It feels like almost a deja vu moment, because I recall having this point of order two days ago on the issue of relevancy. My Liberal colleagues were continuously interrupting members on the Conservatives side during their interventions, because they deemed the content not to be relevant.
I ultimately raised the point of order and brought to the attention of the chair and every member of this committee that in a legal context—and I view committees to be quasi-judicial in their formats—the word “relevancy” is subjective. It's not objective. What is relevant in the eyes of Ms. Dabrusin or Mr. Sorbara, Ms. Lapointe, Mr. Aldag or Mr. Fonseca ultimately is up to the member who is speaking. In this case it is my colleague Mr. Genuis, who is getting to the point.
The fact that he's not getting to the point as expeditiously as Liberal members would like is not the point. The point of the matter is that his content is very relevant to the overall bill itself and that he be afforded, and most chairs do this, a very wide ambit and a wide latitude to intervene—in this particular case, on a subamendment—to get to the relevancy aspect.
I'm asking the chair to not rule without allowing Mr. Genuis to fully flesh out and articulate his points in relation to the subamendment. I've always believed Mr. Genuis to have relevant points, and he may not describe the relevancy initially, in the first couple of minutes, but eventually he gets around to it. Therefore, I'm asking the chair to provide that latitude to all members of this committee, and in particular to my colleague Mr. Genuis.
Thank you.