Yes. It's the same point of order on scope and relevancy.
I agree that of course there's merit to the question that this committee may do these things, but we have to consider, in many regards, the work of other committees. As we know, this same motion was tabled in another committee, OGGO. The analyst just pointed out that it's been reviewed in OGGO in the past, so there's a precedent there and no precedent here.
I also want to make very certain that there is actually a committee, which isn't this committee, that has this mandate. I quote from the national defence committee mandate, which says to examine “legislation, activities and expenditures” of “the Canadian Armed Forces”, which is, in this case, responsible for all the decisions on the Governor General's expenses.
There's a committee explicitly responsible for this work, and I'd suggest that this committee do the work to make sure that the department, the Canadian Armed Forces, is responsible for those expenditures, because it's right in its mandate itself. There is precedent for that. It's actually done this before.