You just have to let me get there, Mr. Drouin. Yes, just in terms of....
First of all, I will rule on the admissibility, which is going to be a problem, but yes, if this were to be adopted, LIB-0.1 could not be moved as a result of the line conflict.
Thank you very much for your amendment, Mr. Perron.
As with Mr. Barlow's amendment, your amendment would make it possible to include a provision regarding the export of horses, with conditions.
The opinion from the procedural clerks is very clear: The amendment exceeds the scope of Bill C‑355.
As I said to Mr. Barlow, I'm sympathetic, Monsieur Perron, to what you're saying about trying to have further conditions to make sure there is adequate care for the horses, but on the similar principle that I just read out for Mr. Barlow, the advice I'm being given by the procedural clerks is that this is outside the scope, because the bill was very narrow in the way it was drafted, and it is black and white. Either you allow the export of the horses for slaughter....
I'm sorry, but there is no room for conditions. There is no room for improving the way in which the horses.... It is a very clear legislative bill that says this activity just cannot happen, regardless of whether or not there are other measures that can be taken.
Unfortunately, this amendment—I'm going to rule in the same manner—is inadmissible. I can read the text, but it follows the exact same procedural elements that Mr. Barlow's amendment had.
I can be challenged, and I invite you to do so if you'd like. I don't know if it will change based on the last vote, but you can challenge it if you like.