Mr. Chair, I would suggest that you maybe make a ruling and provide some feedback to the government with respect to these repeated and I think frankly disruptive points of order on relevance, because I think they know, and as you've said previously, that the interpretation of relevance is generally fairly broad in this place.
Frankly, my colleague has been speaking very precisely to the issue of Ukraine, which is directly in the amendment. Our amendment says that we should finish the work on Ukraine before we get to the matter envisioned by the study proposed by Dr. Fry, and my colleague is speaking about the situation in Ukraine and making specific arguments along those lines.
It's obvious that those comments are relevant. I mean, he's not talking about what he had for breakfast or something. I wonder if you could maybe just provide some direction to the government so that we don't have these repeated interruptions, because they're clearly not in any way in line with the history of the way these provisions around relevance have been interpreted.