That's called rhetorical commentary.
I don't have any questioners on my list, so perhaps I could be indulged to simply ask our panel a question.
Under the first section, “Budgets for Members and House Officers”, I see an increase of about $3 million, which I understand from last week is the result of an increase in rental costs, the Bank of Canada's consumer price index, and extra ridings. Then I see as well, under “Salaries”, a salary adjustment for members of the House.
What I want to speak to, and it speaks to the point that Mr. Godin raised about our staff, is that I've been on the Hill now coming up to three years, Mr. Speaker, and I follow all the guidelines that are provided with respect to suggested staff salaries being in the range of 63% to 68% of your MOB, and so on. We're certainly doing that, but I have noticed that there seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what we pay our staff here on the Hill versus the private sector. I know some members can probably comment that they've lost staffers to the private sector because the pay is significantly higher for, in most cases, similar work.
I'm concerned that as the years go by, that discrepancy will increase, and at some point in time it may in fact cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money to simply catch up or to try to catch up to par with the private sector. I just wonder if you could explain how you go about determining what the members need in terms of paying their staff.
It goes to the issue of passports, which I would agree is perhaps a temporary issue, but all of our staff work very, very hard, and it's difficult to pay them. Could you comment as to whether there are any plans in place to try to decrease that growing gap in the short term?