All of that may hold. However, the sacrosanct principle of committees, as I understand after working on them for almost seven years, is that the mandate of the committee is the absolute key. Other matters may come to committee, but they must fit within the mandate of the committee. The mandate is extremely clear. We've been over it. I've mentioned it at length. You yourself acknowledged it is all about the work of the Auditor General of Canada and the public accounts of the country.
Again, to emphasize the point for Mr. Therrien and colleagues around the table, I'm not saying this issue should not be taken up. It can be taken up, of course, but it could be taken up, for example, by the OGGO committee, which covers expenditures. This committee is the audit committee of Parliament. It covers the reports and expenditures of the Auditor General. I think the member can bring it up, but not at this committee. I still make the point that I don't see how it fits within the mandate of this committee. Everything you said in terms of the Standing Orders holds, but the reflection is always that those principles are subservient to the idea that the mandate of the committee is the most key. If the committee is to look at an issue, it must fit within the mandate of the committee.
I asked about precedents before. I wouldn't want to see a precedent established where we have pursued a matter that fits outside the scope of the committee, and then we have issues coming up—let's say in the fall—that are outside the scope of the committee. We can't carry out the important work that clearly would fit in the mandate—the work of the Auditor General. That's my point. That's why I still maintain, with great respect, that it is out of order.