Mr. Chair, the routine motions made at the beginning of the committee business at the start of Parliament do not provide for 10-minute restrictions on points of order. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, I believe the point of order that I raised at the beginning of this meeting is still before this committee and I have not completed my arguments yet on that point of order. And I believe, with all due respect, Mr. Chair, that I should be allowed to continue making my arguments to this point of order.
I have stayed on topic. We're talking about procedures because this was a procedural matter, Mr. Chair. This was a procedural matter that I believe was frankly ruled in error by the chair of this committee.
I believe, Mr. Chair, it is something that is very relevant, because as I continue to say and underscore in my remarks, procedures and practices and protocols in this place are the rules under which we operate. Whether or not you determine in your role as chair that you wish to restrict comments on points of order to 10 minutes, the clear reality, Mr. Chair, is really that this is not allowed under the procedures under which we govern ourselves. I think that's an extremely important consideration.
Now, again, as I was stating, members opposite may not like this or they may be irritated by or, even worse, may be angry at the fact that I'm speaking to a point of order, but it is clearly within my right as a parliamentarian to do so. I would point out, as I was attempting to do before I was interrupted, Mr. Chair, that procedures, standing orders, are available for all members to access.
Hence, we have seen members of the opposition raise concurrence motions in this place that effectively have delayed implementation, discussion, and debate on government bills. This is something, frankly, Mr. Chair, that, yes, is infuriating at times to members of the government, because we wish to place our legislative agenda up for debate so that all parliamentarians and all Canadians can engage in that debate. This is why they elected members to this place, so that we would be able to bring forward legislation. Now, if legislation, Mr. Chair, after thoughtful debate and discourse, is rejected by parliamentarians, that's certainly within the purview of all members of this place. They can do so. That's why we have a Parliament; that's why we have rules in place.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that you can't have, in essence, two sets of rules. You can't have procedures and practices under which the opposition members are allowed to participate, yet restrict the same procedures and practices for government members in this committee to participate. I think there has to be one set of rules, and they have to be adhered to by all, Mr. Chair, including committee members, including chairs of committee.
And that's all that we're attempting to do here; at least, that's all I'm attempting to do. I'm attempting to speak to the fact that I had a point of order that was duly recognized by you, Mr. Chair, at this committee.
There are certainly no restrictions on the length of time in which I can speak to this point of order, at least none that I can see in Marleau and Montpetit. I would stand corrected if someone could point out to me in the procedures and practices manuals, as written by Messieurs Marleau and Montpetit, where there is a restriction on points of order to 10 minutes. If you could point that section of Marleau and Montpetit out to me, Chair, I would gladly stand down, but I don't believe there is any such statement in Marleau and Montpetit that restricts my ability to speak to a point of order to 10 minutes.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think I'm quite in order to continue making my argument. In seeing no objection from the chair, I will continue.
Mr. Chair, being a learned and knowledgeable parliamentarian, I'm sure my opposite member, Mr. Godfrey, my colleague across the floor, understands and appreciates the situation, as I am sure he has engaged in many points of order before.