There is no pursuit. We have heard comments as to why the Jones act was exempt from the free trade agreement in 1988 and 1993. That is the kind of rhetoric that has been put forward. Everybody in the House understands that the free trade agreement is the fundamental cornerstone of our economy today in terms of augmenting our trade with the Americans. We have over $200 billion worth of trade with the Americans. Previously it was only $80 billion. However, we were not able to get this one particular industry into the trade agreement.
The government has been in power for over six years. It has not once taken the opportunity to look at improving this. Rather, it has put the blame on the previous government. Not once has the government said that it would be a very good initiative to set up a trade component sector by sector. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that it is imperative that we take a sector by sector approach. Why do we not set up a trade component, go to the Americans and negotiate a bilateral accord on certain types of ships? Maybe they would be drilling rigs. Maybe they would be ocean going tugs. We have not taken an initiative to penetrate the Jones act.
I will outline very briefly what we are considering because my colleagues have done a fabulous job in terms of the initiatives put forward by my friend and colleague from the neighbouring riding of Saint John, the member for Chicoutimi and the member from Lévis. There are a number of members who really believe this is something we need to do.
We need to develop a loan guarantee program similar to the American title XI, which has been in effect since 1936. Do members know how many loan defaults there have been since 1936? Since 1936, under this very prudent criteria, with the federal government guaranteeing the loans, there have been zero loan defaults. Absolutely none. Why are they scared to look at something that works and implement it in our country? I know there are people listening to this at home and in the House who cannot fathom why that initiative has not been taken.
I believe that Reform agrees with me that this country is overtaxed. Why do we want to tax an industry so that it has no chance of competing? What we are advocating is to revise the Revenue Canada leasing regulations concurrently with accelerated depreciation. That would lower taxes. We do it for rail cars, computers, trucks and other industries.
I ask my colleagues again: Why would they not want to take that initiative if it is done for other industries? What do they have against this cutting-edge, high tech, modern industry?
We should revise Revenue Canada leasing regulations to make them similar to the title XI loan guarantee program.
I will give the government a bit of credit in this regard. It has taken some steps with respect to the Export Development Corporation. However, I would argue that it should look at doing that for the domestic market as well.
I have talked about the need to have a bilateral accord in terms of the Jones act. This comes down to three fundamental principles. First, we have to be able to establish a marketplace. The marketplace is threefold domestically. The ships which exist on the Great Lakes today are aging and will be need to be replaced or refitted. We need to ensure that we have a competitive indigenous industry to take advantage of those opportunities.
The second market would be to go after a bilateral accord with Americans, which I just pointed out.
Third, we could compete with the EU if we provided the appropriate tax regime.
The last point, which I cannot fathom, comes downs to political leadership. This is not a debate about what needs to be done; this is purely a debate about who is going to get the job done. The Minister of Industry should be an advocate for this industry. If he does not want to be the quarterback, then I suggest he step aside and let someone take over who actually cares about the industry.
I am suggesting that the Minister of Industry step aside and let the Prime Minister be the quarterback of this initiative so that he can bring the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance on side to get the individuals in this industry working by opening markets, lowering taxes and re-establishing the industry.