Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is a serious one given that the decorum in the House has been subject to a great deal of criticism, particularly during the last session. There have been a number of ethical breaches by some members. To those who are watching us—and we also get observers in this chamber—we can say that it was in very poor taste and that it gave the impression that Parliament is not very respectable.
We must realize that the frustration caused by government responses on political issues bubbles up in question period. I believe that the could-not-care-less attitude sometimes dished out to opposition members is cause for frustration and that we have reached new lows in terms of the lack of decorum and control in the context of a minority government. That has to be said.
There have been too many personal attacks, even outside the House, for example when MPs or ministers were in their home ridings. Frustration spilled over into question period. There were attacks during the law and order debate, for example. That is just one of many examples. The issue of the trafficking of minors also resonated in question period. A fair bit of rhetoric was addressed to the Bloc Québécois on that issue. I am saying that the government was rather partisan.
I can say that the proposal by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is a reform that may be praiseworthy but, overall, will not have the desired effect of elevating decorum and ensuring that there is better information about issues. His proposal will not result in people being better informed about certain issues.
I will explain why I do not think that the objectives will be achieved. As I was saying, decorum in the House has seriously deteriorated. That, we know. There have been breaches of ethics in both words and actions. This is already being looked at. There is a parliamentary dialogue committee, which brings together members from all the parties to find solutions to elevate decorum. I attended one of the first meetings. There is not a single party that will say today that it does not support the part of the motion that calls for us to elevate decorum during question period. However, will this motion really achieve this objective?
I had to ask myself several questions. Can we deny that the lack of decorum is directly related to the format of question period? Is the lack of decorum limited to question period, or does it extend to all the debates in this House? Is this lack of decorum related to the fact that the public is becoming more cynical, because the rules during question period are not being followed? I can give a qualified answer and say that question period is not the only period in the House that lacks decorum. The lack of decorum cannot be blamed on question period alone.
I think that the lack of decorum is not just limited to question period. However, I must say that question period is when frustrations come out over the responses the government gives to the opposition. The ministers should not show disdain simply because the opposition has a different point of view or opinion.
I do not know whether it is a coincidence, but in a rather revealing article, Manon Cornellier, from Le Devoir, had this to say about decorum in the House of Commons:
It is not so much the tone of the public debate that puts people off, but rather the tenor of the debate....Disinformation, lack of logic, half-truths and omissions have all become staples on the parliamentary menu. All of the parties indulge, but the government appears to be the most partial to such nonsense. Even more worrisome, it seems to take pleasure in feeding this propensity....On many issues, the Conservatives ignore reality and try to impose their point of view....This denial of reality has rubbed off on all of the members, even the Prime Minister...
We have seen contracts awarded without tenders, and this raises a number of questions. The opposition parties have asked those questions in this House.
On another point, the fact of assigning a day—this request is in the motion—to certain ministers for question period will cause the opposition to miss out on opportunities to talk about key parliamentary issues on a given day. Thus, there is not enough flexibility.
For instance, an issue that makes headlines one day can be completely forgotten the next week. However, if it is the responsibility of a minister who is here only on Mondays, we will have to wait six days before we can ask a question.
Some degree of flexibility is needed in the definition of the strategy for question period so that it reflects current affairs. Consider the sponsorship scandal, when the opposition was putting questions to the minister in question every three or four days. What will we do with such a rigid framework in the House of Commons?
We must stop allowing any minister to answer any questions on any issue. That is common practice here, when ministers answer questions from the opposition. Each minister has his or her portfolio for which he or she is accountable and responsible. That is called ministerial responsibility. Since this government came to power, this ministerial responsibility for specific issues no longer exists. From now on, we could compel ministers to be accountable for only their own issues. We do not need motion M-517 for this to be adopted.
Most of the time, the Bloc Québécois assigns questions on a given subject to the critic for that file, who in turn addresses the portfolio holder. When a given region is particularly affected by an issue, the question is assigned to the member concerned. We must reinstate ministerial responsibility without requiring ministers to be present on set days, as this would limit the latitude of the opposition parties.
On another note, I believe that the framework proposed by today's motion is rigid and does not allow for much flexibility. I think that it would help muzzle the opposition in a number of ways. If we increase the time allotted for questions and responses and if question period continues to be 45 minutes long, what will happen to the time allotted to the other opposition parties? It could reduce the time allotted to the opposition party, especially when there is a majority government.
As suggested by the motion, proposing that half the questions be asked by a member whose name would be chosen at random and allowing all members to participate in the random draw—both those in power and those in opposition—could increase the number of questions that may be asked by government members. That would mean that the opposition would have fewer questions.
Those are our concerns about this motion. It is matter that needs to be brought before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we could debate it, but without placing too many restrictions in order to change the behaviour in the House. It is not by giving certain hon. members more questions that the issue of decorum will be resolved. Often it is a matter of personality. If the leaders or the whips do not come up with a strategy, then every MP is free to express their own personality.
We know full well that the parties—the governing party and the opposition parties alike—have strategies for getting their message across. The government limits both the opposition's attacks and its own willingness to answer questions. I do not believe this will change anything.
In my opinion, part of the solution lies with the whips. It is their responsibility, in part, to see to the proper behaviour of their caucus. Certain ministers and hon. members are able to avoid mean-spirited behaviour, as we have seen. It is a question of personality.
Peer behaviour is important too. We are all responsible for intervening when a colleague goes overboard. We are responsible for telling our colleagues that they have gone too far and should apologize. Perhaps there should be penalties. When a member rises after going too far, he or she should simply retract his or her statement and apologize. Whips and leaders could help such colleagues think things over so that they develop a sense of responsibility for the things they did or said.
Attacks often take place off-camera. These may be personal attacks or hurtful behaviour or looks. Today, one Conservative member went so far as to pull out her passport. Maybe she thought it was still question period, but the rest of us were voting on another matter. That, too, is provocation.
Yet that member criticized the Bloc Québécois' attitude and some of its members' conduct when things got out of control last session. Today, her behaviour was inappropriate and frustrated the Bloc Québécois. We did not understand what was going on, but some members were really offended by what she did.
