I have some other points on this.
I've actually participated in expenditure review processes as a minister and as a member of an expenditure review committee of cabinet. It's possible to be penny-wise and pound foolish, Mr. Chair. The reality is that investments in scrutiny and accountability and resources for the Auditor General or for the Parliamentary Budget Officer can yield significant savings to government. Reductions in these resources and commensurate reductions in scrutiny and accountability quite potentially will yield waste, because without that constant light being shone within any government, it's more difficult to ensure that respect is being given to every hard-earned tax dollar we receive in Ottawa.
I know the genesis of these decisions emanated from an expenditure review process whereby the Auditor General was told to come up with some savings. In that context, his office would have put forth areas that were deemed less of a priority than perhaps some other areas, but the reality is all of these areas are important. I'm going to go through some of these important agencies and councils and boards. It's not just a question of respect for tax dollars and ensuring good value for tax dollars. It's a question of performance. The vital oversight given and input garnered from these agencies is essential. The oversight by the Auditor General is important.
I think of something as essential as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and issues around food safety. The idea of any move to reduce scrutiny of these agencies is penny-wise and pound foolish.