Yes. That's a very good point. A similar process happened.
You see, the NDP is all about creating new committees, right? They want to make government as big as possible. They're all about creating new committees. Electoral reform was one of them, and the pay equity one was another.
I'm not exactly sure, Ms. Tassi, of how you voted on those, but I don't think there were any government members who voted against it, so you either voted in favour or abstained. I presume you voted in favour.
Another example is a private member's motion that came from a government member, motion 103, which was much discussed, so I've heard. It instructed—directed—a committee to do a study and prescribed a certain number of calendar days by which it had to report back. It's actually striking that they were calendar days as opposed to sitting days, because if those calendar days include the summer and so forth it could mean a fairly limited number of sitting days being available to that committee, and of course the heritage committee has other business going on.
When that instruction is given by the House.... Ultimately, committees have delegated authority from the House of Commons, so of course we should be masters of our own domain. I am especially concerned about cases where you have the executive improperly trying to direct parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees are ultimately creations of the House. Their authority is delegated from the House, and the way in which they exercise that authority is by bringing up questions, tabling reports in the House, and receiving legislation from the House, which they then send back to the House.
These are examples of things that have happened. Again, for motion 103, every government member who voted on it voted in favour of it.
We had a motion.... Oh, my salad is here. Okay—