—simply to respond, my point of order on relevance was based on the invocation of the United States, which is not mentioned at all in the motion that Dr. Fry put forward, nor is it mentioned in the amendment that Mr. Genuis put forward, and therefore it's not relevant to this debate.
I think what my colleague is trying to do is point out the numerous interruptions and seek some clarity from you, Mr. Chair. I'm certainly open to hearing your views on relevance, but after 16 hours of filibustering, the Conservatives have lost the moral high ground to claim that we are interrupting them.
We would like to get on to the business of this committee. We would like to get on to the studies that are before us. I certainly hope that the witnesses on the Taiwan study are not waiting in the wings again for this fourth or fifth meeting where we we are being denied our witnesses on the Taiwan study and, certainly, we have a lot of important work to get to on the matter of Ukraine.
Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if you would like to rule on relevance more broadly, but I will continue to interrupt when this filibuster gets out of hand.