Ruling
October 13, 1966
Reflections on a Member
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
The rules do not contemplate the possibility of a second interpretation on a decision of the Chair on a question of privilege. The Member had originally asked for a ruling on a question of privilege related to the use of a particular word. That request had been allowed because, as the Member had explained, the word had been mistaken for another. There was no such confusion about the meaning of other words and any question about their probity should have been raised at that time. Moreover, as had been explained in the first decision, words complained of should not be considered as a question of privilege, but on a point of order, unless they are so strong as to impugn the very honour and integrity of a Member.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"A Speaker's ruling is not subject to a second interpretation, and complaints about words are matters for a point of order unless they are so severe as to constitute a breach of privilege by impugning a Member's honour."
AI Summary
The Speaker denies a request for a second ruling, clarifying that Chair's decisions are final and complaints about words are typically points of order, not questions of privilege.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Point of Order / Question of Privilege
- Significance
Low
High