I wouldn't play tricks on you, Mr. Chair. I spoke to the subamendment, and now I'll speak to the amendment.
The direction this committee seems to be going in is exceedingly dangerous. We've refused to hear from the independent lumber remanufacturers, even though they specifically requested to come before this committee. We've refused to hear witnesses who want to address serious and egregious deficiencies in the bill. Now we're throwing out an amendment that actually imperils the B.C. timber sales program. It's absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Chair, that we would do that.
We've had a traditional definition of “tenure”. It has been a traditional definition for some time. Tenure is a renewable right, not a one-off. That's the way we've always felt. That's the way Canada has always defended its position.
Because of the refusal on the subamendment, what we have now is an amendment that undermines all of that work over the years and creates a whole new definition of tenure. That means the B.C. timber sales program will henceforth be considered to be a tenure-based program.
The provincial government has spoken out against this. The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association has spoken out against this. Aside from people on this committee, there is nobody who believes that putting the B.C. timber sales program in jeopardy is a good idea.
You've heard some of the testimony that the independent lumber remanufacturers would have liked to have given to this committee had this bill not be ramrodded through and had they not been completely excluded from having the opportunity to say their piece and their words. It's absolutely absurd to me that we would try to adopt an amendment that destroys the traditional interpretation of tenure, particularly in British Columbia. I am surprised that there are B.C. members at this committee table who are ready to vote against lumber remanufacturers in B.C., who have very specifically said what they want to see. They want to see tenure defined as what it really is: the renewable right to harvest crown timber, not one-off purchases of timber sales that are done at an arm's-length, sealed bid auction.
How could we possibly accept the United States coalition's interpretation of tenure? Why would we do that? We don't even do it in the agreement. That we are now doing it in the bill is an absolute absurdity. It just makes absolutely no sense.