Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to ask a question, but I feel compelled to with the extremely effective and accurate case that the member has put forward, and I compliment him on that.
The position has been put forward by the government that the only other course which has been recommended by the government and which the member has criticized, and effectively as I said, is a continuation of the legal process that would not benefit the industry. The government members have laid out chapter and verse how they feel that a lack of benefit would result.
It was my recollection that while we had won in every international forum set up through the WTO our cases with respect to the softwood lumber issue, that the government was still on the tangent with respect to the bill.
It was also my recollection that one of the opportunities we had was to pursue this through the American courts to seek justice which had been given but denied in terms of the course that the government has decided to take.
I would like to ask the member this question. In view of the fact that there is this huge paradox that he has indicated, not only for the industry and sections of the industry but with the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, what other course, given what the government's rationale is, would he have suggested that the House should take?