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

Mr. FIELDING.

Mr. FIELDING.

Exports, the produce of Canada

to Great Britain, 1900 $96,562,875 00

Exports, the produce of Canada to Great Britain, 1899 85,114,555 00

Increase in 1900 $11,448,320 00

Exports, produce of Canada to

United States, 1900 $59,666,556 00

Exports, produce of Canada to United States, 1899 40,426,856 00

Increase in 1900 $19,239,700 00

Exports, Canadian Mines to all

countries, 1900 $24,580,266 00

Exports, Canadian mines to all countries, 1899 13,368,150 00

Increase In 1900 $11,212,116 00

Exports, Canadian fisheries, 1900.. $11,169,083 00 " " 1899.. 9,909,662 00

Increase In 1900 $ 1,259,421 00

Exports, Canadian forests, 1900... $29,663,668 00

" " 1899... 28,021,529 00

Increase in 1900 $ 1,642,139 00

Exports, animals and their produce, the produce of Canada,

1900 $56,148,807 OO

Exports, animals and their pro- .

duce, the produce of Canada,

1899 46,743,130 00

Increase in 1900 $ 9,405,677 00

Exports, agricultural products, the

produce of Canada, 1900 $27,516,609 00

Exports, agricultural products, the produce of Canada, 1899 22,952,915 00

Increase in 1900 $ 4,563,694 00

Exports, manufactures of Canada,

1900 $14,224,287 00

Exports, manufactures of Canada,

1899 11,706,707 00

Increase in 1900 $ 2,517,580 00

In view of the discussions which have occasionally taken place in the House with regard to the increase of the imports from Great Britain for home consumption, I have placed together the figures for a series of years :

1895 $31,131,737

1896 32,979,742

1897 29,412,188

1898 32,500,917

1899 37,060,123

1900 44,789,730

It will be observed, Sir, that the imports from Great Britain had been declining steadily when the policy of the present government, including the preferential tariff, was adopted. That decline was immediately arrested, and from that time on the imports from Great Britain began to increase, so that now, as compared with 1897, they show an increase to the extent of about 50 per cent.

I confess that I hardly know just how this increase of imports may be viewed by

some of our lion, friends opposite. Sometimes the criticism is that by our preferential tariff we have allowed goods to come in from Great Britain and have thereby injured our own manufactures.

Mr. FIELDING.

Mr. FIELDING.

eminent which we well knew they could not afford to yield to us. The true policy was to give to Great Britain this preference freely and openly, leaving the Imperial government and parliament to adopt that trade policy which in their judgment was best adapted to the interests of the English people. But, if this preference, which my hon. friends opposite desire to obtain, is ever to come, I beg them to accept my opinion, my assurance, which I give them in all sincerity, that they will never obtain it by the methods they have employed-that they will never obtain it by demands on the home government which are obnoxious to the great mass of the English people. We have much to hope from cultivating the good-will of the English people. I venture to say, as I have said before, that if the time ever comes when we are to receive that preference, we shall not receive it as the result of any huckstering or bargaining between England and the colonies, but as a result of the development of that Imperial sentiment which may override questions of political economy, and in the creation and development of that Imperial sentiment a large and important factor has been the British preferential tariff of the Canadian government.