Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 20th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

May I please call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), we're going to be talking about new technologies and their impact on House and committee proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, you did send some sort of statement for this committee to look at, so we thought the best person to have here today to come and speak on this issue was you. I understand you can't be with us for the full two hours today, but I'm hoping that just through a few rounds of questioning we can get a direction as to where this committee wants to head on this study.

Let's start off with you and Madam O'Brien, and introduce who you have brought with you today. I don't know if you have an opening statement, or will we just go to a round of questioning?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Speaker of the House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the kind invitation. I don't have much of an opening statement. I really said it in the ruling on this issue that I made in the House a few weeks ago.

Louis Bard and Rob Walsh are with us, if you wish to ask them any questions. I'm sure you're familiar with their roles here in the House, and they'd be more than happy to discuss this issue with you.

As I mentioned, I made a ruling in the house with regard to the matter. It's an issue the committee might want to consider. That's what I suggested, with perhaps amending the Standing Orders of the House, if that is the desired outcome.

I don't know whether you want to make recommendations on this one or not.

My concern was that there was a complaint that members were reporting who was present and who wasn't. As was pointed out in the argument, a reporter could do that if the reporter were sitting in the gallery, but we don't see reporters in the gallery as often as we used to in the old days. They're not seeing who is present in the House and who isn't, so it doesn't get reported very often. But it's certainly something the press gallery could do. There is no offence against reporting it.

Members are not allowed to refer to a member's absence in the House, and that's fine. They may refer to that absence if they print a note on their BlackBerry and send it out, saying a member is not there, which is not the same as saying it in the House. Our prohibition is on saying it in the House in the course of one's remarks.

As you know, lots of games are played to get around it, like welcoming a member back, or saying how nice it is to see the member's fresh face arrive in the House, and that sort of thing. These things happen from time to time. So without commenting on any of that... I'm not sure this is a matter of great importance, but because the issue was raised and I had to give a ruling on it, I thought you might want to look at it. If you want to make some statement, or ban this practice or do nothing, the committee would at least have studied it, and that was my purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam O'Brien, do you have anything on this, or shall we go to questions?

[Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons]

You can go to questions, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Madam Jennings, it is so good to have you back. We did miss you. It hasn't been the same without you. I'm certain you know that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

And we're going to let you start off today.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you so much, Chair.

It's great to be back. And if you see my eye winking, I'm not winking at you. I think everyone who knows me well knows I'm not a winker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the ruling you made, that it is not parliamentary and that it's not acceptable to comment on the absence of members in the House--and that's by any means--was quite clear. I think your statement again this morning was quite clear, and the ruling you made in the House was quite clear. It is not appropriate for a member to comment on the absence of another member in the House, whether it's done verbally, by e-mail, by Twitter, or by telephone. It's simply not appropriate. I'm going to leave my comments at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Speaker and Ms. O'Brien, for being here.

I guess I'm going to go a little farther than Marlene did. I understand your ruling. I was hoping, frankly, that it would be--I don't want to use the word harsher--a little bit more direct than it was, because, and you mentioned this as well in part of your ruling, and you've said it so many times, you cannot do indirectly that which you cannot do directly. My feeling was that since Mr. Galipeau was actually Twittering from his seat in the House, it should have been ruled out of order.

I understand the background and the rationale for your ruling. What I've ascertained from the members who discussed this last week is that the majority, if not all, of the members here at this committee felt there should be a direction a little stronger than the one you gave. In other words, you encourage members not to do it, but I would frankly like to see a ruling that says you cannot and shall not do that again. I think that would be appropriate.

While it's true we are allowed to have computers, laptops, BlackBerrys, and electronic devices in the House, I think there could still be some pretty clear direction given from you, Speaker, saying that while we have access to these, let's not abuse it, and by that I mean thou shall not Twitter or Facebook or whatever, using electronic devices, and commenting on the presence of absence or members. I would have liked to have seen a bit of a stronger ruling, but that's my opinion.

Looking at the research provided from a researcher here on committee, some other jurisdictions allow electronic devices and some don't. Some allow them at certain times in the House but not in question period, for example. All of them seem to have the underlying premise that whatever devices should be allowed, or would be allowed, or are allowed, could only be allowed if they do not affect the decorum. I think that is the clear direction: that any member who brings in an electronic device should not be allowed to interrupt or disturb the procedures of the House or interrupt decorum.

In your experience, since you've seen the introduction of electronic devices in the House, have you noticed any real problems with their introduction into the House? Or do you see a trend, where more and more disruptions or protocol matters are being interrupted because of someone's use of an electronic device?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Frankly, no, I haven't. The clerk may have a different view. I'm not in the chair a whole lot of time during debate--more in question period and Standing Order 31 statements, not so much in debate--so perhaps I'm not a good person to ask this question of.

My impression is that members sit there doing things on their computers, which wasn't the case when I was first elected. You couldn't plug your computer into the House. There was no way of wiring it up. I'm not particularly good at computers anyway and I can't use one. There's one in front of me, but the clerks run it. I have no mouse or anything. I can't do a thing on it except look, and I point out errors, so that's about the extent of my stuff. I think other members are using them to read material, to correct letters and stuff that you used to get in binders that would come in, and you'd make the changes, signing, and so on. Now a lot of it is done online instead. I don't think it has made a big difference.

I have no idea whether members are sending messages to one another in the House. Of course, I wouldn't see that or know it. It's possible, but I'd be surprised, because you don't see a lot of members with their computers open and working on them during question period. They tend to be engaging in discussion much more.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

We have seen, though, a couple of instances--both, frankly, from the government side--where it's been discovered that members have either Twittered or tweeted about the proceedings going on, either during question period or in the House. I suppose not only would that potentially be a real concern--although the proceedings in question period and the House, of course, are on CPAC, so one can't say you're going to be infringing upon any confidential matters. But I do wonder about use of electronic devices from time to time in committee.

I don't think we've seen any infractions yet. There have been some infractions, I guess, with people speaking to the media about information that was contained at an in camera meeting. I think on both sides of the House members have had to stand up and apologize. I do have some concerns if electronic devices are going to be misused in committee, during matters that should be in camera; that's a problem that's going to have to be dealt with.

I don't have any solutions or suggestions here, but I just wonder if there may come a time where we do have a problem. My point is that I'd like to see those problems addressed before they become problems.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I stress that if a committee has its meeting in camera, it's an offence for the member to go out and talk about what happened in the meeting after or during. It doesn't matter when it is. If the thing is in camera, you're not supposed to disclose what happened in it.

So if you do it by running outside and saying, “So and so is in here now talking about this and that”, blah, blah, blah...I don't know that there's a big difference between that and typing something on your electronic device and sending it somewhere else. They're both incorrect; they're offensive to the rules that govern our committees, and so on. So both are a problem.

In reference to the presence or absence of members in the House, members can go outside the House and say people weren't there. Our rules don't prohibit that. It's just making reference to their presence or absence in debate in the House. Is typing a note on Twitter, or tweeting—however you do that, I don't know—different from going outside and saying, “You know, I was sitting in there today and John Doe wasn't there. Imagine. In fact, there was a whole list of members of that party who weren't there. I can read you the list.” That's my concern.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

But do you have to wait until an infraction takes place before you can make a ruling? Or would you be in a position to make some sort of preemptive rule, for example, in committees, just advising all committee members or all members of the House that even though it's an obvious thing, they shall not use electronic devices to comment on in camera proceedings?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I would think the committee—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Common sense dictates that it would.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

A notice could be sent to the committee saying that's the case, that the rules are there that govern that. I'm sure that could be arranged.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

Audrey, please.

[Audrey O'Brien]

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.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Audrey O'Brien]

That's all I had to say.

[A voice]

Or do both at the same time.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Or do both at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

And very appropriate too. Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Milliken, I carefully read the ruling you made in the case involving the member for Ottawa—Orleans.

From the outset, I would like to say that I am not surprised he was the subject of a point of order. I think we are all aware of how this member behaved when he unfortunately presided over House deliberations. He was a model of incompetence. I think his behaviour has not changed since then. If you want proof of this, ask yourself why he was replaced as Deputy Speaker of the House.

That being said, it is clear that no Standing Order currently addresses this issue. You repeated this a little earlier in response to a question asked by Ms. Jennings. You said that you would strongly recommend that the member stop engaging in such activity, and that you would refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which would study the ins and outs of the issue.

However, we will have another problem. I imagine that we will end up by amending the Standing Orders. Therefore, new technologies will have to be codified. Will we have to predict any potential consequences? Once in a while, when a member says something unparliamentary, you would ask him to apologize. I don't know whether the Standing Orders indicate that you can make this request three times, like in baseball, where it's three strikes and you're out. You could eject a member for the remainder of the sitting. It's all very well and good to tell members that they are not allowed to do something, but if there are no consequences, the punishment will only have moral implications. Therefore, should there be consequences?

You probably realize that we will also have to address the use of cell phones. More and more colleagues from all parties take calls on their cell phones with impunity. This happens in the House.