Yes, that would result in an overall reduction in numbers. For example, we just took over the Perth Police Service two weekends ago. Thirteen officers and one civilian came over. The chief chose to retire and move on. We didn't need the chief. As far as the radio room that they had was concerned, unfortunately, those civilians lost their jobs because we have a radio room here and we can handle the calls that they would normally have with that one part-time person. That is not a slam at a police department or the personnel at all, but we offer economies of scale. We have a training officer, so we didn't need one. We have it internally—whatever—so we can absorb and absorb. Sometimes we have to add extra people, but we get that money back from the municipalities through contract policing agreements. There's way more efficiency there.
In Ontario, we once had 170 or 180 police departments, years ago, so over time that has happened, but it's been painful. I understand the dilemma the police leaders, who have the potential of losing their departments, have, as well as the elected officials. But Dale McFee's point is that we have to lead these communities through this change. It's inevitable. So to keep fighting it and fighting it and fighting it—and I can sympathize with their positions—isn't necessarily leadership. Leadership should be doing the best for the community we serve. And what is that?