Mr. INGRAM.

This feature is not included in this measure ?

No, there is no intention to do so.

Resolutions reported.

The salary of the registrar of the Exchequer Court is $2,000. But ever since his appointment he has been receiving annual increments of $25 and $50. The result is, hon. gentlemen will find in the estimates this year a vote which brings the salary up to $2,375. I thought it was better to fix the salary once and for all at what it is represented was intended to be the salary, rather than come back here every year or two for an increased vote.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Is he a barrister ? The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Yes.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Who is he ?

Mr. Audette. He came into the court when it was originally formed and has been there ever since. I think I can safely say that he has performed his duties with great satisfaction to the court.

Resolutions reported.

When this Bill was in committee before, sections 7 and 5 were reserved. Section 7 provides that if an officer is constrained ^ to leave the service before a period at which a pension may be granted to him. by reason of severe bodily infirmity through no fault of his own, and* in the discharge of a public duty, the Governor in Council may allow him a pension not exceeding three months pay for every two years service. Section 8 provides that the Governor in Council may grant a pension Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.

to the widow and children or any officer who, having completed twenty years service, was at the time of his death in the receipt of a pension. It was suggested at the time that with regard to widows of officers who had been disabled before the period of twenty years, it should be made compulsory upon the government to allow a pens'011- This is practically what is done by * . ilU;, ,The wording of it Is ' may ' instead ot shall. The reason why we have used tlie word, may ' is tlint there may be reasons why a pension shall not be given. But in every case where no such reasons exist it is expected that the widow will be entitled to the pension. With regard to section 5, it provides :

If any officer is constrained, from any jnfir-mity of body or mind, to quit the force before a period at which a pension might be granted to him, the Governor in Council may allow him a gratuity not exceeding one month's pay for each year of his service ; and if any such officer is so constrained to quit the service before such period by reason of severe bodily injury, received without his own fault, in the discharge of his public jluty, the Governor in Council may allow him a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay for every two years' service.

The point was made, I think by the hon. member for Toronto, that there was here an invidious distinction The Bill provided that if a man had been twenty years in the service then he may retire with his pension. He may be in comparatively good health, but having served the country twenty years, he is entitled to his pension.' It was suggested that if an officer, after twenty years of service, is in good health and is still entitled to his pension, why should we not do the same thing for an officer who lias been disabled in the service of the country before he has been twenty years* in the service. Well, this Bill provides for pensions to those who have served the country for long periods. The intention is that officers shall contribute to a fund, and it is expected that a fund will be created which will be self-supporting. But there may be cases where a man has not served twenty years, he may have served only nineteen years or ten years, and may be disabled in the performance of his duty, and then it may be said : Are you going to turn that man adrift and do nothing for him ? Why not provide for him ? The reason we do not provide for him in this way is because the Act is intended to give pensions for long service only. But I may say to the committee that those who have served the country and been disabled, are not turned adrift. Since 1885 we have always provided for cases of that kind. We have adopted in that respect the law which regulates the militia, a provision has been introduced in this Bill exactly like that which is found in the Militia Act. In 1885, an Order in Council was passed under the Militia Act to provide pensions for officers who have been disabled in the rebellion

of that year. In 1886, a similar Order in Council was passed adopting the same rule and the same rates of pension for officers of the mounted police who had been disabled during that rebellion. The Order in Council reads thus :

On the 19th of May, 1886, an Order in Council was passed providing that the members of the mounted police and Prince Albert volunteers who were wounded, and the families of those who were killed during the troubles in the North-west, be granted compensation in the same manner, and upon the same scale of gratuities and pensions as was provided for the active militia by the Order in Council of the 8th July, 1885.

Under this order is another order. We have every year in the estimates, including this year, taken an appropriation to cover all cases of disabilities occurring in the mounted police while in service. If members of the committee will look at the estimates of this year, page 37, item 108, they will find an appropriation of $2,510.03 to cover pensions payable in connection with the North-west rebellion of 1S85. They will find also, in the same item, appropriations of $109.50 and $182.50 for widows and children of members of the mounted police killed in the performance of their duty. Again on page 70, item 242, there is an appropriation of $2,000 as compensation to members of the North-west Mounted Police for Injuries received in the discharge of duty. At present, under these three heads, we have given pensions to members of the mounted police who have been killed and injured in the rebellion of 1885. We have sixteen pensions for which we ask appropriations this year as follow's :

Major Moore, loss of leg, pension, $800 ; Private Newitt, shot in leg, $91.25 ; Mrs. A. Anderson, son killed, $91,25 ; R. Middleton, son killed, $91.25 ; Mrs. M. A. Smith, son killed, $91.25 ; Private Pembrun, loss of arm, $109.50 ; P. W. H. Smart, father killed, $109.50: Sergeant Ward, shot through lungs, $328.50 ; Sergeant Fury, shot in chest, $219 ; Sergeant McRae, shot in leg, $164.25 ; Constable Pocock, lost part of foot, $83.95 ; Constable Loasby, shot in body, $S3.95 ; Special Constable Harpur, rheumatism, $219 ; Mrs. Burke, husband killed, $136.88.

Then w'e have in the estimates pensions to Mrs. Grundy* and Mrs. Colebrooke, names w'hich have not been forgotten, of men who lost their lives in the rebellion, and their widows receive pensions of $109 and $182. Then we have also a certain number of pensions to men w*ho have not been killed or injured but who have been disabled. Under such circumstances I think we had better leave the law as it is, because no wrong has been done so far, and it is found that in every case parliament, at the suggestion of the government, has provided for relief in the manner contemplated in that section. This is a reproduction of the law respecting pensions for the militia.

Mr. MONK.

In regard to sections 8 and 9 I would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that with these two sections, as they are to be read, even if the' applicant does not fall under the exceptions provided in section 9, it still remains absolutely optional with the government to grant him any pension at all. After he has completed twenty years of service as provided in section 8. and if he is on a retiring allowance and dies, the widow has no right to any pension nor the children to any compassionate allowance if the government do not choose to give any. In reference to the exceptions provided in section 9 there is a great deal of certainty, and under section 8 the widow and children are still dependent on the good-will of the government.

My hon. friend is in error as there is no intention to interpret the Act in such a harsh manner. This Rill is an exact reproduction of a similar Rill which was introduced last session and discussed at great length providing for pensions for the militia. We have taken it verbatim and it would not be advisable I think when these two Bills are intended to serve the same purpose that there should be a variation of the language even if the criticism of the hon. gentleman were well founded. My hon. friend knows that the word ' may ' is very often construed by the courts to mean ' shall.' That is what is intended here. I do not say that if I had had the drafting of this Bill it might not have been well to have amended it in the light suggested by my hon. friend, but finding a Bill exactly similar, to apply to another branch of the service, the militia, we thought it advisable not to vary the language, but to take it as it is, it being well understood that the widow of an officer under section 8 is entitled to a pension provided she does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned in section 9.

Mr. MONK.

The statute does not say so.

Well, I think we had better leave it alone.

Mr. OSLER.

Would a pension granted in the cases the right hon. gentleman has cited be about the same as a pension obtained in the usual manner under the Pension Act, or would it be larger or smaller 1

The pension of the w-idow which would come out of this fund would be much larger than any pension that has been granted in the usual manner.

Mr. SPROULE.

I notice in subsection (c) that if an officer marries after retirement he is not entitled to a pension, while subsection (e) reads :

In the case of an officer who is married after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and two,

if he was more than twenty-five years older than his wife.

That is a very odd provision.

Mr. BRODER.

While we are on this question I wish to refer to a matter which is not covered by this Bill, but I think there should be some provision made for it. There are instances of South Africa volunteers who have been disabled in action. I have a case in my own county, that of the blind Trooper Mulloy. It seems to me that a case of that kind should be considered by the government and I understood, last year, in reply to a question I asked, that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said that the matter would be considered.

Yes.