First I would like to tell you how disappointed I am to see you here together. I do not understand why you did this. Your government has boasted about being transparent and being willing to answer questions. Yet it has become evident in all the committees, and in may ways, how far you will go to hide, including during an information meeting like this one, where we have two ministers in two hours rather than having each one for two hours. There has been discussion about day cares and summer jobs. I want to talk to you about bankruptcies. You can see that this makes no sense.

That being said, I am also disappointed about the paragraph on the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, spoken by the Minister of Labour. I am disappointed but also a bit fed up. This was Bill C-55, that was tabled in the House in May 2005 and that contained two parts. First, it overhauled the Bankruptcy Act, and second, it provided for an assistance program, wage protection for workers in the event that their employers went bankrupt. The bill was not perfect but it was so satisfactory and so counted on that in November 2005—I believe it was the 25^th of November—all parties in the House passed it unanimously. This was just before the 2005 election campaign. The bill was also passed quickly in the Senate, through the fast-track procedure.

When your government was elected in January 2006 you said that there were some technical problems that had to be resolved. We said that was fine, that we understood. It took approximately one year to resolve those technical problems, especially with respect to the overhaul of the Bankruptcy Act. To the Minister of Labour, you tabled this bill last December. In fact, you tabled a ways and means motion on the 8^th of December last. That was five months ago. Now you're telling us: "I urge the members of your political parties to move forward in reaching consensus on these amendments."

Minister, that is not how one proceeds with a bill. If you want us to discuss your bill, then put it on the table, let's give it consideration, let us vote on it at second reading, refer it to committee, and make the necessary changes. The change that is difficult, at least for the Bloc Québécois but also for other political parties, is the one involving a clause in the Bankruptcy Act that states that RRSPs will be liable to seizure, which runs counter to the Quebec Civil Code, that states that RRSPs are not liable to seizure. Minister, I think that you have to compromise on this point because you stated that the purpose of this is to protect RRSPs, to prevent someone from putting too much money in RRSPs knowing that they will be bankrupt the next day. Your legislation already has a provision stating that you're not allowed to do that. Therefore, an individual's RRSPs would become liable to seizure, if it could be shown—and it's often easy to do this—that this step was taken in order to protect some money during an eventual bankruptcy.

Minister, when are you going to table this bill?