The way I look at it, colleagues—and I will go to you, Mr. Drouin—is that including Yves' proposed amendment would actually open the door to contemplating people beyond the persons responsible for exporting who would be required to get a permit or authorization or to submit something to the ministry. If you leave that part in about the pilot, it opens up the door to who else could be potentially liable.
I would agree with Mr. Pierre-Jean's proposition that if you read subclause 4(1), it is the person who is expected to export the horse who would have to get permission. Essentially, the person would have to provide it in a form or manner specified by the minister. However, if we leave in the piece on the pilots, it opens up, to Mr. Barlow's point, other elements of people who are involved in allowing the plane to take off, which is far beyond the scope of what we intend to do.
You guys ultimately have the vote, but my advice as your chair is that you should just keep subclause 4(1).
Perhaps we should drop the amendment, Mr. Perron.
Obviously, in all the blues and the testimony of this committee, if there were ever a challenge on the legality of this part, it would be very clear that we were intending not to include other elements of the air travel supply chain, so to speak, in permitting the plane to take off otherwise.
Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.