Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll just follow that line.
I was on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in 2015, and I was quite struck by how different this committee was from the others.
We work on the basis of consensus, our reports are unanimous, and our efforts are bolstered by the fact that the Auditor General works closely with us to examine spending—something that is especially important. On that point, I agree with my fellow member. That is the purpose of this committee. We must make sure that Canadians get value for their money.
Nevertheless, the Department of National Defence or, rather, the Canadian Armed Forces are responsible for the flight-related expenditures. The Governor General has nothing to do with it. It has to do with security. She is our country's representative, so it is entirely appropriate for her to have this level of security around her. As everyone knows, these expenses were lowered. Perhaps there is something to look into, but normally, it would be a matter for a different committee, as my fellow member suggested, perhaps even the Standing Committee on National Defence.
On this committee, when we examine the public accounts, we have the benefit of the work of the Auditor General and her office. Thanks to that reporting and analysis, we are able to work in a non-partisan way to ensure that Canadians get value for their money. For that reason, I agree with my fellow member that these two motions don't appear to fall within the scope of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
This could set a very worrisome precedent for the committee.