I would ask the hon. gentleman to let that stand, in the absence of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), because we cannot find any such contract.

Hon. Mr. MULOCK.

Mr. SPROULE.

Am I correct in understanding that under this Act a member of the force will be able to have the superannuation part of the Civil Service Act applied to him as well as the pension, and that he will have the superannuation allowance in the event of being retired after 30 years, as well as the pension ?

No. There is a disposition at the end of the Act which makes it incumbent upon him to elect whether lie will remain under the Superannuation Act or come under this Act. He cannot have the two.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I am sorry I was not in the House when the resolutions were adopted on which this Bill was founded. Would the right hon. gentleman state what difference this makes in the law at present in force ?

At present, officers of the force are subject to the provisions of the Superannuation Act. They can be superannuated in the same way as an officer of the civil service. They contribute a certain abatement, 3 per cent or 2 per cent, I forget which. Under this Act the abatement they will pay into the treasury, instead of being 2 or 3 per cent, is 5 per cent. The rate of pension is not very much different, but there is one great advantage, and it is this, that under this Act widows and children are entitled to pensions, whereas under the Act heretofore in force widows and children were not entitled to anything. That is the chief advantage we desired to give to the officers of the police force over the present Act.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

There is no objection to the extension of the Act, I think perhaps it is perfectly right. But here is

another principle that has gone to the winds. We have not only the principle of pension and superannuation applied to parties who have served their country faithfully for a number of years, but we have that principle now extended, notwithstanding the opposition of many supporters of the right hon. gentleman. I do not know whether he himself ever voiced their opinions, but a great many of his supporters have opposed the principle of pensions and superannuation altogether.

I do not think I ever sajd a word on that subject; in fact,

I am quite sure I never did. Moreover it is a growing time and if there is a class of officers in the service of the government who are entitled to be dealt with by the government as fairly and justly as possible,

I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is the officers of the mounted police.

Mr. SPROULE.

I think it would be interesting to know how this Act will fare when it goes to the upper House and meets with our old friend McMullen.

I hope the curiosity of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will be gratified.

Mr. OLIVER.

May I ask as to the interpretation of the word ' may ' in the third line of subsection 6 of section 3 ?

The interpretation of the word ' may ' is explained in the way I stated a moment ago. At the present time an officer of the force is subject to the Superannuation Act. He will have to elect whether he shall remain under the provisions of the present Superannuation Act or whether he shall be subject to the provisions of this Act, and of course, if he elects to come under the provisions of this Act, then, he comes under the disposition of this Act and the provisions we make in subsection 2 of section 4 will apply from the time lie has served, and the pension he is paid shall be an abatement or deduction of his pension. I hope 1 have made myself understood by my hon. friend.

Mr. OLIVER.

I do not follow the details exactly, but the point I wanted cleared was whether the use of the word ' may ' was to express the privilege on the part of the authorities to extend a pension to a man who had served as a non-commissioned officer or a constable, or whether it will be compulsory.

If the man elects to come under this Act it is compulsory.

On section 4,

Mr. SrROULE. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he has made any

calculation to ascertain whether this will be adequate to meet the requirements of the fund, or if not to what extent ?

I suppose my hon. friend means to ask whether or not a calculation has been made ?

Mr. SPROULE.

Yes.