This is Standing Order 108(2)(c). At the top, in 108(2), is the introduction, “In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on....” and it lists a number of them. Then 108(2)(c) is “the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department”.
That's talking about the immediate. In this case, they've happened. I think 108(2)(e) is stronger. It refers to “other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.” Again, that gives latitude to do so and it again follows up with should this committee deem it fit.
Finally, I cited 108(3)(g) before. It says, “Public Accounts shall include”—and the next three words are pertinent—“among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada”. While that's specific to those two reviews we do, it does not preclude this committee looking at other matters.
Finally, the commentary from the Standing Orders says, “[T]he Standing Order includes a blanket reference permitting a standing committee to examine any matter relating to the department as it deems necessary and worthwhile.”
I was looking for examples that might disallow it. I didn't find any. Our rules are the Standing Orders. They are in place. They are the governing body for committees, as well as Parliament. In many cases, they indicate what can't be done, and where they are silent or where they offer an interpretation that allows debate, my view is that debate should be allowed to happen.
I'm going to go to Monsieur Therrien first, and then I'll come back to your side.