Madam Speaker, it is with disappointment that I find it necessary to call into question the response I received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding Canadian participation in a ground based missile defence system.
In the past, reporting of our exchanges in the House of Commons have been manipulated and misreported into something entirely false. As fellow professionals, I know the minister understands and accepts this as I do.
Although I appreciate the element of partisanship that follows ministerial responses, the government does have a responsibility to adhere to the issues when answering to the Canadian public. It is simplistic on behalf of the government to state that if we support our friends and allies, and in this case our largest trading partner, we do so to the detriment of our own national interest.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs would have Canadians believe that by supporting our traditional ally, the United States, we are somehow being unpatriotic Canadians. This is false.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs made the suggestion that it was the official opposition that said Canadians were anti-American but he knows it was a member of the minister's caucus, the member for Mississauga Centre, who went on national television to make her anti-American comments. It was the Minister of Natural Resources, the colleague of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who made the anti-American comments.
Blaming the official opposition for the anti-American rhetoric of government members is like saying that we forced the industry minister to climb aboard the Irving company jet for a free plane ride.
We in the official opposition understand the necessity for good relations with our largest trading partner. I am pleased to acknowledge the efforts of my leader and members of our party who travelled to Washington on behalf of thoughtful Canadians. We support civil relations with our southern neighbour to repair the damage done by the government with its unfortunate pandering to anti-American sentiment for certain segments of the population.
Canada has an international reputation as defence freeloaders. There seems to be a pattern here.
Defence business is vital to Canada's aerospace industry and, in the words of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada:
Key to our success in the global market is unfettered access to opportunities in the United States, the single largest market for aerospace goods and services.
While Canada's aerospace industry became the fourth largest in the world in 1999, the bulk of its output is civil aviation. As it has been pointed out, there needs to be a balance in the industry.
Billions of dollars in export revenues and thousands of jobs depend on the aerospace industry. By Canada signalling a willingness to participate in national missile defence, Canadians will benefit in a number of different ways.
First and foremost, we are participating in the defence of our own nation, in the name of our sovereignty. What could be more patriotic? Maybe we could start to shed the reputation of the Liberal Party as defence freeloaders with a firm declaration.
Second, Canada would be sending a clear signal to our strongest ally and our largest trading partner that we are serious about repairing the damaged relations that currently exist between Canada and the United States. Only then will we see some progress on issues like softwood lumber and mad cow disease.
Third, we would be securing thousands of Canadian jobs with the prospect of creating more employment in a value added, knowledge based industry.