Evidence of meeting #8 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was message.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm being very liberal with the time today, and I would like you all to recognize it.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I would like to thank the Speaker and Ms. O'Brien for being here today, and I think the Speaker has done a great job of showing the complexity of this issue, not just by his comments but by his body language. Can we record that somehow?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Madam O'Brien, you mentioned the electronic master at the committee and the disrespect we show to our witnesses. From the way you worded that comment, I am certain you were speaking to my wife as well, because this often comes up.
Because I am feeling so guilty, I am going to take a different approach to a different question.
With regard to cameras in the House, it says clearly that those are not permitted, but on a number of occasions since I've been here we've had special guests--maybe international prime ministers--or the apology for the residential schools situation or even the Olympic torch. It was obvious there were dozens and dozens of cameras being used. Are there different rules when the House is formally in session? When do you decide if it's approved or not? Is it a judgment call, or is there a rule somewhere that would cover that sort of thing?
11:45 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
I think Mr. Speaker summed it up well when he murmured to me just now, “What cameras?”
I think we've crossed over a border. We now find that cameras are really ubiquitous, because anybody who has a smart phone has a camera. That wasn't the case before, so it was much more intrusive, if you will, than it is now, but I think a certain common sense prevails. If it's an occasion on which people are taking mementoes of a very special day--the apology, for instance, for the residential schools, the Olympic torch, and so forth--I think nobody would object, because pretty well everybody is taking part. That doesn't mean that it's different.
I think the original intention, going back to first principles, was the idea that you weren't to disrespect colleagues by taking pictures of them, say, reading newspapers, having a doze, or doing other things that would not be easily explicable to the outside world. A picture of someone who's particularly hardworking and tired--
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
Well, yes, it could be that kind of thing.
I think the Standing Orders are based on common law. You don't try to codify every instance of misbehaviour.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I thank my colleague, and I thank you for being here.
I have a few questions. Do the existing rules, the way they are now, accommodate new technologies? Are we able to interpret the spirit of the rule with the new technology, or do we have some hurdles in the existing rules that make it hard to rule on new technologies as they come forward?
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
From the point of view of someone who worked on the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I don't think the new technology poses singular difficulties. It's obviously something where things work faster and further afield, and so forth, but I don't think it interferes with the basis of the principles that are in place. So I don't think it requires a whole new set of rules.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
No.
I do think, for example, though, the whole business of the use of the BlackBerry in committees, just in terms of the courtesies that are extended to other colleagues and to witnesses, is something that is being worked out in all kinds of forums. People are finding that they're having meetings and the forum itself is just not being given the attention it deserves. So some meetings will insist that people surrender their BlackBerry. It's kind of like going cold turkey for half an hour, something like that. But that's a different thing. That's really just a way of proceeding. It's not a procedural principle in any way.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
What about the rules in the House for outside people who aren't members, reporters or people coming to visit and watching the proceedings? Do you think there needs to be some modification in the rules?
We could have a reporter sitting up in the lobby twittering who's here and who's not here. That's instantaneous; it's gone. So if a reporter is doing it, how do we deal with that situation?
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
There was no rule against it. They could have been taking notes and eventually putting it in their newspaper. There has never been any rule against that.
There are instances where there are people who are live blogging from various events, and that doesn't appear to have posed a problem.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
In my personal situation, I had a blogger blog incorrectly that I was out of the riding during the prorogation period, when I was actually in my office. We all know, once it's blogged and on the Internet, we're found guilty, convicted, and there's no recourse, because we have no control over that microphone.
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
That's the thing, and of course we would have no control over that either.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
One other question I want to ask you about concerns the new technology for MPs. There is database technology that would allow me to share files back and forth with my office, that would make things a lot easier for me to do my job, but I'm having problems trying to work through our own IT department to get that technology through our security. We've approached different avenues to see if we could accommodate the security, but they seem to be fairly closed-minded on that.
Is there any way we can look at that again?
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
I know we're looking at the whole question of file sharing with constituency offices. One of the things we have to be extremely careful about is the whole question of security. We've had instances of cyber attacks that have been quite serious, and we've been able to withstand that by virtue of the threshold of security that we insist on maintaining. But certainly I'd be happy to follow up with the CIO on that for you.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I have one quick question, and it's really a quick question.
Do you think the decorum of the House would improve if the cameras were removed—or is that not a quick question?
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
If the cameras were removed?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
I wouldn't venture a guess.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While listening to my colleagues debate the issue as well as your thoughts on the matter, I realized that this isn't a debate on a Standing Order, or on the compliance or non-compliance with a Standing Order. The decisions we will come to, whether to amend the rules or not, have more to do with the atmosphere and decorum we want to see prevail in the House.
If I understand your ruling correctly, you trust that members will have a minimum of respect and decorum when using devices such as BlackBerrys in order to make partisan comments on Twitter or elsewhere. You don't accuse a member of another party of being absent without partisan intent. Such behaviour does not respect the decorum that Parliament has strived to maintain over the years. I think that is clear.
However, I know that the speed of the technology is very fast. I can ask a question, and a minute later it is up on Facebook, because my assistant has recorded the image. Using a computer, you make a video, record it and post it on Facebook. I can even have the minister's response. Or I can take an excerpt from the minister's response. Things are moving so quickly, and I understand your challenges in terms of circumscribing the use of technology in the House, because this is all becoming complex. Each situation has to be assessed individually, and that can become very complex.
We have the choice. You can give even stricter indications, so that members properly understand that such behaviour is not to be accepted. You can also take the opposite approach: amend the Standing Order and decide that members can no longer use such devices, for example, during question period or debates. The choice is between trusting that members will behave properly and ensure decorum in the House, and, on the contrary, completely changing the rules and prohibiting the use of those technologies, despite the fact that we use them as work tools. Most members use them to do their work, and there have been very few cases like the ones we have seen.
My concern is that if you do not report back to the House and affirm your will as the Speaker more firmly, then we will see an increase in such misuse, because your ruling will not have been forceful enough. That is my personal opinion, with all due respect. The message has to be clear enough in order to discourage such behaviour, otherwise, I fear that there will be increasing misuse of our work tools for partisan purposes.
Let us take a very specific example. If I were to use Twitter and say things that I knew were false, and those falsehoods made it to the media, then they could have a field day with that information by publishing things that were completely false. I think that an MP's privileges could be breached, and he could say that he was in the House and saw the member use Twitter from his or her seat. How could we deal with a case where a member's privilege has been breached, where he or she was falsely accused by another member through the use of such technology?
There will be other rulings for you to make if, in my view, you are not more firm in deterring such behaviour. I would tend to trust members, and if there is abuse, indicate that measures would have to be taken to prohibit the use of technology during question period, for example. I think that the message members need to hear has to be much clearer than what you said in the House.
