We can talk about having the Speaker stand up and say to the Prime Minister, “Sorry, Mr. MacGregor asked you a clear question about whether or not you should have a criminal record for your marijuana use. Now answer his question.”
Now that would be a real change if the Speaker could do that. Alternatively, we could have a system in which, if the speaker didn't do that, it would be legitimate to raise a point of order in response to that after question period. Right now, though, if you raise a point of order and say that someone didn't answer a question, or that someone presented factually inaccurate information, the Speaker will quite rightly, according to our present rules, say that this is a point of debate and that you can't raise points of debate. You can raise points of debate as debate, but you cannot raise points of debate as points of order.
We could envision changes to the Standing Orders. There are pros and cons to this, but we could envision changes that would seek to require responses to questions and have some process by which these matters were adjudicated. Of course, that's not in the discussion paper. Why? Because it's a discussion paper that comes from the government House leader, and it would be a little bit hypocritical if the government House leader proposed requiring people to actually answer questions in question period.