Thank you for your question.
First, I'd like to say something in English before I attempt to continue in French.
There are two types of accountability: horizontal and vertical. Vertical accountability is the accountability of the politicians to the electorate, and horizontal accountability is the kind of accountability we're talking about, which is the accountability of government by oversight agencies.
The theory I would put forward for public accounts committees is that our system of horizontal accountability tends to work best when the issue being discussed is not of an issue that's going to threaten the government's vertical accountability, i.e. the government's re-election. I'm not talking about any government in particular; this is a general observation.
Similarly the public accounts committees tend to function optimally when.... What I'm trying to say is that this also affects the opposition. It's not only government's re-election, but when the opposition sees an issue that they can use politically.
That's a very logical question. Since we do operate in a parliamentary system, it's impossible to avoid partisanship at all times. For that reason, we emphasize the important planning and leadership role that the committee chair must assume.
For example, when a non-partisan idea is presented, or when a plan for discussing a report by the AG, a non-partisan office, is put forward, the chair's role is to ensure that questions raised are non-partisan and outside the political realm.
However, you're correct in that this will always prove to be a challenge, given our system of government.