Madam Chair, I would like to know something out of curiosity. Am I to understand that your verdict is that the proposed amendment, which suggests expanding to a large extent the scope of the motion proposed by Ms. Thomas, is consistent with the spirit of this motion?
As I read it, the purpose of Ms. Thomas' motion is to question the CBC about a memo that was sent to journalists in the newsroom. The scope of the motion seems to me to be quite limited and focused. However, the proposed amendment suggests conducting a broader study on journalistic independence and disinformation. That seems to me to be a slightly different topic from what is understood in the motion on the table.
I am listening to your ruling and I will respect it, of course.