Yes, it is.
Mr. Chair, we've had a number of points of order which generally evolve into points of order based on relevancy. It's incumbent upon the mover to actually state specifically their specific point of order when they raise the point of order. That's what separates debate from the standing orders and the generally accepted conventions of what a point of order is.
Now, you have ruled just recently. The point of order of relevancy was taken into consideration and you ruled in the affirmative towards the raiser.
Mr. Martin right now is speaking about the supplementary estimates and the role of the minister to participate in the supplementary estimates. This is relevant. While I accept and agree that you have great latitude in the execution of your duties as chair, we cannot engage in these constant points of order if the mover does not state specifically what the point of order is at the very beginning of their intervention, and then if you allow, that they make the case. I accept that there have been points of order that have been moved just recently in committee which were not relevant, and I also agree that there were points of order that were raised just yesterday that were relevant on the issue of relevancy, specifically.
Mr. Chair, please exercise discretion in your duties in making sure that those who raise points of order clearly state up front what the point of order is specifically, and if you allow them an opportunity to make that case, expect them to do so quickly.