Yes, in part.
Do you agree that, when ministers ask a committee to conduct a study, they can require the committee to carry out that study, and, in the letter to that effect, they can already recommend that the committee's findings be geared towards a specific outcome? As I see it, that is much more troubling.
That said, my comment is based only on what happened. There are two ways to proceed. The House can give an instruction, which comes from all members. That is one way to give work to committees, which, in my view, have to supply the House with information. I believe the role of committees is indeed to inform the House so that members can make sound decisions. From time to time, the House needs committees to study certain matters so that members can, then, make laws and regulations—basically, do their job as members.
My concern, however, is that committees could become the minions of the executive branch. That is why I wanted to distinguish between requests that come from the House and those that come from ministers. The opposition has a duty to bring these problems to light and let the public know what is going on so that they can see that there is really a difference between the work that parliamentarians do and the work that ministers' offices do. Ministerial staff carry out the work of the executive branch, whereas we, here, carry out the work of the legislative branch. I just wanted to end our little discussion on that point.