Okay, because this is so bizarre. It's a classic scenario where you have a bully picking on a kid in the playground. When the kid brings his big brother, the bully doesn't want to play anymore. That's exactly what's going on here. The opposition member wants to pick on the staff. All of a sudden the minister shows up and all of a sudden they don't want to play.
It's just hilarious. It's so hypocritical it's unreal. Even Mr. Easter in the agriculture committee always complains about how he never sees the minister, how the minister is never there to present.
We have a minister here willing to present, and talk, and participate, and help get to the bottom of your accusations—because they are accusations. They're not proven anywhere. They've not been proven by the Ethics Commissioner or anybody else of any validity. So when is this witch hunt going to end? That's my question. We're wasting taxpayers' time and money on this witch hunt. When is it going to end?
You can come forward with your motion. I have questions on whether that motion has validity in the House. I don't know if Ontario law takes precedence in the House of Commons or if the Speaker takes precedence in the House of Commons. I'd like to see that understood before we make a ruling on this motion.
I have not seen the motion in English, so I can't even give it proper analysis. I always show that respect to Mr. Bellavance in the agriculture committee. When he asks to see something in French, we make sure it's presented in French, or we table the motion till the next meeting and then he gets a chance to see it in both English and French, or we ask for his unanimous consent before it's tabled. That's never happened here. You've never asked for unanimous consent on the part of the committee to see whether or not we would allow her to table this motion or not. You've just gone on and ruled, and ruled, and ruled, based on Paul Szabo's laws.
Is this a point of order?