Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, and the commitment that I made as the whip to bring this to our caucus and to consistently and constantly and repeatedly try to impress upon my caucus colleagues the need for greater decorum in the House, I can inform the committee, without revealing caucus confidentiality, that on a regular basis I communicate to my caucus colleagues exactly that, in very blunt terms.
Despite Mr. Godin's best intentions here with his recommendations, when I reflect back upon a fairly lengthy discussion that this committee has already been seized with over this issue, I would have to say that the Speaker said, when he was before us, that he feels he does have the necessary tools to do the job. Certainly that was the impression I had. I could review the transcript, I guess, of that particular meeting and refresh my memory, but certainly that was the impression I had, that he believes he does have the tools to adequately do what he can.
At the same time, he did tell us that it's up to every one of the 307 other members of Parliament who sit upstairs in the chamber to do what they can.
I made comments at that time, and I know that other whips--indeed, other members around this table, whether they were whips or not--were in general agreement that there are a couple of other things that need to happen. One is peer pressure from individuals who sit around offending colleagues, if I could call them that, regardless of partisan party stripe. And the other is to implore our colleagues to exert self-discipline in how we conduct ourselves, recognizing, as Mr. Godin correctly states, that we are on national television, and the Canadian people, from time to time, I think are rightly appalled at the behaviour that goes on in there.
Again, unless I'm corrected, I believe the Speaker indicated that he believes he has the ultimate sanction already. He has exerted it from time to time during his tenure. If some people are consistent offenders, he talks to them, and then he just doesn't recognize them. So if they want to get up on Q and A during debate, he will pass them over and not recognize them. To me that's the ultimate sanction, without getting into fines and various other methods that may or may not be particularly helpful.
From our earlier discussion, unfortunately, what we get into is who is going to make the arbitrary decision that a particular MP deserves to be disciplined and others don't. Therein lies the problem, and the Speaker himself referred to it. Obviously, the voices of the people who are physically located nearer to his chair are going to be louder to him because of the set-up in the House, where only the microphone in front of the person who actually has the floor is turned on.
With all due respect to Mr. Godin, because of the physical location of his party, one individual down there could be particularly incensed on a given day and be making quite a loud noise. The Speaker wouldn't necessarily hear that, or certainly wouldn't hear it at the same volume as someone who is standing immediately to the person's right or left. The Speaker talked about the challenge he has, which is that, obviously, it's the people who are located physically near him who would seem to him to be the most outspoken, if I can say that.
So there are a number of factors at play here. I think we've quite exhaustively dealt with this. We've all recognized the challenges.
I take my fellow whips at their word that they have done as I have, which is to consistently and constantly remind our colleagues that we are in front of the Canadian public and that it behooves all of us to try to restore a higher level of decorum to the chamber.
I will maintain that as long as I hold this post, because it's a commitment I made to the people who are sitting in this room. I have the full support of my Prime Minister, my leader, as I suspect the whips do of the other three parties, to continue to do that.
I would note that the Ottawa Citizen newspaper has started—I can't remember when they started, but it was sometime in this Parliament—this so-called civility meter, whereby they assign the task of reviewing question period in particular for each day, and then report: it's recorded in the next day's paper what the level of civility was.
A couple of days ago was the first time I've noticed that the rating was five on five. In other words, the rating was that the Speaker had a relatively easy time of maintaining control of the chamber, according to the rating system they came up with.
I thought that obviously was signalling that there was an improvement. It varies from day to day, depending on the topic that is being discussed and depending, of course, on the way questions are framed—and conversely, on the way the answers are framed.
Anyway, my view is that we have dealt with this. Concerning the one part of the recommendation about the whips meeting regularly—I don't know whether it has to be every week or not, but regularly—with the Speaker, so that the five of us can sit down and discuss whether we think we're gaining or losing in our battle to restore a bit more decorum, I don't have a problem with it. It's obviously dependent upon the rather tight schedules of all the whips, but I would be willing to commit to endeavouring to sit down with the Speaker regularly to discuss this, and perhaps discuss whether there is a need.
From my recollection, when he appeared here he did not see a need to change the Standing Orders to give him more power than he already has. He just wanted to ensure that he had the support of all of us—all parties, all whips, all leaders, ultimately—so that if and when he is forced to use some of the power he has, he would have our support.
