Would that have any effect, Mr. Pollard, to include it?

Mr. Chairman, it would be redundant, simply because the 1.8 per cent increase did not apply to 24(1) anyway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's outside the legislation anyway. So, are you finished, Mr. Gargan?

Mr. Chairman, I guess most Members got a letter about some of the deductions that are going to affect the Members and staff. The Canada Pension plan for Members was raised by 2.6 per cent. The unemployment insurance premium for staff and Members was raised by 3.7 per cent. The superannuation doesn't affect us but we are getting increases in what we pay. I just wanted to say that for the record.

Last Friday, while I was watching the news, there was a report done for Parliament about MP salaries. The timing is all wrong but in the report, there was a request to increase MP salaries by up to 37 per cent because of the time they spend away from home. I wanted to let you know that. And they want to reduce the pension and double dipping. There is a lot of stuff happening at the local level about this.

For the record, I would like to say that Members up here spend a lot of time away from home. I've been a Member now for ten years, Mr. Chairman, and on the average, I've been away from home for six of those ten years. I'm not complaining about the salaries we get, but we're going to freeze everything while other jurisdictions are not doing that. I think the Ministers have taken a $5,000 cut in their salaries but no other jurisdictions have done that. We are trying to set an example, but I don't think that at the national level MPs care one way or the other what we do up here, but I think it is at our expense and at our families' expense. We have to make sacrifices as well as our families have to make sacrifices. It is not fair, you know. But, because we are pressured by the public, we sort of put ourselves in a situation where whatever we do is noble and right and where we do the public justice. But, what are we doing to ourselves as Members? Are we denying our families by doing what we are doing? It certainly sounds noble if you look at it from the public hearing you say that, but what are our families saying? We have mortgages, finances, loans that we have to pay off, and students that are going off to universities and colleges. Those all cost money, you know. Mr. Chairman, I am in a situation right now where I have to support my own children away from home. This doesn't help me one bit. Perhaps other Members have younger families that they really don't have to concern themselves about at this point in time. I want to tell the Members that putting on a freeze does have an effect on me as a Member. It does have an effect on my family, but I could live with it. I just have to tighten up my belt and live within my means, I guess.

---Laughter

But I thought I would make that point, Mr. Chairman, because I have a very difficult time doing what we are doing and thinking that maybe it is right for the public, but I certainly don't agree that it is right for me or my family. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. To this bill, which removes the 1.8 per cent cost of living increase from all MLAs' indemnities. That is really what the bill is. Before I recognize anybody else, do you have any response, Mr. Pollard, to Mr. Gargan's general comments?

No, Mr. Chairman. If I might, though, I would like to respond to Mr. Zoe. Mr. Zoe gave the impression that the Executive Council was driving this particular bill. I am the only Executive Council Member who sits on the Management and Services Board, and, certainly, we weren't driving it. This is coming from MSB, Mr. Chairman. Believe me, if I had been driving this bill, Mr. Chairman, there would have been a ten per cent roll-back in everybody's salary, not just a request to give up the 1.8 per cent increase this year. Madam Premier and I had discussed that and we didn't think that was attainable. So, if we had been driving it, it would have been a roll-back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick questions. According to Mr. Gargan, there were some other freezes that, according to Mr. Zoe, still come up to only $27,000 savings to the government. Is that with all the travel and everything else that will be frozen? Is that $27,000 the right amount?

Mr. Pollard, could you verify whether that figure is accurate or not with regard to the effect of this bill?

Mr. Chairman, there is certainty in $24,259.68 on those items that we can guarantee. For instance, we know how many MLAs there are and we know how much the basic indemnity is and so forth. What we can't predict is the amount of sitting days of committees and where those committees will sit, et cetera, so we would guesstimate some $50,000 overall, Mr. Chairman. The only certainty I can give you is the first number until we find out how many days committees will sit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that very small amount, I hope we are not seen by the public as hypocritical in trying to show the public that we are instituting

a freeze and making a big saving. I don't think that is the case. However, in the spirit of the thought, my question to the Minister is, are we doing this for the purpose of showing the union that we are serious about this and that we'll do the same thing if they will freeze their salaries, too, by the fall?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is the general perception across Canada that politicians are fat cats who live well. I think we must look at the amount of unemployed people across Canada who say, I could handle an $85,000, $100,000 or $50,000 a year job. We have seen this crusade across Canada towards politicians and the increases that we can vote ourselves. I think that there is some justification on behalf of people. In some jurisdictions, MLAs and MPs are well paid and taken care of well.

I admit that we work long hours and we spend a lot of time away from our families. I admit that we have odd hours and travel at a moment's notice, et cetera, but when you use that kind of argument, Mr. Chairman, the people on the street say you didn't have to run in the election anyway. You knew what you were doing when you signed on. I think there is not an MLA in this House or in any House across Canada who did not phone, first of all, to the Clerk or to the Legislative Assembly and say, what kind of a deal am I getting myself into? What are the conflicts of interest? What salaries are there? How do I get reimbursed, et cetera? So, I think it may not appear to be a lot of money, Mr. Chairman, but I think there is a message from constituents to elected Members that they don't want to see any more. It may appear to be a small dollar amount but, certainly, the intent is there. We are not going beyond what is there at the present time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the spirit or the intent is to show the union that we would like them to do the same thing by fall. If that is the case, then why not just direct MSB -- if bargaining is successful in a zero freeze -- to move that the MLAs' salaries will be frozen along the same line as what is attained at the collective bargaining in the fall?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Patterson was right when he said that we should not be negotiating a collective agreement with teachers, the UNW or any of our unions on the floor of this House, and for that reason, on this rare occasion, I would rather not comment on that suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is what I wanted to hear, because I do want to show the UNW that we are making a prejudgment as to what we want to do with them. I think that is wrong. It is very hard to think and understand to save $24,000, we are spending...I don't know how much it is costing us so far. If you take the Legislative Assembly staff and time, we are probably spending close to $14,000 to go...

Hear, hear.

I don't understand why this bill should be introduced if it is going to cost us more in the long run. I just wanted to tell the public by introducing this bill, we are not saving any money at all because we are already spending it.

However, I guess we have to show we are going to be saving $24,000, but don't be fooled that we are going to be saving any money.

My last comment is I will be supporting this bill, on the pretence that we are going to pretend to save some money. But I think in the future, we should let the public know if we are saving money, we should be introducing a bill. Qujannamiik.

Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. There were no questions there, but there were several comments. Next is Mr. Ballantyne.

Merci. When you are talking about salaries and benefits for MLAs or politicians, generally, it hits a raw nerve. Before I get into my own feelings about this particular bill, I want to put a few things on the record to put this into some perspective. One is what we have heard and will hear is comparisons between the salaries of MLAs and Ministers in the Northwest Territories with those in southern jurisdictions. But I want to make three observations about that specifically.

One is you are not comparing apples and apples. The salaries have to be discounted by the cost of living in the north, which is probably 25 to 50 per cent compared to southern jurisdictions. That is the first point people should keep in mind. The second point is we are the only jurisdiction, or one of the very few jurisdictions, that doesn't have a big tax-free component to our salaries. In other jurisdictions, they range from $15,000 to close to $30,000. The third criticism I have heard, and I have heard this in Yellowknife, is we are really not as serious a jurisdiction as others. Having been involved in this jurisdiction for many years, I don't buy that. The actual complexity of being a Legislative Assembly Member, Minister or Premier in the Northwest Territories exceeds, if it is not equal to, any other jurisdiction in the country.