There are two points to be brought to the Speaker's attention. The first one was raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. He has indicated to the Speaker that because we are dealing with the previous question not only does this preclude amendments, it makes it such that we must dispose of the previous question before anything else is invoked.
Quite clearly the rules are designed so that when the previous question is moved this matter is to be disposed of at the conclusion of members having spoken. Rules elsewhere in the standing orders are not applied when we are using the issue of the previous question.
Second, as it invokes Standing Order 44, no member speaking twice with the exception referred to by the hon. whip of the Reform Party, I submit to the Chair that the member in question has not spoken in the House this day and therefore a clarification
of comments he made in the House is not in order at this time even if this rule were to apply, which I submit it does not.
Finally, it is obvious that invoking this rule by the hon. member in question is completely out of order because it does not satisfy the requirement of his giving an explanation to a speech in the House he gave several days ago when there were plenty of opportunities in questions, Standing Order 31 and questions to other hon. members in order to correct any misconception he thinks the House might have about remarks he made in the Chamber not today but several days ago.
On the comments the hon. member is invoking to clarify today, I submit that in the unlikely event the Chair allows these clarifications, the Chair will hear clarifications made with regard to the response the member gave in answering questions to another hon. member not on the motion we are discussing now but on the previous question.