The rapid increase in the number of consumer bankruptcies in Canada and the United States over the past fifteen years has again focused attention on the philosophy and design of modern insolvency systems, and on the similarities and differences in the approaches adopted in Canada and the United States. In this article, the author points out that the single most important difference is that the United States has historically subscribed to the debtor\u27s right to a fresh start after surrendering the debtor\u27s non-exempt property, whereas Canadian law never has, and does not now, confer an absolute right of discharge. Although critical of many aspects of the recent amendments to the Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), the author concludes that the qualified fresh-start policy followed by Canadian law is conceptually sound. At the same time, he indicates his preference for the more flexible, judicially-supervised surplus income regime in force before 1997, in place of the mandatory, surplus-income payment requirements introduced in the 1997 amendments to the BIA
