Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for his question.
In January 2001, when we adopted the principle of linking the salaries of MPs and judges, the consensus was that the Prime Minister should earn as much as the highest official he appoints, namely the chief justice.
I do not want to get into mathematical formulae because, first, math is not my strong suit and second, I do not want to confuse the public. However, if, based on the industrial index that will serve as the reference for Bill C-30, this results in a maximum increase of 8% for the next four years instead of 10.8% spread over the same period, this means that at the end of that four-year period, starting in 2005-06, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada will earn more than the Prime Minister.
This violates the principle. This means that, ultimately, the Prime Minister will earn less than the highest official he appoints. I am not defending the Prime Minister and his salary increases. He has no need of his salary. With all the perks he gets, he does not need his salary.
However, this is about the principle and we fight for principles. After four years, the chief justice will earn more than the Prime Minister and that makes no sense.