The fact remains that the issues raised by Ms. Thomas and Mr. Waugh are entirely legitimate, Madam Chair. I am also curious as to why you are ruling the subamendment out of order. With all due respect, I am also a bit confused.
What was in Mr. Julian's amendment is also in Mr. Waugh's subamendment. Earlier, I asked you a question about the admissibility of Mr. Julian's amendment, as that amendment greatly broadened the scope of Ms. Thomas' motion. You replied that it respected the spirit of the motion and that it simply broadened the scope of the study.
We now have exactly the same parameters. Yes, some information has been changed, but I don't think that's enough to rule the subamendment out of order. I must admit that I do not understand. I am not taking a position on the subamendment; I am simply saying that, in addition to the ongoing tensions in this committee, there may be a bit of education to be done. I would find it interesting to hear the arguments on this without us going for each others' throats.
I think that, in this case, the arguments that Mr. Waugh presented to you deserve to have you reconsider your decision or to explain it a little more specifically. Thank you.