Mr. Speaker, I only quoted the six words that would be added to the Standing Order. Maybe if I read the whole thing, it would make the point as to why this is problematic. It states:
The Speaker...after having called the attention of the House...to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance...including during responses to oral questions,
That is the part that is added in. Then it goes back to the existing wording, as follows:
may direct the Member to discontinue his or her intervention, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.
The last part is not relevant, but it says, “the Speaker shall name the Member”. Naming seems really strong. It has not happened once in the House during my career.
It also says that the Speaker may order the member to discontinue. If the Speaker says, “Make the comments relevant or I am going to cut them off, because that is not relevant” and goes back to the questioner, that is a different process than what is recommended here.
What is recommended here is simply the wrong weapon for the situation, because a Standing Order intended for an entirely different purpose is being used for this purpose. I suggest that it is like trying to fix a hole in a boat with something that is inappropriate, like barbed wire. It is the wrong tool for the situation. It is like using glue to repair a rip in a blanket. It is the wrong tool. That is the main problem with this.
If members want to come back with some other way of dealing with this issue somewhere else in the Standing Orders, we may have greater success, although I still go back to my thought that it is best to rely upon the practices of the House.