I should like to say a few words on the amendment. The mover and the seconder have not included the service of students and gentleman cadets at the Royal Military College or the students attending Royal Roads. The discussion yesterday was helpful and constructive, but I am a little bit surprised at the Secretary of State. If he reads Hansard of yesterday he will find that he has not gone far enough. It is not for me to press this point home; it is for him. In as kindly way as I can I want to say to the Secretary of State that this bill to amend the Militia Pension Act does not go far enough. If this amendment goes through in its present form I believe the minister will be discriminating against the cadets of the Royal Military College and Royal Roads. The minister has made one concession; I think he should go just a little further.
To explain my point let me say this. Royal Roads was not in existence prior to 1939, of course, but when a cadet of the Royal Military College joined the permanent forces, his services were accepted at once and without question. Take the case of a young man who served in the non-permanent forces, or in a C.O.T.C. He gave four yeans of service, which he would be allowed to count towards pension on the basis of one year for every two years he served. I believe any person who has been associated with the militia, anyone who has been a commanding officer, would prefer to have that cadet from the Royal Military College join his unit, after four years of training at that college, than any young man who had spent the same length of time in the non-permanent militia; and in saying that I do not wish to offend anyone who served in the militia.
I do not want to enlarge upon what has been said already, but as strongly as possible I am going to urge the government to go one step further. I believe they should let this matter stand in abeyance and bring in a further amendment inserting the words "Royal Military College and Royal Roads."
Subtopic: EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT TO CERTAIN GROUPS