No, not exactly. It is not up to us, but rather up to the families and the courts to decide how the money will be distributed. The goal of the amendment is really to determine whether there is a connection between crimes and our duties, as parliamentarians. I was not talking about an amendment that would affect families.
To use your example, in the case of a member who serves for 10 years to 20 years, we see that, after 20 years, about $1 million is accumulated. That is a lot of money. Yes, the amount is lower than if a crime had not been committed, but I think it is reasonable and sufficient.
In my opinion, additional amounts for the family are not necessary.
Thank you.