Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, the deletion of clause 25(1) refers to the $65 that is being paid to the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairmen of committee of the whole. That is not very much money, $65 a day, and if you look at the Speaker, the Speaker's salary has gone up, I believe, to the tune of about 200 per cent. Even with the cut, it is still a large increase. In the presiding officers' indemnities there is not that much of an increase, $65 a day, keeping that the same and not increasing it, I find this could be difficult because I know, Mr. Chairman. I have been the Deputy Speaker for the last eight years and it does not pay to be a presiding officer, as far as I am concerned. I think it is really unfair to the presiding officers, once we get them, to let them know that they have to put a cap on their honorariums, if you want to call it that, to keep them in the chair.
The other comment is with regard to section 26(2). This section refers to when you are serving on a special or standing committee and the honorarium for that is $190 a day. I only serve on two committees and whenever the opportunity arises for those people to meet that is the only time that the Members actually get paid that indemnity. A lot of meetings occur without the indemnities being paid. When you are in session, for example, the committees meet and the people do not get the extra for meeting in the evenings or before 9:00 a.m., because the day is filled with other agendas. The dedication is there to work outside normal working hours, and it is difficult for Members. I do not know whether restricting them from this is fair, when you have to travel to Yellowknife most of the time for committee meetings as opposed to going to other communities, but I would think it is fair.
The other one is with regard to section 28(1) where a Member gets a 90-day indemnity or else they get an indemnity when they start travelling between their residence and communities. It is either one, either you could delete the indemnity you pay Members when they leave their community. For example, I travel to Yellowknife in one day, a few hours, I do not benefit from this. But I certainly could feel that the Members from the Eastern Arctic are going to be put in a bad position if we start not paying them that part of the indemnity. I know accommodation is pretty high in the Eastern Arctic and some Members take as long as a week to get here. So not compensating them and having them pay out of their own pocket is unfair, as opposed to Members that live in the West. Most of the western Members could make it here in one day. So they do not have to make those kinds of sacrifices.
I think it is really unfair if we have to restrict Members from the Eastern Arctic by limiting their indemnities in that area. I think most of the sections being deleted have to do with travel and accommodation. Things are going up and so is everything else when you travel. Limiting those indemnities would probably limit your function as a Member. So I would hope the Members could support my amendment.
