Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his presentation and congratulate him on his current appointment.
The minister asked rhetorically what was behind the U.S. position on softwood lumber. His answer was U.S. protectionism. We agree but we would add that Liberal and Conservative governments ought to understand the subject since they have practised protectionism for over 100 years.
I will ask the minister a cluster of questions around the same issue. What is behind the lack of vigour behind the government's efforts to fight U.S. protectionism? Is it that the government still has philosophical reservations about free trade? After all, the Liberals opposed free trade in 1988.
Why is the government so slow to use the dispute settling mechanisms in the free trade agreement? It always has to be pushed into using them. It never seems to charge in that direction.
Is the real reason behind the Liberal government's weakness in fighting U.S. protectionism that the government still wants to practise protectionism in certain other areas such as supply management and cultural industries?
In other words, is this not the real reason Liberal efforts to fight U.S. protectionism are so weak and inefficient? Is it because it wants to practise protectionism in some other areas and this weakens its fight against U.S. protectionism in this area?