Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps there is one simple matter that we could resolve, if we can't resolve the others, and that's the question of the representation of men on the committee that will manage the pension fund. Here we have a specific proposal that would naturally fall between clauses 6 and 7 of the bill. The idea would be to amend paragraph 25.1(2)(b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. The provision would read as follows:
(b) three persons appointed from among persons required to contribute to the Superannuation Account [...] who are nominated by the Canadian Mounted Police Members Association.
Things move forward slowly at the RCMP. I won't tell you about the jokes we defence lawyers made about the RCMP, who were on horses while others were in cars. Whatever the case may be, everything takes a long time at the RCMP, including this.
Ten years ago—so this goes back to the last millennium—the Supreme Court recognized that RCMP officers were entitled to their own professional organization and to choose it. Given their organization's particular role, however, police officers must not belong to an organization of public service employees. They've just received a trial judgment from the Superior Court of Ontario. The case has not yet been appealed, and the appeal deadline expires today. So the provisions should apply tomorrow. The Canadian Mounted Police Members Association, which corresponds to what the Supreme Court decided at the end of the last millennium, will therefore be present. I think everyone will agree that the employee representatives must sit on the committee that manages the retirement fund of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We could at least agree on that. As for the other provisions, that will take some time. If this decision is not appealed, I wonder whether you'll have an objection, Mr. Cape, to us adding this amendment to paragraph 25.1(2)(b) of the act next Thursday.
I'm going to take this opportunity to ask Mr. Delisle a question.
I thought that cadets weren't paid while training, for six months. Then my colleague and I understood that you were saying the contrary, that is to say that they were paid. Are they or are they not paid? I'm not an expert in labour law, even though I work in an office that worked in that field. I was a criminal lawyer. It seems to me you get a pension when you've contributed to a pension fund. Otherwise, you don't get one. That's why I understood that, if the cadets weren't paid, they weren't contributing to the fund. Could you clarify that point?