Okay. My assessment is that in fact they do concern the same question or a similar enough question. They are essentially.... I'll go through it very briefly.
This provision is a little vague, but I interpret the criteria to cover three situations. The first is where a bill is duplicative: where a government bill and a private member's bill seek to achieve the same goal and they do it in the same way. That's not the case here.
The second is where the bill is redundant: where the two bills seek to achieve the same goal but achieve it in different ways. I would argue that this is the case here.
The third is where the bill is contradictory: where the two bills seek to achieve opposite goals and, if both were passed, they would be in conflict. It would be difficult or impossible for them to operate at the same time.
In this case, I would suggest that there is a strong argument to be made that the government bill renders the private member's bill redundant. Though they do it in different ways, both seek to provide navigation protection to the lakes and rivers outlined in the private member's bill. This is not a perfect case of redundancy, since, as I mentioned before, the substance of the bills does not completely overlap, though I would argue that it's very, very close.
My assessment would be that in this situation the criteria allow for a small margin of difference between the two bills. For that reason, I would argue that the degree of overlap here is so substantial that the criterion of non-votability applies.
I realize that this was quite dense. I'm happy to take questions.