[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 97) to incorporate the Manufactures and Temperance and General Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Gal-liher.
Bill (No. 99) respecting Le Credit Foneier du Bas-Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion.

Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. John and Iberville) (Translation.) asked leave to introduce Bill (No. 100) to amend the French version of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1890.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: (Translation.) Explain.


Mr. DEMERS.: (Translation.) Section 59 of the French version is faulty. Under this section, as worded, in order that the payment of a bill of exchange may operate the discharge of the drawee or acceptor, it must have been made to a bona fide holder thereof, while, on the contrary, it is well known that the payment made in good faith by the acceptor discharges the bill of exchange. Therefore, good faith is required from the party paying it, and not on the part of the acceptor.
In the English statute, the wording is different, but still it is ambiguous, owing to bad punctuation. For instance, with reference to the regular payment, it reads as follows " It is made at or after maturity of the bill to the holder thereof in good faith."
At first sight, one would be led to infer, from the wording of the English edition, that the holder must be in good faith. This Bill does not contemplate any change in the English edition, because it tallies with the Act passed by the parliament of Great Britain, as any one can easily ascertain by referring to commentaries. At all events, the French version requires to be amended, and that is the reason why I beg to introduce this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. INGRAM-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the total expenditure by the government on Port Colborne harbour since 30th June, 1896?
2.	What is the amount expended each year on said harbour since 30th June, 1896?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There has been no outlay made by the Department of Railways in the harbour of Port Colborne. Any expenditure made there has been in connection with the entrance to our canal, of which the House already has had information.
I.	C. R.-PURCHASE OF LOCOMOTIVES.


Mr. BELL (Pictou) asked :: 1.	Has the government entered into any agreement with any person or firm in the United States to furnish locomotives for the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the persons or firms with whom such agreements have been made?
3.	What are the prices agreed upon?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Dickson Manufacturing Company, of Scranton, Pa., the Manchester Locomotive Works, of Manchester, N.H., and the Richmond Locomotive Manufacturing Company, of Richmond, Va.
3.	The Dickson Manufacturing Company, locomotives, $15,000 each ; the Manchester Locomotive Works, locomotives, $13,500 and $15,000 each ; the Richmond Locomotive Manufacturing Company, locomotives, $14,485 and $14,9S5 each. These contracts were entered into while the Kingston works were closed down, and before there was any intimation of their re-establishment.



I. C. R.-PURCHASE OF CARS.

Mr. BELL (Pictou) asked :: 1.	Has the government contracted with any person or firm fn the United States to supply cars for the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	What number and what class of cars have been contracted for?
3.	What are the names of the persons or Arms with whom contracts were made?
4.	What are the prices agreed on?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Six first-class passenger cars, three dining cars and four sleeping cars.
3.	The Barney & Smith Car Company, Dayton, Ohio.
4.	First-class passenger cars, $11,995 each; dining cars, $15,775 each ; sleeping cars, $19,255 each.



EASTERN EXTENSION AWARD.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked ;
Has the amount paid to New Brunswick on account cf Eastern Extension award been charged by the Finance Department to capital account or current expenditure?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). No amount has been paid to the province of NewBrunswick in the matter i referred to.

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Has a petition been received by the government, during the years 1900 or 1901, from the inhabitants of Albany, Searletown and adjoining settlements, Prince county, P.E.I., asking that a pier be built at Gordon Point, lot 27, P.E.I. ?
2.	If so, what action does the government intend taking with regard to the prayer of the petition?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No present action is intended, but the question will be carefully considered.
P. E. I. RAILWAY-PETITION FOR BRANCH. Mr. LEFURGEY asked :
1.	Did the government receive, through the Secretary of State, a petition, during the year 1900, from the people of Victoria, Crapaud, Trycn, Kelly's Cross, North Wiltshire and adjacent settlements, in Prince and Queen's counties, tP.E.I., asking that a branch line of railway be constructed from the Prince Edward Island Railway, extending from or near North Wiltshire to Victoria?
2.	If so, what action does the government intend taking in the matter, and do they mean to construct this branch railway as contemplated and recommended by the late government? '


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	A petition has been received by the department.
2.	It has not been decided to take any present action upon the same.



P. E. I. POSTAL SERVICE.

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received any petition from the people of Abram's Village and Higgins Road, Prince county, P.E.I., for a daily mail service from Wellington Station to Abram's Village and Higgins Road?
2.	Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to have a daily mail service inaugurated?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: A petition for a mail service over the route between Higgins Road and Wellington Station, via Abram's Village, was received in the department on April 28 last. On inquiry the depaartment satisfied itself that the present frequency of the service, tri-weekly, was not unsatisfactory to the mass of those interested in the service, but it was learned that the service might be improved by detaching the two outermost offices, viz., St. Chrysos-tome and Higgins Road from the route and serving them from Fitzgerald Station, which was much nearer to these two offices than is the Wellington Station. Tenders are now being invited for the two services mentioned.



ATTACHMENT OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.

Mr. T. FORTIN (Laval) moved :: That, in the opinion of this House, the salaries of public officers and government employees should be attachable like those of ordinary citizens.
He said : In moving this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but feel a certain amount of diffidence and hesitation, having in my mind the history of the subject in the last parliament. The first attempt made to obtain legislation on this subject was in the session of 1897, when a Bill was introduced by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) ; but it only attained its first reading. Hon. members will remember that that was the session in which the tariff was revised, and nearly the whole time of the session was taken up with that revision. The same Bill was reintroduced in 1898. It was a very short measure, containing only two or three clauses. It was discussed at considerable length, but it found an untimely grave in the Committee of the Whole. If I remember rightly, the main objection to that Bill was that it was too short-that it contained no machinery for its enforcement. Another attempt was made in the session of 1899, when a Bill, prepared with some care, and containing apparently all the necessary machinery for putting the law in motion, was introduced and passed its second reading ; but that Bill had the same fate as the Bill of the previous session. The objections to that second measure were not of the same kind as those to the first. The first was found to be too short, unworkable and without the necessary machinery. The objection to the second was that it was too complete, that there was too much procedure in it. and the point was raised that it might be outside the jurisdiction of parliament for the very reason that it dealt with the necessary or incidental procedure for carrying out the law. With such a history before me, it might seem somewhat daring on my part to bring the subject again before this House. I have taken what I consider to be the mildest and least objectionable course. I merely want the opinion of the House expressed on the general proposition, whether it is fair and just that the salaries of public officials and public servants throughout the country should be subject to the ordinary laws applicable to the salaries of other people.
Should this proposition be accepted by the House, it will be an invitation to the government to prepare a measure, and I am sure that such measure would be as near perfection as possible. The idea embodied in the resolution is a very simple one. Is it just that public officials should form a special and privileged class or come under the ordinary laws of the country ? It seems to me that there cannot be two answers to that question. We are not living in the middle ages, nor are we living in India,


Mr. FIELDING.: 2165	MARCH 27,1901	2166
t
where the conditions are exceptional, but we are living in the twentieth century, in a democratic country, where all citizens are supposed to he equal before the law. Therefore it seems to me an unanswerable proposition that civil servants should be subject to the law, just as are the ministers themselves and the members of this House and the Senate and the public generally.
What are the obstacles in the way of attaching the salaries of public officials ? Judging by past discussions, there seems to be an opinion in the minds of some members that there is a statute providing that the salaries of civil servants are not liable to seizure. It may be well to remove any impression of that kind. There is, Mr. Speaker, no such positive law or statute. \\ liy then are these salaries not liable to attachment ? There are two reasons. The first is that the government is not amenable to the ordinary courts. You cannot sue the government, unless with its own consent, and you must adopt a special mode of procedure, known as the petition of right. Therefore, although you might have any number of Acts declaring the salaries of public officials liable to seizure, you could uot enforce them without the consent of the Crown. The secoud reason is this. Parliament votes certain moneys for the payment of the civil servants, and these votes are embodied in the Subsidy Bill which becomes law. To allow the attachment of any part of the salaries voted by parliament would be to divert from its purpose money specially voted by parliament.
With regard to the first objection the remedy is very simple. All that is required is the consent of the government and parliament to submit the government to the jurisdiction of the provincial courts in such matters. With regard to the second objection, that could also be met by a similar law.
Of course it does not fall within the scope of the subject I am dealing with to enter into details of what the law should be. I merely point out that these two objections, Which now prevent the attachment of the salaries of civil servants, could very easily be met.
Another question may arise, and that is whether this parliament has jurisdiction in the matter or whether the jurisdiction is confined to the local legislatures. When this question was first introduced in 1898 in this House, I had some doubts on the jurisdiction of this parliament and gave expression to them, and the question was discussed to a certain extent. In 1899 it was discussed at greater length; and after giving more particular consideration to the subject, I have come to the conclusion that this parliament has ample jurisdiction to deal with the question. That jurisdiction is to be found in the British North America Act. Subsection 8, of section 91, provides that the E'ederal parliament shall have the exclusive power of fixing and providing for
the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the government of Canada.
Subsection 4, of section 92, provides as being within the exclusive powers of the provincial legislature :
The establishment and tenure of provincial officers and the appointment and payment of provincial officers.
Taking these two sections together I have come to the conclusion that the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the fixing and the payment of the salaries of their respective employees. There can be, therefore, no question that this parliament has the right, since we vote the money, to decide how the federal employees shall be paid and determine what portion of their salaries shall be attachable for ordinary debts and what portion not attachable. If any doubt existed, it seems to me that it would be removed by the first paragraph of section 91, which provides that all powers, not assigned exclusively to the provincial legislatures, shall belong to the Dominion parliament.
Although no decisions dealing directly with this subject can be found, since no law of the kind has ever been passed by this parliament, there are nevertheless some cases in which the question has been decided indirectly. In the province of Quebec we have a statute of the kind I would like to see adopted here, a statute passed in 1875. Under that statute, some cases have arisen in which the question arose whether salaries of Dominion officials fell under it. Now, the two oases on which I was able to lay my hands are the following. The first is Crevier and De GrandprS and Lamothe, a garnishee case found in 5 Legal News, page 48. The judgment was given by Judge Rainviile, and I shall translate the part to which I particularly refer :
I am of opinion that the statute, 38th Victoria, chapter 12

That is our provincial statute.
*-does not apply to officers of the Dominion government. The exemption of salaries of these officers from seizure is a matter of constitutional law, and no provincial statute can affect the rights of employees of the Federal government.
This does not directly decide the point raised here, because the judge in that case was called upon to interpret the provincial law. The statement made by the judge goes a little further than the case really called for. But it is an expression of opinion from one of the judges, a judge with a high reputation for ability, as is well known in the province of Quebec. The same judge in the case of Evans vs. Hudon & Brown, 22, L.C.J., 268, held as follows
That the exemption of the salaries of public employees from seizure is a matter of public order, and the parliament of the province of Quebec has not the power to declare seizable the Salaries of employees of the Federal gov-

/
eminent. And, therefore, the Collector of Inland Revenue in Montreal Is not bound to make the returns required by 38th Victoria, chapter 12, sec. 5.
Another case came before the Court of Appeals of Ontario. It was a case of the same class, although it called for somewhat different adjudication. It was a question of taxation, the case being known as Lepro-hon and the city of Ottawa, 2 Appeal Reports, page 522. I refer to this case because, If I remember well, it was mentioned by the Solicitor General when this subject was before the House on a previous occasion. I understand that this case was cited as showing that the parliament of the Dominion of Canada had no jurisdiction in the matter. As I understand this case, the ruling in the Court of Appeals, would prove exactly the reverse-that the provincial legislatures have no jurisdiction ; and, as jurisdiction must be found somewhere in matters of this kind, the fact that it is beyond the power of the provincial legislature would prove that it is within our jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, in that case held :
.... a provincial legislature has no power to enforce a tax upon the official income of an officer of the Dominion government or to confer such a power on the municipalities.
The question that came before the courts was this : A special tax had been imposed by the city of Ottawa upon the income of the employees of the Federal government. The by-law, whatever it was, which imposed the tax, was contested by this gentleman, Mr. Leprohon, who was an officer of this House. It was held in that case that the provincial statute could not confer upon a municipality more power than the province itself possessed, and the legislature of the province had not the power to tax the salaries of any officers of this parliament. There was a reason which, possibly, was applicable to that case alone and will not be generally applicable to this subject. It was this : It was held by the judges that to allow a municipality to impose a tax upon such salaries, or to imposing a provincial tax upon the same, would be equivalent to diverting or appropriating for provincial purposes, in an indirect way, certain sums of money voted for Dominion purposes.
Now, assuming, therefore, that we have full jurisdiction, since we vote these salaries and since these officials are our officials, it seems to me I need add very little in support of the proposal now before the House. It seems to me, as I said, only just and fair that all persons in this country should be equal before the law. I will not rest the proposition upon the assumption that a majority of Dominion public officers do not pay their legitimate debts. I believe the contrary to be true, and that the majority of these officers do discharge their legitimate debts. But, though the majority of ordinary citizens pay their legitimate debts, yet, in


Thomas Fortin: all the provinces and in all civilized countries there are laws by which the party who obtains judgment can attach in the hands of third persons all sums due to the defendant. Even where the majority discharge their legitimate obligations these laws are made to facilitate the collection of sums of money that are due. It has been stated on previous occasions that a law of this kind would embarrass the government. I remember that a member of this government used that argument. That condition could only arise if there were a vast number of attachments served in the hands of the government, and, if this; were true, to my mind it wTould offer the strongest argument in favour of a law of this kind. If there are such a large number of public officers, who, under the law as it stands, abuse the law and hide themselves under the law in order to escape the payment of their legitimate obligations, then, I say, we should amend that law. That such a law as this would embarrass the government, that, I say, is the strongest reason why a law of this kind should be adopted. Possibly there might be a special department ; and it might be created at the expense of those who make its creation necessary. Instead of being presided over by a minister of the Grown, such a department might be presided over by a commissioner, who might be properly called the commissioner of dead beats ! or something of that kind ! Seriously speaking, I have not the means of knowing whether that state of affairs exist or not. But, I do not believe it does. In this matter, I judge from the experience we have had in the province of Quebec in the last twenty-six years. We have a law there which makes a portion of the salaries of public officers liable to attachment. Though that law Jias been in force for twenty-six years, it'has always given complete satisfaction. We have not heard any complaint from any minister in the succeeding governments of that province in all that time. The law is simple, and it is very effective. The knowledge that the salary of a public officer, who is supposed to retain his position for life, can be attached for years and years, until the complete payment of the judgment, is enough to prevent those officers going improvidently into debt that may bring about that result. Therefore, I take it for granted that there will be no such embarrassment of the government as has been referred to. It is possible that when we come to deal with the details and when the law is prepared for this House, it will be necessary to make provisions for past debts.
I do not see any strong objection to that, but for the future I repeat it, the very fact of the existence of a law by which the civil servant may see a part of his salary liable to attachment for debt, will prevent him from getting into debt. I may add, Sir, that this law is desirable in the
first place on public grounds, and that it is also desired by a majority of the civil servants themselves. I am speaking within the hearing of a civil servant who told me the other' day that all decent civil servants were in favour of a law of this kind, and that comprises, I dare say, a majority of them. Civil servants do not like to be treated, to a certain extent, as wards of the Crown. They are generally able to take care of their own interest, to manage their own business and to meet their legitimate obligations as well as any other class of the people. I hope on this occasion the House will express itself in favour of this resolution. I am glad to say that no question of form can be raised against it, and I hope no motion to postpone or shelve this matter will be presented. It as aj non-con-troverisal question, it is not a party question, there are no politics in it. I may add that I have not the slightest personal interest in this matter. I have been asked by some gentlemen what object I had in pushing this measure. I may say that I have no direct or indirect interest whatever in it, not even professional. In a practice of about twenty years I do not think that I have taken more than one, possibly two, judgments against any public officer ; these have been satisfied,
I am happy to say. But I am convinced that this is a good measure, and that it is a progressive measure. I am proud to believe that all the citizens of a free country like ours desire to be equal before the law, and all desire to be subject to the same law as regards the fulfilment of their financial obligations.


Mr. K. L. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: It will naturally be expected that I should support a resolution of this kind, not entirely because I wish to return the compliment to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin), who rendered such valiant support to a Bill which I introduced upon two previous occasions in this House. One of the first things I did when I entered parliament was to introduce a Bill to correct wnat I think I will not be going too far if I call a scandal. It is well known that many civil servants have been able to evade the payment of their just debts because the law exempted their salaries from seizure. I had hopes that the premier would support me in the Bill I introduced the first session, and he gave me to understand that he would. I am not disposed to think that he had changed his mind in that respect, although probably he felt that the time was not opportune. However, in view of the manner in which my Bill was torn to pieces by the legal members of the House on successive occasions, I decided that I had better retire from the fray and leave the fight to other and abler members of the House. I wish here to congratulate the hon. member for Laval upon introducing this subject again, because I believe he is attacking an
evil that should be rectified at the earliest possible opportunity. The hon. member, in view of the experience I had, has been willing to rest with the submission of a resolution to the House, without venturing to introduce a Bill. As he told the House, the first Bill that was introduced and which he strongly supported, was merely a declaration in favour of making the salaries of civil servants attachable. That Bill met with strong opposition from legal members of the House because there was no machinery provided in it. Acting In concert with the hon. member for Laval, we prepared a Bill the following session providing the machinery which seemed to be desirable, and that again met with the warmest hostility from some of the legal gentlemen, who criticised it because wet did not confine ourselves to a simple declaration and leave out the machinery. However, it is a waste of time probably to go into these details now, hut the experience of the past convinces me that it is almost impossible for a layman to get a Bill of this kind through the House. Therefore, I am content to take the position of a follower of the hon. member for Laval in this matter, and I am glad to give my support to the motion which he proposes.
1 may say that no subject in which I have ever taken a public part seemed to elicit more universal endorsement throughout the country than the passage of the Bill that I introduced. I received resolutions from hoards of trade and various bodies throughout the country commending the Bill, and expressing a hope that it would become law. I have always taken the position that I am not in any way attacking civil servants. I do not suppose that as a class they are any worse than others ; but I never could understand why they should be placed in any exceptional position, and why they should require special protection above any other class of the community. I remember that my Bill was opposed by the Minister of Justice on the ground that it might interfere with the working of the governmental machinery, that it was not desirable to have members of the civil service liable to be interfered with at any time, or taken away from their public duties and dragged into court. I have always held the view that that was a very poor argument. I do not see why our merchants should suffer because civil servants may not be taken into court the same as ordinary citizens are. In Manitoba we dealt with this question in a more radical manner. Shortly after the accession of the Greenway government to power, they passed a regulation by which a oivdl servant who refused to pay his debts or who might be garnisheed, would be promptly dismissed unless he paid his debts. If the present government would do that or follow some similar course, there would be no necessity either of passing this resolution or of enacting a

law. I think that we ought to have a declaration from the government that if the resolution does carry they will give effect to it by the passage of a Bill, if not at this session, then at the next session. 1 therefore have the very greatest pleasure in supporting this motion and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Laval for introducing it. I want to say that in my intercourse with that hon. gentleman I have come to the conclusion that he is a real reformer and that he desires to be of some use in his day and generation. He would like to introduce some reforms in this House and in this country, and I hope that he will meet with better success in connection with this matter than I met with during the two or three sessions in which I undertook to deal with it.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a great deal of objection to the passage of an abstract resolution upon a subject of this kind, because the essence of this whole question is as to the most convenient and proper method of carrying out the details. I do not agree with the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin) that the civil service of the country are placed substantially upon any greater pinnacle of privilege than the ordinary debtor. It is just as well perhaps at the outset, in discussing this matter, to indicate some of the difficulties that are in the way of accepting the resolution. Now, let us take the case of a civil servant who may be indebted to certain creditors and let us see if the creditors, under any ordinary application of the principle of this measure, will be placed upon a footing of equality. If I am correctly Informed the cheques for the payment of civil servants throughout the whole Dominion, from the province of British Columbia to the province of Nova Scotia, are issued at Ottawa from the Auditor General's office or through the department, and as a consequence in order to intercept any of these salaries which may be due the creditor in another province must have some law by which he can make service of a writ of attachment in the province of Ontario issued within the jurisdiction of these various provinces. I do not see how that can be brought about, how the Supreme Court, or a county court in Nova Scotia, or the Supreme Court of British Columbia, can, without legislation in the province of Ontario, make any writs of attachment from the courts of those provinces of any validity whatever where these attachments must be filed to be of any validity. In addition to that you are placing creditors upon an unequal basis A creditor in Ottawa may be put to com-paiatively slight expense, may pursue a civil servant at Ottawa in this way, mav levy upon his salary and press to secure the payment of his debt while the unfortunate creditors in a remote portion of the


Robert Lorne Richardson: Dominion are not so placed, but, on the contrary, they are placed at a greater disadvantage, I do not see, without legislation in the various provinces, as well as legislation in the Dominion, that any legal process can be made by which such an attachment could be made available at the seat of government. If the financial conditions of the country are so changed that the salaries of civil servants are payable in various localities, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the various provinces, then some machinery may be available by which a measure of this kind can be given practical effect. I do not think that the hon. member for Laval has indicated any very substantial grievances as existing in the country.


Mr. MONET.: The law Is a grievance.


Thomas Barnard Flint: My hon. friend (Mr. Monet) says that the law is a grievance. If we are to legislate upon ideal grievances and endeavour to bring the law into absolute consonance with our ideals, then, we will have undertaken, to a large extent, a useless task. We must legislate on positive and practical evils in a practical way. Let us see what remedies the creditor has as the law exists at the present time ? A civil servant is indebted to his grocer, or to his tailor, or to any other merchant. The creditor can pursue him in the ordinary way, obtain a judgment, and seize his property. He can seize his personal property except such portion as is by law exempted in the various provinces.


Mr. McCREARY.: What provinces are you speaking for ?


Thomas Barnard Flint: I am speaking of the provinces in which there are these exemptions. He can attach any debts that are due the debtor, or any moneys he has in the hands of any person or corporation except the money which is set aside by parliament for the salary of the civil servant. But, he has still a further remedy. He is competent. after he has attached all the assets which the civil servant has, he can-at any rate that is so in Nova Scotia, and I believe it is so in Ontario-bring him before a commissioner, or a judicial authority, and examine him as to the amount of his salary, as to the amount of his assets, as to his liabilities, as to his daily expenses, as to the condition of his family, and as to the condition of his affairs, and by order of the court he may be compelled, by drastic methods, to pay so much a week, or so much a month out of his income to meet the demands of his creditors. I think, that having gone that far, the machinery which already exists in the various provinces is sufficient, and in the absence of any very concrete case of abuse, I think that parliament would do well to wait for the introduction of a Bill dealing with the details before undertaking to pass a mere abstract
resolution which, of course, binds us to nothing. I think it is open to question as to whether it is desirable that civil servants should be pursued in this manner for their debts. A civil servant may have been unfortunate in business, he may have accumulated in business losses, a large amount of debts, he may be a gentleman who has failed in business and has perhaps judgments amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars entered against him. A creditor can pursue a gentleman appointed to the civil service and rob him of his means of livelihood. There is no discredit in this country for a gentleman of the highest standing to become involved in debts, debts which have been incurred for other people, debts which have been the result of misfortune. Unless some concrete abuse is made apparent I do not think we are called upon, in addition to the ordinary means at the command of creditors, to provide that a portion of the income set aside for the living of civil servants should be taken away from them. The Superannuation Act deducts a certain portion of the bulk of the salaries of civil servants in order to make provision for old age. If, in addition to the ordinary means that are at the disposal of the creditor we add a new machinery, I think it should be carefully guarded so that a civil servant should not be exposed to be harshly treated by his creditors. There is a means already existing within the competence of the government, or of a department. If a civil servant is persistently endeavouring to obtain money under what may be called false pretenses, to obtain money which, from the amount of his salary, he knows he will not have the means of paying, I think there are in the department, or in the government, the means of meeting such an emergency.
The rule has been adopted in Manitoba, I understand, that if a charge is laid that an official is persistently and unnecessarily in debt and in a certain sense defrauding his creditors, he can be examined before a deputy or chief clerk and directed to make provision to pay his creditors. No abuses of a serious nature have been shown to exist here, and if they were so shown I have no doubt the government would apply some such remedy. My principal criticism of the resolution, however, is that while it might be impossible to enforce it at the centre of government, I do not see how any legislation you could pass here could bring attachments against civil servants in distant quarters of the Dominion within the jurisdiction of the courts at the seat of government. If this resolution is passed, those who are interested in framing legislation upon it will find themselves involved in great difficulties when they come to draw up a Bill. I sympathize with the idea that it is undesirable that one class of the community should be placed on a different
footing under the law from another class, but I do not consider that the present law is of that nature. The existing law- is for the protection of the Crown and to ensure that it shall not be unduly harassed and put to expense and trouble in collecting debts for private individuals. It is the Crown and the various departments of government, which under the law are endeavouring to protect themselves against the expense and nuisance of being made intermediaries in the collection of private debts between creditor and debtor. In the absence of any serious abuses the public in- . terest cannot be injured by allowing this resolution to stand over.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I wish to submit one or two matters which it is important to consider before the House commits itself to this resolution. One would be disposed at first blush to accede to the proposition that civil servants and employees of the government should be placed on the same footing with ordinary debtors; but as the kon. gentleman (Mr. Flint) pointed out it is not because of any regard fpr civil servants as such nor with a view of conferring privilege upon them, that the law remains as it is. On the contrary, it is because after due consideration had no doubt been given to the matter, it has been concluded to be against the interests of the government and against the public interest that any change should be made in the law. My hon. friend (Mr. Fortin) proposes that the salaries of public officers or government employees should be attachable like those of ordinary citizens. Without dwelling upon any constitutional objections which there might be to the proposal, I wish to point out that the effect of such a law would be, not to harass the debtor, but to harass the government and to seriously militate against the successful administration of public affairs. Let the House consider in what position the Railway Department, for instance, would be placed. We have 6,000 men in our employment upon the railways and probably half as many more upon the canals, and if even a relatively small proportion of this army of servants were liable to a proceedings being taken against them in the courts, then in every one of these proceedings in the different provinces of the Dominion, the Crown would have to be made a party and endless expense and embarrassment would be entailed on those who have to administer the department. Pay day comes around, a man has incurred debt for the necessaries of life, proceedings are taken, the Crown is notified that the money must not be paid over to the employee, the employee cannot get his money which may be necessary to provide for his family and himself, and he may be incapacitated to perform his duties. Then the officers of the department would have to attend court, and the result of the

2 L 76
trial would have to be awaited. My hon. friend (Mr. Fortin) says that we might have a head of a department at Ottawa who would be entrusted with duty, but one departmental head would certainly not suffice.


Thomas Fortin: I merely said that as a joke.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, even so it would be necessary to arrange for some such principle as that. You would have to have officials in all parts of Canada to look after these matters, you would have to employ lawyers all over the Dominion to appear at the trials, because if you did not follow up these legal proceedings to their oonclusion, the government would be unsafe in paying any money to employees who would be in debt, because they would be liable to pay it over again. We would never know when we could properly adjust a claim until the litigation had been concluded. The effect of it I do not think any man could foresee. Merely touching on the fringe of this question, I think the House will see how unwise a thing it would be to adopt any such law, and why it has been found convenient and necessary to continue the law as it is at present. On the Intercolonial Railway we have not been entirely unmindful of the claims of creditors. We have had a system in operation for a good many years under which, if a person who supplies necessaries to an employee gives notice to the department that that employee has not been paying, without any exjiense or litilgation being necessary, we direct the attention of the employee to the fact, find out whether it Is true or not, and, if it is true, we insist that he shall pay the bill, if not all at once, by instalments from time to time. In that way we have not experienced any difficulty. We have very seldom any complaint from creditors on account of the non-payment of bills by employees on the railway; we do not require any such legislation; and if we have anything to say about it, we will not have any such law passed. It is not needed by creditors. The people in our employ know7 that if they continue to fall into debt or to withhold payment to their creditors when they are able to pay, we simply give them to understand that we can not retain them in the service. We exercise pressure upon them in that way, so that I do not think that there is any serious grievance. I would very strenuously oppose my hon. friend's proposal. Not that I would not like to see employees of the government placed in the same position as all other debtors; I do not wish them to have any advantage; but w7e must consider the public interest, and you 'are sacrificing the public interest on a plea which, as my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) has very clearly pointed out, is not a well-founded plea. Any grievance which may exist in probably very largely local in its character.


Mr. BLAIR.: 


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Can you say i whether the Imperial government allow attachments of this kind ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I never heard of any such.


John Graham Haggart: They allow7 some kind of procedure.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: There is a special provision in the English law, but not in this direction,


William Forsythe McCreary: Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter which has been discussed in the province of Manitoba for many years, I deem it my duty to offer what I consider a solution of the question. For some years the salaries of provincial officials as well as Dominion officials were not garnishable in that province; but in 1SS9 or 1890 the local government brought in an Act providing that their officials might be garnisheed ; except that $25, I think, was to remain in the government's hands. Now, I cannot see that the hon. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) has given any argument against putting on the statute-book a garnishee Act similar to that of Manitoba. In my own practice in Winnipeg I have learned of many cases of real hardship in the case of merchants who were not able to bear the loss, on account of government officials failing to pay their debts. This failure is probably confined to 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the employees. The Minister of Railways claims that it would seriously affect the management of the railway system of Canada if such a law were passed. If he has 6,000 employees on the Intercolonial Railway system, surely the Canadian Pacific Railway Company must have twice or more than twice that number. There are thousands of officials on the Canadian Pacific Railway west of Port Arthur, and there is no trouble at all In garnishing their salaries. I myself have served a large number of garnishees on the Canadian Pacific Railway offices in Winnipeg, and the rule they adopt there is that the paymaster, Mr. Graham, notifies the court how much money he has in his hands belonging to the delinquent officials. If there is any dispute between the creditors, the court decides which of the creditors are entitled to the money. The same system could be pursued in the case of government officials. If a garnishee were placed in the hands of the government, I take it that the Auditor General would notify the court what amount of money was in his hands at the time belonging to the employee in question.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: The Auditor General would not know.


William Forsythe McCreary: Very well, the official whose duty it would be to know could easily notify the^ court how much money was in his hands belonging to the official. That
toba government. I know that prior to the Act being brought in, it was said that it would interfere with the officials discharging their duties ; but the effect it had was to make the small proportion of officials who were deadbeats come to time and pay their old debts, and made them see that they did not afterwards incur large obligations which they were not able to pay ; because the local government took it upon themselves, if two garnishees were served, to look into the matter, and if they saw that the debt was deliberately contracted by the official with the intention of never paying it, they discharged him. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company do the same. When the first garnishee is served, they call the official into their office, and warn him that this must not occur again ; and then, if a second garnishee is served, they discharge him. Of course, there may be circumstances, such as illness in a man's family, which they take into consideration, and they will probably see the lawyer who issues the writ and discuss the matter with him. But I claim that there would be no hardship to the employees on the government railways or to any other officers of the government if they all had to pay their debts. There are no class of officials better paid, as a general rule, than civil servants, and no class who do less work. I have been a civil servant for some years, and I know what I am saying. There are civil servants who work very long hours, who at certain seasons, when there is a pressure of work, work after hours ; but there are a large number of others who have a very soft snap. With regard to serving the process of garnishee, I think that could easily be solved by a lawyer from each province meeting and arranging the details. I think a registered letter to the proper department would be all that would be necessary, and the garnishee would attach from the time the registered letter left. I may tell you that a man at Calgary, 1,000 miles from Winnipeg, who wants to attach the wages of a Canadian Pacific Railway emyloyee, has to send his garnishment to Winnipeg ; yet it works all right. X think it could be worked as well in the case of government employees. There might be other means of serving processes, but that is one I suggest. Then, I do not think the Act should be retroactive, and there might be certain classes of debts to which it should not apply.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What kind would you suggest ?


William Forsythe McCreary: For instance, our law says that a man shall be brought up on a judgment summons and imprisoned ; but only on debts for the necessaries of life,' which would include his household furniture, his food, and other necessaries, and there is also sickness to be considered. If you look over the British law, you will find cases 69
cited in which the British courts have held a diamond ring to be a necessary. It is difficult to say what necessaries are. They can only be determined according to the situation in fife of the individual concerned. It is said that the present law gives redress to creditors. I do not know what the law is in the various provinces, but I am sure that the law of Manitoba to-day allows a man to live almost in luxury and not pay his debts. The exemption law in Manitoba is this : you can have free of debt your food for eleven months as well as the food for your family, all your household furniture, your personal property and your house, to the value of $1,500. If you are a farmer, you can practically be worth four or five thousand dollars, and no execution of a county court or a superior court can touch you. There is no use suing in our province, because you cannot realize on execution- it can't be done-the sheriff has gone out of business. I think it is the duty of a Liberal government to take this matter up and pass a law which shall be comprehensive enough to embrace all the provinces.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice).: I only desire to add one word to what has been said by the hon. member (Mr. McCreary) who preceded me. My reason for being in favour of the resolution is that I have not yet heard a good argument against it. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) tells us that he could not manage his department if the salaries of his employees were garnisheed. If I understand aright, these men ,are paid on a pay roll, and I do not see why we could not garnishee in their case the same as when we take a garnishee action in the hands of a railway company for the money due their men. We do not have to serve the papers at Ottawa, or to serve the minister or the deputy minister ; we can serve them at the office on the line. One hon. gentleman has stated that this was intended for the purpose of pursuing debtors. Now why should civil servants be protected more than any other class in this country ? If they incur debts, why should they not pay them the same as we do ? Why should there be a preference aud one class be exempted from the payment of their debts ? Of course, there are men who are unfortunate in the service, but so there are in any business. It is not reasonable to make the government service a hospital for the unfortunate. If men are in hard luck, let them make a compromise with their creditors. These civil servants are in a better position to pay than are most men, for they have always a steady salary coming in. We have this law in Quebec, and it works well. You do not have to harass the government or to have a commission or to apply to any deputy minister. All you have to do is to serve the officer in charge in the local place where the garnishment



Is taken, and he makes a return to the court that there Is so much due to the employee, and the money is divided by order of the court. The government does not need to come into it at all. I do not see why the government should employ counsel in the matter. Of course, in my personal interest and the interest of the profession, I wish they would. I am in favour of this resolution, because I do not see why the civil servants, who, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says, usually have very little to do and get good pay, should be a privileged class in the community and should be exempt from paying their debts as other people must do. I do not see why the law should protect them by prohibiting seizure of their money in the hands of the government, when others are not so protected.


Mr. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa).: When the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) introduced his Bill on this subject in the last House, I took a decided stand against the measure for reasons which I then enunciated. I took the ground then, and I think it still holds good, that the hon. gentleman had not shown that there was any real demand for this legislation. I represent a constituency which has, perhaps, more civil servants than any other in Canada, yet, though the subject at the time received a great deal of attention in the House, and probably outside of it, my constituents failed to disclose to me that there was any real grievance or any necessity for garnishing the salaries of civil servants. I think that if there was anywhere a real necessity for this Bill or a strong feeling in favour of it, it would probably manifest itself in the city of Ottawa. It struck me that the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin) practically admitted that there was no demand for this law, for he said he could not point out where there was any substantial evil in the matter, but his motion was prompted rather by a desire to vindicate a principle, the principle of equality. If there is no grievance, it seems to me that it would be wasting time for this House merely to affirm the principle of equality, which no one questions. But I would have opposed the measure for the reasons of convenience to the public departments, and because, on its own merits, the measure would be illiberal and unprogressive. The tendency of this age is not to increase garnishments, not to make salaries attachable, but rather in the opposite direction. In the United States, I believe, there is no such thing as garnishment of salaries. And in this country we have gone from step to step until to-day those people who are said to be in an inferior position by reason of their salaries being attachable, practically are in no such position. In Ontario, every man's salary is exempt to the extent of $25. That is practical immunity from


Jacques Bureau: garnishment. The making of salaries of civil servants attachable will have but one result, which, I think, is to be deplored-it will encourage credit. It will tend to make civil servants seek and obtain more credit than they need. The tendency of modern days is to make business


An hon. MEMBER.: Cash.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Cash-particularly when it comes to apply to the necessities of everyday life. A man ought to pay cash for his groceries, his dry goods and things of that J sort. Another point is that those in busi-j ness who supply commodities to civil serI vants know perfectly well that the salaries of those officers are not attachable, and they trust to the debtor's honour and his sense of justice for the payment of the debt. I i think it is far better that that feeling should | be encouraged and that honour should be ' the basis of credit rather than a mere formality which will be probably found more or less unpractical. Another reason why I | oppose this resolution is that it is a sort of paternal legislation, which ought not to be favoured. Legislation that looks to minor interests of that sort ought not to be brought to this parliament, but parliament ought to give its attention to matters of greater necessity and import, leaving aside this paternal legislation, of which, unfortunately, we already have too much.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to second the resolution of my hon. friend, the member for Laval (Mr. Fortin). We have heard it stated on the floor of this House, during this debate, that there were no real grievances warranting the passing of the proposed legislation. But, Sir, what are the facts? In 1895, my predecessor in this House, the lamented Mr. BSehard, introduced a Bill to enable the salaries of civil servants to be garnisheed. But that Bill found an untimely grave in the Committee of the Whole. Session after session, this question has been threshed out on the floor of the House, and why, Sir? Because there are found in every province, and more so in the province of Quebec, of which I speak knowingly, government officials who run in debt and cannot be called upon to pay. I was not in the least surprised to hear the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Beleourt) state that he was opposed to the resolution now before us. In view of the large interests he has to protect here, no wonder that he should take such an attitude ; but I was surprised to hear him state that this was an illiberal and unprogressive measure, and one not in line with the spirit of the age, the tendency of our times, he says, being not to increase garnishments or to make salaries liable to attachment, but in an opposite direction. The hon. gentleman has, no doubt, not failed to notice that was from the opposition side
that he received the warmest plaudits. Why, Sir, this is essentially a liberal measure and one well in accord with Liberal professions ; for, if there is one principle held sacred by the Liberals, it is that, in a free country like ours, all citizens are equal before the law, and that is the reason why we are not willing to extend favours or immunity to civil servants which are not extended to other classes of the community.
In the province of Quebec, the debtor's property is held as a common pledge by the creditors. In our province, all citizens are equal before the law in that respect, and the Dominion government officials are the only class that are enjoying immunity and are exempt from the operation of the law. Now the House is invited to enact that it is desirable that the salary of civil servants should be attachable and that government officials should be put on a footing of equality with the other classes of the community in that respect. The hon. member for Lava] is trying to do away with a privilege, and I hold that his resolution is essentially a liberal and progressive measure. The hon. gentlemen who oppose it are, therefore, taking an anti-liberal stand by the very fact that they are trying to maintain an antiquated privilege and one which is no longer in consonance with the spirit of the age.
In the other provinces, and chiefly in the province of Ontario, they have perhaps less occasion than we have in Quebec to complain of this evil, because the law of Ontario says that a man may be brought up on a judgment summons and ordered by the judge to pay a certain portion of the judgment out of his salary at so much per month. In former centuries, any creditor who failed to pay his legitimate debts was imprisoned, and in Rome they even went to the length of dividing the limbs of the debtor between his creditors.
In the provinces where the law provides imprisonment for debts, the civil servants may be proceeded against in an efficacious way. For instance, my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has at his disposal a summary proceeding : all he has to do is to get an order from the judge against his debtor. Should that debtor happen to be a government official who has incurred debts, and if he does not satisfy his creditors, he is imprisoned, and in that way he is given a chance to ponder over the desirability of keeping out of debt. But in the province of Quebec, such summary proceeding is not available, as my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) knows very well, being a practising lawyer for our province as well as for Ontario. That is the reason why we have to come down here and ask the government to pass a law to enable the salaries of government officials to be garnisheed.
We have been told here that seizures of this kind will cause very considerable expense and inconvenience to the government, 69i
and that the ministers are already incumbered to a sufficient extent without having them overloaded with this garnishee business. But, Sir, I submit that the government being the servants of the people, one of the prime functions of the ministers is to give satisfaction to the demands of the various classes of the people which they represent here.
Hon. gentlemen also object to this legislation because of the difficulties that may be found in working it out. Judging from the experience of the railway companies and other great corporations, I do not anticipate any trouble from the enforcement of this measure.
If the principle at stake is a good and sound one-as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) said it was-we ought to adopt it. I do not think that its enforcement will cause more trouble and inconvenience to the ministers than is being experienced by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with regard to their employees.
In recording my vote in favour of this resolution, I am not only putting on record my own opinion, but I believe that I am also voicing the opinion of the province of Quebec. We are a unit in the province of Quebec in our approval of the provincial Act which enables the salaries of the officials of the local government to be garnisheed, and I may say here that this law works very well.
In my opinion, no solid argument can be urged against this parliament adopting a similar legislation to that which is embodied in the resolution now before us.


Mr. B. M. BRITTON (Kingston).: The resolution now before the House declaring that, in the opinion of this House, the salaries of public officers or government employees should be attachable like those of ordinary citizens, would, if adopted, leave Dominion employees subject to any law, as regards the seizure of their salaries, that any province might pass, and consequently whatever law might be passed by any province as to the mode of attachment would be binding upon the different departments of the Dominion. That could not fail to be attended with a great deal of difficulty and confusion. What the hon. the Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) has said with reference to his department would apply also, though perhaps not to the same extent, to the Department of Public Works, the Post Office and every other department. It, therefore, seems to me that the resolution should not pass.
In Ontario, until quite lately, the law with reference to garnishing salaries-I am not now referring to government employees -treated salaries exactly as other debts which could be attached for the satisfaction of judgments and of creditors' claims. But that law was amended, and to-day- as salaries are usually payable monthly-no

salary not exceeding $25 per month can be attached, and in any case $25 per month Is always free from attachment.
There was some outcry in that province with regard to civil servants. It was argued that their salaries should be also attachable, and in 1898 an Ontario statute was passed providing for the garnishment of the salaries of civil servants, but stipulating that, as in ordinary cases, $25 per month should always be left for the benefit o-f the employee. If the salary did not exceed $25 per month, it could not be attached at all, and if it did. it could be attached for the surplus over that amount. It was deemed only right that In the case of the civil servant as in other cases, he should be allowed to draw $25 per month for the benefit of himself and his family. Under that law, the creditor, whether a judgment creditor or not, serves upon the treasurer of the province or his assistant, a notice of the amount due him. If a judgment is recovered, then the treasurer is bound to retain sufficient to satisfy that judgment, provided there is an amount in excess of $25 coming to the debtor. If there is no judgment, then the debtor has to be served as well, and if he dispute the claim, the treasurer ties up the amount of the debt until the dispute is settled. That is rather complicated. But one thing which influences me in dealing with the resolution before the House is the fact that although there was a great outcry in Ontario for such a law, the creditors have not availed themselves of it to any great extent. Last year very few persons took advantage of It, and probably on that account not much inconvenience has resulted from its operation.
If, in the opinion of this House any remedy is necessary it seems to me that the amendment I am about to propose is all that is required. I would move in amendment :
That all the words after the word ' House' be struck out and the following substituted : Provision shall be made by the government by which the salaries of public officers and government employees, or a part of such salaries, shall, so far as consistent with the requirements of the public service, be made attachable or available for the payment of their debts.
That does not mean that a law shall be passed allowing these salaries to be attached exactly as those of ordinary persons in each one of the various provinces, which would seem to me very objectionable. A great deal of weight ought to be attached to the argument of an hon. gentleman representing a city like Ottawa, where there are so many civil servants. I understood the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) to say that there is no demand for such a law by the merchants of this city, and that being the case, I do not think that any other city or town need worry much about it.


Mr. W. C. EDWARDS (Russell).: I suppose that this is a question which could be more properly dealt with by the lawyers in the House, but having some practical knowledge of the operation of a law of this kind, I desire to say a few words. I cannot see very much difference between the amendment and the original proposition. In each case the result would be the same, so far as the government is concerned. In each case the government would be considerably harassed by the attachments provided for. While certain creditors might benefit by a law of the kind, certainly the government all over Canada would be harassed by it. The statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) I think is quite correct, that questions of this kind should rest as between creditors and debtors. No man earning his living by daily labour or in a similar way should become a creditor to such an extent as to require law of this kind to be made for him. If those who give credit place themselves in such a position as to require a law of the kind, then they should be left to suffer the consequences, the consequences should not be visited upon innocent parties. Speaking myself as an employer of labour, I say that we are continually harassed because of a similar law affecting labouring men. Parties give them credit in many instances unduly. The poor fellows get sick perhaps, or disabled, or get into difficulty, and their employer is put to a great deal of trouble in consequence. Let me mention one of the chief annoyances to which employers of labour are subjected. There are many labouring men who go around from one place to another seeking work, because of the danger of seizures no one will employ them. Some employers of labour in this country have adopted the practice that the moment a garnishee is served the man is discharged, and that makes it very difficult for the man discharged to find employment. As the law stands to-day, we are continually being served with these garnishees, and we have to be continually on our guard to avoid personal responsibility as a consequence. If that be so in our case, what would be the effect on the government all over Canada ? The result would be that shop-keepers and others who give undue credits would be continually harassing the government. In every department of the service from one end of Canada to the other you would have to have a staff for the purpose of looking after this special branch of the service. For these reasons I do not think that the resolution, even In its amended form, should pass the House.


Thomas Fortin: I only wish to say that I will accept the amendment. It has never-been my intention to ask the passage of a law by which the whole of the salary of the


Byron Moffatt Britton: public officer could be attached or seized.
I am well aware that the tendency of our laws is to provide that a portion only of a man's salary or wages are attachable. Such is our law in the province of Quebec, such is the law in France, and such is the law, I believe, everywhere. Therefore, if the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) and his friends attach so much importance to their amendment, I am willing to accept it, and I ask those who are in favour of the motion to vote for the amendment.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: It is very questionable whether legislation should be enacted in this House which would embarrass the government more than they are now being embarrassed by reason of civil servants contracting debts. There is no doubt that government officials usually should be placed in the same position as * other individuals so far as debts are concerned ; so far as creditors' claims against government officials are concerned, the latter should be placed in the same position as ordinary individuals, with one exception. There is a difficulty attending the operation of the garnishment of public officials. The Dominion of Canada is some three or four thousand miles in extent from east to west, most of the government officials are paid from the city of Ottawa. A government official in British Columbia, or a government official in Nova Scotia who is paid his salary from the city of Ottawa, might get into debt to some one in his locality, and I can hardly understand how a garnishee proceeding could be served on the government respecting that man's salary if you say the garnishee summons must take effect from the time it is served, and it must take effect from the time it is served on the government, if it is served on the proper parties. How will the government at Ottawa be seized of the fact that that summons has been served, the effect of which is to prevent the government at Ottawa from paying the salary due to the employee ? You cannot attach a salary until the salary is due. If the summons is served one moment before the salary is due. the summons is ineffectual, it is set aside by the court, the court would immediately say that the salary was not due at the time the summons was served. Consequently the summons must be served after the salary is due and before it is paid. I can see that there would be an enormous amount of difficulty surrounding the whole proceeding. In the case of railway companies in this country, it is true that if an employee fails to pay his debts and his salary is attached, it is the practice I know of the Grand Trunk Railway, of the Michigan Central, and I believe of the Canadian Pacific Railway, immediately to dismiss that employee. I am not so sure about the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I know that in the case of the Grand Trunk
Railway and the Michigan Central, if an employee's salary is attached, he is immediately dismissed from the service of the company. They will not allow a servant to remain in their employ if they are served with a garnishee proceeding. Now, it would be very difficult for the government, because they are not in the same position as a corporation. If a government were to dismiss an employee the moment his salary was attached, serious embarrassment might be caused to the public service. A great corporation such as a railway company is an exceedingly cold-blooded institution. They care for nothing. They simply employ men who will do their work, and if they do not live up to the regulations and rules of their company, they are set aside at once irrespective of any consideration which may touch the heart of the ordinary individual. The government act, I apprehend, upon a different line from that. The government would consider as to whether or not an employee had reasonable grounds for not paying claims which had been brought against him. There may be exceedingly reasonable grounds. It has come well within my knowledge from practical experience that the railway companies, of which I have spoken, have dismissed men from their employ whose salaries had been attached. To my mind there was often a good excuse for the non-payment of the debts for which these men had been sued. It very often occurs, it is a matter of continual occurrence, that a man cannot pay spot cash, that he cannot pay at the time that the creditor demands his money, that he is not in a position to pay because of circumstances absolutely beyond his control. He may be an absolutely honest man who wishes to pay his debts, I know that has arisen on dozens of occasions within my practical experience at the bar; clients have come to me to look after their interests in connection with attachment proceedings that have been taken against them. The railway company act in a cold-blooded way when they treat their men in that manner. The government could not do that very well. They would not do that. They would necessarily have to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the liability and into the circumstances surrounding the ability of the man to pay. Consequently, to pass a resolution in this House declaring that it is necessary that a law should be adopted making these salaries attachable, I think, in the manner in which it is proposed, is an objectionable proceeding. If the hon. gentleman who proposed the resolution would bring in a Bill so that we could see the line upon which he was proceeding. we would then have something to go upon.. Who is to be responsible for bringing in the Bill ? A resolution simply propounded in this House is an indefinite affair. There is no person responsible for any subsequent proceedings. Bet

any lion, gentleman who desires to see legislation placed on tlie statute-book in this direction bring in a Bill, let it be considered and it thought desirable that the House should pass such legislation, the hon. gentleman who brings in the Bill will be responsible. I, myself, am of the opinion that government employees should pay their liabilities the same as any other person, but I do not think that the House should lay down the bald proposition that legislation of this kind should be introduced. I do not understand that any person is being very grievously injured. I have never heard of any person who was grievously injured by reason of the non-ability of government officials to pay their liabilities. I am inclined to think that legislation should rather be in the opposite direction and that no claims should be attachable. I think it would be more conducive to the establishment of a cash system in this country. The credit system in this country does more to make paupers than any other system that could be devised. I think if we are going to legislate, that we should legislate in a manner which would be more conducive to the inauguration of a cash system by making every man pay for what he gets when he gets it, instead of passing legislation of this kind. I feel that the House should not commit itself to this resolution at the present time.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (GaspS).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a word or two, before the vote is taken, so as to put on record my views on the matter. It has been stated on the floor of this House, during this debate, that the subjecting the salaries of civil servants to be garnisheed in the ordinary way was a liberal principle, in accord with the spirit of the age. But, sir, if that is a liberal principle, there is another principle which is still dearer to me, and it is that of provincial autonomy.
Now -I am of opinion that, were this parliament to legislate on the matter under consideration, we would be encroaching on the rights of provinces. Under clause 92 of the Union Act of 1867, subsection 13, the provincial legislature may exclusively make laws concerning property and civil rights. Now, such power being clearly vested in the provincial legislature, how could this parliament introduce a legislation to enable even a fraction of the salaries of the civil servants to be garnisheed ? How could parliament create a machinery for the enforcement of such legislation ?
In my opinion, the power of legislating on such matters is exclusively vested in the provincial legislatures ; and, for my part. I am free to say this : That although the principle advocated by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) and by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin) is. as they claim, a liberal principle, and the principle of provincial autonomy commends itself still Mr. GERMAN.
more to my approbation. To my mind, upholding the sacred rights of the provinces is still more important, than giving my support to the measure under consideration, progressive and liberal as it is claimed to be.


Mr. MONK.: (Translation.) If the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I would like to ask him a question for my own information. Is it not true, as a matter of fact, that the exempting of the salaries or wages of workingmen is looked upon as a liberal principle nowadays, and as one quite in accordance with the spirit of the age ? Now, under such circumstances, how, I ask, could the principle under discussion, which aims at removing the prohibition against attaching the salaries of civil servants, be looked upon as a progressive and liberal principle ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) I am now dealing with the matter from a constitutional standpoint, and I do not care for the present to discuss any tendency of the Liberal party in connection with the matter under discussion.
I do not believe in exempting the civil servant from the ordinary liabilities of a citizen. 'I do not want him to escape the payment of his honest debts. I am not ready to carry liberalism to the extent of approving of public employees shirking their honourable responsibilities and refusing to pay their just debts.
Reference has been made to the railway companies, and among others, to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which has probably twice as many employees as there are on the Intercolonial. And yet, they say, there seems to be no trouble at all about garnisheeing the salaries, and no complaint is heard from the attorneys of the company upon whom the writs of attachment are served, either in Winnipeg, Montreal or Toronto. It works all right, they say. Well, during my short professional career in Montreal. I have had occasion to serve garnishee proceedings on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company respecting their men's salary. Then what happened ? Those employees immediately came to our office and told us that, if the garnishee summons were maintained, their services would be dispensed with by the. company.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is it fair to assimilate tlie case of the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to that of the civil servants ? Because the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have made it a rule not to allow a servant to remain in their employ, if they are served with a garnishee proceeding, does it follow that the government is bound to do the same ?
It is an axiom, I do not know whether in constitutional law or not, but at any rate, an axiom which is in vogue in Great Britain to-day, that ' Her Majesty's government must be carried on.' Now, I ask, are not the ministers of the Crown already
MA^OH 27,1901
encumbered to a sufficient degree in matters necessary to tbe administration of the country's affairs without having them overloaded with matters of this kind ? For this reason alone-and it is not the main objection to the Bill, because I think it would be ultra vires, inasmuch as it encroaches on provincial rights-I am bound to vote against the resolution of the hon. member for Laval.


Mr. H. BOURASSA (Labelle).: (Translation.)
Does not the hon. gentleman know that in the province of Quebec the government of His Majesty-although it is only a majesty on a smaller scale-manage to get through their work, although they have to enforce a similar law ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 'X am quite aware of it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: (Translation.) Then, why could not the higher majesty of Ottawa deal with the matter here 1


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) Here is my main objection to this resolution. I do not believe in this parliament dealing with matters which come within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and this resolution would be an infringement of that principle. Section 92 of the Union Act of 1807 enacts :
Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures- 92. In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming withing the classes of subjects next hereinafter mentioned.
And subsection 13 :
Property and civil rights in the province.
Therefore, this is a matter of civil procedure, and, as I said, it is not within the scope of this parliament to pass legislation of this sort, and were we t<5 deal with it now, it would be on our part an encroachment upon the rights of provincial legislatures.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I would like to say a few words in regard to it. I think that the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin) was well advised in bringing the question before the House in the form of an abstract resolution, and I say so, because, when it was introduced into this House last session and the session before, it was reduced to the form of a Bill. It was found to be impossible to frame a Bill which would meet all of the many objections which could be brought against it. The hon. member for Laval seeks to evade all the difficulties by simply passing an abstract resolution, but, if we pass an abstract resolution we will only be face to face with these difficulties. The question which meets us is :	Where is the constitutional power
in this matter ? I held before, and that opinion I have not changed, that parliament has a right to declare that the common
law which prevents the salaries paid by the King from being garnisheed, may be altered. We can do that. I think we can do that and thereby put salaries payable by the King or by the government on the same basis as others, but, that is as far as we can go. Then, comes the question:	Who
is to provide the machinery ? It does not seem that this parliament has any jurisdiction over civil procedure to provide how and in what manner these proceedings shall be enforced.


Thomas Fortin: If the matter is within the jurisdiction of this parliament is the procedure incidental to it not within the jurisdiction of this parliament also ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fortin) is quite right that where a general subject such as Insolvency or bankruptcy is referred to this parliament, we can legislate effectively upon it, but I do not see that because the 91st section of the Britsh North America Act says that the fixing and providing for the salaries of civil servants is given to this parliament, that therefore we have the power of determining how and in what manner the creditors can recover if they garnishee. I do not think that is an incidental proceeding. That is a civil procedure in my judgment.


John Graham Haggart: Cannot you declare it to be an asset of the creditor, and then would it not come under your jurisdiction ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think it is well within the power of this parliament to declare that the common law exemption of this debt from garnishee proceedings should be removed, but when we do that we must leave it to the provinces to deal with the garnishee process. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fortin) thinks it is possible to frame a Bill which would provide the proper machinery


Thomas Fortin: It was done before.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, but the Bill which was submitted to parliament contained at least a dozen fatal objections and it was withdrawn. I do not believe there is any desire on the part of any one in this House to give an unfair exemption to civil servants, but I ask the hon. member (Mr. Fortin) if there is any real practical grievance existing.


Thomas Fortin: Yes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Then where is the evidence of it ? Have we had petitions praying for this legislation ; have any hon. gentlemen engaged in business expressed the opinion in this House that a great grievance exists ? Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fortin) listen to the words of wisdom that fell from the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), who told us as a large employer of labour

in this country, that he found the garnishee law most obnoxious and that the result of it was to throw many workmen out of employment, because their wages being garnisheed their employers would not keep them longer. We have heard from the member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) that so grievous had been the legislation of past years with reference to the property of debtors which was attachable by creditors, that the Manitoba government have been obliged to interfere, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) says that so many exemptions now exist that the sheriff has gone out of business in that province. That does not show a idesire to give greater facilities to the creditor to oppress the poor man, but rather to give the debtor a chance. If we pass a statutory declaration that the salaries of civil servants should be subject to garnishee proceedings, I submit that then each province would have to pass the necessary machinery to give effect to that law. One province might do so and one might not, or a province might make the machinery so intricate for the government that the difficulties would be insuperable. What would be the result of that in the case of the Department of Railways, in which the minister told us he had 9.000 men employed ? The province of Ontario has found it necessary to the practical working of the law, to make an exemption of $25, which as a matter of practice exempts nearly all the employees of the government. Assuming that the provinces can enforce their own law in this regard, how are they going to enforce it as against the central government at Ottawa in the case, for example, of employees in the Yukon, many of whom give orders on the Interior Department for the payment of their salaries to their families ? How can you garnishee these ? Suppose that in British Columbia my department has a hundred men employed on our ships and they are paid monthly, how am I to be informed that the salaries of these men are garnisheed ? What I submit is that instead of passing this resolution, the House might declare that in its opinion each department of government should take steps to ensure that the employees should pay their debts or be discharged. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways says that practice does exist in his department to-day, and that if it is brought to his attention or the attention of his chief officers that an employee persistently refuses to pay his current debts, that man is discharged. It has been stated here that the law works well with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and that therefore it would work well with regard to the government, but the answer to that was given by one lion, gentleman who declared that it worked odiously as regards the workmen in these large corporations, because when their salaries are garnisheed they are discharged. These companies say Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
that they cannot be dragged into court week after week and month after month in these garnishee proceedings, and so m self-defence they discharge the men. Would hon. gentlemen ask the government to do the same thing ? In my own department, when a poor sailor man gets into debt and his pay is garnisheed am I to discharge him instanter ? Do the hon. gentlemen want that ? I have great faith in the legal acumen of my legal friend (Mr. Fortin) to find some way out of the difficulty which presents itself, but it seems to me that if you pass a statute removing the exemption, then you will have gone to the extent of your jurisdiction in this parliament, and after that the process by which the salaries can be garnisheed must be left to the different provinces. That would involve us in difficulties so great that we would be very unwise indeed to bring about such a state of affairs.
When we have statements such as that made by so large an employer of labour as the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), and that made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) as to the methods which have to be resorted to by employers of labour to escape from the restrictions of the law, I think we may well pause before adopting either the motion or the amendment. In the first place, no grievance has been more than slightly alleged ; no petitions have come from the country for such a law ; and, speaking as a minister of the Crown of four or five years' experience, I am unable to say that in my department any real grievance exists, and I believe my colleagues can say the same. Then why plunge into an experiment of this kind ? I deny that the working of the garnishee process in the case of the great corporations has been such as to encourage us to apply that process to government employees. I think it would be hard on poor men, harsh and unjust ; and if we adopted it, we would probably be compelled to resort to what the Ontario legislature has been compelled to resort to. namely, so many exemptions that the improvement sought to be effected would prove to be practically inoperative.


Mr. JOSEPH ARTHUR ETHIER (Two Mountains).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen who have opposed the resolution which is now before this House have urged an objection which I do not think well founded, and I wish to put on record my views on the question, before the vote is taken on the resolution. It was urged here that the legislation which is embodied in this resolution would prove unworkable and that the time is not opportune for passing it.
The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) has dealt with the question from that standpoint and has quoted clause 92 of the British North America Act in support of his views ; but let me call his attention to clause 91 of the same Act which deals with
the matters to which extends the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. Subsection 8 in which are enumerated the classes of subjects within which these matters come, reads as follows :
The fixing and providing for the salaries and allowances for civil and other officers of the government of Canada.
Since under section 91 of the Union Act, the Dominion government is vested with the j power of providing for and fixing the salaries, the assumption is that no other gov-eminent and no other power can interfere with that matter. Therefore, provincial j autonomy is altogether out of question here, and there is no attempt at encroaching upon the rights of provincial legislatures.
Another objection to the Bill is that there '[DOT] do not exist sufficient grievances to warrant the passing of such legislation. Now, in 1897, a Bili was introduced and discussed at considerable length. During the session of 1898 the same Bill was reintroduced. As early as 1893, the late Mr. Beehard had in-1 troduced a Bill providing that the salaries of public officers and government employees should be attachable. And have we not heard, a little while ago, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. William McCreary) stating that in the province of Manitoba this evil was so prevalent that the government of that province, like the legislature of Quebec, had to bring in a law enacting that the salaries of their officials might be liable to seizure. 1 think it would be but fair to put the creditors of the Dominion civil servants on the same footing with the officials of those provinces.
As matters stand now, no creditor cares to take proceedings against any official of the Dominion government. You may sue them, you may get judgment against them, but what is the use of levying a judgment against a civil servant who has nothing in the world to depend upon but the salary he gets from the government ? No creditor would risk the payment of the judicial costs so long as the judgment he gets remains unsatisfied. But let the House adopt this resolution and then we will provide the best machinery to make this legislation workable and truly effective. Should parliament enact such legislation, it would secure to a creditor the right to recover from the civil servant as readily as he does from any one else.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Would the hon. gentleman tell me how he can reconcile that statement with the views expressed by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies)? I would like him to tell me who has the power to regulate the procedure in the civil courts V Is that power vested in the Dominion parliament or in the local legislatures ? Now, supposing it were within the jurisdiction of the local legislature, would the hon. gentleman be
ready to state that the provinces may issue writs against the Crown ?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) This parliament would have to provide the necessary machinery for enforcing and putting the law in motion-in so far as their own officials are concerned.
I know of many civil servants in the service of the government here who, having resided in the province of Quebec and got into debt there, refused to pay their bills, because they know that under the law their salaries were not liable to attachment. Now, were such legislation as is now proposed crystallized into law, those employees could be sued at law. Besides, such legislation would not imply a slur upon the character of the civil servants who were willing to pay their honest debts. It could only affect those dishonest debtors who shirk their honourable responsibilities, and thus bring discredit upon their colleagues.
One of the hon. gentlemen who spoke before me endeavoured to assimilate the case of the government employees with those^ of railway companies, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who make it a rule to discharge their officials when a writ of attachment is served in the offices of the company, and when the judgment is not satisfied without the company having to interfere. There is no parity at: all between the two cases. This resolution does not provide for the discharge of public officials who do not pay their debts, but it only asks parliament to give its sanction to the principle that any man in Canada who earns a salary of from two to three thousand dollars a year shall be on a footing of equality before the law with the poor workingman who is earning but a dollar a day. For these reasons, I think that the resolution, introduced by my hon. friend from Laval should pass the House.


Mr.  L. P.@: 0. DUGAS (Montcalm). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker. I have listened very at-tentivelv to the remarks fallen from the hon. gentlemen who have participated in this debate, and I may say that, out of sympathy for the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin), the mover of this resolution, I am very sorry not to be able to support him.
In principle I am in favour of making not only the salaries garnisheeable, but, in fact, everything that belongs to the debtor. I have no sympathy with those laws passed by the provincial legislatures exempting from garnishment a portion of the wages of the workingmen. Those laws, I believe, have defeated the purpose for which they were framed. They have done the working classes more harm than good. I. for one. am a believer in the great principle grounded on equity and justice, in virtue of which the property and goods of the debtor are held as a common pledge by the creditors. Now, if a way could be found out of this trouble,

and if it were possible to apply that old principle to government officials, I would be the first man to approve of such a reform. But, sir, I doubt whether such legislation is within the jurisdiction of this parliament and whether we can pass such a measure without infringing the constitution which governs us.


Mr.   I@: Hear, hear.


Mr. DUGAS.: (Translation.) To prove what I say. i need only refer to clauses 91 and 92 of the Union Act of 1867.
Clause 91 deals with the distribution of legislative powers, and enacts in connection with the powers of this parliament that the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects therein mentioned and subsection 8 enacts :
The fixing and providing for the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the government of Canada.
The jurisdiction of this parliament, therefore, does not extend beyond fixing and providing for the salaries and allowances of the government officials.
I do not see here anything that enables this House to pass an Act to garnishee the salaries of the servants of the Dominion government.
Section 92 of the Union Act deals with the powers of provincial legislatures, and enacts that in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects therein enumerated, and among other matters, ' property and, civil rights in the province ' (subsection 13, section 92.) Therefore, under the constitution, this parliament is not empowered to pass a law to enable the 'salaries of civil servants to be garnisheed. Under the Union Act quoted, such a matter is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament, the legislatures having exclusively the right of making laws in relation to such matter. Therefore in passing such a legislation, we would be encroaching upon provincial autonomy. Moreover, how could such a law be enforced ? I see no way out of this difficulty. The judgments of the courts of the various provinces can only be executed within the limits of tlxe province in which they have been rendered, and exclusively as to the goods and property situate within such province.
The province of Ontario would be the only province Which would reap any benefit from the proposed legislation. The seat of this government being in the province of Ontario, no other orders but those issued by the Ontario courts could reach the government officials.
Now, if in addition to what I have said, we remember this old axiom of the English law, that " The Crown cannot be a "garnishee," the only conclusion that can be come to is that the proposition of the hon. member for Laval cannot be accepted.


François Octave Dugas: The hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) stated, a little while ago, that under section 91 of the Union Act of 1867, this parliament is empowered to enact such a legislation as the one embodied in the proposition of the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin). Surely the hon. gentleman was not in earnest when putting such a construction upon subsection 8. This subsection merely says that this parliament is empowered to deal with the fixing and providing for the salaries and allowances of the officers of the government of Canada ; that is all. This does not imply the rigfit for this parliament to pass a law to enable the salaries of government officers to be garnisheed.
For these reasons, although in principle I am in favour of making the salaries of public employees and the wages of workingmen liable to seizure, and in spite of all esteem and respect I profess for my hon. friend from Laval, I feel in duty bound to vote against the resolution, because such a legislation as the one proposed would be unconstitutional.


Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, I should not have thought it necessary to take part in the discussion this afternoon but for the fact that when the subject came before the House on a previous occasion I deemed it to be my duty to oppose the Bill in which the proposal was then embodied, because I thought that the power of this parliament to deal with the subject was extremely doubtful, to say the least. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) agreed with me on that occasion in opposing the Bill ; but as the matter is now brought before the House, not in the form of a Bill, which there might be doubt about our power to pass, but in the form of a resolution merely expressing the opinion of the House that the salaries of civil servants should be attachable for the payment of their debts like the salaries of all other classes of the community, I thought we should have the support of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries for this proposal. But it seems that when a Bill is introduced on this subject, it is wrong ; and when a resolution is brought, it is wrong and should have been in the form of a bill. So it seems whichever way we go, we cannot fail to go wrong. The reason I expressed some doubt as to the legislative power of this parliament to deal with the question was that I thought a mistake had been made in the decisions of some of our courts as to the legislative authority of this parliament, notably in the case referred to, that of Le-prohon against the city of Ottawa, where a claim was made on the part of the city authorities to tax a Dominion official in respect of his income. I think it is very important that this matter should be settled, as that decision was closely relevant to the question then before the House and now before the House. I would like very
much if an opportunity could be given to have that question decided in such a way that we might ascertain whether there is to be any privileged class in the community. The reason I objected to the Bill two or three years ago was that it proposed to segregate the civil servants of the Dominion from all other classes by legislating against them in an exceptional way. I think that is wrong ; but I also think it is wrong that Dominion officials or officials of any kind should enjoy privileges and advantages that are not accorded to other people. 1 do not think public officials should be placed in an exceptional position, either adverse or favourable. Places in the public service are very eagerly sought after, as every member of parliament, on this side pf the House at any rate, knows, and X think they should stand on the same footing as any other classes in the community. For that reason, I thought it was desirable that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, I think it was, which seemed to place them in a different position from other classes of the community, should be reviewed. I thought, if it be not presumptuous to say so, that that decision was erroneous, because it seemed to be founded on an entirely false analogy. There was a judgment given a long time ago by Chief Justice Marshall in the United States Supreme Court with reference to the position of officers of the Federal government, and that decision, which was applied by the Ontario Court of Appeal to this class of appointments, was to the effect that if the state legislatures were allowed to tax the salaries of officials of the Federal government, the result might be that the States would have power to destroy an arm of the Federal government. If that was the case, then I presume that was a very proper decision to make, at any rate on political grounds, on which a great many of the judgments of the United States Supreme Court have been founded ; and it was a good judgment, because that was not a desirable condition of things, and was not contemplated by the founders of the Union. That is right enough for the people south of the line ; but my impression is that it has no application to us in Canada, because the Federal government here has a method of protecting itself which the Federal government in the United States has not, and therefore it it not necessary to invoke under our constitution any such principle of safety which might properly be invoked under the constitution of the United States. In Canada, if any legislation is passed by the provincial authorities which, although apparently within the constitutional authority of the provincial legislature, might have the effect of crippling the Dominion service, the Dominion government always has a right to effect a virtual veto of that legislation and to prevent it going into effect. The power of disallowance which we have in our constitution, I think, makes that class of decisions south of the line inapplicable to our conditions north of the line. It was on grounds of necessity that Chief Justice Marshall gave the judgment he did in that matter, and that judgment was the foundation of the decision given here in the case of Leprohon against the city of Ottawa. That political necessity does not exist with us and consequently there is not analogy between that case and our situation. Our provincial legislatures have the right to order a debtor -whether he is a civil servant of the Dominion or not-to pay a certain amount in proportion to his income, and following out that principle I am inclined to think that a provincial legislature would have authority to legislate with reference to this particular subject.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: How could a provincial legislature enact a law which would make the government of Canada a party to a suit ?


Benjamin Russell: I was about to refer to that difficulty. If, acting within its legislative authority, the Dominion parliament chooses to pass a Federal Act, that, of course, would override the provisions of any provincial Act. In Nova Scotia, a debtor-whether civil servant or not-may be interrogated as to his means of paying his debts, and the courts have power to order him to pay so much per month or per week. If our provincial courts can make such an order as that, I do not see why they have not the right to take into consideration the fact that the person against whom the order is made is the recipient of a large income from the Federal government, and make an order based on his income. But I understand that there are some decisions in Ontario to the effect that the courts of that province cannot do that.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: We can do that in Ontario.


Benjamin Russell: I think that is a good system. As to the abstract proposition that these salaries should be made attachable, by whatever legislature has the power, I do not see why there should be any doubt on that point. I do not see why civil servants should not be placed on the same footing as everybody else.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: There is a very general opinion in the country that some Dominion employees cannot be compelled to pay their debts. In this province, I believe, such employees can be brought before the courts and interrogated as to their means and then condemned to pay a certain amount out of their salaries per week or per month, as the case may be. And any civil servant who fails to comply with such an order is guilty of contempt of court and can be sent to jail.

In the province of Quebec, not many years ago, the wages of workingmen were seiz-able to the full amount, but one of our Liberal members from the city of Montreal' managed, after some difficulty, to have the law amended in the local legislature by providing that only one-quarter of the salary of a workingman is seizable, and in such a case the seizure can be made continuous. That was satisfactory to some extent to the creditor, but has worked unfortunately for the debtor. It has enabled creditors to take out suits, pile up costs, turn a man out of employment first, and out of his home afterwards.
With regard to the resolution before the House, I do not think that the government should be placed on exactly the same footing as the Canadian Pacific Railway or other great corporations, but none the less, after the expression of opinion we have had in this House, some measure should be devised for subjecting civil servants to the same obligations as other people, and in doing that, I believe that the government will be acting in the interests of the civil servants themselves. One employee of this government told me it would be an excellent thing for the service if the salaries were seizable, as it would enable a certain number of them, who are residing in other parts of the country, to obtain credit, which now they are unable to obtain without having to resort to that class of moneylenders known as money sharks.


Mr.  T. O.@: DAVIS (Saskatchewan), I do not propose to give a silent vote on a question of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


Mr. DAVIS.: I did not hear what the hon. gentleman said. I was just going to say that I must agree with the principle of this resolution, I do not see why civil servants should be exempt any more than other people. They are a well paid class; their salaries, as a rule, are better than those paid to persons in commercial employment. And, as an hon. gentleman suggests to me, they are paid better than members of parliament are paid for their time, and I do not know of any legislation that protects a member of parliament from the necessity of paying his debts. In the North-west Territories, we have had a great deal of trouble on account of these officials. Officers of the government who are paid large salaries seem to get the idea that they can run in debt here and there and cannot be called upon to pay. But I contend that their creditors should be in a position to levy on their salaries to get their accounts paid. The question came up in the legislature of the North-west Territories and was discussed at considerable length. The government of the Territories notified the members of the House that if they would not push the resolution to a vote, they Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
would undertake to see that all the officers in the employ of the North-west Territories government should pay their debts or would dismiss them from the service. If the Federal government would take a similar position, it would meet the difficulty I believe. I do not know how many provinces have adopted this principle, except the province of Manitoba

An. hon. MEMBER. And Quebec.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I was not aware that Quebec had also adopted it. I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) said that in Manitoba the government had taken the same position as the government of the North-west Territories-that is, if an officer of the government would not pay his debts, they would dismiss him. Whether the other provinces have adopted it or not, I think this is a proper principle.
If the Federal government are not prepared to make a statement like that made by the government of the North-west Territories and Manitoba, I think legislation should be allowed to go through, and I think we might expect in the future-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I think the hon. gentleman will have to wait awhile for the question. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not see why the civil servants should be exempt any more than other classes of the community.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Canadian Patriotic Fund Association.-Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan.
Bill (No. 21) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Prior.
Bill (No. 40) respecting the British Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 49) respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Fort Qu'Ap-pelle Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the Arn-prior and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Algoma Central Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.'-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 85) to incorporate the Alberta Central Railway Company-Mr. Oliver.

Bill (No. 86) respecting the Trans-Canada Railway Company-Mr. Malouin.
Bill (No. 87) to amalgamate the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company, the Winnipeg Transfer Railway Company (Limited), the Portage and North-western Railway Company and the Waskada and North-eastern Railway Company under the name of the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 88) to incorporate the Canadian Nurses Association.-Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Dominion Burglary Guarantee Company (Limited).-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 95) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Dyment.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 33) respecting Victoria Day.-Mr. Horsey.
On section 1,
Mr. SPROULE.: I notice that the ministers have been holding a caucus over there for some time and that the House is not proceeding with the business. When the caucus is over I have a few questions to ask.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I was having a conversation with my hon. friend (Mr. Horsey). When the Bill was introduced the Prime Minister suggested that perhaps the phraseology might be amended to bring it into conformity with the Interpretation Act. The Solicitor General has prepared an amendment to meet that point, and we were discussing \#ith the promoter of the Bill as to whether he would accept that amendment, or whether he would require time to consider it. The proposition of the Solicitor General is to add a paragraph to section 7 of the Interpretation Act by inserting after the word Sovereign the word [DOT] Victoria Day,' and to make this apply to the Bills of Exchange Act. Of course that is a matter which involves some commercial considerations, as to whether this is to be a legal holiday in the sense of making it a public holiday for the government offices, or whether the banks are to be closed and so on. That is a matter of some moment. We are all agreed upon the principle of the Bill, but time might be taken to discuss these other points.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was about to ask if the Bill would affect the banks, or contracts made by individuals.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the suggestion of the Solicitor General were adopted it would be made a bank holiday. My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Horsey) thinks he had better have time to consider it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then had you not better
move that the committee rise 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Very well, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In the absence of Mr. Stephens,
I beg to move that Bill (No. 77) to amend the Railway Act be read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that said Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways and Canals.
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Mr. Speaker, there is a very thin House, and I understand that it is not the desire of either side to continue this evening ; therefore I move that the House do now adjourn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before this motion is adopted, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if the government has come to any decision in regard to the Easter adjournment. Many members on this side of the House are anxious to know the extent of that adjournment.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I believe the intention is to adjourn on Thursday evening at six o'clock until the following Tuesday at three, unless there is a very strong expression of the House to the contrary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 8.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 28, 1901.