Sure. I appreciate the point of order.
Quite frankly, and I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes members say things that other members may not necessarily agree is exactly accurate. You can correct that in debate, but it's not a point of order to stop someone from talking, even if they are, as you say, artfully changing things. There are lines, and that's why there's great discretion on the part of the chair.
If someone has twisted someone's quote to the point that they were then accused of saying something unparliamentary, in the past tense, that would be stopped, because you can't do it at the time and you can't do it going backwards. You cannot speak in an unparliamentary fashion.
However, you, and all of us, have the right to be wrong when we have the floor. That can include facts that could be wrong and quotes that could be wrong. That is why everyone is given an opportunity to have their say, so that you can take the floor and then say, “I disagree with that, and I want to set the record straight”. You have that opportunity in debate. But it is not for me to be ruling on the accuracy of members' comments. It is only if they step out of line.
At this point, I have heard nothing from Mr. Byrne that would suggest that Mr. Kramp was being unparliamentary. Mr. Kramp disagrees with the way it's being characterized. Mr. Kramp, like you, will be given an opportunity to have the floor to refute that, if you wish. But it is a point of debate, not a point of order.
Does that help?