Tony Valeri

[Privilege, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that was exactly the intention of the amendment to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, that if there was an agreement to enter a ballistic missile defence then there would be a vote and a debate in the House. Now the hon. member is attempting to interpret that particular amended address in reply to the Speech from the Throne from a very convenient perspective.

Mr. Speaker, while I know it is sometimes very difficult to separate rhetoric from fact, I would hope that you focus on the facts.

[Privilege, March 8th, 2005]

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.

[National Defence, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to a quote provided by the Leader of the Opposition in question period on February 22. He 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.

[Points of Order, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a point of order that was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Halifax.

Mr. Speaker, in your response you said that you would consider the matter further and come back to the House once a response from someone was provided. I am providing that response.

I want to make a couple of points for your consideration. One is that it should be borne in mind that our cabinet system of government is one in which no decision can be said to have been made until cabinet has agreed to it. In the case of BMD, cabinet did not make the decision until its regular weekly meeting, which took place yesterday. As soon as that decision was made, the Minister of Foreign Affairs quite properly informed the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.

Since cabinet actually began its meeting after the time in the House agenda for ministers' statements and since the minister desired to enlarge upon the effects of the budget in his department by intervening in the budget debate, the minister chose to use that opportunity to provide the House with the information. I also want to make the point that it was only after the minister had made his statement in the House that the Prime Minister spoke to the media.

As to the assertion in the statement by the hon. member for Halifax yesterday that the decision was made many days ago and that American authorities had in fact been informed, once again it should be borne in mind that only cabinet can make a decision of this nature and that cabinet did not make this decision until yesterday.

It is true that the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers had reached conclusions on the course of action they would recommend to cabinet some days earlier. It is also true that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as an informal courtesy, which, frankly, is quite normal in international diplomacy, gave an indication to the U.S. secretary of state of what course would be recommended to cabinet.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, in any system of cabinet government a decision is not made until cabinet has agreed to it. That decision was made in cabinet shortly after it met at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and until cabinet agreed no decision existed.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider these comments in your deliberation and in your consideration of the point of order the hon. member for Halifax raised yesterday.

[Business of the House, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the budget debate. Tomorrow we will return to the third reading debate of Bill C-33. If this is completed, we will then turn to third reading of Bill C-8, which is the public service bill; the report stages and third readings of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; and Bill S-17 respecting tax treaties.

Next week is a constituency week. On March 7, 8 and 9 we will continue the budget debate, and Thursday, March 10 shall be an allotted day.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you take into account some of the words that the hon. member is using in your ruling.

Should the government have an agreement to bring forward, we will respect our commitment, which is to hold a debate and to have a vote.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition correctly stated yesterday, “All parties in the House agreed that there would be a vote before we became part of missile defence”.

Should the government have an agreement to bring forward, we will respect our commitment, hold a debate and have a vote.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when the government is ready to make an announcement, it will do so in an appropriate and timely manner. Should the government have an agreement to bring forward, we will respect our commitment, hold a debate and a vote.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, when the government is ready to make an announcement, it will do so in an appropriate and timely manner.

Also, as the hon. member has asked the question, should the government have an agreement to bring forward, we will respect our commitment, hold that debate and have that vote.

[Privilege, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way might want to interpret whatever I say in any way he might like.

What I want to make perfectly clear is what I have said and essentially have referred to is that the departments will continue to operate based on the appropriations that have been voted to those departments from the main estimates in this House. Legislation and parliamentary options are being considered and to be presented back to this House. That is exactly what I said. That is the basis with which those two departments can operate.