Secondly, in response to Monsieur Paquette's question about the $140,000 reduction with regard to a former Prime Minister, it's my understanding that there is in fact a practice, under some kind of order or something, that when you have a former Prime Minister who's a sitting member of Parliament, there's an additional budget that is allotted to that MP for as long as that former Prime Minister continues to sit as an MP.
Does that mean that former prime ministers who are no longer members of Parliament receive no additional services by virtue of the fact that they were prime ministers? I'm thinking of the United States, for instance. A former President continues to have some kind of security detail provided to him or her. We have six former prime ministers who are not sitting MPs: Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, and Paul Martin. I'm assuming that if they don't have anything like that, it's because there have been experts who have evaluated the security risks that may exist to them and have determined that there is no risk beyond what an ordinary Canadian would have. Therefore there is no reason for additional services, whether on the security side or otherwise.