The House and Its Members / Miscellaneous

Use of a social networking site to reference presence or absence of Members

April 1, 2010

Debates, pp. 1284-5

On March 24, 2010, Pierre Paquette (Joliette) rose on a point of order with respect to the use on several occasions by Royal Galipeau (Ottawa–Orléans) of the social networking site “Twitter” to report the exact number of Members of each party present in the House, even mentioning the names of some Members who were present or absent. Mr. Paquette made reference to a longstanding practice that Members cannot do indirectly what they are not allowed to do directly and argued that if a Member is not allowed to make comments on the presence or absence of Members in the House, this should also apply when using new technology. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] On March 29, 2010, Mr. Galipeau rose in response to the point of order. He cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2009, to the effect that the Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House and maintained that the site “Twitter” was outside the House. Remarking that the presence or absence of Members was public, not privileged information, he asked the Speaker to reject the point of order.^[2]

On April 1, 2010, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He indicated that, while he appreciated Mr. Paquette’s concerns, it was impossible for the Chair to monitor Members’ use of personal digital devices, for example by trying to determine whether or not texting originated in the Chamber. He added that the Chair would not want to change its longstanding practice of refraining from comment on statements made outside the House. However, he asked that Members avoid making statements of the kind complained of because of the possible repercussions for colleagues and for the reputation of the House. Finally, noting the increasing frequency of incidents involving social networking technologies, the Speaker suggested that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider issues related to these technologies and their impact on House and committee proceedings.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on March 24, 2010, by the hon. Member for Joliette, concerning comments made on the social networking site Twitter by the hon. Member for Ottawa–Orléans regarding the presence or absence of Members in the House.

I would like to thank the Member for Joliette for having raised this matter and the Member for Ottawa–Orléans for his comments on March 29, 2010.

In raising his point of order the Member for Joliette informed the House that the Member for Ottawa–Orléans on March 11, 12, 18 and 19, 2010, using the Twitter site, posted the exact number of Members of each party present in the House, as well as the names of some Members who were absent or present.

Noting the longstanding practices that a Member is not allowed to make comments on the presence or absence of Members in the House and that Members cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly, he contended that these rules should also apply to Members using new technologies.

Intervening on March 29, 2010, the hon. Member for Ottawa–Orléans asserted that the Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House, citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 614. He stated that not only is the social networking site Twitter outside the House, but that the House Leader for the Bloc Québécois had presented no evidence that the public information shared via Twitter was initiated from the floor of the House or from the galleries.

Furthermore, he noted that, contrary to the claim of the Member for Joliette, the information posted was not privileged but, in fact, very public. He concluded by reiterating that Members have an obligation to respect privileged information, but should not have fewer rights than any other citizen in disseminating public information.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, contains a number of references to the prohibition against reflecting on the presence or absence of Members in the House, including the one referred to by both Members at page 614, and others at pages 126, 127 and 213.

In particular, I would like to draw to the attention of Members the passage on page 213 which states:

One of the Member’s primary duties is to attend the sittings of the House when it is in session, unless the Member has other parliamentary or official commitments, such as committee meetings, constituency work or parliamentary exchanges. This obligation is enshrined in Standing Order 15: “Every Member, being cognizant of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, is bound to attend the sittings of the House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or on public or official business”. The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence of another Member from the House because “there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that go with their office”.

As Members are repeatedly cautioned, it is clearly unparliamentary to make reference in debate to the presence or absence of other Members. The case before us is somewhat novel and, while I accept the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Joliette, I also appreciate the argument made by the hon. Member for Ottawa–Orléans. It is clearly impossible for the Chair to police the use of personal digital devices by Members, for example, by trying to distinguish whether certain texting has originated from the Chamber or not. Nor would the Chair want to change its longstanding practice of refraining from comment on statements made outside the House. That said, however, it seems to me that statements like the ones complained of are—at the very least—unfortunate and I would strongly advise all Members to refrain from such behaviour in the future as you undoubtedly understand the possible repercussions on colleagues and on the reputation of the House itself.

All the same, I want to take this opportunity to address the broader issue of the ways in which these new technologies and tools challenge our historic practices and procedures. While they are extremely useful in reaching out to colleagues, constituents and the public, these technologies need to be used judiciously, not least because of the speed with which messages and images can be distributed once they are on the Internet.

On various occasions over the past months, Members have raised concerns over their use in conjunction with House and committee proceedings. In fact, the very use of the social networking site Twitter has been raised as an issue in this House several times, including the case before us. For example, on October 20 and 27, and again on November 17, 2009, postings on Twitter resulted in Members apologizing to this House.

More recently, a posting on Facebook gave rise to concern for the Member for Saskatoon–Humboldt when a photograph of the Member, and a statement related thereto, were posted on the popular networking site.

The House and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have already dealt with some of the issues related to new technologies. For example, in response to concerns about the re-use of parliamentary webcasts on March 5, 2009, the House concurred in the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This allowed us to strengthen and broaden the Speaker’s permission that appears on the back page of Debates, concerning the reproduction and use of webcasts of House and committee proceedings.

Given the increasing frequency of incidents involving social networking technologies, I believe it would be helpful if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would consider the issues related to these technologies and their impact on House and committee proceedings.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.

On June 16, 2010, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its Twelfth Report to the House regarding new technologies and their impact on the House and committee proceedings.^[3] The Committee called upon the House to affirm the longstanding practice that a Member cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly, including instances in which this is accomplished by the use of technological devices by Members while in the Chamber of the House of Commons and in its committees. The Committee also endorsed the Standing Orders and accepted procedures and practices for the use of current technological devices, and recommended that the Speaker be guided by his own discretion in enforcing them. Finally, it recommended that he circulate a written reminder of the House’s Standing Orders, procedures and practices with respect to the use of technological devices in the Chamber of the House of Commons and in its committees to all Members. The Report was not concurred in.