House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aluminum.

Topics

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The member is running out of time.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Madam Speaker, would the member not acknowledge that for workers, for the auto sector, this is a good deal? It would increase production and job security.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, I hope that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is being honest with his auto workers and telling them that there is a cap to how big Canada can get. There is a cap on how many jobs will be available.

Let us keep in mind that the increase from 62.5% to 75% involves all automobile manufacturers in North America. Therefore, those jobs may not happen in Canada. Those jobs could be created in Mexico or the United States. When we have caps in place that would limit how big the industry can become, whether the cap is on units of cars or on values, then we are also going to increase the chances that this investment will not happen here in Canada and that it will happen south of the border.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Then why is the cap there? You cannot have it both ways.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would ask members, including parliamentary secretaries, who have a question or comment to wait until it is time to ask.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's remarks.

He referred to the Buy American Act. Let me remind him that in 2013-14, Novelis, a mill in my region that rolled aluminum, was relocated to Oswego in New York State. Hundreds of jobs were lost in my riding.

My colleague also mentioned the problems with supply management. Without indulging in recriminations, since I do not want to bash my Conservative friends, I must point out that they allowed loopholes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Quebec is Canada's leading producer of fine cheeses. The loopholes have jeopardized businesses in Quebec that produce exceptional cheeses, such as the Médard cheese factory.

Does my colleague agree with me that Quebec is once again the big loser and that its market shares will be affected by the new agreement?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, when we negotiated our previous trade agreements and there was market access given up on things like dairy and poultry, we moved in lockstep with the industry. We consulted all the way. That did not happen this time, and that is why we have this egregious idea in the free trade agreement that we are talking about today that we are allowing the United States to cap our global exports.

One thing that dairy producers in particular appreciated when we negotiated the TPP, as well as CETA with Europe, is that those agreements allowed them to sell into those markets without restriction. They had the opportunity to make up in the export market whatever we were going to give up here as market access. However, this agreement tells our dairy industry that it cannot grow and that its export ability will actually shrink. That restriction takes dollars out of the pockets of producers, farmers and communities.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, for several days now, we have been discussing CUSMA and its advantages and disadvantages for our economy and our people.

I would like to take a look at it from a slightly different angle to try to make people understand why it is important not to take anything lightly in this matter. It is also important to be open to possible solutions that will help us implement an agreement with a genuine long-term vision, which is not necessarily the case right now.

We have been exporting our products outside Quebec since the era of New France, mercantilism and triangular trade with the French colonies in the Caribbean. Since then, we have never stopped exporting or trying to export our products and expertise. Just think of lumber exports to the markets of Great Britain in the 19th century or John A. Macdonald's reciprocity agreement, which was never really implemented but was the starting point for the FTA in 1989 and NAFTA in 1994.

The world has changed a lot in 25 years. I can understand that we feel the need to have an agreement that is in tune with the times, an agreement that reflects the current economic realities. Over the decades, we have created connections that provide consumers with access to a huge variety of products. The opening up of markets, combined with improvements in transportation and refrigeration, means that we can now have products every day that our parents only saw in their stockings at Christmas. Oranges are one example. Many of us could not imagine a morning without them. Basically, trade agreements are essential to the economies of Quebec and Canada.

In that light, CUSMA continues our history. At the same time, however, CUSMA marks a break with the past. In the past, Canada stood up to the Americans' demand that we abolish supply management. The argument we countered with was simple. If they stopped subsidizing their farmers so that they could sell their products at cost, we might consider opening up supply management.

With CUSMA, supply management takes a hit, yet we have made no demands to put an end to the subsidies to American farmers. Let me take a moment to explain what supply management is. Imagine a pie that represents Canadians' needs for dairy products. That pie is divided up among all producers, so that they can sell their products at a reasonable price, cover their costs and have an income.

Opening up supply management, as the last three agreements have done, means that we are giving a slice of the pie to foreign producers. This means the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians are no longer wholly met by our own producers, but by foreign ones too.

What that means for producers is that they must now divide up about 82% of the income instead of 100%. The situation is problematic for many producers, such as my friend Éric, who comes from a long line of dairy farmers. Now his father is trying to convince him to sell the farm because it is no longer profitable. Éric wants to keep the farm because he loves what he does. It is his life, his passion. He makes ends meet by taking snow removal contracts. He wants to keep his farm and pass it on to his children, who also love taking care of farm animals. Like any good parent, he wants a secure future for his children. CUSMA is putting a wrench in the works for Éric and for hundreds or even thousands of others.

I know very few people who would be able to make ends meet if they took a 20% pay cut today.

Consider this. How many members of this House would be prepared to give 20% of their paycheque to a U.S. senator? I am pretty sure the answer is none.

Nevertheless, that is exactly what CUSMA is imposing on our dairy farmers. The agreement hands over 20% of their income to foreign producers. It is unacceptable, unbearable, almost inhumane to do that to our own people. We need our farmers three times a day.

The concessions on supply management are not the only part of the agreement that break with our past. Canada literally punched a hole in its own economic sovereignty by allowing the U.S. President to decide how much milk protein Canada can sell abroad, besides what is sold to the United States and Mexico.

What is milk protein? It is not complicated. In the butter-making process, there is a by-product called whey that is dried to a powder. That is milk protein. Our producers sell about 55,000 tonnes of it a year.

The U.S. President decided that from now on, our producers should not sell more than 35,000 tonnes. What does that mean for our producers? A tonne sells for around $2,000. Every tonne they sell beyond 35,000 tonnes will be subject to a $540 tax. That is a quarter of the price per tonne.

By signing CUSMA, Canada is giving the United States the right to manage our agricultural economy and once again causing major income losses to our producers.

Once again, I will illustrate my point. Let's say I hold a small garage sale, and every year I sell about 200 items. Suddenly, my neighbour imposes some restrictions and decides what I can sell and for how much. If I sell more than the number he has decided on, I will pay a penalty. Would that be acceptable? As a human being, would I accept my neighbour's conditions? The answer is no. However, that is what we agreed to let the President of the United States do to our economic sovereignty.

I want to remind members that about 50% of Canadian dairy farms are in Quebec, even though Quebec accounts for only 23% of Canada's population, and 30% of the farms are in Ontario. Proportionally, Quebec is the one paying for CUSMA.

Our farmers are precious. Our instinct should be to protect those who are precious to us. In short, it seems that the concept of sovereignty is better known, applied and understood in Quebec than in Canada. Quebec seems to be two steps ahead of Canada when it comes to sovereignty.

We are the ones who should be deciding what is good or bad for our economy, not the President of the United States.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I know how important the dairy industry is to her riding. The dairy industry is also very important to my riding.

I would like to remind the House that in 2008, under the former NAFTA, there was a milk protein issue in Canada. U.S. exports to Canada increased exponentially for 10 years. Americans or third parties who wanted to export to Canada found ways to circumvent the rules. Now, under the new NAFTA agreement, the other parties, both Canada and the U.S., must be notified.

Is that not a good thing for Canada's dairy sector?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said at the start of my speech, some aspects are interesting. Still, the fact remains that reducing the amount of powder that our farmers are allowed to sell is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the producers I know, an unacceptable and dangerous violation.

Canada is setting a precedent that could benefit the United States. We need be careful about that.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member has a number of problems and some of those are similar to what happens with dairy producers in my riding. I have heard from the dairy producers. We also have an aluminum industry in British Columbia. Our largest aluminum smelter is in Kitimat, the Alcan smelter. A huge LNG plant is being built, which is getting its aluminum tariff-free from China. We see problems with this issue across the country.

I understand, from the different debates here, that many MPs are not happy with part of the negotiation. We hear that the Liberals were not happy when the Conservatives were negotiating these agreements. The Conservatives are not happy with the Liberals' negotiating of these agreements.

Do you think we should have a more open and transparent process of negotiating trade agreements, so all parties can be involved and we can debate the merits of the socio-economic benefits of these agreements before we enter negotiation?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I remind the member that he is to address questions and comments to the Chair.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his empathy. We share the same concerns for our constituents.

I do believe there should be more non-partisan discussion on such hot topics as the economy, our sovereignty, and Quebec and Canadian producers, since transparent discussions will make it possible to draft agreements that truly represent our people.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, over the last couple of years, stakeholders from across Canada have come together. When I reference stakeholders, I reinforce that they are provincial governments, the private sector, businesses, labour unions and interested Canadians. There has been a very long and healthy discussion and dialogue. That has led to the agreement we have today, which is endorsed by many throughout the country, including the Premier of Quebec.

Would the member not agree that trade is a good and healthy thing between Canada and the world, with the emphasis on securing markets like the U.S.A. and Mexico?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question, which I answered at the beginning of my speech.

Canada does need treaties. However, the treaties must be fair and have a long-term vision. Currently, the long-term vision seems to be lacking, since it is our dairy farmers and aluminum smelters that will pay, and pay dearly, for the next 10 years.

I am not minimizing the consultations that have been held with various partners. Still, consultation does not necessarily mean listening and understanding. It simply means being present and sharing opinions. Those opinions can either be ignored or taken into account. That is the prerogative of the people who negotiate and sign the agreements.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the House debate on CUSMA for a few weeks now.

The Bloc Québécois promised to speak on behalf of Quebeckers here in the House, to ensure that our people, our industries and our investors are represented, heard, protected and served in this Parliament. Quebeckers make significant economic, social, cultural and environmental contributions to Quebec and to the world.

It is for that very reason that I am rising in the House today. It seems clear to me, based on our debates and the results, that Quebec is Canada's favourite bargaining chip to use in economic negotiations with the United States and Mexico. That is obvious. The clean aluminum that Quebec is so proud of will probably be sacrificed in this agreement.

How many times have we shown our colleagues opposite how disastrous this will be for Quebec's economy? A serious, in-depth study showed that this could cause Quebec's aluminum sector to suffer more than $6 billion in actual financial losses. The federal government has not proposed any economic studies on the new provisions in the agreement. We, along with the Conservatives, are still waiting.

Let me also suggest something to think about. Try to imagine how angry Ontarians would have been if the steel sector had been sacrificed instead of Quebec's aluminum sector. Would Ontario have reacted with diligence and resilience, agreeing to sacrifice a large part of its steel economy with the virtuous idea that what is good for Canada must take precedence over what is good for Ontario? I highly doubt it.

That is not the case, since Quebec is making the sacrifices. This clearly shows why Canada is so keen on keeping Quebec in its ranks. An independent and sovereign Quebec would deprive Canada of an important and valuable bargaining chip to use in negotiating economic agreements like CUSMA.

I come from the hospitality industry, where food services only exist because of farmers and dairy producers. Just think of the famous and delicious Migneron, Fleurmier and Saint-Fidèle cheeses, as well as the tasty Paillasson de l'Isle d'Orléans. I encourage hon. members to sample them if they have the opportunity.

Quebec no longer takes second place to anyone in terms of quality of agricultural produce. Organic farming, another source of great pride for Quebec, is also a growing industry. In my constituency, 37 small and medium-sized dairy operations are prospering because of supply management. For many of the crown jewels of Quebec's agricultural economy, this ingenious system has proved its usefulness again and again.

Supply management is great for Quebec. Not only does it foster balance and regulation in agricultural production, but it also works in harmony with the environment. Supply management encourages consumers to be aware and buy local, thereby reducing the environmental footprint caused by transportation.

Our system is a model for the world, yet Canada persists in knocking major holes in it. Those holes will end up endangering the very foundations of Quebec's economy and our supply management system. All of our success and competitiveness are systematically compromised when the dairy and agricultural sectors are undermined. In macroeconomics, that is known as the ripple effect.

Let's talk about milk, then. Let's talk about two of the loopholes that are hugely important to our dairy producers.

First, there is the elimination of class 7, which was for surplus milk protein. It became a significant economic vector for exports for our dairy farmers. Class 7 allowed farmers to offset losses caused by the influx of massive amounts of American diafiltered milk into the Canadian market.

Worse still, CUSMA gives the Americans control over exports of Canada's milk to other countries. Dairy farmers may end up with surpluses caused by Washington, which reserves the right in CUSMA to limit sales of our dairy protein products to the rest of the world.

Clearly, dairy farmers, 50% of whom are in Quebec, have also been chosen to be part of the sacrifices that Quebec is being forced to make, very much against its will, in order to save NAFTA, now known as CUSMA.

The government is buying their silence with financial compensation. Let's talk about that. What is financial compensation in the context of a dynamic and prosperous economic mechanism complete with development and investment plans that play out over decades?

This is financial compensation for business people. My father, who was a businessman, would say, “Financial compensation? Government subsidies? Those are like band-aids on a wooden leg, my dear.”

Who is going to pay? The agreement will weaken Quebec's economy as a whole in many ways, adversely affecting employment, investment, Quebec's finances and, thus, taxpayers, the same taxpayers who placed their trust in me and my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who hope that we will make the case for what we believe so we can protect Quebec from the Canadian government's lacklustre efforts to stand up for Quebec's interests. The government really wants to use Quebec's major economic levers as bargaining chips in trade treaties like CUSMA. Taxpayers are counting on the Bloc Québécois to ensure that does not happen.

Like my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I have met with dairy producers in person. They are bright, proactive, in the know about the best production and marketing strategies. They care about and promote environmental preservation and animal welfare. They are experts on the subject.

I am very proud to be able to sing their praises here. However, what would make me really proud is if the concerns of aluminum workers and dairy farmers were recognized, listened to and taken into account in a fair way in the provisions of the agreement in question.

We are well aware that, even after the agreement is signed, provisions can be put in place to remedy the situation. The government is saying that there will be checks and balances to prevent an abundance of Chinese aluminum from being used in auto parts manufactured in North America. Why are these so-called checks and balances not included in the agreement? Perhaps that is something we could work on.

I am convinced that nothing that we are asking for is impossible if we have a real desire and the creativity needed to come up with clear solutions so that the same people, namely Quebeckers, are not always being penalized. What a great opportunity this could be to stop fuelling the cynicism toward government election promises.

The Bloc Québécois believes in free trade. That position has not changed even though the government is trying hard to lead members to believe the opposite. What does need to change is the bargaining chips used in these agreements.

How are we supposed to believe that all of the measures that have been put in place are for the good of the agreement?

The government is not going to persuade a nation like Quebec to quietly sit back and let it do what it wants to the aluminum and agricultural industries just because it included some provisions protecting Canadian culture.

It is not too late for the government to put its best foot forward. The government has the power to turn the situation around. It is up to the government to show its goodwill and to prove that, this time, it really is listening to Quebec.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2020 / 12:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the government has listened to the province of Quebec through 35 members of the government caucus, who are very strong advocates for the province and, in fact, for all of Canada. They are strong advocates for the residents of Quebec, including business communities, labour leaders and so forth. Even the Premier of Quebec is supporting this agreement.

I think it is wrong for members to say that we are sacrificing one region over another. Whether it is the Bloc saying we are sacrificing Quebec, or it is the Conservatives saying we are sacrificing Alberta, both are wrong. This is a national government that serves all regions of our country, and no province is on the chopping block. I can assure the members of this chamber of that.

Would the member not agree, as the Premier of Quebec is agreeing, that the benefits of this agreement far outweigh any negatives perceived within it?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It is clear that Quebec has become a bargaining chip for Canada during negotiations. The single tax return is a good example of that.

The opinion of a spokesperson for Quebec alone should not be used to pressure the Bloc when it comes to all of Quebec's demands with regard to its people, its nation. We are calling for environmental sovereignty and sovereignty over our agriculture. I think that taking a specific case, like the opinion of the National Assembly on this, does not reflect the range of demands by Quebec and the National Assembly, which is making many more demands—

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to allow other members to ask her questions.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about dairy. It is very important in Quebec and it is important in parts of British Columbia as well.

I was recently speaking with a producer of milk products in British Columbia who was very concerned about the provision in the new CUSMA that gives the United States the ability to put quotas not only on milk products going into the United States from Canada but also on milk products from Canada going to anywhere in the world.

I wonder if she could comment on that provision and how it might affect producers in Quebec or anywhere in Canada.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that this agreement affects more than just Quebec. As far as dairy farmers are concerned, 50% of dairy production occurs in Quebec. Obviously, we feel a bit more concerned than all the dairy farmers in Canada. When I talk about dairy farmers, it is not just those in Quebec. Obviously, I am much more concerned about those in Quebec, who account for 50% of the dairy production market.

I thank my colleague for raising this point. It is true that other parties in the House are worried about this new CUSMA. Many of us are wondering about this agreement. I often agree with what my colleagues are saying.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, our two ridings are south of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean where aluminum is produced. I imagine the expansions supporting 60,000 jobs.

What impact does my colleague think that 60,000 jobs, with a payroll worth $3.5 billion, would have on our ridings?

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, of course we are concerned about the hardships facing aluminum workers in neighbouring ridings.

The economic threats facing the aluminum and agricultural sectors because of CUSMA affect all of Quebec, and especially Charlevoix. I am extremely concerned about some of the provisions in CUSMA. I am still hopeful that progress can be made. We are acting in good faith in—

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak about the current round of free trade negotiations between Canada, the United States and Mexico. We call it CUSMA now, and it used to be called NAFTA.

I bring a bit of perspective to this because I was around for the negotiations way back in 1989 when we started this. In 1988 we negotiated a deal, initially with the United States of America, which became the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We expanded that in 1994, and it was ratified by bringing Mexico into that pact and creating what was then called NAFTA. Some people are still calling the new agreement NAFTA, or NAFTA 0.5, NAFTA 0.7 or the new NAFTA, but I will call it CUSMA going forward, as it is a good name for it.

It was time for an update to the agreement. A quarter of a century has gone by since 1994 and the world has changed. We have a lot more of a technology industry at this point, as does the United States. The way we interact with that technology industry across our borders needed to be reflected in our trade agreements, so accepting that we had to update this agreement was a given.

Negotiations involve give-and-take. We have to recognize that in 1988-89 and 1993-94, people in the government of this country arrived to make a serious agreement with other people in other countries. Negotiations are about give-and-take, and I will remind the members what we gave in 1988-89.

Few people remember this, but at that time, the United States of America was an energy-insecure country. One of its main asks for us at that point, as a partner in a trade agreement, was for limited access to our energy resources. We negotiated a proportional access agreement with the United States, which was reflected in the FTA and again in NAFTA.

That proportional representation meant that if we had to cut back the actual export of our resources to the United States by, say, 10%, we would have to curtail ourselves in the same way. There was a sharing that would have to happen once the U.S. became dependent upon us as a customer for our resource. That was a good ask because, if the U.S. was to become dependent on us, we needed to be presented as a serious supplier to the United States.

When I heard the Minister of International Trade suggest that one of the wins in these negotiations was taking that proportional sharing off the table, I shrugged and said that it must have been the U.S. that took that off the table this round because it longer need it. The U.S. no longer need it because we have become a captive seller to the United States market. That is a result of failed government policy.

I suggest this in this debate because it is very relevant to why we are suddenly a price taker in the U.S. market and what its negotiating strength is versus ours as a supplier. There are lots of terms in this agreement that are important, but it is not a win when the other side says it does not want that part of the agreement anymore and our federal minister takes it off the table. It is actually a loss for the country.

The government's short-sighted policies in constraining our oil and gas resources in particular are reflected in the regulatory environment. This policy misdirection is not increasing our ability to export our resource to markets besides the United States of America, so we are a captive seller. We are, as we say in financial markets, a price taker.

Let me quantify this statement. In 2018, Canada's oil and gas industry exported 80 billion dollars' worth of oil to the United States. That number is representative of 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. Those are big numbers. The big number that is not included there is that it should have been, by world prices, about $21 billion higher over the year. That is $21 billion that we are forgoing as a Canadian economy because we do not receive the world price for our resource. We do not receive it because we do not have access to other foreign markets. Those markets are needed to diversify.

There is an inability to diversify those markets because of government policy. That government policy is reflected in the fact that it cancelled or caused the cancellation of any other pipelines that were going to lead our resources to foreign markets beyond the U.S., particularly the northwest pipeline through Prince Rupert.

Canadian petroleum products are some of the best resources we have. If we think about how much of the economy it represents, it is significant. The flip side of this equation, of course, is the way the United States refines these produces and then sells petroleum products back to Canadians in other parts of the country at world prices.

Who is really winning in that equation? The United States companies that are making windfall profits and the United States government, which is making more corporate tax revenue. We are receiving less and they are receiving more.

Make no mistake, we are entering into negotiations with parties that know how to look after themselves. This is not a benevolent negotiation. This is a real negotiation and we need to take these negotiations seriously as a country. My first recommendation for the government has always been to get serious about these negotiations.

Let us also accept that being prepared for these negotiations and being serious about it meant arriving with an agenda on what we needed in this equation. Canada did not arrive there with any solid takeaways required from the Canadian economy's perspective, particularly a softwood lumber agreement, which has been an ongoing trade irritant between our two countries since the NAFTA negotiations started. We do need to come to some agreement on that. Nothing of that nature is reflected in this agreement. I anticipate these disagreements will continue for the life of this agreement.

We could have and should have anticipated the U.S. coming in and trying to get a portion of our dairy quota onto world markets. We had already ceded a portion of that dairy quota in recently completed negotiations through the trans-Pacific partnership. Our largest trading partner should rightfully have said that if we could do it for the rest of the world, why could we not allow U.S. companies a portion of the market as well? Arriving with that position might have been an easy trade-off at the end of the day. I am happy to see that trade-off. If we looked at it from another perspective, it was going to happen one way or another.

What I do not understand is our giveaway of the milk products that seem to be capped to all foreign buyers in this agreement. We are saying to our dairy sector that we will take away part of its quota, but we are also going to constrain it in the way it gets to grow in foreign markets on key products. That is a surrender of sovereignty, and that sovereignty is ours. We are going to have to economically prosper in a shrinking industry with one partner by going to other markets. Getting that capped was quite a surrender.

Money is leaving the country because of the business environment here. We know that in 2018 alone, Canadian foreign direct investment in the U.S. increased 13% and the U.S.'s investment in Canada increased 5%. That is a drastic difference and is a reflection of our regulatory environment and the way people do business in Canada.

The Trans Mountain pipeline is now a Crown corporation because U.S. and foreign companies cannot see their way through getting a project built in our country. I raise this now because it matters in the way we deal with different entities across borders and how people prosper in Canada and bring new investment and new prosperity to it. Teck Frontier is a similar project.

The government needs to show the world that Canada does do business when people properly go through the motions and ensure they address indigenous and regulatory concerns, and bring back that foreign investment that is part of every free trade agreement.

Premiers want this agreement signed. The Business Council wants this agreement signed. However, they want it signed because they are tired of the uncertainty created around this. That uncertainty has to stop right away. Goldy Hyder, president of the Business Council of Canada, said that it was good enough and asked that we please get it done.

The necessity of having this free trade agreement is important for the Canadian economy. We are going to move this forward. The issue is to please get serious with this finally and stop surrendering going forward.