It's Brian Vincent here again and I want to follow up on my submission that I made yesterday entitled "A Plea For True Justice". I appreciate all of the responses I have gotten so far and appreciate your feedback. For those of you who have signed on and went straight to this particular topic for the first time and didn't read my original submission, I strongly encourage you to read the original submission.

To follow up on what "Johnny" has been saying, there is no doubt about it that the system of Bankruptcy does have weaknesses and by no means is it a perfect system. I guess what I was meaning to say is that when filing for bankruptcy things such as your salary and luxury assets have to be fully disclosed. Many material posessions can be hidden in the sense of leaving them with another family member should anyone try to actually verify what possessions of value you have. Based on what your Income is, or should you lie about your Income or other things and you get caught doing it, you may get denied discharge of some if not all of your debts.

In my situation, I would have to be making a very hefty salary, in something that requires more than a high school diploma more than likely, to pay off these student loans I have.

Assuming that the government put this unconstitutional law in there, prohibiting student loans from being discharged until after 10 years of completing studies, to stop abuse of the bankruptcy system's weaknesses, here is the problem that is created: The overwhelming majority of us are honest people with a lot of integrity and there are only a tiny minority of true dishonest deadbeats out there, who can legitimately make their payments, who make the rest of us look bad.

Put it another way, this tactic the government executed is nothing short of a very crude method of making sure NO ONE with student loan debts can abuse the system. This tactic is very inefficient in that the honest people like me are filtered out too. If the government wants to make the BIA beneficial to all of us who need it as an absolute last resort, then this was not the course of action that should have been taken.

In addition, assuming the bankruptcy system is so easy to abuse and some people are abusing it ... then why doesn't the government shut the door on the corporate deadbeats and stop writing off billions of dollars worth of their loans and interest charges? More than likely that is due to the lobbying "power supreme" that corporations tend to have when influencing government decisions. In other words, a person like me is a nobody (or worse yet, a number) to them and only their corporate friends are somebodys.

The course of action that needs to be taken is for the government and the courts to (#1) stop giving businesses and corporations so many breaks and writing off their loans and interest accrued so easily, and (#2) tighter procedures that make sure that those seeking bankruptcy have everything (money and luxurious material assets) fully disclosed even if it means conducting an investigation in a friendly, professional manner, and (#3) when assessing one's eligibility for the discharge of debts that reasonable thresholds be set such that it does allow those who need bankruptcy as a last resort to avail to it, and finally (#4) that all RRSP and RESP contributions be exempt from being considered as liquidation assets when paying off creditors because this money is for making sure that you can retire adequately and be able to finance your children's education respectively. It is my understanding that a Senate Committee's report called for this particular recommendation that all but the most recent year's worth of contributions to the RRSP/RESP's be exempt. 

For example, someone with a relatively small student loan but making close to 6-digit figures a year would have to pay back the money if the money is there. Also, someone like me who has very little or no imcome and a huge student loan should be permitted to use bankruptcy if all other options have been exhausted. Also, a region's "standard of living" should also be taken into account because it is more expensive to work and live in places like Vancouver or the GTA as compared to say Atlantic Canada.

In conclusion, I want to say that no doubt it that weaknesses in our ability to declare bankruptcy need to be rectified. However, this should not include using rather crude methods that the government had undertaken in 1998. The abuse needs to stop at all levels, especially for the greedy businesses and corporations out there who are also the ones responsible for administering student loans (ie. banks/financial institutions). No doubt about these were the people who lobbied then-Finance Minister Paul Martin to amend the BIA as crudely as he did, in addition to these ruthless and blood-thirsty collection agencies.

One final statement before I conclude this topic which I want to address to the Supreme Court Judge who has been administering to the Charter Challenge launched by the Canadian Federation of Students. If the Honourable Judge comes across this, please read this statement carefully:

"Please do the right thing, the democratic thing based on principle - the principle that is known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and side with the CFS and the students/former students that they represent and NOT with the Federal government. Also, do not be afraid of any possible reprisals from the Federal government. In other words, bring down fair and equal justice and bring back integrity to the Charter and to the BIA."