I have something to add, Mr. Chair. I'd like to know why my colleague is bringing this up right now and taking umbrage with the House's instructing the committee to undertake a study, with or without a deadline attached. That does, after all, reflect the will of the House, further to a vote. I think there are plenty of precedents here, so it would not be a first.
Nevertheless, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which I am the vice-chair of, received something I see as much more troubling. It was a letter signed by two ministers—the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard—strongly encouraging the committee to undertake a study of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to review the previous government's changes to the act.
Not only, then, did the government use two ministers to impose a study on the committee, but it also imposed the outcome of that study on the committee. Quite frankly, that is outrageous. I think all committees should stand up and fight, doing everything in their power to keep that from happening.
Unfortunately, however, we know all too well that, when a committee receives such an instruction, most of the time, the government majority throws its support behind the ministers and agrees with their decision or recommendation. That's what happened. Despite the opposition's objections, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was forced to study the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the purpose of reviewing the changes made by the previous government.
As a committee, we were directed by ministers to not only undertake a specific study, but also steer that study towards a specific outcome. I will let you guess what the government recommended in the report on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I understand where my colleague is coming from, but I think some instructions are much more worrisome than those that come from the House, to which all members belong. When an instruction comes from the executive branch, forcing a committee to study an issue that is not even on its work plan, and all of the committee's work gets disrupted because of that request from the executive branch, well, I think that is cause for greater concern than a request from the House.