Of course.
There are four criteria for you to consider today.
The first is that bills and motions must not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction.
The second is that bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. This includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Third, bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.
The fourth is that bills and motions must not concern questions that are currently on the Order Paper or Notice Paper as items of government business.
The only one I'm going to come back to and describe a little bit is the second one, which is that bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I had a question on this one earlier this week, and in my analysis I would define that as it's not whether a bill unconstitutional. It's actually a slightly lower bar than that: It's whether it clearly violates the Constitution and the charter. Therefore, if there's no possible argument that it could be constitutional, then I would interpret it as clearly violating the Constitution and the charter.
Of course, these criteria are interpreted by the committee. This is only my analysis, and in the end it is your decision on how you choose to apply those four criteria.
Are there any questions?