tion of the Committee.

He found, on turning to the report of the Northern Railway Select Committee, laid before the House last year, that a gentleman who was Deputy Minister of Justice, had not thought it unbecoming to act in a double capacity; and he desired to know from the hon. the Minister of Justice and also from the hon. member for South Bruce, whether a practice of this kind would now receive or had received, during their tenure of office, the sanction of the head of the Department. He found it stated in the report to which he had referred that, in July, 1868, an account was rendered by the then Deputy Minister of Justice for $500 for fees as parliamentary agent in prosecuting the Northern Railway Act of 1868. He need hardly remind the Committee how the Northern Railway Company was again and again an applicant for relief at the hands of the House; and this Act of 1868 was a measure of relief; it was a measure which required the independent action of the Government, and upon which the Crown should have had the most independent advice possible from its officers; and the Deputy Minister of Justice, although not absolutely at the head of the Department, must, as a practical lawyer, be consulted in connection with such a matter. He put it to the Committee whether anything could have been more unbecoming, more improper, or more indecent, than for a gentleman occupying that position to accept a salary from the Crown and fees at the same time from a private party with whom the Crown was, at that moment, not in litigation, but with whom it was necessary to deal in an independent capacity. He wanted to ask whether anything could be more demoralizing to a Department than that a Minister of the Crown should receive his salary on the one hand, and advise parties who had interests which might be antagonistic to those of the Crown and the public on the other hand? He desired to know whether such a practice as this was tolerated up to the present time? He found, in addition to this, that, in the year 1872, his hon. friend the member for East York (Mr. Metcalfe) had moved for certain returns connected

with the Administration of this Department; he moved for a return respecting sums of money paid to departmental clerks for extra writing or otherwise; for a return relating to the collection of money overdue on Ordnance Lands; and for a return of money paid for salaries, extra services and travelling expenses. The first and last-mentioned returns were brought down during the then current Session. There was no hesitation whatever shown as to informing the public concerning these matters; but the second return, relating to the collection of arrearages upon Ordnance Lands, was never brought down by the Government which was then in power. He did not know under what circumstances that return had made its appearance in the House five years afterwards, namely, during the Session of 1877; and it was published in the Sessional Papers of last year-No. 163, Vol. IX. This return showed that, in 1872, a circular to this effect was issued:

"DEPARTMENT of Justice,
“OTTAWA,

187.

"SIR,-I am desired by the AttorneyGeneral of Canada, to inform you that he has received instructions to institute proceedings forthwith against you at the instance of the Crown in the following respect :

"For the collection of $ as Ordnance of rent in arrear up to 30th April, 1872, on

side street, in the city of Ottawa. "The costs accrued up to this date are $2.50. I have to request that you will at once arrange the amount of your indebtedness of further costs by you. at this office, and thus save the incurring of

"To

I have the honour to be, Sir, "Your obedient servant, “H. BERNARD, Deputy Minister of Justice.

or other occupant of above lot, "Ottawa."

were most familiar with business of this description, that it was not customary to compel the payment of costs by a debtor where no legal proceedings were instituted; that even a Division Court attorney would not be entitled to charge unless process had been commenced; and yet he found that the Minister of Justice of Canada had not thought it beneath him to exact—he thought he might almost say extort-from those unfortunate persons sums generally amounting to $2.50 in each case, aggregating to the amount of $545.25. He found appended to this return the following statement:

"No sums of money were charged or received by the Deputy of the Minister of Justice or by any officer or clerk of the Department of Justice by way of costs on moneys overdue upon Ordnance Lands sold under authority, except officially; and the same were, together with the debts, collected, paid into the Bank of Montreal to the credit of the Attorney-General of Canada, who paid the debts collected to the Minister charged with the management of Ordnance Lands and retained the costs."

It would appear from this that a prima facie case, certainly, was made out to this effect: In the first place, that there was improper exaction of these costs from the debtors to the Crown; and, in the next place, that, in answer to the circular sent from the Department of Justice, signed by the Deputy Minister of Justice in his departmental and official capacity. costs were collected and paid, not into the public Treasury, but into the pocket of the Minister of Justice of the day. He should like to know from the hon. gentleman at the head of the Department, and from the hon. member for South Bruce, whether, during their tenure of office or that of their immediate predecessors, they had thought it becoming, or honest, or decent to use the Department of Justice for the collection of small debts, and to exact costs which they were not entitled to exact under any circumstances, and, having exacted them, to put the money into their own pockets? The third subject to which he wished to call attention arose out of a return which he took the liberty of moving for last year. He had already called attention to the Deputy Minister of Justice acting in a two-fold capacity

advising the Crown on the one hand, and applicants for relief from the Crown on the other. The third case was that of the Minister of Justice employing himself-acting in the double capacity of principal and agent. It

was

no secret that the right hon. member for Kingston had been for many years head of the well-known firm of Macdonald & Patton, of Toronto. There could be no doubt, he presumed, as to the qualifications of that firm and their ability to discharge any legal duties imposed upon them. He did not mean to imply that the members of that establishment were not men who, in their independent capacity as counsel, would not do justice to any client, but it must certainly be laid down as a principle that a man could not act on the one hand as the representative of the Crown so as properly to supervise the action of those acting for him, and on the other as a legal agent responsible to the Government. He found that something like thirty-seven suits had been entrusted to this firm, the instructions, in a number of these, having been specially given, no doubt, to Mr. James Patton, one of the partners, the whole firm, however, being responsible, professionally. Let the House consider what was the effect of such an arrangement. In the first place, they all knew what large powers were necessarily vested in a counsel retained in any case. When the Crown retained the services of a learned gentleman or private individuals retained such services, the counsel was able, to a great extent, to control the interests of his clients. The very nature of a lawyer's vocation was such that we were compelled to trust him, almost implicity, with any interests which we confided to his care. The old saying about a man who was his own lawyer having a fool for his client, was an illustration of the view taken of a legal gentleman's services. Now, however honourable this firm might have been, however assiduous, it was of immense importance that the Minister of Justice for Canada should know that they were doing their duty; he, as the chief legal adviser of the Government-not merely as a private individual-should be able to decide whether, under certain cir

cumstances, these gentlemen had, in their professional capacity, done that which was just and right. He should have the power,also,of supervising their costs; but the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Department of Justice at the time to which he referred was actually employing himself. He (Mr. Dymond) had no doubt the proceedings of the agents were always perfectly satisfactory to the principal, but the Crown had no guarantee, under these circumstances, that its interests were properly watched over and defended. So, again, with the question of costs. The Crown had no guarantee that the work was done at the lowest possible price; that, in satisfying this, that, or the other claim, full value was received-had no guarantee whether the person employed professionally in its behalf, was charging right or not. That, however, was a low view to take of the matter, and he would direct attention to the impropriety, the indecency of the head of a Department like the Minister of Justice, acting as the servant of the Crown; first, in an official, and then in an independent capacity. When they considered the character of the Civil Service, when they knew what a temptation there must be amongst a large number of those men to neglect their duties in order to add to their emoluments; when they reflected how important it was that the head of every Department should be able to exercise the utmost control and supervision over his staff, he asked whether there could have been anything more improper or indecent than such transactions as those to which he had called attention. He should like to know, from the hon. member at the head of the Department and his hon. friend from South Bruce, whether they approved of such proceedings, and whether they were permitted at the present day.

MR. LAFLAMME, in answer to the question put by his hon. friend, said that, as far as his experience went, no such practice had been common in his Department.

MR. BLAKE said that, on the occasion of his making arrangements for a new deputy, and when he proposed a

|

slight increase in the salary, which had been fixed at a minimum rate, it came to his knowledge that certain perquisites had been received by the former deputy. As he believed that to be a procedure calculated to be attended with public inconvenience, he arranged with the new officer that the practice should not be continued, and that he should not occupy any relations towards any individual or company involving the payment of any emolument; that his services should be entirely devoted to the Government, and that he should receive a salary therefor. From that time, he had no doubt the practice was discontinued and would not be resumed during his term of office. With reference to the second point mentioned by the hon. gentleman, the Ordnance fees, he might state that his attention directed by another member to a complaint regarding an exaction of that description which was proposed to be made. Finding that the complaint was well grounded, he directed that the practice should be discontinued, being of opinion that the procedure was one which ought not to be adopted. Finding also that a small fund had already been collected before his attention was directed to the matter, he obtained an Order in Council whereby it was either remitted back to the various persons who had made payments or placed to their credit. As far as the employment of the Deputy Minister of Justice was concerned, in suits which were entered by the Crown, he might state that no such proceeding as that complained of had ever been sanctioned under his administration.

was

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said he was glad this matter had been brought up at the present time, because it had been made the subject of discussion outside the House. He was obliged to the hon. gentleman for the warm interest he took in the Department of Justice, and the exceeding pleasure with which ho had assumed, for the nonce, the guardianship of that Department. It was a great pity the hon. gentleman was not a member of the legal profession, for then he might do so more efficiently. First of all, the hon gentleman had stated that the