This is just to get a bit of clarification on that same issue we're discussing.
From the information I have, the RCMP have confirmed that all of their officers must apply to serve overseas, and so there is that element of choice and of not being compelled. If you were going to want to get away from the compulsion part, or the “no choice but to go”, you then include a whole series of different people. It wouldn't be just the police; there are others who may decide or choose, for whatever reason under the circumstances, to go, but it's entirely at their discretion, and they are fully aware of the circumstances and they would be aware of the length of time they would be away. So they make the decision on that basis.
Certainly it's not within the scope of this bill to go that wide.
I guess the essence, when we come to the bill itself, is to be sure that those who are deployed by way of imperative military requirement do not lose benefits or have them shortened because of the fact that they are deployed.
Would you agree with that, Mr. Beauséjour?
I'd like to pass my time on to Mr. Lobb, who may have a question.