Your point was for me to explain.
Order, please.
Now, Madame Lavallée has been patient. Actually, she has not interrupted the committee. On this matter she's obviously expressing her concern that we're not making progress. I think that's a relevant point to be made. I think she is explaining the reasons she feels we're not making progress, such as repetition by members, or irrelevance, or simply being procedural, or whatever. It's arguable that the frustration is well founded. It wouldn't be there if everybody would simply follow the rules of the committee.
In Mr. Wallace's case, it was with regard to the repetition.
I'm getting this conversation from Mr. Hiebert. I don't know why, Mr. Hiebert. I really don't think your interruptions are helpful.
It's not just Mr. Wallace. It has happened two other times in our proceedings that I've taken the floor away from a member after three times of going back, even after I've ruled. I think it's the only way. I've given some latitude. I'm trying to take some advice from members, or sense what the members.... But being asked three times just to respect the chair's ruling is enough. If the members feel that's a little too rigorous.... Madame Lavallée says I'm not rigorous enough. I'm trying to sense from the members whether you want me to be more rigorous.
I know that I have a problem with maybe being too rigorous when members challenge the rulings of the chair, but I think I've been consistent. I want to hear from the members. My job is to hear from the members.