We had a motion put forward by my colleague Arnold Viersen that was asking the health committee to do a study on the impact of violent sexual images on children. I believe there was a timeline associated with it. That was a motion that passed on a voice vote. There was no standing vote, but it passed on a voice vote with the support of all parties. Again, that's another example of an instruction given to a committee by the House.
I don't think it's been voted on yet, but another Liberal member, David McGuinty, proposed a motion for a study involving the Ottawa River. I spoke on it.
Again, these are different studies that members can propose in the House to have sent to committee, and of course a member can sub in at a committee and propose that the committee do that study at the committee, but there is a precedent—it's legitimate, and common, in fact—for the House to give some kind of instruction to members as well.
It is just not consistent with what I believe to be the voting record of Ms. Tassi. I assume you voted in favour of motion 103, in favour of the pay equity committee, and in favour of the electoral reform committee—or at least in favour some of them, because those were positions that all voting members of the government voted in favour of—which gave instructions to committees and had associated timelines. Other ones I've mentioned had the support of government members or, in other cases, such as Mr. McGuinty's motion, they've come from government members.
It's interesting to try to square that with the argument that we don't want the House to be too directive for committees when we see this happening elsewhere. At the end of the day, I think the crucial point in response is that if you don't like the amendment, that's fine: vote against the amendment. Instead, what happened was this abusive process, this effort to adjourn debate in the middle of a privilege question, something that is entirely unprecedented in our history.
Now, there are some other points that I want to talk about—