Without giving out future surprises down the line, basically the way it was framed to me from a procedural side—and, again, I'm sympathetic to the idea of trying to allow the transportation under certain conditions—was that the scope of the bill, in the way it is drafted, is that it's all or nothing. This bill is to prevent horses from being exported for slaughter for any reason. The amendments that are being considered in the package allow that to happen under certain conditions.
You mentioned in your remarks, Mr. Barlow, that the impetus of the bill is to try to improve their travel. The bill is not drafted in a way that allows for any provision of travel, so it's quite black and white.
As I said with regard to Mr. Steinley's point, in other times that I've chaired there has been a bit more discretion, but in this case the legislative counsel has been quite clear that this would be outside the scope of the bill. I would be really stretching the bounds of my procedural authority in this committee.
Although I am sympathetic, a number of amendments that talk about having adjustments and conditions attached, including Mr. Perron's proposed amendments, are ultimately going to be ruled outside of procedural order.
Some of what you have put forward, Mr. Barlow, will be in order, particularly the adoption of when this would come into force. However, with regard to the elements around trying to allow horses to still be exported with certain conditions or further parameters, the advice I've been given is that it is outside the scope of what is contemplated by the bill.