As it stands, then, the court ruling indicated.... I don't know whether what you suggested was exactly correct; I think they said that the regulation that gave exclusive right to representation to the SSRs was unconstitutional, but that the government was given 18 months to change it. I think this may reflect on your proposal to change the representation side of it.
There is a technical question as to whether, in the process here, while we're examining this amendment, the committee can actually amend other sections of the act. I think we would have to leave that to the technical side. If we have a bill before us, I don't think we have free rein to propose amendments to other sections of the act, but maybe our technical people can help us on that. I understand the point that if representation on an advisory committee has been given to a group that has been declared by the Ontario court, at least, to be non-representative in a constitutional way, we may have to take that up, but I don't know that we can take it up here.
Can I ask the question—I've heard some answer to it in terms of the cadets—whether it is your concern, Mr. Delisle, that there may be an anomaly between current members and future members concerning cadet training? That seemed to me to be one aspect of it. Is there a possibility of a problem—and perhaps others can help us—that individuals who now may work or previously have worked for a municipal police force or a provincial police force face anomalies involving their training components, as to whether their training is considered as pensionable service? Is that a problem as well, or a possible problem?