If you want people to take your word, Mr. Julian, then at least raise a legitimate point of order. That wasn't a point of order; you were trying to respond to what I had to say, and you're doing it in a way that you're just trying to throw one-liners out there. Do you know who does that a lot? Donald Trump. Somebody says something and he just goes, “Wrong”. You don't have to justify what you had to say there; you're just throwing out things, saying “Wrong” and you're not justifying it. Get on the speakers list and tell me why I'm wrong; that's what I'd ultimately like to hear.
Nonetheless, I just want to say, and this is what I have been saying.... Multiple points of order have been raised because apparently people are offended by the way I talk to them, but then we shouldn't take offence from what this committee witnessed towards the end of its last meeting before it was suspended. I am trying to get at the point that the chair quite clearly laid out a path to putting forward a procedurally correct motion. The majority turned that down and then basically, through this amendment—Mr. Kelly, that's how I'm addressing this point—are trying to come back and do exactly what the chair said, but you ruled them out of order in the first place. I think this is a slap to the parliamentary institution and the democratic procedure that we have, the manner in which all opposition members, not just Mr. Julian, conducted themselves on this.
