It's insulting to our members and insulting to individuals such as Michel, because his credibility and objectivity are in question; I guess he's just doing this to assist us in getting a raise.
But beyond that, I guess what you're referring to is that when the comments about the cost were made...and don't get us wrong; we've mentioned that we have a lot of concern here. We also question where the numbers are drawn from. We are trying to...and I hope you will have more success than we did. I certainly invite you to try to get a breakdown and try to get a sense of how the numbers that are being suggested as costs are arrived at.
It went from $1 billion to $780 million, so I guess it's going in the right direction. But if you take that figure and you divide it by the 4,800 officers who are to be armed, you'll come up with a figure of $167,000 per officer. It's just mind-boggling how you get into that range.
When the $1-billion figure was thrown out initially, we contacted Mr. Holland's office. The response we got back was that Mr. Holland was not in opposition to arming, Mr. Holland was very concerned with the cost. So it was certainly refreshing for us to receive that type of information from the office of the then Liberal critic, and we're certainly prepared to share that piece of communication with anybody who wants to see it.
I guess that was your question...?