There is one point I want to make in reference to this. It goes back to the Standing Order 108 argument I made--I'm not going to raise a point of order on this one--which is to simply suggest, quite appropriately, that the matter probably might have been better being put forward through another committee.
Secondly, it has a substantial allegation of facts in the “whereas” clauses that are difficult for the committee to substantiate. Ultimately, it's the kind of thing where the committee could say, look, we'll bypass the actual requirements of Standing Order 108; the essence of the motion is to commemorate the 50-year anniversary of what happened.
So given that, and the fact that we don't dispute the end result—and I've talked to Mr. Telegdi on that—I won't be raising the point of order, although I think it's raisable. As stated earlier, it's still not in the same category.