I have a point of order. I would ask for the chair to justify her ruling.
Look, Madam Chair, if I may, we had an amendment that asked for the CBC to be the only focus of the study. The chair then permitted an amendment to be brought forward to that original motion that expanded it to big tech, Meta, and Facebook. Then there is a subamendment that simply respects that massive expansion, and asks that an additional third CBC witness be brought forward. You already have two, and you're adding one. Does the addition of a third CBC witness now somehow make it out of line?
I would ask for the section in the green book, the Standing Orders, that would confirm the chair's ruling.