Thank you very much, Ms. Malcolmson.
Just to wrap up, as you've heard, these two bills do very different things in different ways, and therefore should not be seen as the same question in the PMB criteria.
As I mentioned earlier, I question the decision of the subcommittee based on another decision they made in the same meeting, approving Bill C-364 from the member from Terrebonne, concerning election finances. This bill, like Bill C-33 and Bill C-50, amends the Elections Act. All these bills have an impact on election financing rules. If simply being on the same subject makes Bill C-352 not votable because it shares a topic with Bill C-64, why is Bill C-364 votable though it shares a topic with Bill C-33 and Bill C-50?
In this situation, the bill that came first was Bill C-352. It was tabled on April 13 of this year and it was placed in the private members' order of precedence on October 25 of this year. Bill C-64 was introduced in the House on October 30, almost a week after Bill C-352 was placed in the order of precedence. That's why I submit that the government is using procedural rules to do through the back door what they cannot do through the front door. To protect the intent of Parliament, the prerogatives of Parliament, and the rights of an individual member to a votable item in private members' business, you should overturn the decision of the subcommittee and make Bill C-352 votable.