Mr. Speaker, I believe that you in fact just ruled on a point of order brought forward by the member of Parliament for Halifax with respect to ballistic missile defence.
I know that my hon. colleague did make reference to the amended paragraph in the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. For the benefit of everyone I would like too reread that. It states:
With respect to an agreement on ballistic missile defence, the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior to a government decision;
Mr. Speaker, the words I would like to draw to your attention are “with respect to an agreement”. In fact there was no agreement. The amendment to the reply to the Speech from the Throne specifically refers to an agreement on ballistic missile defence. Since there was no agreement, there was in fact nothing to debate and therefore nothing to vote on.
I should also say there is nothing that precludes Parliament from having a debate on this subject. We do not typically vote on things that we are not doing. We typically vote on things that we intend to do or propose to do and ask Parliament to pronounce in terms of whether they support the position that the government is taking or that a member is taking.
I would suggest that Parliament is here to do things, not to, to use a double negative, not do things.
I would also, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of your thinking on this particular issue, quote the Leader of the Opposition in question period on February 22 who said:
All parties in the House agreed that there would be a vote before we became part of missile defence.
We are not part of missile defence and there is no agreement with respect to this particular issue.
Although I understand the hon. member across the way thinks I am splitting hairs, what I am doing is being quite factual in the information that I am providing to you, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping that you will separate the rhetoric from the facts and ultimately look at this issue from that perspective and then rule according to your best judgment.