Thank you very much, both of you, for the comments.
I think the members are free to raise points of order and to question relevance in the context of a discussion, any discussion. I think Mr. Chong had a point that was tangentially relevant. He was maybe trying to establish how it is relevant; that motion before members, as you all know, is that debate be adjourned until completion of Ukraine. I think he was trying to make a point with respect to the original motion that dealt with the U.S. If he can show how that's relevant directly to the motion before the committee, I will allow it.
Just in terms of the dynamics generally, I think it's healthy for members to raise a point of order now and then just to make sure the direction of the committee and the discussion really stay focused on the motion that's before the committee. I don't want to necessarily have that discussion be too truncated by points of order that are just there to change the flow, but it's completely within members' discretion to raise a point of order as they see fit, as it is for members who are speaking to defend how their points are relevant.
My own ruling in any particular case could go either way and could be challenged. I see my role more as guiding the general discussion onto the subject of the motion.
I have Mr. Oliphant.