Mr. Chair, while I think I understand the intention of the mover of this amendment, I do have concerns. I won't be supporting this amendment because these types of remuneration levels are not usually set in legislation, as has been said. I think the argument that the government could then use this as a mode of intimidation is frankly a stretch, to say the least, because when someone is hired for the position, they are hired knowing the details of the contract, and so on. To suggest that if the PBO had an opinion that the government didn't like, they would then cut their expenses or cut their salary, this amendment would not deal with those types of issues. That would be an issue for Parliament to take on.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any time when specific salaries have been set in legislation, especially at the official level, at arm's-length from politicians. As for judges, the rationale behind establishing judicial salaries is to ensure there is not undue influence from outside members. Also, the Senate salaries are fixed in legislation to keep a balance between parliamentarians and the Senate. That was established to keep those levels, but they're based on ranges, as was said earlier.
I can't support this amendment, because the rationale behind it is not quite there. I don't think the justification to break away from the norm has been made well enough, with all due respect to my colleague.