Mr. LEMIEUX.

'X am quite aware of it.

Mr. 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.

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. 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.

1. Is the government aware that on an annual revenue of $344,158 the lapses of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Canada are of $5,695,372 ?

2. Has the actuary of the Insurance Department made inquiries as to this abnormal proportion of lapses ?

3. Is the government aware that the largest proportion of the business of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is carried on with the mechanics add the poor class of the population ?

4. Is there in the Insurance Department any information given by the life companies as to the reasons that are given to the heirs in order to make settlement at less than the face of the policies issued ?

5. Is the Insurance Department informed of the reasons why claims are resisted by life companies-more particularly in cases where this information is denied to the widows having claims against said companies ?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.

S. Fielding) :

1. Tlie government is aware that the lapses of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Canada for the year ended December 31, 1899, amounted to $5,635,372, and that the income of the company in Canada for the same year amounted to $344,158. The figures were published in the report of the superintendent of insurance for that year.

2. No special Inquiry has been made as to the proportion of lapses, but the returns made to the government show that the proportion of lapses is large.

3. The government is not informed as to the class or classes of the population insured hy the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, but is aware that the larger portion of the company's business in Canada is known as industrial insurance.

4. The superintendent of insurance is not aware that any attempts at settlement have been made at less than the face of the

policies issued. No complaints of this kind have been received at the department from policy-holders or others.

5. The department is not informed of the reasons why claims are resisted by life insurance companies.