I appreciate that response.
I want to pick up on this idea that the first step for a Speaker--and when the Speaker appeared before our committee he referred to this as well, and he's used it quite effectively in the past where he didn't recognize a member. You can do that quite informally. You don't have to make a grand announcement to the chamber. Either the Speaker himself or one of his officials could talk to that member and say they weren't going to be recognized in debate. Obviously, that person would not be disenfranchised as far as his voting, but that person would not be recognized as far as debate or question period.
I want to pick up on your suggestion that to make it truly effective, what we would need is buy-in or support from the four parties, the whips, the House leaders, ultimately the leaders of those four parties, to say we will always support the Speaker in that ruling, and ensure that happens by not having the person on the list for question period, for example, and we will respect the Speaker's right not to recognize that person. Is that what you're getting at there?