I apologize for the confusion. I don't have a point of order.
We already have an endless list of points of order; I won't add to it. Mr. Chair, I just want to ask if we can focus on one thing, which is what we said the last time: would it be possible to identify what the point of order being raised refers to?
If the point of order being raised refers to the fact that my Conservative colleagues don't agree with a decision reached by the chair, we'll be going round in circles until Christmas if we don't get past it.
I want my Conservative friends to be aware that there are people at home watching what we're doing. I don't think they can use this to say on their social media that we're doing a good job of defending our fellow citizens. Right now, we look like anything but legislators.
Consequently, I would encourage my Conservative colleagues to identify up front what they're talking about in their point of order; if their objective is just to waste our time, they'll have to answer for that to their fellow citizens watching this sad comedy, one that's boring and serves absolutely no purpose.
Mr. Chair, as our operating method, could we perhaps adopt the idea of identifying what the point of order that we're raising refers to. If it still concerns the speaking turn that Mr. Genuis thinks he has but doesn't have—a decision has been made on that point—it will be clear to everyone that what Mr. Genuis is trying to do is waste our precious time.