I am building on what our colleague, Mr. Angus, raised.
Chapter 20 talks about points of order and when they can be raised. It indicates proceedings can be temporarily suspended, but points of order must be considered by the chair, who determines whether the point of order has merit. The chair will generally make an immediate decision on a point of order, but sometimes the chair needs to take it under advisement.
The points of order being raised, we've been listening to them for days—for hours and hours, and for days and days.
I will make two points.
One is that we've heard the points of order. You made your decisions, including on speaking order, and we need to be able to move on. I've made that case before, but we're still stuck in this debate. I remind people that the chair, when a point of order is raised, needs to make a decision. That has happened. It's been sustained through a challenge to the chair.
Furthermore, to the point of the chair being accused of interrupting people, the chair's role is to maintain the flow and decorum within in. I challenge all members to.... When the chair's microphone comes on, the respectful thing to do is pause and let the chair make his ruling and provide direction. That's the only way this committee can function. Otherwise, we have the dysfunction we've been seeing for several days now.
I ask us to abide by the Standing Orders we have. We've had enough repetition. We've had enough challenges to the chair. We've ruled on them. Let's move on. Let's debate the subamendment before us on northern Ontario and see whether we can do the work we've been sent here to do.
My office is getting thousands of letters right now from Albertans asking us to move forward with this legislation, and from Atlantic Canadians who want to see Bill C-49 move forward. This is not doing justice to why we have been brought to Ottawa.
The Standing Orders provide us with the rules needed to move forward.
I ask all members to do the work we've been sent here to do.