Mr. REID:

Every year.

Mr. HARRISON:

The employees paid $167,000 last year. Is it fair that a man who has been contributing to that fund for

twenty, twenty-five or thirty years, should get no benefit from it?

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

He will.

Mr. HARRISON:

In what way? He has to choose between the Compensation Act and the Provident Fund Act.

60.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

Let me read this section of the Provident Fund Act with which the hon. member may not be familiar:

The following classes of persons shall, upon the recommendation of the Board and the approval of the minister, but subject to this Act and to the rules and regulations of the Board, upon being retired by the minister from service, be entitled for the remainder of their lives to monthly allowances as provided for in this Act:-

Class A. Those who have attained the age of seventy years after being fifteen years in the service;

Class B. Those who, after being fifteen years in the service, become physically or mentally incapacitated from following their usual occupation in the service;

Class C. Those who have attained the age of sixty years after being fifteen years in the service, and request to be retired from the service ;

. Class D. Those who are permanently disabled from following their usual occupation in the service as a result of injuries received while on duty and actually at work in the service.

Class E. Those who, previous to the coming into force of this Act, entered the service at such an advanced age as to cause them to reach the age of seventy years before being fifteen years in the service; provided that on attaining the age of seventy years they have been at least ten years in the service.

The proposed Bill does not destroy the rights of members of the Provident Fund. All contributors to the Provident Fund are entitled to receive relief under classes A, B, O and E, in any event. An employee may avail himself of his rights under class D, and he would do that only when it would be more favourable than would be the provisions of the proposed Bill.

Mr. HARRISON:

He has the privilege of

choosing whether he will come under the Provident Fund Act or the Gompensation Act.

Mr. REID:

This Bill really applies only when an employee has been permanently disabled and goes out of the service or when an employee has been killed. Otherwise, he has the other benefits of the Provident Fund.

Mr. HARRISON:

On some parts of the Grand Trunk system they are paying exactly along this line.

Mr. REID (Grenville):

I do not know that.

Mr. HARRISON:

I think that is the case. Of course, I have not gone into this (question very thoroughly, but it seems there is an opportunity here for an employee to be a loser.

Mr. REID:

I disagree with the hon. member. I have not hadl any such complaint from the employees, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that if there were anything defective in the measure, or if the employees were not receiving their just rights, the matter would be brought to my attention and would, of course, receive consideration. I want to emphasize that fact. I do not want it to go abroad that I am trying to interfere with the rights of the employees. Under the Provident Fund they have and will continue to have benefits, but this Bill improves the condition of the employees very much and they are satisfied.

Mr. McMASTER:

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

How could the hon. member work out his suggestion? I understand him to say that the injured employee should receive some portion of the money he has paid into the Provident Fund, which money would be applicable to those who are entitled to compensation under class D. This does not take away the rights of the employees to compensation under the other classes, A, B, C and E, and it would be very difficult to determine what a man would be entitled to for injuries under the Provident Fund, even if he were permitted to draw compensation from both sources. I do not see what the Minister of Railways can very well do in the matter to meet the suggestion of my hon. friend. There are only two contributors to this fund, the Government and the employee, and the Minister of Railways has had before him the employees in the person of the officials who administer the fund. They say to him that they are perfectly satisfied that any person permanently injured should not draw compensation from both sources. If any Act should be amended it should be the Provident Fund Act and not the one we are considering.

Mr. McMASTER:

That may be. I am not saying which should be amended, but I am drawing to the attention of the committee the flagrant injustice of what is proposed to be done. The minister has asked me how I would suggest the thing should be done.

I say that an actuary could easily calculate what proportion the Government had contributed toward the building up of the fund, and what proportion the men.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

But not how much was applicable to permanent injuries.

Mr. McMASTER:

I presume that could be established too, but I am not prepared to discuss that this afternoon. What I want to lay before the Committee is this: It is flagrantly unjust to make compensation under the provisions of the Compensation Act dependent upon a man's renunciation of his rights in a fund which his money has helped to build up.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

He does not renounce his claims upon the fund; he is only renouncing his rights in respect of a certain class of claim.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

I should like to see the employees get benefits from both the Provident Fund and the Compensation

Act. We must not forget that this legislation is brought down to better the condition of employees on the Intercolonial Railway. The minister says that the employees have been consulted in the drafting of this Bill, and further, that if it does not work out satisfactorily in practice, he is prepared to amend the Bill next year. I should like to see the Bill pass, even if it was only for the clause providing that, "for the future," dependents will be paid.

Mr. J. D. REID:

If my hon. friend's amendment was accepted, employees might be compelled to pay more into the Provident Fund, and I should not like to undertake that responsibility. After all, the employees are contributing towards these benefits, and I think the question raised by my hon. friend is of such importance that I do not care to accept his amendment before consulting the employees. But the very fact that it might compel the employees to contribute more seems to me sufficient justification for not accepting the amendment at this time. Surely, there cannot be anything fairer than that. All the employees will read this discussion and if they desire to pay more into the fund, the Act can be amended accordingly. This Act applies only to those who are permanently injured and out of the service, and to those who are killed. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member not to press his amendment.

Mr. JOSEPH READ:

I would suggest that as there is no great rush for thi3 Bill to be passed, .it shoo'd stand over for a week or possibly until after Easter to give the minister an opportunity of consulting with the employees. There is another point I wish to draw to his attention, and that is the definition of the word "employee." I notice there are a number of employees of the railway working at Port Borden who have not been paid according to the Mc-Adoo award. Are these men considered employees of the railway under this Bill?