In terms of the second criterion, the way that it's framed in terms of the evaluation at this stage, which is determining the votability or the non-votability of items, it's not the same as doing a charter analysis of likelihood that it's compliant, or likelihood that it might be challenged in that sense. It's whether there is a clear violation. An example of a clear violation would be something specifying that no one under five foot five may vote in a federal election from here on in. That's a clear violation of a voting right. There wouldn't be any question of being able to amend that at committee. You wouldn't even need to do a section one analysis of the objective of the legislation vis-à-vis its aims.
At this stage the concerns that you raised are probably important ones to be raised in the debate on the bill in the House and at committee, should it go that route.
However, the issues that you raised would require at this stage an analysis of the charter rights that are implicated and an analysis of whether they're saved by section one. The need for that analysis almost shows that it's not so clear, even though there might be questions, that it would be deemed non-votable at this stage. Of course, it's the committee's decision how to vote on it, but that is the understanding I've taken from colleagues on the second criterion.