Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The outfall, the logical corollary, of Van Kesteren's and Mr. Jean's argument is that “Gosh, this democracy thing is really expensive. If we shut the thing down altogether, we could save a hell of a lot of money”—which would be entirely consistent with this government's approach to Parliament.
The reality is that we wouldn't be here at this hour tonight if the government had actually introduced a budget bill that was focused on fiscal measures—the budget—rather than on all kinds of other, unrelated areas.
When you have conservative commentators such as Andrew Coyne attack the government for its disrespect for democracy with these massive budget bills, these omnibus pieces of legislation, and when you look at the Prime Minister's statements on legislation that was not nearly as varied or as diverse....
I quote the Prime Minister from March 25, 1994, when he said: Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles. That was on a piece of legislation that was not as diverse in its effect or as disparate in the number of agencies, departments, pieces of legislation, and regulations affected.
Furthermore, this is from the same government that won't provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information on its government expenditures or cost and that was found in contempt of Parliament in the previous Parliament for its failure to provide to Parliament the costs of its legislation.
I couldn't help but notice that Mr. Van Kesteren waited to mention the changes to public service pensions until the public servants had left the room. The reality is that public servants are proud of their service to Canada—they choose public service—and there has been no government that takes as many gratuitous swipes on the floor of the House of Commons at public servants and the unions that represent them as this government.
Beyond that, Mr. Chair, they're also citizens. They are just as committed to democracy as any other citizens. I can tell you that those public servants—some of them are sitting here now, but those who were sitting here earlier tonight—are concerned about the lack of respect for democracy.
Again, on PRPPs, we believe.... I think Mr. Jean said it was another quiver in the arrow. I'm trying to understand that; I thought it was more like an arrow in the quiver. In any case, the reality is that it's a very small arrow and a fairly inaccessible quiver that only a few Canadians have access to. What we should be concerned about is the people who don't have access to adequate retirement savings. That's what we're not addressing.
Mr. Van Kesteren was talking about changes to OAS. First of all, OAS was sustainable before, on its current track. We got that information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and from the OECD and from Department of Finance figures. If it were not sustainable, there are ways to make it sustainable that would be progressive, and not by punishing low-income Canadians. Again, 40% are making less than $20,000 a year; 53% are making less than $25,000 a year.
Maybe we could address the issue of clawbacks, if it were not sustainable; maybe we should be making it more of a benefit for truly low-income Canadians and clawing it back at an earlier level. These are just some of the types of discussions we would have, if we faced a crisis.
But if it is not for sustainability, why is the government doing it? If you look at the measures now, Mr. Van Kesteren said the PRPP will help—