I have a point of order. The reason I object when the member opposite starts reciting evidence and putting his spin on it is that I am constrained not to reply, not to tell him what I think of the witness's evidence, because that would not be relevant to the matter at hand.
When the member opposite continues to disregard the rules of parliamentary debate and stray from the relevant issue at hand, he rather puts his opponents at a disadvantage, because they want—at least in my case—to comply with the rules.
So I would be grateful, Mr. Chair, if you would bring this member to heel and get him to comply with the rules of debate and speak in terms that are relevant to the motion, rather than review the evidence with his interpretation, which I'm not able to respond to.