I'd be pleased to, Mr. Chair. I haven't spoken to it, but I appreciate your invitation to speak to that. It's an important subamendment and I appreciate your request that I explain it further. This is an important bill, as you know, so every word is important.
Here we're trying to increase the clarity around the particular jurisdictions that are excluded from the softwood agreement and from the charges that are levied in clause 10. We've added a new clause 10.1, and essentially what we need to do is to clarify in a very specific or definitive way what exports “are excluded from”. It has to be something that holds up. As I mentioned earlier in relation to clause 6, what we do will have an impact on how the coalition approaches its next attack on Canadian lumber. Because of that, the decisions we take today on how to word specific clauses will have an impact on how the coalition puts together its legal case. That's certainly the case for clause 6, which we have adopted. It is equally the case, I would submit, Mr. Chair, for clause 10.1 We are trying to get clause 10.1 and 10 to work. It's much like trying to shove a V8 into a smart car; it's not going to work unless we make sure the space is there to try to put in that engine in a way that makes sense.
What we have been doing here by not referring specifically to the provincial jurisdictions, but in a more general way to areas—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, or Newfoundland and Labrador—is that we have been leaving open the possibility that the coalition could then come back at us. By referring to the provinces, we're referring to very strict legal definitions, those that have—