Mr. Speaker, concerning the same point of order, I think you have hit the nail on the head. That means that your ruling can result in an escalation of totally unacceptable statements such as the one my colleague has just made. It strikes me—and I think everyone else as well—as unacceptable but it could become acceptable because of the ruling you have just given.
I have been here 25 years and I think we are starting to escalate toward language that is absolutely inappropriate for a chamber that supports democracy and debates to solve problems, rather than violence. If we are violent people we cannot sit in this place, because here we subscribe to debate. So it is one or the other: either violent people need to be excluded, or those who say that others are violent need to withdraw their words. It is one thing or the other, there cannot be a middle of the road ruling.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the whole thing started with an ad that certain members apparently placed in a newspaper. One of the newspaper's editors had apparently made some violent statements on radio or TV, but apparently never in the publication. Regardless, what I want to say is does this mean that if I, for example, take out an ad for a group of students taking a ski trip, and they commit acts of violence during that ski trip, that because I took out an ad in the program that described their ski trip, I become a proponent of violence? Not in the least. It is just a matter of placing an ad.
It is precisely because of a harmless act like that that a group of MPs have ended up being accused of being violent. Not only has the word “extremists” been used, but in addition a member spoke of people promoting violence against us, and that is unacceptable. An end must be put to it immediately. Otherwise there will be an escalation of accusations, and the democratic debates held here cannot help but suffer as a result.