Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address the House today on the issues raised by Bill C-245. I was pleased that the member for Fraser Valley West finally got around to talking about the bill in his speech toward the end.
I want to congratulate him because it is an important initiative to take a look at the budget and the budget process. As parliamentarians we absolutely want to do the best job we can in the formulation of the budget, to understand its contents and to know how we can logically discuss it, debate it and liaise with our constituents about its contents.
The issue of the the budget speech process and the degree and nature of consultation which goes into its preparation has been the subject of debate for many years in the House. Contrary to what my hon. friend across the way thinks, I believe the process that was used last year was better than the year before. It was more open and it allowed more Canadians to become involved.
The process that will be used in 1994-95 is going to be even more open. The all-member finance committee will be undertaking a series of consultations with the public in order to have their input before the budget is formulated and not after.
It surprises me when we have these debates and I listen to the Reform members when it comes to the matter of consultation. It does not seem to matter what we are discussing, whether it is the budget process, the social policy review, or whatever, I hear the same message: Do not consult, just do. Do not listen to the Canadian people. Just go out and do it. Ignore our constituents. Just go out and do it.
This is the party that about a year ago travelled through the country saying: "Our primary objective is to consult, to listen to our constituents". Yet every time the government suggests a way to consult it was opposed. It is very strange.
Basically this bill calls for two major ideas. The first one has to do with setting a specific date for the budget to be brought down. I will let others discuss that issue if they wish.
The more important part, and the one that the member did finally get around to talking about, is the suggestion that we have a third party assessment of the budget, that the Auditor General have a mandated role in the budget. I want to talk a little about that, about his concept that the Auditor General ought to be taking a look at the reasonableness of things. I have some concerns about that.