Mr. Bellavance, as regards Mr. Storseth's motion on the public inquiry, we are aware of the fact that the Committee report contained a recommendation in that regard. The report also contains a number of other recommendations and, in that sense, it is much broader than just the question of the public inquiry, if I may put it that way.
Furthermore, it does happen on occasion that, as a result of certain facts, a committee or some of its members change their mind. From that perspective, the motion can also be considered to be in order. For example, a private member's bill introduced very early on in a parliamentary session could be defeated, but then reintroduced subsequently with the same wording. In other words, an initial decision is made during the course of the parliamentary session and, subsequently, the same bill with the exact same wording is introduced a second time. In that case, we are talking about a situation where members are voting twice on the same motion or wording; there is no problem under that scenario.
I realize that, in this case, the motion is a little different and is not worded in exactly the same way. However, the Committee report has not yet been passed by the House. I want to come back to the explanation I gave earlier. Certain events or other arguments may arise that prompt the Committee to propose something different. Far be it from me to make such an assumption here. But that is what is on the table at this time. In that respect, it cannot be said that the question to be decided is exactly the same. As a result, the motion per se is in order.