Speaking to that point of order, we're in clause 28 and the paragraph speaks to “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, including the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.
I believe my colleague is very relevant. Relevancy is not just for the elites of Toronto or the elites in Canada. It's for all Canadians, including rural Canadians. My colleague is speaking and standing up for rural Canadians. To say that this is not relevant is to be short-sighted about what is relevant to Canadians. I think what he's speaking to is relevant and appropriate.
This is another example of the opposition trying to stifle healthy debate. They restricted the time for debate, and now they're trying to keep my colleague from standing up for rural Canadians. I think it's awful what's happening.