Bill C-20 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJuly 20, 2020
- Debated in principleJuly 21, 2020
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJuly 21, 2020
- Passed the second chamberJuly 27, 2020
- Became lawJuly 27, 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.
What it set out to do
On 20 July 2020, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-20, An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to revise the eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) in order to support those employers hardest hit by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It also extends the CEWS to November 21, 2020, with the ability to extend the CEWS by regulation to no later than December 31, 2020, and provides a revised calculation of the CEWS for the fifth and subsequent qualifying periods. Finally, it makes amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that the CEWS operates effectively. Part 2 amends the Pension Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act and the Veterans Well-being Act to authorize the disclosure of information for the purpose of the administration of a program to provide a one-time payment to persons with disabilities for reasons related to COVID-19. It also amends the Income Tax Act to authorize the use by officials, or disclosure to Government of Canada officials, of taxpayer information solel…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
10% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,409 words introduced, 7,400 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only minor textual amendments for clarity and consistency in definitions. These refined cross-references and punctuation without altering the CEWS extensions, eligibility rules, or disability payment provisions.
- Added clarifying reference to subsection (1) in deeming rules for revenue decline tests.
Before: “a particular qualifying period described in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition ,”
After: “a particular qualifying period described in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition qualifying period in subsection (1),”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many exact formulas, dates, and defined terms to set CEWS amounts and qualifying periods. It also contains reasonableness tests and broad ministerial powers to alter time limits.
Open to argument
“reasonably attributable to the acquired assets”
Subjective test leaves room to argue what portion of revenue counts.“if it can reasonably be regarded as necessary”
Vague standard for disclosing taxpayer information invites disputes over scope.“the Minister is satisfied that the conditions in clauses (A) and (B) are met”
Subjective ministerial satisfaction replaces an objective checklist.“unless it is reasonable to consider that one of the main purposes”
Purpose-based test depends on what officials deem reasonable.
Clear-cut
“1 − A/B where A is the eligible entity's qualifying revenue”
Exact arithmetic formula produces a clear percentage.“the period that begins on July 5, 2020 and ends on August 1, 2020”
Fixed calendar dates remove ambiguity about qualifying periods.“The total duration of a suspension or extension must not exceed six months”
Numeric cap on ministerial action creates a bright-line limit.
Discretion. Ministers may issue orders suspending or extending statutory time limits for up to six months, subject only to publication and tabling requirements.
Challenging the law itself. Vague reasonableness language and open-ended suspension powers could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Most eligibility rules rest on objective revenue formulas and dates, but the scattered 'reasonable' and 'satisfied' clauses allow factual disputes over application.
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
Auditor General audits found that CEWS (as amended by Bill C-20) supported employers in the hardest-hit sectors but data limitations prevented full assessment of effectiveness, employee retention, or resilience impacts. No comprehensive departmental evaluation or parliamentary review of the bill's specific outcomes was identified.
- Auditor General of Canada Report 7—Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (2021)auditFinance Canada provided sound analysis for CEWS changes; CRA delivered payments rapidly but lacked data for effective pre-payment controls and impact assessment.
- Auditor General of Canada Report 10—Specific COVID-19 Benefits (2022)auditCEWS supported employers in sectors with biggest employment declines, but missing applicant data (e.g., no employee SINs) made it impossible to assess program impact or confirm objectives were fully met.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.