Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the member across the floor say he will support this legislation. He says he will support it because it was legislation presented by the Liberal government last time. That is true to a point, but it has been improved with a couple of key changes. I hope he will acknowledge that.
He went on to say that this Conservative government should be ashamed of the softwood lumber deal. Let us look at a bit of the history of the softwood lumber issue.
First, it is an issue that could not be settled in the original free trade agreement. It could not be settled by his government when it completed the NAFTA agreements. As a result, it has been a serious trade irritant for some time.
His government negotiated quotas. In this agreement, there are no quotas under current market conditions. It is a good deal, a deal that the Prime Minister pledged to achieve and did achieve.
Canada stuck to its position. Canada's key conditions were accepted. It is a long term agreement of seven years. The agreement gives Canadian producers stable, predictable access without quotas and without tariffs. That is very important. This agreement returns at least $4 billion U.S. to the Canadian industry.
The agreement recognizes provincial differences. We saw the Liberal Premier of Ontario vigorously support this agreement yesterday. That was very refreshing. He put aside partisan politics and supported the best deal that could be achieved.
Is it a perfect deal ? No. The Prime Minister said that. But this has been a longstanding trade irritant .
That leads to the second point. This agreement is important beyond the softwood issue itself. It demonstrates what can be achieved when we put aside harmful rhetoric, such as that presented by his government over many years, and replace it with hard work.
Because of the better working relationship that has developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, between Canada and the United States, when it comes to difficult issues like this, we can negotiate in a very tough fashion. We have at least a working relationship. His government could not reach an agreement because of the harmful rhetoric and the negative working relationship with the United States.
This is an important point that maybe has not been talked about enough. It is a new relationship. When it comes to tough issues, we can negotiate in a very tough and firm fashion, and achieve results, results that his government could not achieve.
Again, I appreciate that the member opposite did acknowledge that this legislation should be supported. It is an improved version of legislation that was presented by his government. I look forward to this passing in very short order.