Jacques BUREAU

BUREAU, The Hon. Jacques, P.C., K.C., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
Birth Date
July 9, 1860
Deceased Date
January 23, 1933
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Bureau
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=61c189fb-d551-49ed-82da-cc777b86b056&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
  • Solicitor General of Canada (February 14, 1907 - October 6, 1911)
February 28, 1907 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
  • Solicitor General of Canada (February 14, 1907 - October 6, 1911)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
  • Solicitor General of Canada (February 14, 1907 - October 6, 1911)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
  • Solicitor General of Canada (February 14, 1907 - October 6, 1911)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
December 6, 1921 - January 2, 1922
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
  • Minister of Customs and Excise (December 29, 1921 - September 4, 1925)
January 19, 1922 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Quebec)
  • Minister of Customs and Excise (December 29, 1921 - September 4, 1925)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1167 of 1167)


March 27, 1901

Mr. 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

Topic:   ATTACHMENT OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.
Full View Permalink

March 27, 1901

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.

Topic:   ATTACHMENT OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.
Full View Permalink