-Liberal logic. You got it.
The minister also gets a say in the appointment of council members. In short, it appears that the new law commission will be an extension of the minister's and the department's staff. If it is simply an extension of the minister's and department's staff, why are we setting it up? Why not just give the justice department another $3 million and say to get on with the job? If that is what this whole process is all about, there certainly would have been a less expensive way than going through the whole business of coming up with this legislation. Why did he not ask for an extra $3 million from the Minister of Finance?
It is interesting that the former member for Edmonton-Strathcona on November 25, 1992 in talking about the old Law Reform Commission said: "It costs $4.9 million each year". I should point out that the Liberals always start low and aim high. They are only starting at $3 million right now. Who is to know where the cost of this commission is going to go? I come back to the member's comments: "It costs $4.9 million each year. It has five full time commissioners and"-believe it or not-"a staff of 36. That is a lot of staff and a lot of commissioners, and it costs a lot of money. It is my belief that in Canada we have created too many commissions, too many boards and in a certain way we have devalued Parliament".
What is really scary is that the situation of creating too many commissions and getting things out of the control of parliamentarians was started by the Liberals and the Conservatives attempted to terminate it in their feeble little way. Now that the Liberals are back, guess what? We have the re-creation of yet another commission. Terrific.
"I would rather see", the member said, and this reflects the comments of the member for Calgary North, "work of this nature done by parliamentary committees-. I say to my colleagues in response, we have had an independent agency that has done a lot of good work but it is time we ourselves did this work and brought some prestige back to Parliament. Let us not devalue Parliament by giving its role to outsiders".
Reflecting on the most recent legislation by this Liberal government, it does devalue the whole role of Parliament and parliamentarians. It just treats this place like a rubber stamp. When the Liberals are not getting their own way they simply bring in the pile driver of closure to make sure that it gets through, as witness the reintroduction of this piece of legislation.
The member said: "We can do that independent work. There is also a fiscal argument here. It is an expenditure of $5 million a year. We have had a deficit over the past years of roughly $30 billion a year,"-and of course it has gone up since then-"now $34.6 billion has to be borrowed. We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on that money each year".
In parenthesis I point out to all the Liberals present that their government, in the life of this government, will increase the annual interest charge on the debt that they have accumulated by $11 billion a year. It is an increase. That is only the difference between what the interest charge was when this government came in. When these people are kicked out of office in 1997, they will have added an annual interest charge of $11 billion a year to service the debt, yet they are perfectly prepared to spend another $3 million a year.
The member went on: "We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on the money each year. It is a vicious cycle. The government has to take a hard look at where we spend our money. Some of this work will be contracted out but there will be a net saving".
The point of my speech today very simply is that this government did not learn anything. The Liberals were booted out for a nine year period when there were people here who tinkered around the edges. They really did not get anything done but at least they understood that we cannot spend money we do not have. Those
people on the other side of the House to this day still do not understand that basic concept.
There was an interesting article in the November 21, 1995 Financial Post in which Deborah McCorkell-Hoy, director of the law reform division of the Department of Justice had some really interesting comments. I quote from the article:
When the commission was set up, McCorkell-Hoy said, everyone agreed that it should be as independent as possible, but it "needs to be tied to the needs of Canadians".
To put that into effect, the bill creates a 25 member advisory council "to advise on the strategic direction of the commission and review its performance".
As well, specific reform projects will be monitored and advised by panels of expert specialists.
McCorkell-Hoy points out several areas that could attract business partners and funding:
Intellectual property and its relationship to new information technologies.
Biotechnology, a subject in which law reform "has tremendous implications for the economy of the country, and yet the law is unknown".
Well, of course, we are dealing with the Liberal government.
Federal financial regulatory mechanisms, especially in international commercial law.
Since the bill gives the commission a wide mandate to develop "new approaches to, and new concepts of, law", it's not inconceivable that other federal areas such as taxation, corporate law, labour law, unemployment insurance or immigration could be research targets.
Right there, in the words of this official from the justice department, we have a very clear and very specific indication that this bill is being set up to reward the government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is what it is all about. It is a make work project.