Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 20th, 2010

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

It's really because of the argument you are making that I referred this matter to the committee.

What should the speaker do when a member is speaking on his cell phone? In the chamber, you cannot do so, but you can send messages. The Standing Orders say nothing about that. We decided to allow laptops into the House, and it is possible to send a message via laptops. Why should a member not be allowed to do so with a small electronic device? In my opinion, there is no problem with sending a written message.

However, as far as the content of a message is concerned, is it up the Speaker to decide what can be said? For example, should a member be prohibited from revealing that John Doe is not in the chamber, or that he has just left the chamber? What is the problem?

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

It's because—

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

During a debate, you cannot reveal whether an MP is in the House or not. During a debate, a message sent outside of the chamber is not part of the debate happening in the chamber. An MP can leave the chamber and reveal that some members were not there today. You can read a list to anyone who is outside the chamber. This is not prohibited in the Standing Orders, and that's the problem.

If you want to amend the Standing Orders to prohibit members from revealing this type of thing outside of the chamber, that's all very well and good, but that is not the case right now. It's only when there is a debate in the chamber that one is not allowed to do this. If a member transmits this information in a message, or when exiting the chamber, what is the problem? There is no violation of the Standing Orders. That's the problem which I had to deal with in this ruling, and that's why I referred it to this committee.

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

However, a principle in law says that you cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly. If I get up during question period and I repeat, once again, for a third consecutive day, that the Prime Minister is not there to take our questions, I have just done directly what I am prohibited from doing.

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

Yes, but you can say that outside the chamber.

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

Yes.

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

There is nothing in the Standing Orders about that. So what is the difference between a situation where you see something outside of the chamber, that a message is received and read outside of the chamber, and another situation where you go outside the chamber to say something, and that whatever you say is heard?

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

I am technologically illiterate, or almost illiterate, but I know that when a posting goes up on Twitter, the time it goes up is indicated. So if you can prove that a member was in the chamber at six minutes past two, when he Twittered who was present and who was absent, you can say that he did so from the floor of the House, which is unacceptable. However, I agree with you that my assistant, who is responsible for press scrums, can indicate, for example, that for three consecutive days of the week, the Prime Minister or a certain minister were not in the House to take our questions.

Mr. Chair, I believe you meet fairly often with the speakers of other legislative assemblies and speakers of the assemblies of Commonwealth countries.

Without revealing any state secrets, can you tell us whether the issue of new technologies has been debated by these speakers? Our two researchers have done excellent work. We now know how four major democracies, including some Commonwealth members, deal with this issue. Further, last year, or two years ago, I believe, you visited Canada's provincial legislative assemblies. I remember that you visited the Quebec National Assembly. We know how four provinces have dealt with this issue. So have speakers debated this matter?

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

Yes, of course, there have been discussions, but not of the type we are having here today, regarding information sent from the floor of the chamber to Twitter. Some elected representatives are not allowed to use their laptops in their legislative assembly, whereas in other legislative assemblies, there is a computer on every desk. I think the situation varies greatly from each legislative assembly in the Commonwealth to another. I believe there are presentations on this issue once a year when we meet. It certainly is an interesting subject, but I don't remember all the details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I don't want to discuss your decision, but I have to say that I completely disagree with it, with all due respect.

Mr. Lukiwski was talking about CPAC. For example, if a speech is broadcast on CPAC, it's public. When someone says that so and so is in the House, or not, the people who are in the House know this already. That's not the issue; it's that you cannot say so publicly. A member might have to leave the chamber to conduct some business, as has always been the case, and that's fine. A member might organize a scrum and state that so and so is absent that day. However, you cannot say so directly during a debate in the House, but you can do so indirectly. Mr. Guimond spoke to this issue, and I want to, as well. The time of a posting is indicated on Twitter. When members are in the chamber, not only can they send information through CPAC to all Canadians, that is, to those who get CPAC at home, but they can send it out to the entire world.

I think you could have made a different ruling, and it is up to us to clarify the situation, perhaps by way of a Standing Order. Members should not be allowed to use an electronic device to indicate that someone is in the chamber, be it on Facebook or Twitter, which indicates the time a posting is made. A member can be at his or her desk in the chamber for a couple of hours, but be working on a series of reports, or chatting with a colleague, or doing whatever. In my view, this shows a lack of politeness towards one's colleagues. But to sent out an electronic message, revealing that someone is away from the chamber, is the same thing as standing up and saying so out loud. It does not interfere with the work of the House of Commons when someone reveals, for example, that Guy Lauzon is not present. Everyone who knows Guy Lauzon and who is in the House of Commons knows that he is not there. So I don't think that that was the purpose of that Standing Order. It was to prevent information from being sent outside the House.

Reporters are not members of Parliament. Reporters who use these devices don't have to account for their use of them. The Standing Orders apply to members of Parliament, not to reporters. Members of Parliament cannot use the same tools to tell the world that someone is not present in the chamber, and that a certain member should be there during an important debate. Say there is a debate on a bill, and that a certain association is interested in the matter, but then a member publicly reveals that the main interest party is absent. If you had ruled—which you did not—that members were prohibited from doing this, that is, that they are not allowed to use these devices because the time of a post appears on Twitter or Facebook, I think that would have been the end of the matter.

But now, your ruling compels us to amend or clarify the Standing Order.

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

In my opinion, you can do this, since it's the members who create the Standing Orders of the House. I am a servant of the House, as I have often said.

For example, you can send text messages via BlackBerry. Let's say I'm exchanging text messages with someone who is outside the chamber. This person asks me a question regarding Yvon Godin. I respond that he is not in the chamber today. I am not allowed to do this from the chamber, but can I do so from the lobby?

I don't want to make that decision. If the committee wants to amend the Standing Orders to prohibit a member from texting in the chamber, so be it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The question is not whether it is done within the House or not. Let us say there is a discussion, a debate underway on a given issue, and someone sends a message over the Twitter network to an organization, indicating that such and such a member is not in the House. I think that is the issue we are dealing with. If not, you might as well strike the other rule and allow people who are in the House to comment on the members' presence or absence. The rule doesn't have much of an impact any more.

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

It certainly does have an impact. In my view, it isn't up to the Speaker to decide. However, if the committee wishes to change the Standing Orders so that members cannot refer to another member's presence over Twitter, using a computer—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

—when you are sitting in the House of Commons!

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

Yes, but that is difficult to enforce. For example, if you write a message and only send it once you are in the lobby, is that permitted?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes.

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

This isn't a laughing matter.

Now suppose that I am sitting in the House of Commons, that I note someone's absence and keep that in mind. At present, it is legal to transmit that information once I have exited the House. Who is to say that the message cannot be sent from within the House? When he took his BlackBerry, wrote a message and Twittered it, he was sitting in the House. Besides, the hour is indicated on the message. He did that on the spot, as if he had exited the House and said so publicly. That goes against the Standing Orders. He makes accusations while sitting in the House. If he is in the House of Commons and makes those accusations during debate, it is as if he had gotten up and said so publicly.

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

If I were to tell the member that he did so in the House, because the message was sent at 11:16—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

—and you were sitting in the chair—

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

—and he answers that he was sitting in the lobby and having a coffee at that time and that he sent the message from the lobby, what am I to say? I do not know.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Godin, I think that you are putting the emphasis on the location from which the person was sending the message—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, because that tells us at what time he sent the message.

[Audrey O'Brien]

—whereas the Speaker is placing the emphasis on the people who receive the message.