Relevance?! Oh, I'm sorry, but we're looking it up. We'll have that answer for you shortly, but it certainly isn't relevant to what I'm speaking about.
Truly, the answer here is in fact just that. As a subcommittee of this committee, we have done what I think, immodestly said, is some very good work, such as on the non-votability of legislation. At the same time, while refreshing the order of precedence, we ruled two pieces of legislation non-votable. Because we submitted them back to this committee as two separate pieces, one's being looked at, the other isn't. We also sent back at the same time the subcommittee's report on the new criterion and on the remedies. So it was a basketful of work the subcommittee did. Yet, here we all are, challenging the subcommittee's work and saying it was not right and not correctly done.
In fact, this is what is relevant about the point I'm making: it truly is the duty of the committee to look at the work the subcommittee did. It's not about the minutiae of the bill; it has nothing to do with what's in the bill, but has to do with whether the bill is substantially similar to another piece of legislation brought forward earlier in this House. It's plain and simple: it's simply about the similarity of the two bills.
If you try to take this too deep, if you try to get into thinking, oh, yes, but it was changed by this—the word “essential” was added here, and this t was crossed this way—you're getting deeper than a lake trout and you're not into where the criteria really come to pass.
What should really come to pass is whether it is votable or non-votable, based on the criteria set out by the orders the subcommittee needs to work with. Is it votable?