Bill C-253

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Bank of Canada Act to provide that the Auditor General of Canada is one of the auditors for the Bank of Canada and makes consequential amendments to the Auditor General Act and the Financial Administration Act .

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved that Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today and speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-253, the Bank of Canada accountability act.

Members may know that the Auditor General is empowered, under the Auditor General Act, to perform audits on government agencies and departments. However, there is a special carve-out, an exemption, in the Financial Administration Act that specifically excludes the Bank of Canada from the oversight that the Auditor General provides.

We are all familiar with Auditor General's reports. It is always a big day on Parliament Hill when the Auditor General tables a report after an investigation on behalf of Canadians into various departments, agencies and programs. Of course, it was the Auditor General's report many years ago that first brought to light the excessive expenses of the long gun registry. It was thanks to her work, at the time, that Canadians got to know the billion-dollar price tag of that useless and ineffective program. We can all think to times when the Auditor General has identified massive problems with the government's handling of everything from immigration protocols to transportation, and that is what this bill is all about: Bringing the Bank of Canada into line with other departments and agencies to provide that oversight so that the Auditor General is empowered to do the same types of audits that he or she does on all other agencies and departments.

Many in the Liberal establishment are opposed to this bill. The Prime Minister once said that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, and then he ran around pulling the shades down on all the windows to keep things hidden. He is afraid of accountability and transparency now. In fact, he is so allergic to it that he has made a deal with the NDP to help cover things up at committees and in the House. It is not a surprise that Liberal parliamentarians and Liberal politicians are opposed to this bill, but Canadians are demanding this type of accountability and oversight. They are demanding it, because we are seeing unprecedented action by the Bank of Canada and unprecedented decision-making that is directly affecting the value of the money they have worked so hard to earn.

Many of the arguments against this bill that I have already heard through corporate, taxpayer-subsidized and government-subsidized media and Liberal politicians are all bogus. First of all, one of the critiques is that the bank is already audited. That is true. The bank is already audited by private-sector firms in Canada, but those are not the same types of audits that the Auditor General does. The Auditor General does not simply do a balance-sheet audit. It is not like the Auditor General goes in and tallies up everything on the left side of the ledger and makes sure it balances with everything on the right side of the ledger. No one is assuming that someone is leaving the Bank of Canada with bags of cash over their shoulder. In addition to balance-sheet audits, the Auditor General does performance audits, and that really is the whole point of this bill.

The Bank of Canada has made many decisions that have had a profound negative impact on Canadians. It decided, for example, to buy corporate bonds. It had a corporate bond purchasing program. Now, if we go to its website, it spells out some of the general criteria of what minimum thresholds companies would have to meet in order to have their bonds purchased by the bank. I should point out that it is a huge advantage to a company to have its bonds purchased by the central bank.

A bond is basically an IOU. It is debt. It is a company saying, “We don't have the money today, but loan it to us now and we will pay you back later.” Corporations have to pay for that. They have to pay interest on those bonds. When fewer people are willing to buy the bonds, those corporations have to raise their interest rates to sweeten the deal to attract more potential buyers, and that costs the corporations more money. When the Bank of Canada comes along and says, “We'll buy some of those bonds”, that is a huge benefit to the corporation that is selling the bonds.

Which bonds did the Bank of Canada buy? Why did it buy a bond from company A and not company B? Those are the types of things that we do not know. We do not know all the criteria that led to the decision-making. It could very well be that in very competitive marketplaces, say the airline industry, one airline's bonds were purchased by the bank and another's were not.

It is the same thing in the telecommunications sector. Perhaps one company's bonds were bought and another's were not. Let us be clear. It is not buying these bonds with its own money. The Bank of Canada creates money. When it buys these corporate bonds, it is creating new money right out of thin air, which has an impact on the purchasing power of the money Canadians have worked so hard to earn. In fact, it dilutes that every time new money is created.

In addition to the corporate bonds, it has been buying government bonds, and boy has it ever. It has been on a buying spree for almost two years. From the beginning of the pandemic, when the Prime Minister ran out of other people's money to borrow, he had to turn to the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Canada was only too happy to oblige.

The Bank of Canada, since about April of 2020, has been bankrolling the Prime Minister's deficit spending to the tune of about $400 billion. That is $400 billion of new money created right out of thin air. That is what is causing the inflation today, and that is why Canadians have a right to know what the bank was doing and what criteria it was following, and report back to Parliament and ultimately to Canadians.

We have never seen this type of intervention in our monetary policy in our nation's history. Back in the great global recession of 2008, the previous Conservative government held the line on monetary policy. It was a difficult time. Many of my colleagues were in the House at that time. A lot of difficult decisions had to be made, but the previous Conservative government understood that if money starts to be printed out of thin air it makes an already difficult situation even worse.

That is what we are seeing today as we are coming out of the pandemic, after two years of hardship and the emotional toll it took on Canadians individually. People had to go long periods of time without seeing their loved ones. Many small business owners were watching their entire life's work evaporate as restrictions prevented them from opening their doors and serving their customers.

Coming out of that, now Canadians are being faced with punitive rates of inflation. Things that had cost $10 or $12 are now going for $18 or $20. One almost needs to get a pre-approval on a new loan to go grocery shopping these days as we see the prices escalating. Tools, lumber and all types of everyday purchases Canadians make are going up and up. The government would have us believe this is just something that happens and that it is like the weather: “We are going through an unexpected cloudy period, and inflation is up a little this quarter.” That is nonsense. Inflation does not just happen. It is a direct result of the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada working hand in hand with the government of the day. That is why this proposed act is so necessary. We need to restore the independence of the Bank of Canada.

The Bank of Canada's independence has been undermined by the government's decisions to bankroll its deficit spending with all that new money creation. That is why prices are going up today. It is actually rather simple. If we have the same number of goods but dramatically increase the number of dollars going around, prices will go up. It is not rocket science. In fact, these are basic laws of economics. More dollars chasing fewer goods equals inflation. That is precisely what we are seeing today.

The government will try to have us believe inflation is happening because of external factors. Do members remember when it tried to blame the war on Ukraine? It tried to blame inflation on Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Guess what? Inflation was happening long before the invasion of Ukraine. The previous summer, on the eve of the election, inflation was already ticking up to record levels.

We all remember the famous quote the Prime Minister said in the middle of an election when inflation was only at about 4%. Do members remember those days, when inflation was only as bad as 4%? Our party started to challenge the Prime Minister and the Liberals on this and highlighted to Canadians it was their economic policy causing the inflation. What did the Prime Minister come back with? He said, “you'll forgive me if I don't think about monetary policy.” Well, we do not forgive him. He should think about monetary policy. I guess he does not understand it, otherwise he would know that he is to blame for all that inflation.

Liberals try to say that it cannot be the Prime Minister's fault, that, yes, there is inflation in Canada, but there is inflation in other countries, too. That is true. Other countries that made the same foolish decisions to run the printing presses during a time of economic contraction are also experiencing record levels of inflation. Some countries did not do that. There are several countries around the world that preserved the value of their currency and are not experiencing the same punitive levels of inflation that Canadians are having to pay.

The government's argument is a little like if someone told me I was putting on a bit of weight and I might want to look at my eating habits, and I said that obesity is a North American problem, that obesity rates in North America are the real challenge and that it cannot be anything I do because I live in a continent where it is a challenge for a lot of people. No, of course not. It is because of the decisions of each individual, just like it is the decisions of each individual country that are causing the inflation we are seeing today.

At the end of the day, the dollars that we carry around with us, the ones and zeros in our bank accounts, have no intrinsic value. We cannot do much with a 20-dollar bill or a 100-dollar bill. The only reason why other people accept it as payment is that there is a level of trust. There is a level of trust that someone else will accept it as payment and give the same value that was received. When the Bank of Canada undermines that trust by creating all that money washing through our system, it devalues the value of the money that people work so hard for. It is a form of fraud.

If people agree to provide labour to an employer for a given salary and then at the end of the quarter or the end of the year the money they receive for the work they have done is worth less, they have been defrauded of what they agreed to. They cannot go back and take away 6% to 10% of their labour. They cannot go back and tell the employer that the dollars they were paid with are now worth less, so they would like some of their time and energy back. They cannot do that. They have already given that to their employer, and the money they receive is now worth less than what they agreed to. That is why inflation is the worst form of tax.

Of course, governments love inflation, because it makes the debt they have accumulated easier to pay off. Inflation is great for people who have the ability to borrow, and that is what we saw during the pandemic. As the Bank of Canada washed all that money through the system, the people who got the money first got to buy things before prices went up. These large financial institutions and investors who had access to that early money first were able to accumulate all the assets. By the time the rest of us get the money, through wage increases and other phenomena, the prices have already gone up and those wealthy investors get to sell at record profits. That is why there have been such big winners during the last two years. Members should look at the stock market and check what bank shares have done in the last two years. Bank shares have gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic.

When we look at the Bank of Canada's balance sheet and the money supply charts, factoring in all the money in Canada, everything from the ones and zeros in our bank accounts and the digital money that we all have in our chequing and savings accounts to the cash and all the various credit products that exist out there, the rate of increase in the money supply tracks almost identically with the balance sheet at the Bank of Canada.

That is what this bill is all about. It is about providing the first steps toward accountability and transparency so that Canadians can have their confidence in the Bank of Canada restored. The independence of the Bank of Canada has been undermined by the political decisions of the Prime Minister. If we want to get our finances under control, if we want to get the value of the money that we have worked so hard to earn stable, we need this first step toward accountability so we can understand what the decision-making process was and what the costs were to Canadians.

I have one final point. We are going to hear arguments from the opposite benches about why this bill will undermine the Bank of Canada's independence. In fact, it is quite the contrary. The Bank of England is subject to parliamentary oversight through its equivalent of the Auditor General. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has the same types of audit provisions that I am proposing today. The European Central Bank has similar types of provisions, with its version of the Auditor General. In fact, Canada is a bit of an outlier in the fact that it is allowing its central bank, which has such enormous power over our economy, to be excluded from this oversight.

This bill is long overdue and I hope all members of the House will support it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a few minutes it will be my second opportunity to debate against a bill introduced by the hon. member, which is based on what I consider to be facile assumptions, but it is a pleasure to debate the member. We were elected in the same year, 2004, and it is nice to see him up, partaking in debates in the House.

There has been a flurry of attempts recently to impugn the Bank of Canada, and this bill feeds into that trend. It is not only the so-called Liberal establishment that objects to these attacks on the bank's independence. As a matter of fact, the member for Abbotsford objects to those kinds of attacks as well.

I am wondering if the hon. member can tell us whether his entire caucus will be supporting his bill, given the comments of the member for Abbotsford.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I expect every member of my party to support it, because our party is in favour of accountability and transparency. The member has it all backwards. It is his party that has undermined the independence of the Bank of Canada. When Liberals turn to the bank and ask it to act as the personal ATM of the Prime Minister of the day to bankroll his spending decisions, that is what undermines the Bank of Canada. What I am proposing in this bill is simple, non-partisan oversight by the Auditor General, who provides that same function for all kinds of independent, non-partisan departments and agencies.

I do not know why the member does not welcome this bill. Canadians want to see what is going at the bank. That member should support it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the question once again, but I will make it a little clearer.

When the top candidate in the Conservative Party leadership race stated that he would fire the current Governor of the Bank of Canada if he becomes prime minister, the member for Abbotsford criticized him and stated that such a statement tarnished the credibility of the party on economic issues.

Does my colleague agree with what the member for Abbotsford said?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will let the member for Abbotsford explain what he meant, but this bill is about accountability and oversight. This bill is about empowering the Auditor General to provide the same type of oversight role that he or she provides for every other government department, agency and Crown corporation. That is what this bill is all about.

When it comes to the performance of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Canada has only a few core mandates, one of which is to keep inflation low, at 2%. Inflation has been well over 6% for several months now. Every other Canadian who missed the target by such a massive range would face some kind of accountability. It is not to punish the guy or get even with him, but on behalf of Canadians, they deserve to have a Governor of the Bank of Canada who understands that printing money during a period of economic contraction leads to inflation. It is that simple. This—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is clear is that the Conservatives are ideologically driven, and the Conservative leadership candidate, the member for Carleton, has been on a path to try to discredit and politicize the Bank of Canada. That is clear as day.

The Conservatives do not have any trouble in trying to invoke their ideology into the Bank of Canada, but they are ready to criticize others in the manner in which they are. What is interesting is that this bill calls for another audit, for the Auditor General to audit the Bank of Canada. Of course, the Bank of Canada already has independent audits going on, in any event, yet when the Conservatives were in government, they did not actually want to fund the Auditor General to do his work.

When will the Conservatives step up and make sure that all the departments within government, including the Auditor General, are actually properly funded to do their jobs?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, it used to be the case that transparency and accountability were something the NDP and the Conservatives could agree on. Back in 2006, when the Conservative government brought in the Accountability Act, we worked closely with the NDP. Those days are gone.

Now, the NDP has made a decision to prop up a government plagued by corruption scandals. If the member thinks this bill is ideologically driven because it would allow the Auditor General to audit the bank, does she think it is ideological to allow the Auditor General to audit Canada Post, the Department of Transport or any number of other departments and agencies? That is just nonsense. This is about allowing the independent, non-partisan Auditor General to do his or her job and audit the Bank of Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the banking system is the lifeblood of the economy, but talking about banking can sometimes be a bit dry, so I would like to talk about something else today, which is populism. What is populism? It is a focus on the ideas, concerns and problems of the people, combined with the political will to make those ideas, concerns and problems the focus of government policy.

The Conservatives have appropriated the term “populist”, ascribing it exclusively to themselves and with virtuous meaning. What we are seeing, in effect, is Conservative virtue signalling, but in fact everyone in this House is a populist. Regardless of party, including those who are independent, we conceive our role as bringing the concerns of our constituents to Ottawa to influence government policy on their behalf.

The difference between populism and the Conservative conception of populism is that the Conservative conception of populism has a dimension of “us versus them”. This “us versus them” ideology finds fertile ground on the Internet. Internet-fuelled populism is like a twister. It is a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are a couple of minutes in, and while I am a big fan of definitions of words and word origins, I would ask you to consider the point of relevance of the member's speech. He is going down a diatribe that has nothing to do with the actual technicalities of the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

As the hon. member well knows, there is a lot of latitude until the hon. member gets to the relevance of the debate.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, internet-fuelled populism is like a twister. It is a twister that sucks in any and every manner of grievance against the so-called elites, the so-called gatekeepers, the experts or at least the well-informed. This twister is driven by conspiratorial narratives shared on and amplified by the Internet, more specifically social media.

They are narratives like vaccines do more harm than good; the government is insisting on vaccination to help the pharmaceutical giants; the World Economic Forum is secretly working to subjugate us to their dastardly interests and oppressive vision; and climate change is an idea promoted by eco-socialists and the world government villains at the United Nations who use Greta Thunberg as their apprentice.

This one was mentioned by the member opposite in his speech: The mainstream media is simply an arm of the government, and we cannot believe a word they say, even if what they say is well researched and supported by fact. Here is another conspiratorial narrative: The Bank of Canada is working hand in hand with the Liberal Minister of Finance to create inflation, especially asset price inflation, to benefit the Liberals' friends.

It all makes sense to a receptive but uncritical mind. Bill C-253 is intended to feed the conspiratorial populist narrative. There is not much to the bill itself. It is short. It is so short that it makes one wonder why even take the time to introduce and debate it.

The bill would require the Auditor General to be one of the auditors of the Bank of Canada. The bank's auditors are selected by the Minister of Finance and approved by cabinet. KPMG and Ernst & Young currently audit the bank. Bill C-253 impugns these independent auditors, suggesting that somehow they do not do their job properly, even though they are bound by professional codes of conduct.

The other problem with appointing the Auditor General as one of the bank's auditors is that the Auditor General is not equipped to audit the bank. The Auditor General's role is to audit departmental programs against stated goals and objectives and to highlight shortcomings in the effective execution of those programs. The audit process is meant to be constructive, but it is also, in essence, a critique of the government. Naturally, opposition parties use AG reports in their efforts to undermine public faith in the party in power.

This is fair game and an essential part of maintaining democratic accountability, but the Bank of Canada does not have programs per se. It has policy objectives and policy instruments. The success of its actions depends on a host of extraneous factors, such as government fiscal policy and international economic trends, including supply shocks and the like. These are all things the bank does not control, unlike a government department that has direct control over its programs.

The Auditor General does not have the capacity to cast credible judgments on the bank's policy performance in a dynamic economic context, as compared with the static context of bureaucratic programs. The trap the Auditor General could easily fall into if it were called on to judge the bank's economic policies, assuming it agreed to do so in the first place, is to come to tenuous if not potentially false conclusions masquerading as truth and fact, in the process undermining the bank's credibility with the public and risking a populist backlash.

What the sponsor of this bill does not seem to understand is that the bank's success in, say, meeting its inflation targets depends on the extent to which the public believes it will be successful in doing so. There is nothing worse for the economic welfare of Canadians than a public that has lost faith in the bank and a public that does not believe the bank can control inflation. This is what is at the heart of the dreaded wage-price spiral.

Bill C-253 is pure populism, a populist attempt to undermine public faith in a highly specialized institution, all being done for partisan political gain in a Conservative leadership race. As Andrew Coyne, who is hardly a Liberal apologist, has said:

Auditing the bank may make no practical difference to how it is governed, but that is not the point: The point is to suggest there is some sort of deep-state hanky-panky going on inside the bank, which only an outside audit could bring to light. The point is to demonize the bank, to discredit its leadership and undermine public confidence in its policies.... This is a particularly hazardous moment to be playing politics with the bank.

We have seen this movie before. We have seen what happens when Conservatives try to get their hands on independent public institutions like Elections Canada. There are a few of us here in the House who still remember the “unfair elections act” that the member for Carleton stickhandled on behalf of Stephen Harper at the time. Back then, the Conservatives invented a different bogeyman, one called “election fraud”, to justify voter suppression.

The word “conservative” encompasses many ideas and habits, none more important than prudence. The members opposite are not adhering to that Conservative value, a value that is alien to populism.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, accountability is already enshrined in the Bank of Canada Act. This act requires that once a year, two independent firms are to audit the affairs of the bank simultaneously. The bank is the only federal Crown corporation subject to this requirement. The act also gives the Minister of Finance the authority to enlarge or extend the scope of the audit and to request special audits and reports.

Contrary to what the bill might suggest, the auditor general already has the authority to exercise an oversight role in certain areas of the bank's business functions. Specifically, she can review and audit the bank's operations and records related to its roles as the government's fiscal agent, advisor on public debt management, and manager of the exchange fund account.

The Bank of Canada Act also makes it clear that in the event that there is a difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on monetary policy, the minister may, after consultation with the governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the governor a written directive that shall be laid before Parliament.

The governor and deputy governor are regularly called to testify before committees of the House of Commons and the other place, including the Standing Committee on Finance, to be held accountable. I commend them for their willingness to appear and their transparency. I also thank them for systematically answering my questions in impeccable French.

In addition, there is also an Audit and Finance Committee, which has the mandate to review the bank's annual and interim financial statements; approve interim financial statements; make a recommendation to the board of directors with respect to the approval of the annual financial statements, as appropriate; oversee and ensure that the external and internal audit functions are carried out in an appropriate manner; review the adequacy of the bank’s risk management, internal control and governance framework with respect to financial reporting; and oversee the bank’s financial management, including the medium-term financial plan, the annual budget and expenditure reporting.

This bill is an expression of a philosophy and a strategy that should worry us, an attempt to cast doubt on the bank and undermine public confidence in this independent institution. That is exactly what we saw when the bill's sponsor was his party's leader and during the last election campaign. This strategy is still a factor in their leadership race.

The Bank of Canada is a complex institution, and it is difficult for the general public to understand. It just might be the perfect victim for politicians seeking a scapegoat for economic ups and downs. The current Conservative Party leadership hopeful openly attacks the Bank of Canada and has even promised to fire the bank's current governor. This same technique has already been used by none other than Donald Trump south of the border.

Firing the governor of the central bank just because the prime minister does not agree with the monetary policy could have a devastating impact on our economy, its stability and its attractiveness to investors. It would put us on par with banana republics where financial and monetary crises happen all the time.

It is of course perfectly appropriate and healthy to be able to criticize the work of a central bank and its governor. We are seeing this now. Economists have said that central bankers waited too long before raising interest rates. The governor has also been criticized for being slow to recognize that inflation was not transitory and that monetary policy tightening should have started well before 2022.

The Bank of Canada has recognized some of its own errors. In a speech given in Toronto on May 3, the deputy governor focused on the importance of maintaining public confidence in the central bank. She said the following:

So we are acutely aware that, with some of the extraordinary actions we have taken during the pandemic and with inflation well above our target, some people are questioning that trust.

To bring down inflation, the bank's current policy calls for a sharp rise in interest rates, followed by an end to the rollover of government bond assets held by the institution.

Once again, criticizing the central bank and its management of inflation is legitimate, but we must also take the time to explain the multiple causes of these price increases, which is a global phenomenon.

The rhetoric that tends to undermine public confidence in the Bank of Canada is beyond worrisome. It can have a real impact on the economy, and this bill seems to serve that rhetoric.

The Bank of Canada is a public entity separate from both the banking sector and the political process, let us not forget. Its fundamental responsibility is to guide the economy in the long-term best interests of the public.

The bank was created in 1934. The Bank of Canada Act established the bank as a Crown corporation with special status and considerable independence to conduct its business. The act sets out the bank's business and powers as they relate to its core responsibilities of monetary policy, the financial system, currency, funds management and, more recently, retail payments supervision. The act also provides for the operational independence the bank needs to carry out its activities and meet its responsibilities, free from political influence.

In other words, the act dictates what the bank does, but not how it does it.

Over the years, the bank has made major changes to how it achieves its mandate. The most significant was in 1991, when the government and the bank reached the country's first inflation-targeting agreement.

As its name indicates, it is a sort of contract between the bank and the government that establishes an inflation-control target but confers on the bank the authority to decide how it will achieve this target. The agreement has been renewed on a regular basis, most recently in 2021, following consultations.

From the signing of the first agreement 30 years ago to the most recent agreement, the inflation rate was kept to almost exactly 2% on average. The bank is working to return to that level of price increases while ensuring the economy's stability. I will repeat that it is facing disruptions at a global level, and we are confident it will succeed.

In closing, I would like to remind members that the bank has a board of directors composed of the governor, the senior deputy governor and 12 independent directors. The board of directors does not have a say in monetary policy decisions, which fall to the Governing Council, but it does have oversight of the bank's activities and finances. Its independent directors appoint the governor and the senior deputy governor, with the approval of the Governor in Council.

The bank also enjoys financial independence. The expenditures of the bank are financed by its own activities, and it therefore does not rely on public funding. Its budget is approved by the board of directors.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill, but, quite frankly, I have been in this place for a few years now, and rarely have I seen such a hare-brained, preposterous bill as the one presented to us by the former leader of the Conservative Party.

Worst of all, this bill was introduced by someone who ran to be prime minister, but who is now sinking into a kind of crass partisan populism. I actually get the impression that this is a scheme to promote the member for Carleton in the current Conservative leadership race.

Let us turn to serious business. The bill focuses on the role of the Office of the Auditor General, one of the essential tools for our democratic quality of life, government accountability, and the proper functioning of government.

As an independent body, the office is able to go in, check the facts and see what really happened in a particular department, with a project, military or other equipment purchase, or government contract. It is able to see whether the rules and amounts were followed and whether taxpayer dollars were spent in a proper, reasonable and rational manner.

The office does extraordinary work. As an opposition member, I can say that we have often used the studies, reports and investigations of the Office of the Auditor General to ask questions of the government. It would have been difficult to get these data and studies otherwise.

The various commissioners, including the Commissioner of the Environment and the Commissioner of Official Languages, also do work that is essential to the proper functioning of Parliament and our democracy in general.

Unfortunately, under the government of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, the Office of the Auditor General's budget was cut. They wanted to clip the Auditor General's wings because he was saying things that were unpleasant for the government. He was the one who reminded us that the government had not done exactly this or that, that it had misspent money, that it had not complied with the rules, and so on. The message they wanted to send was that he was not going to have the resources to do his job.

Not only did the Conservatives make cuts to the human and financial resources of the Office of the Auditor General, but now they are introducing a bill giving the Office of the Auditor General a new mandate. The Office of the Auditor General does not have enough resources to audit the entire government, which is considerable, to turn over all the stones and ask all the right questions—