Order. I have the floor.
We really have to do this. I want to share with the members the importance of dealing with the issues of repetition and relevance in debate, particularly where we understand that there is some disagreement among members. I refer you to Marleau and Montpetit, page 527.
Madam Lavallée, please.
These are the guidelines--under the heading of “Repetition and Relevance in Debate”--for me to try to keep us moving forward.
Madam Lavallée, Mr. Plamondon, please. We're having a little trouble here.
It says the following:
The rules of relevance and repetition are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. The requirement of relevance is necessary in order that the House might exercise its right to reach a decision and to exclude from debate any discussion which does not contribute to that process.
That is, to reach a decision.
Everything we do should be contributory, additive. That's important to remember. It goes on to say the following:
The rule against repetition ensures that once all that is relevant to the debate has been presented, the question will be determined once and for all, at least during the current session. To have one rule without the other would seriously limit the ability of the House to use its time efficiently.
Or the committee, as the case may be.
Now, the rules respecting relevance and repetition can be invoked by the chair, which I have done, to prevent a member from--and this is a quote--“repeating arguments already made in the debate by other members or the same member”.
This means that if there are points made by a member, that member should not repeat those points, which was the issue with Mr. Wallace.
As we move on to other members, it says that to repeat any of the arguments, other than in passing, that another member has already made to the committee with regard to the question before the committee would constitute repetition.