That's fair.
To address the points that were raised by Madame DeBellefeuille, my understanding is that what we're trying to evaluate here is the cost of the resources that were utilized in order to create this video and possibly distribute it by email, or however it was sent. That should be completely independent of any value that is placed on a particular office. We might hold offices to higher regard, and that's understandable and acceptable. However, I understand that the task we have been given is to determine what the value was for the production and distribution of this particular video and for sending it out.
I respectfully disagree with the position that I'm hearing from Madame DeBellefeuille on this, specifically because I don't think that we should be weighing the fact that it's the Speaker's office versus another office. The point is that we've come to the determination that particular resources should not have been used, and I don't think it should matter who was using the resources. What is important is that compensation is sought for the usage of those resources, and it shouldn't particularly matter who it was.
I think we should come to a conclusion. For the sake of precedent and following precedent, $500 makes the most sense. I realize that both $5,000 and $1,000 are within the range that was presented, so I'm not going to die on this hill, for lack of a better expression, but I think the precedent that has been set dictates this. If we go with Mr. Julian's suggestion of $1,000, I guess we're setting a new precedent in the event that this were to occur again, in which case, if that's what we're doing, then I understand it.
A voice: It's $228 to $1700.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Then both $500 and $1,000 are within the range.
I'm not in disagreement with the amount, but I just want to understand why we're departing from a precedent in order to create a new precedent.