I'm sure the rule was here before television came along. I'm not advocating getting rid of the rule: I think it helps maintain order in the House if members don't refer to the absence of members. If that rule weren't there, we'd hear a lot more of it.
I can just imagine in question period, say, when a minister is saying he can see why the member from so-and-so is asking this question because his colleague isn't here, and name the victim, and the member saying he wants to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works and she's not here, so he'll have to direct it to somebody else. It would happen every time--it would be just great. So I think we're better off with the rules we have in that respect.
How much difference does it make to order when things are happening in other ways? As I've said, it's never been improper for reporters to say who's there or not. You'll frequently read in news accounts--not that I read these every day--the minister of such-and-such answered the questions in the absence of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice, whoever wasn't there. Big deal. This happens. It's just part of the way Parliament functions. In my view, it's quite normal that everyone is not there every day. We all have lots of other things to do.
So I think that because it isn't out of order for them to do it, it's a question of how much members can say when they're not in the chamber, and that's been my point throughout this thing. Does typing it on a machine and sending it out mean you're doing it in the chamber? That's the other side of it.
As I say, I think you can consider whether you want to limit it, but as you point out--and this is what I don't know a lot about--if you send something on Twitter to one person only, and then that person disseminates it, then bingo, it's out. I don't know how that system works. As I say, I'm not using it. On the other hand, you could send the e-mail to your staff and they could copy it to everybody on your mailing list, I suppose.
I don't know; it's a tough one. That's why I thought having a discussion in the committee would be useful from the point of view of settling what members would like. It may be that the committee simply makes a recommendation that members not do certain things in order to protect the institution or protect its reputation, and then hope that members comply without having a strict rule that is then enforced by some punishment if the member doesn't.