Thank you, Mr. Barlow.
As all colleagues around the table would know, as part of our due diligence—I say “our” as the chair—I am guided by our legislative clerk and our deputy legislative clerk to see whether or not the scope of the amendment is in order.
Mr. Barlow, you talked about the “impetus” of the bill. Again, I'm actually quite sympathetic to the argument you're making around trying to “improve” the situation, but I have had to rule on this bill. I have taken some guidance from the legislative clerk.
Ultimately, Bill C-355 provides for the ban of the exportation by air of live horses for the purpose of being slaughtered. The amendment proposes to allow for the exportation to happen under certain conditions, which is contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading at the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
I'm of the opinion that for the aforementioned reasons, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. I can be challenged on my ruling.
Again, I want to make sure that the record shows, Mr. Barlow, that I'm actually quite sympathetic to the suggestion you're putting forward, but I am guided by what has to happen procedurally in this place. I have been advised by our legislative clerk that it is inadmissible.
There is some flexibility for a chair. On Bill C-234, for example, I did not take the advice, but I think this is too far outside the scope of the advice I have been given, so I have to rule that this amendment is inadmissible.
As I would say, colleagues, I am subject to be challenged, but that is the advice I have been given and that's the ruling I have made thus far.
Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.