The point I'm trying to make is that you're looking at substantial similarity. So let's say there are two 1957 Ford Fairlanes, and one of them has a retractable hardtop and one doesn't. If they were in a world where everything else was a Ford Fairlane, then you might say, well, there are all kinds of differences. That's one has a nick; this one is better. That makes them different. In a world where you're dealing with cars ranging from Model Ts up to now, when they're restoring cars from the 1980s, they are substantially similar.
I think that's what we're looking at. We're looking at a world of many different pieces of legislation on many different subjects. If you go through these bills word for word, the greatest parts of them are identical. One part is different, and that's the part dealing with the question of essential services. But essentially the bills are about the same subject. When they're dealing with replacement workers, they're substantially the same. The essential services part is different, but essentially the bills seem to me to be dealing with substantially similar questions.
This brings me back to the difference between what the Speaker was trying to do in his ruling, as to Standing Order 86(4), and what we are doing today, which is to make a ruling under Standing Order 91.2...I think that's right.