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.