Mr. OLIVER:

I presume that is why

my hon. friend insists on putting through the Military Voters' Bill and the War-Time Elections Bill.

Mr. OLIVER:

The item shows an increase of $24,000, which, I assume, is entirely in respect of pensions on account of disability during service in the home defence force. The size or extent of the home defence force, the circumstances under which it is maintained, and the kind of service it renders, are things which are not generally known." What are the circumstances that call for this extra payment of pensions? Is the scale of pensions in this case the same as that provided in the case of overseas service, or is it the old scale that prevailed some years ago?

Mr. OLIVER:

I do not insist upon that. Rut what I find strange is that in this home defence force there should be an increase in one year of $24,000 for pensions. The war has been going on for three years, and it is rather unaccountable that there should be a fourfold increase during the year.

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. OLIVER:

I have no personal knowledge of this case. The memorandum was sent to me through the mail, and I present it just as it came to me. The explanation given by the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) is an explanation which does not, to use a slang expression, "listen good" to the ordinary people of the country. The father of this child, whatever he was, gave his life for the country, and the country owes something to the child, at least that is the way the ordinary man looks at it. I want to assure the committee that the gentlemen who sent these representations are a committee of the prominent citizens of Edmonton, who have gathered together for the purpose of looking after such cases. It is not a partisan committee in any sense

of the word, and it has nothing to do with politics. They also mention the case of Mary L. Richmond, to which they refer as follows:

Oliver C. Richmond, the son of this woman, enlisted and went overseas, serving some time at the front, and was then invalided home and died some time after his return. It seems there is some difficulty in getting the pension for this mother, claiming that the hoy had a pre-disposition to tuberculosis, and that if he had not gone to the front he would not have died. The facts are, he went, came home and is dead, and there seems to be some finesse on the part of the doctors as to whether he really died because of exposure at the front or not. One doctor stated that there were latent conditions, which, to quote his own words, "were lit up by the strain of the soldier's service at the front." There is no doubt that this woman is entitled to a mother's pension for her son, who at the time of his enlistment was proceeding to his examinations in law and would have been a great support and help to her in years to come.

I have no doubt the Board of Pension Commissioners found reasons under the law for not granting the pension in this case, but assuming the facts to be as stated, and I have no reason to think otherwise, their action does not appeal to me-and I do not think it appeals to citizens generally- as a case of keeping faith with those who have rendered the most praiseworthy service to the country.