Okay. I understand. I'm not going to agree with you
But I will say, Mr. Menegakis—I'm sorry to keep picking on you—that you're starting to repeat yourself, on a number of fronts.
I allow a certain amount of leeway, but we won't have repetition. There is a rule against repetition, and I'm reading from O'Brien:
The rule against repetition can be invoked by the Speaker to prevent the repetition of arguments already made during the debate by any Member. The rule of relevance enables the Chair to counter any tendency to stray from the question before the House or committee. It is not always possible to judge the relevance (or the repetition) of a Member's remarks until he or she has spoken at some length or even completed his or her remarks. In practice, the Speaker allows some latitude—if the rules are applied too rigidly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate; if they are neglected, the resultant loss of debating time may prevent other Members from participating in the debate. Particular circumstances, the mood of the House and the relative importance of the matter under debate will influence the strictness with which the Speaker interprets these rules.
That will be the last time I will read that to anyone here.
You are repeating yourself quite a bit. That has to stop, or we're going to move on to the next speaker.
You may continue.