That is an excellent question, Mr. Godin.
I actually did think for a minute when I read the motion. I was reminded of the motion that Mr. Beaulieu made, as we will recall, following on the episode of the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, in which consequences were called for. Do you remember that? The issue was consequences, which might even be called sanctions. However, imposing sanctions on someone is completely outside committees' terms of reference. That is really the objective of this motion. I ruled it out of order, but despite that, the committee overruled the chair's decision.
I am now explaining where my analysis is coming from. I based my decision on something that was clear, in my opinion. Of course, I am talking about that other motion, the one that Mr. Beaulieu made earlier. I thought it was completely out of order because our rules clearly state that no sanction may be taken against anyone.
In this case, I find the motion to be in order, and this is why. It is not a motion for a report to be made to the House of Commons. It is not a motion calling for sanctions. It is not a motion asking that someone be ejected from somewhere. It does not contain sanctions as the motion I alluded to did.
This motion asks someone to apologize, without calling for him to be removed from somewhere or calling for sanctions against him. The motion asks the committee to express its disappointment at the events it refers to, to recognize that French is just as important as English, and to denounce the inaction of a leader, and stops there. As you know, since I have often said it in the past, I always prefer to interpret the rules permissively, rather than the opposite. I therefore find this motion to be in order.