COVID-19 spending and tax rules. Minor fixes were made to dates, spacing and punctuation in the finance sections.
- Date line in the recommendation was updated.
Before: “2 2020 4 11 MINISTER OF FINANCE 90926 RECOMMENDATION”
After: “2 2020 4 11 6 2020 90926 RECOMMENDATION”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text supplies many numbered dates, fixed percentages, closed lists of entities, and arithmetic formulas that fix eligibility quickly. It also inserts repeated subjective phrases, ministerial opinions, and open-ended prescribed items that require later argument or regulation.
Open to argument
“if, in the Minister’s opinion, it is necessary to promote the stability or maintain the efficiency of the financial system in Canada”
The phrase turns on the Minister’s subjective view rather than an objective test.“any amount received that can reasonably be expected to be paid or returned”
The test uses a forward-looking reasonableness standard open to prolonged dispute.“one of the main purposes for the arrangement is to increase the amount”
Purpose inquiry is inherently subjective and invites factual argument.“a prescribed period that ends no later than September 30, 2020”
Leaves the actual period to later regulation instead of fixing it in the statute.
Clear-cut
“the period that begins on March 15, 2020 and ends on April 11, 2020”
Exact calendar dates remove any doubt about the qualifying period.“, for a qualifying period, means (a) for the qualifying period referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition qualifying period”
A fixed numeric threshold allows immediate calculation.“excluding any period of seven or more consecutive days for which the employee was not remunerated”
Clear numeric and consecutive-day rule defines baseline remuneration without discretion.
Discretion. Ministers may decide incorporation, contracts, payments, public disclosure, and any prescribed periods or organizations on the basis of their opinion or what they consider appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions create spending benefits rather than prohibitions and contain enough defined terms and numeric tests to survive a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused entity could dispute whether revenue was 'reasonably expected' to be repaid or whether a purpose was 'one of the main purposes,' but the many fixed dates and percentages limit the scope of such arguments.
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.