Thank you, Chair. I have an outstanding point of order in both senses of the word.
First of all, to respond, Mr. Patzer had raised a point of order and you had asked for specific standing orders, so in order to support the important work the chair is doing, I do want to draw the attention of the chair to the specific standing order that Mr. Patzer was referring to.
Standing Order 116 is the standing order that generally applies. It states:
(1) In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
Standing Order 116(2)(a) states:
Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.
Standing Order 116(2)(b) states:
A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.
What Standing Order 116 makes clear is that not only does the chair not have the arbitrary power to make up rules as he goes but also, on the particular issue of limiting the amount of time for which a person can speak or their ability to speak in accordance with Standing Order 116, that is a unique case in which a matter of privilege may actually be brought to the attention of the chair directly.
That being the case, I would urge the chair and the committee to make sure they are acting within their rules or, shall I say, that they reform their actions to align them with the rules—