The member will get a chance to speak if he likes later. I would appreciate it if he would be polite. When I heckle, at least I do it quickly.
As I was indicating, I am absolutely convinced my colleague really wants to try to use another institution so that he can try to discredit the government. He has no intention of working with government since he has come here. Why should he start now?
My colleague may be interested in the following:
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants insists on being very cautious when making comments on revenue and expenditures forecasts. The institute even recommends that the auditors add a cautionary note to indicate that forecasts could be totally erroneous if the basic assumptions and projections were to change. The fact is that budget-related information is based on a wide range of economic projections.
We know that to be true. One of the questions that I would like to ask is this. Did my colleague ask the Auditor General whether or not he would accept this, whether or not this was a good idea. My colleague says that he did. Could my colleague please share with us in this House whatever communications he has received from the Auditor General indicating that this would be a good idea?
My colleague will recognize, and he may read and recall, when I say that we have a colleague who proposed change to the Auditor General's responsibilities. Those were passed by this Parliament. In fact in the debate a letter was brought forward by the Auditor General saying that it was a good idea.
Where is the letter? Where is the document? Has it been tabled in the House, the letter saying that it would be a good idea? If it has, I would like to see it.
Hon. members are so excited by my speech that they cannot sit still. This is extraordinary. It is the first time I get this kind of attention and it makes me very proud.
My colleague may know that they have attempted a similar experience in Nova Scotia. They reported in April. I wonder if my colleague took the time to call Nova Scotia to find out what kinds of difficulties they had.
Was it all positive? Were there negatives? What were the positives? What were the negatives? Perhaps he would like to write me a note to tell me with whom he spoke and what points were made.
There is another really quite interesting point, as I understand it. I stand to be corrected; I love to be corrected by Reformers. They never make any mistakes so they will correct me in this instance, I am sure, if I stray from the truth. I am told it would take three months before the Auditor General would probably bring forth his report. A lot of things change in three months. Perhaps the Reform Party does not change in three months, but Canada's economic situation and the world's economic situation change in three months and what is done today may not be as precise three months from now.
I suggest we should talk to Nova Scotia. We should look at that experience. Subsequent to analysing what benefits it might bring, perhaps we should look at this matter again.
I am about to conclude. I would like to ask a few questions and I will be very open-minded. Indeed, if the hon. member can provide answers to all my questions, I will reconsider my point of view. I love to ask questions.
Can the hon. member, who is a member of the Reform Party, a party that loves to brag about savings, tell us what resources would be required for the Auditor General to implement such a measure? Did he give us a figure? Did he talk to the Auditor General? Did he ask the Auditor General to give him a report stating whether or not he agreed with the proposal?
The hon. member knows full well that the Auditor General has a great deal of independence. He also has a lot of credibility, precisely because he is dealing at arm's length with the government. And he can make additional reports because Parliament recently amended the law. What I am saying is that there are certain risks involved although the premise is sound. It is not a bad question. It is even a very good question, I admit, but there are still certain risks involved. He did not do all the research he should have done. I would recommend to him that he do more research.
For example, what would it cost? Can we wait to see the results of the Nova Scotia experiment? After he has answered all my questions, I will review my position but, until he does so, I say no to this bill.