The Medium is the Message: Usage of Messaging Apps by Parliamentarians and their Staff

The days of hushed huddles and paper note passing between MPs appear to be coming to an end. The use of messaging apps by parliamentarians and staff have permitted instantaneous communication between people on the Hill and beyond without anyone ever needing to leave their seat. But do parliamentarians and their staff believe this new technology has changed their work for the better or the worse? In this article, the author uses interviews with MPs and staff from all recognized parties in the House of Commons to analyze how and why they use and choose specific messaging apps. Although there are clear benefits of having open channels to communicate among and between staff and parliamentarians, concerns over information security, work-life balance, and the growing influence of the Leader’s and Whip’s office were identified by interviewees.

Sarah Rollason-MacAulay

Sarah Rollason-MacAulay participated in the Parliamentary Internship Programme in 2022-2023. She is currently completing her Masters in International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS University of London where she is continuing her research on messaging apps in the field of diplomacy.

I do think there’s going to be more and more risk associated with (messaging apps) as we rely more and more on this technology.

– Conservative MP

Introduction

When the House of Commons was established in 1867, there were 181 MPs who communicated verbally, face-to-face, or by physically passing the written word. At the time of writing, there are 338 MPs whose communication has been augmented using messaging app technology which allows them, for better or for worse, to communicate instantaneously, wherever they may be, in the fast-paced, cut and thrust world of politics.

The use of technology and how it is embedded within the culture on the Hill is fascinating.

While messaging itself is not new – remember pagers on peoples’ belts or in purses? – its use has become far more widespread since the introduction of smart phones. Even then, it wasn’t until the pandemic ground many things across the country to a halt in March 2020 – including in-person gatherings at Parliament – that both politicians and staff on the Hill were forced to change how they communicated with each other digitally, safely, and securely.

The genesis of this topic, and my interest in it, began long before I became part of the Parliamentary Internship Programme. During a panel discussion on Zoom, held during the pandemic, a panelist who represented Canada at the United Nations mentioned just how much international diplomacy work takes place in WhatsApp chats and how Canada would be left behind if its own diplomats did not participate. This piqued my interest in the subject, especially the security issues surrounding the technology. My participation in the non-partisan internship programme allowed unique access to both politicians and their staff in researching this topic.

But this article does not take an in-depth look at the security issues surrounding messaging apps – that could be the basis for an entire project on its own. Rather, I examine how parliamentarians and their staff use messaging apps to communicate with each other and the impact this has had on their work.

For the purposes of this article, I define messaging apps as applications on phones and computers capable of sending messages. This includes Short Message Service (SMS) (otherwise known as texting), iMessage, WhatsApp, and more robust apps such as Microsoft Teams and Slack which include functions beyond messaging. During the course of my interviews with participants, they also defined what they considered to be a messaging app and the ones they chose to use. Several brought up the use of Facebook Messenger, even if it was used infrequently and mostly by staff to communicate with each other and constituents back in the riding.

Research in Canada about the use of messaging apps by politicians to communicate with one another is non-existent. This made the exploration of the subject more challenging, but also motivating as my research fills a gap amongst scholarly work on emerging communication technologies.

This article aims to share original research on this topic, exploring who is using which applications, in what context, the growing central party control of its use, and, ultimately, what effect this has on the autonomy of individual MPs.

Literature Review

As research on this specific topic in Canada was non-existent at the time of writing, I chose to focus on the United Kingdom as some published literature exists there – mainly in the form of newspaper and website articles – and because of the similarity of its parliamentary system to Canada’s.

In the UK, The Guardian summed it up accurately by stating “Political deals used to be done in smoke-filled rooms, but parliamentary plotting nowadays happens mostly on WhatsApp.”1

But there are perils. WhatsApp messages have dogged former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in recent years. The Guardian reported on July 2, 2023, that experts have recovered old WhatsApp messages that would be handed over and used in that country’s COVID inquiry to better assess how the government was working during the early days of the pandemic, and to determine if restrictions on social gatherings had been violated.2

The Official Opposition Labour Party also uses WhatsApp, not only to whip the vote, but for various group chats. Scandal and bad press erupted, and apologies were issued, when a woman MP mistakenly sent a critical chat meant only for a select few, to the entire women MP group chat.3

The Institute for Governance, a UK think tank, published a report that looked at the increasing use of messaging apps in the British government, with a special focus on WhatsApp.4 The report reveals the growing use of messaging apps by Ministers, MPs and departmental staff, and the surrounding lack of accountability. My own research produced similar findings, but I focused on use by parliamentarians and their staff using these messaging systems rather than their use within government departments.

The old scholarly adage “publish or perish” could be reworded to “publish and perish” if private correspondence falls into the wrong chat – or hands – resulting not only in bad press, but the possibility of the record of the chat being used in public inquiries or in criminal or civil proceedings.

To quote Esther Webber in Politico: “Forget the National Archives. WhatsApp receipts could offer the most candid version of history we ever get.”5

The digital trails which WhatsApp messages leave behind have also been filed as evidence in Canada. During a public inquiry in Ottawa that examined deficiencies with the city’s light rail transit (LRT), a transcript of WhatsApp group chat messages between the city’s mayor and the city’s former transportation general manager revealed its prime role in communicating problems that plagued the system. The mayor messaged the group chat so often about issues he faced while riding the LRT, that John Manconi, former transportation general manager, responded by saying: “Mr. Mayor, I beg you please, I am getting so many messages from you on multiple channels and your staff. I will answer every one of them. All being actioned. We are drowning in message overload.”6

When an employee is unable to perform their duties due to an excessive number of messages, it suggests problems in the messages and with the medium.

Evolution

While these large group chats may be new, the use of messaging apps on the Hill is not. One staffer who has been on the Hill since 2004, when Blackberry was the phone de jour, reported that messaging was sent on this device through the Personal Identification Number (PIN) channel. PIN to PIN was considered secure because it meant two phones were communicating directly to each other. As each Blackberry came with its own distinct pin, no other phone could duplicate it; this communication method was deemed to be a safe and secure way to send messages to others.

But there was one glaring security issue. If an old Blackberry was given to someone else, it could not issue an update to ensure everyone was aware the phone had changed hands. A person could never be certain that the person on the other end was the one intended recipient. Therefore, when a ministerial staffer left their position – a regular occurrence – the solution was simple: they would be given a hammer and a Ziplock bag. The phone would be simply recorded as damaged beyond repair and disappeared.

The IT guy would come to you with your new BlackBerry and a hammer, and you would actually destroy your old BlackBerry before turning it in. – Conservative staffer

When Blackberry Messenger (BBM) was released, it gained popularity because all the contacts stored on the phone would update when the screen name was changed. Users would be made aware immediately that someone new was using the device.

However, it was not until Parliament went virtual during the pandemic, and then eventually began holding hybrid sittings, that the use of group chats became vital, expanding their function in new places such as committees.

Pre-pandemic, everything committee-related happened almost exclusively in the committee room. If an MP wanted to speak to their staffer, they would have to take them aside and whisper. If someone missed a pre-committee meeting, or the committee meeting itself, they would have to be brought up to speed by someone who was there.

With the use of group chats, suddenly people could share information immediately, wherever they may be, with everyone on the chat. Communication with the Whip’s office, the House leaders’ office and the Minister’s office could all occur in the group chat. Strategy could be planned without anyone moving from their seats – or even being in the room.

There are specific people from each party’s Whips office who add and remove people from the chat as needed, such as staff substitutions or changes. Unfortunately, while I could not formally interview anyone in this role, during my time as a parliamentary intern I was able to informally speak to some who work in those positions. They advised that, as of yet, there are no official guidelines set down.

Research Methodology

The majority of insights derived from this research were gained through interviews with politicians and members of their staff about how the messaging apps are used.

As there are far more MPs and staffers from the Liberal and Conservative parties on the Hill, and fewer representatives from other opposition parties, it was not unexpected that those two parties are overrepresented in the final study. Moreover, it was only the Liberal and Conservative MPs who used a group messaging app to communicate contemporaneously with their respective party members also sitting on the committee.

From the Liberal Party, I interviewed one Minister, two MPs, one ministerial staffer, and three other staff members. From the Conservative Party (CPC), I interviewed three MPs and three staff members assigned to various committees.

From both the Bloc Québécois (BQ) and the Green Party, I was able to interview both an MP and a staff member.

I was also able to interview a staff member from the New Democratic Party (NDP).

While beyond the scope of this research paper, I also interviewed one Senator and a Senator’s staff member to understand the differences between the House and the Senate when it comes to messaging services.

I used semi-structured interviews as this allowed me the flexibility for follow up questions to obtain more information as needed.

All interview participants were told that, aside from their positions, their identities would be kept confidential, with the hope it would allow them more freedom to tell me what was really happening instead of a censored version. One MP indicated they would not mind being identified but, for consistency, I have kept them anonymous.

It is important to note that I interviewed both a Liberal and a Conservative MP in their respective lobbies while they were potentially within earshot of colleagues. Despite this lack of privacy, they both spoke to me at length, and I could not detect they were any less forthcoming than if the interview had been conducted in the privacy of their offices.

Research Findings

During my interviews, individual MPs spoke about the implications these messaging apps have on their autonomy. Questions were raised about party authority and direction, the centralization of decision making, and the future implications of usage of the apps. Everyone interviewed questioned the security of the apps.

Apps

The apps that were used in some capacity by both MPs and staff were iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp, Microsoft Teams, and Wickr.

While the use of WhatsApp by international diplomats sparked my research, on the Hill, iMessage is the most used messaging app in large part because it is the pre-installed messaging app on iPhones which every interviewee used.

“I use iMessage as a total default. Going back to when there was still such a thing as BlackBerry, we all used it in my previous life, everyone that I worked with used BlackBerry Messenger. Then, when iPhones achieved ascendance and BlackBerry disappeared, I think everybody who was using BBM just automatically switched (from what) was native to the BlackBerry platform… to iMessage, which is native to the iOS platform.” – Liberal MP

Microsoft Teams is the second most widely used messaging app by all parties because it is integrated with the House of Commons communications services and therefore it is seen as the most secure app by many people I interviewed. It is used on both their phones and computers to do text chats and video calls. Interviewees who used Teams were often less likely to use other messaging apps; but while this messaging app was used in the House, it was not used by either the Liberals or Conservatives when in committee.

At committees, WhatsApp is the messaging app mainly used by the Liberals. It is seen as safe and secure with security features such as encryption, and optional disappearing messages. However, both politicians and their staff, as well as the wider public, have expressed concerns over its parent company, Meta Platforms Inc., and its commitment to privacy.

WhatsApp has way more functionality and like most things that have more functionality, they’re a little more complicated. – Liberal MP

I mean there are some concerns about security with iMessage. I think that’s why committees went to WhatsApp and then even WhatsApp has vulnerabilities we’re told. And so, I think that’s why the national caucus thread is on what do you call it? Wickr. – Liberal MP

After Teams, Signal is considered the safest messaging app. It has privacy features such as end-to- end encryption, optional disappearing messages, and regularly asks the user to input a PIN to validate their identity. Signal is used by Conservatives in committee, but also by Tory staff in their offices, as well as Liberal staff in both ministerial and MP offices.

Signal has end to end encryption in a way that is more secure than any other messaging app. – Conservative staffer

Wickr was the messaging app used by the Liberals during the pandemic, when Parliament was virtual, to alert Liberal MPs on how and when to vote. Now that most politicians have returned to the Hill and vote in person, it is no longer used by the party for this purpose anymore.

I was told Wickr was the app where all the MPs could be found. I was very excited, thinking I could contact any of my colleagues that way until I realised you had to add everyone individually. – Green MP

They wanted people to have Wickr because that was a way that they could communicate instantly with every MP, no matter where they were in the country that there was a vote. – Liberal MP

Some direct messages are sent through social media apps such as Twitter or Facebook Messenger, but these are almost exclusively used by staff to speak to constituents. One staffer, who is part of a regional assistants’ group chat for the Liberal party, noted that one of these social media apps is the medium of choice. Many interviewees said they do not trust in the security of any direct messaging through social media. One MP had an old classmate who took what they believed was a private response to a question and contacted the media.

Notably, the Senate appears to be distinct from the House of Commons in terms of using messaging apps. Interviewees noted that the Senate was the first to be connected, pre-pandemic, to Teams. The Senate has fewer members and staff, and interviewees speculated this may have made it easier to integrate.

Both the Senator and Senator’s staff member interviewed, as well as another ex-staff member who is currently at the House of Commons, believed the Upper Chamber continues to use Teams because it was the app used prior to the pandemic.

Committee

Committee group chats on messaging apps are where the parties tend to get involved.

With the use of group chats, strategy can be planned while participants remain seated and with others who were not physically in the room. As such, previous practices known to committee rooms such as huddles or excited whispers have become a thing of the past.

It’s definitely less exciting for the public now. It used to be when something happened there was a flurry of activity, now it’s boring to watch. – Conservative MP

Because both the Liberals and Conservatives each have their own individual party group chats on every committee, the chats are slowly becoming semi- regulated. There are specific people from each party’s Whip’s office who add and remove people from the group chat as needed.

In the Conservative party, the Whip’s office asks its lead staffer on the committee to choose the app that will be used. Afterwards the party’s committee coordinator for that committee sets up the group chat and maintains the membership list, adding and removing MPs and staff as needed. While most of the chats in committee used by the Conservatives were previously on WhatsApp, Signal is now generally the app of choice.

Most, if not all, Liberal members on committees use WhatsApp.

The NDP MPs use Teams or iMessage to communicate with each other. For matters relating to the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, as the smaller party, the NDP uses the Liberal’s preferred WhatsApp for communication. Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, there is only a single NDP MP on the committee and therefore generally no communication between the NDP MP and other committee members. Usually, the MP and a staffer text each other using iMessage. A staff member from the Leader’s office maintains all Teams chats that are not office-based.

The BQ, also having only a sole member on committees, described having group chats set up between the MP, staff, and relevant staff from the House leader’s office on iMessage. They also use Teams to communicate with each other when not using iMessage.

Every committee we always open an iPhone group chat. So basically, we will record information about motions that are brought on the floor, and we will use it so that anyone that has to monitor this meeting, if there’s anything to let us know, like for example, something’s happening in the House that we must be aware of, and we will get information. So, this is opened at the beginning of your meeting and closed at the end. – BQ staffer

From personal observation, while monitoring group chats when sitting in a committee room, there are times when it seems another committee meeting is occurring in the group chats. On one occasion, when traveling on a study trip, I found I had missed close to 200 messages from just one committee’s group chat that day. Group chats have become prolific and are an important way to relay information.

There are also times when a committee meeting does not go according to plan and the Minister’s office, Whip’s office, and/or the Leader’s office need to be contacted immediately. By using the apps, all of these offices can monitor individual committees and intervene with information as necessary. Sometimes the only way to tell that a party is surprised and looking for guidance on how to respond, is by how quickly MP thumbs start typing all at once.

It is not all work, though. Sometimes jokes will be shared – usually about something that just happened in committee or, occasionally, about something that is prominent in the media that might be relevant.

I’ve certainly been in a number of conversations where we wonder about it, but we don’t have the answer. We wonder whether the bad jokes that we just told will wind up in the Hill Times or worse. – Liberal MP

Security

Although fully examining security concerns would require a separate research project, it is important to note that these issues frequently came up during interviews. There is a general feeling of mistrust around all apps. Signal is the messaging app of choice by most of the people interviewed – in both Liberal and Conservative offices – to send sensitive messages.

There’re a few jokes that are made at the expense of or maybe about other people and parties. That would not be great if they got out. But in terms of actual security risks and confidential information, there’s none of that. – Conservative staffer

Because of the more secure nature of Signal, I also confirmed at least two ministries use it.

Repeatedly, I was told that if there was something which was truly sensitive, it would require a phone call or a conversation in person instead of writing something down that would leave a trail. This opinion was shared by every person in every party I interviewed.

There was also concern that, in a “post-Me-Too” era, former staff now have what they refer to as “bombs.” It’s well known that not all MPs can reign in their temper. Staff can screenshot any interaction and keep it or share it. There was a feeling that these messages would eventually be leaked sometime in the future and potentially destroy some careers.

I’ve heard instances of staff sharing amongst themselves crazy texts from employees. They’re losing their s–t on staff. But there are some employees on all sides that I’ve heard can be very irrational or are short tempered, and that stuff could come back to haunt people.

That’s the risk of casual texting conversations; if you get mad, or if you say something about someone else or both, that person and that staff person leaves with this treasure trove of stuff. – Conservative MP

When an MP or Senator first comes to the Hill, they are given some training on security measures. Those interviewed believed that it is inadequate, with 75 per cent mentioning the need for better security training.

I was given one instance of training on digital security and then it was never mentioned again. – Prairie Senator

Autonomy

The most unexpected theme to come up during interviews with individual MPs was individual autonomy.

Multiple MPs admitted that, because of messaging apps, they felt far more pressure not to vote against the “advice” given by staff from the Ministers, Whips, or Leader’s office.

In the House, MPs are whipped on certain votes. The use of these apps means, while they are not officially being whipped while on committee, MPs are now given advice that they can see in real time. I found this to be more common with the Liberal MPs, but it was not exclusive. One Liberal MP said: “I will pretend to not see a message if I want to vote the opposite way, though I rarely do this as I know I can get in trouble.” All but three MPs, a Liberal, Conservative and Green,, said that this was a downside with messaging apps, and they now felt more pressured to vote in specific ways.

Hill and Constituency integration

The Microsoft Teams platform has also been found to be useful in integrating an MP’s office on the Hill and their constituency office(s). Prior to the pandemic, shared drives were not in general use; with the adoption of OneDrive, SharePoint, and other applications such as OneNote, virtual collaboration is easier. Some offices choose to use Google Workspace over Microsoft products.

The MPs and staff members who had been on the Hill prior to the Teams integration agreed that Teams is a better option than Skype for Business, which it has fully replaced. Approximately half of the interview participants were ambivalent about whether it made much of a difference, but the other half were adamant that it has been overwhelmingly positive for cohesion.

Consequences

One of the downsides of these messaging apps is that they amplify the feeling that an MP must be tethered to their phone and limit opportunities to disconnect. For example, according to a study done by the Bank of America, 71 per cent of people reported they usually sleep with their cellphone next to their beds.7 During interviews, many MPs and staff stated that the first thing they do in the morning is check their phones for messages.

The most common complaint was that each app is just one more channel to keep track of. With multiple email accounts and phones to check, each additional app used becomes just one more distraction in their day.

These distractions can also affect work-life balance; however, individual MPs and staff member may set boundaries. One staff member for the NDP said their MP was adamant about maintaining work hours and, except for an emergency, they wouldn’t be contacted outside of work hours. However, other staffers in the NDP and other parties reported they were contacted by their MPs outside of regular work hours.

While some messages have been urgent, the majority were not. It seems to be up to the individual office culture to determine how these communications are handled or their frequency.

On the MPs’ side, most said that they tried not to send messages outside of work hours. But, interestingly, one Conservative MP was adamant that instant messaging allowed his staff to have a better work-life balance if they could access a message he sent when he was thinking about a subject rather than wait until they were at work.

Why, when my alarm goes off in the morning and I push stop, is the next thing I do is put on my glasses and look at my messages… why do I think it’s okay to send people messages if I’m up at two in the morning? So, this has had a profound effect on the way we work. – Liberal MP

The consensus was that the use of messaging apps does not lead to a better work-life balance.

However, everyone commented that, despite the downsides, messaging apps allow them to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.

It may not be as visually exciting, but it allows me to be more efficient. – Liberal MP

Recommendations

There were differing opinions about messaging apps, but security was the common concern. Better digital security training and awareness for all MPs, Senators and their staff needs to be provided. A refresher course after a set number of years or after every election is also recommended.

Several people brought up the need for having an official app which the House of Commons could use, like the app that allows MPs to vote on their phones. This would allay security fears and limit the number of apps to monitor. However, if an official app is only allowed on House of Commons issued devices, the concern is that numerous staff members may not have access to it. Devices for staff are obtained through Telecommunications Services in the House of Common, but it is up to the individual MP to decide which staff are issued devices because the cost comes directly out of the Members’ finite office budget.8 The staff not provided with devices would therefore need to continue to use outside apps.

It is also questionable whether a single app would, in practice, be used by everyone. Some MPs and staff would most likely continue to use alternative apps for certain messages if there was any concern about the security of the official app.

Conclusion

Whether you are the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, or the mayor of Ottawa, or an MP or staffer, messaging apps can be very useful, but also full of pitfalls.

Research conducted for this article resulted in several notable discoveries:

• Just as the two main parties have different political philosophies and platforms, they also use different messaging apps as their main communication network in committees.
• There were no regional differences, only party differences, found in the use of messaging apps.
• Despite security concerns, at the time of writing there were no guidelines or systems put in place by either Parliament or parties for messaging apps.
• Of concern, in an increasingly partisan and polarized Parliament, there is a belief that messaging apps will lead to more centralized control, and increased pressure on MPs to toe the party line in committees; this could further diminish the chances for meaningful collaboration across party lines.
• Messaging apps contributed to the proliferation of communication channels MPs and staff must monitor. If boundaries are not established to limit their use, there is a potential for these apps to be detrimental to efforts to maintain a healthy work- life balance.

Despite all the concerns raised, interviewees agreed that messaging apps are here to stay and will continue to be used by the federal parties, politicians, and political staffers.

So, it’s the old conundrum about these time and energy saving inventions that end up consuming more time and energy than we did before they were invented. – Liberal MP

Notes

1. J. Elgot. “WhatsApp: the go-to messaging tool for parliamentary plotting.” The Guardian, June 12, 2017.
2. A. Allegretti. “Experts recover messages from Boris Johnson’s old mobile phone,” The Guardian, July 21, 2023.
3. J. Lyons. “‘I’m a sorry cow’: MP’s apology for insulting party.” The Times, January 29, 2017.
4. T. Durrant, Lilly, A., & Tingay, P. “WhatsApp in government: How ministers and officials should use messaging apps–and how they shouldn’t.” Institute for Government, March 2022. URL: https://apo.org.au/ node/317053
5. E. Webber. “The perils of Boris Johnson’s government by WhatsApp.” Politico, June 18, 2021.
6. K. Porter. “Thread of 2019 WhatsApp texts show mayor’s fixation on details during LRT woes.” CBC, July 6, 2022.
7. S. Loleska, & Pop-Jordanova, N. “Is Smartphone Addiction in the Younger Population a Public Health Problem?” PRILOZI, 42(3), 2021, p. 30.
8. House of Commons. MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES AND SERVICES, accessed 2023. URL: https://www. ourcommons.ca/Content/MAS/mas-e.pdf