Mr. GRAHAM:

Last night the. Minister of Customs, who was leading the House, told us that if we reported this Bill it could stand for third reading until we ascertained if the Railway Bill was going through the Senate. If the Railway Bill is going through the Senate, there is no reason why we should give this Bill a third reading. If the Senate would just leave the Franchise Act where it is, and devote their attention to the Railway Bill, we might get that measure through.

Mr. REID:

I have received from Mr. J. W. Borden, Paymaster-General, the following memorandum on this item, which stood for explanation:

Ottawa, 18th September, 1917. The Honourable J. D. Reid,

Minister of Customs,

Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir:-

I am advised by Mr. Forsythe, Clerk of Estimates, that you require information in regard to an amount of $44,000 that was placed in the Main Estimates of 1917-18, to cover pensions payable to the militia men on active service, Northwest Rebellion, 1885, $14,000, and general, $30,000.

This may he explained by reference to pages P90 and P91 of the Auditor General's Report for the year 1915-16, from which it will bo seen for that year pensions for the Northwest Rebellion, 1885, were $13,581, and for miLitia pensions generally, $7,582.

The increased amount for the latter class of pensioners was estimated on account of the large number of militia men, who were on guard in Canada, and whose pensions would he payable out of this appropriation. There was no way to clearly estimate the amount, and it was thought that $30,000 would cover any possible pensions which might become payable.

Yours truly,

J. W. Borden,

A/A. & P.M.G.

Mr. OLIVER:

I did not know that there were pensions payable in respect of the Northwest Rebellion except for disability.

Mr. REID [DOT] Our Pensions Act has reference only to soldiers who have enlisted for service overseas. There are men who have been wounded or injured on home guard duty, and any pensions that are granted to these men appear in this item, and not under the regular pensions vote.

Mr. OLIVER:

I do not understand it at all. One part of the minister's explanation was that pensions to men who had served in the Northwest Rebellion and had suffered physical disability, not being covered by the regular pensions vote, required a special vote. That I can easily understand. But I do not recall that the amount of pensions in respect of physical disabilities incurred in connection with the Northwest Rebellion is nearly* so large an amount as this in the item. I do not understand my.hon. friend's reference to pensions payable because of home guard service. I do not object to the payment of pensions that we owe, but I should like to know what we are paying these pensions for.

Mr. REID:

There are two big pension items still to be discussed, and perhaps we could put this item through, and allow discussion on it to take place on either of the two other items, when the officials of the department will be here.

Mr. MACDONALD:

I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton that the House ought to know upon what terms these pensions are being paid. The essential basis of a claim to a pension in connection with the Northwest Rebellion or any other service is that physical disability should have been incurred. The minister speaks of a pension arrangement for the encouragement of men who have not volunteered for overseas service in the present war, hut have been employed on home service. The minister ought to tell us under what regulations these pensions are being paid. We have a Pensions Board, constituted after careful consideration by a committee of the House, which drafted the conditions, which were afterwards promulgated by an Order in Council, under which men who had gone overseas were entitled to a pension. If there is an Order in Council providing for the payment of pensions for home service, the House ought to know about it. I have not heard of it before.

Mr. REID:

As I understand it, men on home service are paid under the Militia Act.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Under the Militia

Act?

Mr. REID:

Under the Militia Act. This $20,000 was increased on account of so many more pensions that would be necessary because of the home guard. That was the explanation, as I supposed, but, as I stated a minute ago, we will probably 'be an hour or so on these pensions, and I will take the matter up with the officials, and be in a position to give full information in regard to it before we leave the subject.

Mr. (MACDONALD: I would like the

minister to obtain from his officials a list of those who are now receiving pensions in connection with the Northwest Rebellion, and also a copy of the conditions under which those pensions are paid. I would also like to get a statement of those who are receiving pensions on account of disabilities sustained in home service. I see no reason why there should be any such large amount as $30,000 provided for pensions for men who are on home service, because they are not engaged in any enterprise involving danger to life and limb. Any disability they might sustain would prohalbly be the result of accident. I think we should have some further information on the subject.

Mr. REID:

I do not agree with the hon. member fox Pictou that pensions should not he paid to those on home service.

Mr. MACDONALD:

I did not say that. I would simply like to know the conditions under which the minister is undertaking to pay them. I fancy there may be conditions under which, a man might get a pension, and I think those conditions should be before us so that the House and the country may know what they are. A man engaged in home service is not engaged in an enterprise that would endanger life or limb. It seems to me any pension granted to him would be as compensation, more or less, for accidental injury.

Mr. REID:

That is right. I will have the information for my hon. friend very shortly.

Pensions-European War, $8,000,000.

Mr. PROULX:

At the 'beginning of the session the Prime Minister told us that a Pensions Bill would he introduced. Has the Government abandoned its intention of doing this?

Mr. REID:

Yes. We are not going to pass a Pensions Act this session. The Pen-

sions Act will remain over until the meeting of the new Parliament. -

Mr. PROULX:

Will the regulations be changed or enlarged? There are certain regulations now governing the Board of Pensions Comimiasioiners, amid there are cases which are not met by those regulations. 1 had an instance of this in my constituency last summer, the case of a foster-parent. I brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister early in the session, and he -said a Pensions Bill would be brought down, and that it would go before a special committee, and that I might lay the case before that committee. Does the minister know whether it is the intention of the Government to change the regulations?

Mr. REID:

The regulations have been enforced by the Pensions Board up to the present time. I could not say whether it would become necessary to change them between now and the meeting of the next Parliament. They will not be changed unless there are some cases which really must he disposed of. No doubt cases will arise, such as the hon. member far Prescott (Mr. Proulx) has stated, that cannot be dealt with by the Pensions Board. The present Pensions Board has Ml charge of the enforcement of the pension regulations, which regulations were prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House last session. If there are oases which require the amending of the regulations, and .such change is recommended by the Board of Commissioners, of course the matter would be given every consideration.

Mr. NESBITT:

If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister stated a short time ago that he would not amend the Pensions Bill this year, but that the Government would pass an Order in Council increasing the pensions on a percentage basis. Will the minister tell us what the percentage was, and has the Order in Council been passed?