I know, but since Mr. Godin's amendment was ruled out of order, we were going back to Mr. Beaulieu's motion. I understand what you're saying, but I want you to understand what I'm doing.
Here's what happened, in chronological order: Mr. Beaulieu moved a motion, and then Mr. Godin moved to amend it. Then that amendment was ruled out of order, so we were back to square one with Mr. Beaulieu, who asked for the committee's unanimous consent to withdraw his motion.
Is that correct, Mr. Beaulieu?