Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to the debate. Perhaps I can best do so by answering the question of the parliamentary secretary. We have before the House a motion. It reads:
That this House call upon the government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
A short while ago this motion was dealt with and finalized in the House. I stress these words because of what Erskine May states, that before the Kyoto protocol is ratified by the House, which is what the government motion today asks us to do, there should be an implementation plan that Canadians understand, that sets out the benefits how the targets are to be reached and with what costs.
The motion is clear and succinct, and was passed by this very House. The motion was dealt with. Here we have part of the same motion, regardless of whether Parliament has to deal with Kyoto or not, that does not make any difference. What makes the difference is there is a resolution on the floor that is similar to one that has already been dealt with by the House.
The Speaker recently argued that the motion that was put forth by the Alliance was in order because a similar one put forth by the government had not been dealt with by the House. Time ran out before the vote.
Erskine May states that a motion or an amendment may not be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. We have dealt with a motion that is similar in substance. Consequently, the motion cannot be brought forward today.