Thank you for returning the floor to me, Mr. Chair.
I had actually raised another point of order, which you didn't respond to. That's your prerogative and that's fine. I won't make a big issue of it.
The issue was, of course, I was debating aspects of this motion and Ms. McPherson raised a point of order in the context of that saying that she thought I was describing the motion in an inaccurate way. She was allowed to complete an alleged point of order that was not in fact about order at all. It was about her interpretation of the substantive qualities and merits of the motion. I think in the interests of consistency, it's important to say that matters of order are about the rules of the committee and they are not about whether you think somebody is characterizing the motion in an accurate way or not.
Having said that, I think respectfully that Ms. McPherson is incorrect in her comments. Again, it's not a matter of order that she's incorrect; it's simply a matter of debate that she's incorrect.
The motion uses the word “abortion” four or five times, so it would be odd to contend that the motion is not about abortion. That's fine, but just suffice it to say that this is the foreign affairs committee and motions respecting the same issue have been brought forward at many other committees. We know how much our friends in the Prime Minister's Office want to bring in debates that are happening in the context of American politics. In fact, in the case of the foreign affairs committee, it seems that this motion directs this committee to study developments in American politics, which is quite interesting. However, our view is that there are certain matters before the committee. This is why this amendment is important, because at the very least, a reasonable step—