The questions you raise go to the language of the criterion of whether there is a clear violation of the Constitution Acts, including the charter, or whether there is a possibility or likelihood of a violation. In terms of the language adopted here, and in previous decisions made and analysis done at this subcommittee, the determination of clear violation really has been such a standard. It has to be so clear that it's not something that could be read down, amended, or qualified, whether you have to do that full charter analysis, or the section one analysis.
By determining that the bill does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts or the charter, it's not saying that it does not raise constitutional issues or charter issues. It does not say there might be other problems with the bill or things that raise concerns. The committee is not saying this bill should be passed; it's just saying that the bill is not disqualified because it has passed this minimum threshold. Should the committee determine down the road that it would like to alter that threshold, that's a separate question. In terms of the threshold established at this stage of whether it clearly violate the Constitution Acts, including the charter, the analysis at this point suggests that there would need to be further analysis, which almost answers the question.