On the point of order, I will make a ruling that is not subject to discussion. My ruling on this is that it does fit. When I look back at the documents I was presented with, they are somewhat limited, I'll admit that. It is not easy for me. There is a grey area that I am given to work with.
As Chair, I am asked to rule whether or not it is of sufficient variance. That is the term used. I've had to wrestle with this term “sufficient”. It's not “substantive”; it's “sufficient”. If it were substantive, then I would look for a difference in substance, but it's sufficient, which gives me two words to work with. I have to look at the purpose of the motion, and I have to look at the means by which the purpose is fulfilled. When it comes to the purpose and the means of the motion, one of these can be the same and one of these can be different, and the motion is still declared sufficiently variant.
In this case, the purpose of the motion is the same, to bring forward the “Trudeau II Report”, but the means by which that is met are different. Whereas the first motion asks for the Law Clerk to come forward and for the cabinet confidences to be the point of discussion, the second motion does not include that as a means. Furthermore, in the first motion, there is no time limit given, which means that the means are unending. There's no limitation to it. Whereas in the second motion, it sets an immediacy to it, or gives a very tight time frame, asking for the study to be completed and for the report to be written and given back to the House by May 29.
Given the fact that the means are different, though the purpose is the same, according to the House of Commons debate that took place in 2006, I would rule this in order.