Mr. Chairman, if I could, one of the reasons why the ruling was in certain ways equivocated is because it really isn't a question so much of the gadget, or whether there's a gadget used; it's a question of whether or not the courtesy has been infringed. That is where the difficulty is.
Presumably, if one were to go back in time, the business of not referring to a colleague's absence or presence was basically a collegial courtesy that you extended to members because you, as a member, knew that they might well be off on parliamentary business, in committees, or in the constituency, or whatever. And because there's someone you can appeal to.... If they do it out loud, if they stand up and say something, you can ask the Speaker to intervene on a point of order; then there's a corrective measure. There isn't a corrective measure if they say so outside.
The thing about the gadgets is, how do you police whether it was used while the member was in the chamber instead of outside or in the lobby? Then you start parsing geography, which is a problem.
With regard to committees, if I may just add one thing, I think the business of in camera disclosure has been a problem from the time there have been in camera meetings. That is to say that people have broken the trust of the committee, which is supposed to be meeting in camera, and have, in one way or another, divulged what went on. Whether they used an electronic gadget, as they can do today, and can arguably go further and faster because they're using the electronic communication device, nonetheless, that problem has been raised before, so it's nothing new.
What I think is new... There again, it comes into the development of a new kind of manners around the use of electronic devices. I think the smaller the group of parliamentarians that is at work, the more potential there is for things to go off the rails. I happened to see the other day a letter that went into a committee from witnesses who had been very offended when they appeared before a committee because everybody in the committee was actually paying way more attention to their BlackBerry than they were to the witnesses who were making the presentation. My feeling is that feeds into a negative atmosphere of people coming to make their point before Parliament.
I know members have a lot of different calls on their time, and it's important that they keep in touch, but I think that's one of the things we're seeing. It's more compelling to pay attention to the electronic master than it is to the person who's in front of you--if I may just have a small rant here.