Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This gets back to the complete lack of clarity as we ram through, clause by clause, hell-bent, no matter what the consequences are. We've just given up on independent lumber remanufacturers by giving up on tenure. We have given up on the traditional Canadian support of the definition of who are related or unrelated persons. Here in this particular clause, though we support very much the intent of the Maritime lumber exemption, it is very clear that the wording needs to be tightened.
We had a subamendment offered that would help to address to a certain extent the issue of what indeed constitutes effective wording for Maritime lumber exports. We have New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or Newfoundland and Labrador. The original wording was that you had to have primary processing in all four of those provinces in order to qualify under the Maritime exclusion. Very clearly, Mr. Chair, we're seeing a bill that needed to be changed, with problems that were very significant.
Though I'm happy we are addressing one small part of what is a pretty irresponsible piece of legislation, the reality is that the decisions we're making in all of these other clauses have the same kind of impact we're seeing in clause 14 and in clause 10.
Why would we endeavour to fix clause 10 and clause 14 and not endeavour to fix errors that are even greater in other parts?
When the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association ask to come before committee, they are refused; when they ask that tenure be considered on a B.C. basis, and not as defined in Ottawa, we refuse that; this committee just rams through essentially amendments that are appallingly irresponsible as far as the lumber remanufacturers are concerned.
We have here in clause 14 some improvements, some redress. But I cannot stress enough to members of this committee, Mr. Chair, that we as a committee have to realize that the errors that are in the maritime lumber exemption, which should have been an exclusion, are errors that are repeated elsewhere in this particular bill, and they're even worse in other sectors.
We address it part of the way by addressing the subamendment that was adopted earlier, but by no means do we address the entire issue of the mistakes, if you like, or errors in drafting that took place with Bill C-24. It was done far too rapidly. It needed to be addressed, as parliamentarians should be addressing—