March 2, 1911 (11th Parliament, 3rd Session)


Frank Broadstreet Carvell



I wish rto heartily endorse the sentiment just expressed by my hon. friend from Portage, who has, to my mind, covered the whole range of this question, and I congratulate my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beaupariant) for bringing this matter up. The Minister of Justice has argued in his usually careful and lucid manner, but I fear the Minister of Justice is arguing from the standpoint of a lawyer, who wants to maintain his case on account of the precedents. There is no doubt of the force of the arguments in the decision of Baron Parke quoted, but that does not make it irrevocable. I cannot understand why a civil 'Servant should not be placed in exactly the same position as any other labourer, or servant or employee. He is as well paid, if not better paid than other men doing similar work for outside employers. He may be under one disadvantage, in that- he is a member of a class and has not the chance for advances in salary that he would have in a big corporation or employment in the ordinary business of the country. I do not believe to any great extent in the doctrine of the right of the creditor .to garnishee the wages of any man. I believe it is against the best interests of the civil servant himself to know that he is subject to this exemption. It may be that he and his family are anxious to shine in social circles, . and his security from having his salary attached, I believe, may cause him to run into excesses that he would not otherwise indulge in, and this may have placed'many of these people in the unfortunate position in which they find themselves. I believe this should be changed, and that if you put the civil servant exactly on a parity with every other labouring man or man working for a salary in the different provinces, and made him entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities with reference to garnishment, it would be to his advantage.

Full View