Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I guess this can be substantive commentary as opposed to.... In defence of the linguistic structure of the motion, I would make two points.
Number one, even a badly drafted motion is still in order; however, I will not concede that it is a badly drafted motion. I think it's quite grammatically correct. The way you test the grammatical correctness of a motion with a lengthy subclause is you determine if the motion reads correctly in the absence of the subclause. In the absence of the subclause, the motion would simply read, “That the committee report to the House that...the committee calls on the Government of Canada to revoke the waiver to Russian sanctions granted for the export of Gazprom turbines by January 5, 2023.”
Insofar as it repeats the word “committee”, it might not be as poetic as Mr. Oliphant prefers, but it is entirely grammatically proper, and I think it reads more poetically in the presence of the subclause, which, of course, is part of the motion. To say, “That the committee report to the House...that the committee calls on the Government of Canada to revoke the waiver”, etc. is perfectly grammatically correct and I, of course, stand by it both as a piece of language and as a substantive proposition.