Bill C-55 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
Wage Earner Protection Program Act
An Act to establish the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 3, 2005
- Debated in principleOct. 5, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 21, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 24, 2005
- Became lawNov. 25, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime 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
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (47,736 words introduced, 46,794 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core Wage Earner Protection Program and its eligibility, payment, and trustee duties remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Refinements focused on completing inspection warrant language and inserting formal chapter and assent details.
- Warrant condition for dwelling-house entry was completed and clarified.
Before: “(c) entry into the dwelling-house has been, or there are reasonable grounds t”
After: “(c) entry into the dwelling-house has been, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry will be, refused.”
- Final statute added royal assent date, chapter number, and formal header.
After: “ASSENTED TO 25th NOVEMBER, 2005”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The drafting relies heavily on subjective phrases that require officials to form opinions or make judgments about necessity, reasonableness or appropriateness. Fixed definitions and numerical limits exist but do not offset the broad discretion granted throughout the operative provisions.
Open to argument
“reasonably believes there is any information or document relevant”
Uses a subjective belief standard that invites argument over what counts as relevant.“any information or document that the Minister considers necessary”
Ties obligation to the Minister's personal view rather than an objective test.“make any other order that is appropriate in the circumstances”
Leaves the scope of orders to an open-ended appropriateness judgment.“in the Superintendent's opinion, is of a character that would impair”
Rests on an official's subjective assessment of character and impairment.
Clear-cut
“liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.”
States exact maximum penalties.“within six years after the payment was made”
Fixes a clear limitation period.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Minister and Superintendent to decide what is necessary, reasonable, appropriate or in their opinion, including warrantless entry decisions and disclosure of personal information.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated subjective standards such as 'reasonably believes' and 'in the opinion of' could ground a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of an offence or subject to an order can readily dispute whether the Minister's or inspector's belief was reasonable or whether the information was considered necessary.
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
Departmental evaluations and the 2015 five-year statutory review conclude that the Wage Earner Protection Program has successfully provided timely payments to eligible workers affected by employer insolvency, meeting or exceeding service standards in most years while covering a substantial portion of owed wages and aligning with government priorities. Official reports note ongoing need, high usage, and improvements from legislative changes that expanded coverage.
- Evaluation of the Wage Earner Protection Program (2011-2020)evaluationThe program aligns with government priorities, shows increasing use by eligible applicants, covers 60-76% of eligible wages on average, meets service standards in most years, and has been enhanced by changes since inception; beneficiaries and officials report satisfaction.
- Five-Year Statutory Review of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (2015)reviewThe review concluded that the WEPP is well administered and operated, the Act effectively meets its mandate, and there is an ongoing need as employees are unlikely to recover wages without it.
- Evaluation of the Wage Earner Protection Program (2008-2011)evaluationThe program demonstrated relevance and performance, compensating workers for approximately 64 cents on the dollar of amounts owed, with ongoing need confirmed and recommendations feeding into legislative review.
- 1001270243 Ontario Inc. (formerly Synaptive Medical Inc.), 2026 ONSC 3967courtThe court interpreted the WEPP Act purposively as remedial legislation to fill the gap for unpaid wages when employers are insolvent, allowing access in reverse vesting order contexts to fulfill its objectives.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.