You're right, but, in Ms. Ashton's case, she provided some context that enabled me to give an even better answer. She referred to the beginning of the motion, which Mr. Dalton didn't talk about in his remarks at all. As Ms. Ashton said, the crux of the motion is the fact that a member cavalierly remarked that a minister had responded to him in English. That's my own polite way of summing it up.
The motion calls on the member to apologize in the House of Commons. I listened to Ms. Ashton's arguments, and I think it's true that Mr. Dalton's remarks had nothing to do with that. However, as I said, the motion contains other elements and other paragraphs, including the one I referred to.
Mr. Dalton can talk about whatever he wants, but it has to be related to the motion. Before he was interrupted, he was talking about Canadian identity. Nevertheless, he went off on a bit of a tangent.
That's strike two. If there's a third strike, I'm going to move on, as I did with another colleague.
Mr. Dalton, please stick to the motion. If you go off on another tangent, I'm going to move on to the next speaker.