First of all, Mr. Drouin's intervention is not a point of order, insofar as the Standing Orders have not been cited. I see his intervention as a continuation of what happened on Monday. It could have been considered a point of order last Monday, since it would have followed on from what Mr. Drouin had said to the witnesses. I should have intervened at that point to ask Mr. Drouin to apologize.
I haven't listened to the recording again, Mr. Godin, but it's possible that I said that Mr. Drouin had apologized. What I remember is that before he finished his sentence, before I intervened by banging my mallet, he had already withdrawn his remarks. In the heat of the moment, that's what I remember happening. When you asked for Mr. Drouin to apologize, I may have said that he had, but I was thinking more of the fact that he had withdrawn his remarks. If that's what happened, obviously he hadn't apologized.
That said, I consider the comment Mr. Drouin just made to be a continuation of the point of order that could have been made at the time. Obviously, no standing order was cited, but it's a continuation of what happened at Monday's meeting. That's how I see it.
So, when you say it's not a point of order, I don't disagree with you, because the meeting's just starting, but I see it as a continuation of what happened on Monday, since it happened before we started today's testimony.
Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.