Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Eric Janse]

It's a very good question that you raise, Mrs. Romanado.

Again, on issues of decorum and what flows from that in the chamber, there are, as Jeffrey alluded to a bit earlier in response to a similar question, procedures and practices in place to address that. I'm not sure that changing the code would necessarily have a direct impact on that, and again, most jurisdictions carve that out as something to be treated separately.

Obviously, no, you would not want to see members deliberately refraining from attending sittings in the House because of a fear of what could transpire or happen, either in the House or thereafter, because ultimately, that's why they've been elected. They're there to represent constituents in the chamber.

I don't know if Jeffrey wants to add to that.

[Jeffrey LeBlanc]

I think we all share the objective that members should be able to come and speak freely and without fear of consequences, and that's what the entire concept of parliamentary privilege is meant to protect.

The question you raised, though, is a tricky one about when members are then subjected to or targeted for harassment because of things they said after the fact. How does one best handle that?

If I understood you correctly, it's not necessarily what they get from other members; it's what they get from the general public, and the types of attacks that are now very easy to make behind one's keyboard in one's basement, which are very often done anonymously without any consequences. How to reduce that risk is an interesting challenge, and I think the platforms themselves have some responsibility in trying to police that.

I'm not sure I understood that correctly, but that's a responsibility they're taking very seriously today.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I know all of my colleagues here today have gone through this. In our parliamentary work, whether we're in committee right now....

I'm sure I already have some emails in my inbox based on the questions I'm asking you today, like, “Snowflake,” “Can't take the heat,” or, “Women can't take it. Don't run for office.”

What would you say to people who are considering this profession and see what some people post on social media? They see some of the harassment that MPs go through, whether it's at an event or at the grocery store. I can't buy ice cream at my grocery store because people stop me and ask me questions, and by the time I get to the cash, it's melted—that's actually a good thing.

That being said, when people are thinking about this job.... We have a responsibility to be civil in the House, whether we have decorum or not. We have a responsibility as colleagues. Nowhere in any other workplace would some of the behaviour that we see be acceptable. In any other workplace in Canada, the person would be terminated.

What can you say to people who are considering this profession, given everything that you see us going through?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Eric Janse]

It's a very good point. I think we all find it tremendously unfortunate, what members and prospective members are subjected to.

I would hope that it would not overly discourage people who have an interest in public service from putting their name forward nonetheless to seek election and make a contribution to Canada and Canada's Parliament.

You're absolutely right. It's a concern for many. Our team, to the best that we can, is there to support and to help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Janse.

The floor is to go to a Conservative member, but I don't have a member.

Ms. Rempel Garner, okay, you have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McDonell, in your conversations with law enforcement, has there ever been any discussion about the need for clarity in law about what constitutes online criminal harassment or perhaps additional tools that law enforcement could use—or that there's a gap right now—to de-escalate behaviour or to prevent it from escalating?

[Patrick McDonell]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I don't recall having a discussion of that nature with law enforcement partners.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

The reason I ask is we're having a conversation now on the broader issue of online harassment. There was an article last week by CBC saying that the RCMP is recommending additional tools for members of Parliament to prevent harassment. My reaction to that was, “Well, if they can't protect me, then how are they protecting everyone else?”

Based on your experience, do you have any suggestions that the committee could recommend to perhaps close some of those gaps? For example, it's very difficult or it's grey to understand when and how law enforcement can find the identity of somebody who is repeatedly—not a one-off, but repeatedly—harassing somebody online in a threatening way that could be deemed as criminal harassment.

[Patrick McDonell]

I think lots can be done and should be done in relation to the harassment of members of Parliament, politicians in general and the general public.

When we first started up our open source intelligence unit, we focused on the harassment of members of Parliament. We had great contacts on all the social media platforms and we would ask them to take down posts that were against their own regulations. In the last few years, that's fallen by the wayside. Sometimes they answer the phone and sometimes they don't. Often they don't.

I was speaking earlier, before we came back, about how Twitter used to be our best contact for bringing stuff down from social media. Once the new owner took over, our contacts there were let go. Now there's nobody to contact at that particular social media platform to bring down information.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

When you talk about bringing down information, at that time, did the House have a clearly defined set of guidelines on when they would ask for something to be brought down?

I'm just concerned about.... It sounds like impingement on speech, potentially.

[Patrick McDonell]

It was just if the terms and conditions of the social media platform were breached. We would only contact the social media platform with the authorization of the MP. We would not go out on our own.

Anyone can contact the social media platform. A citizen can.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It seems to me, based on this conversation, that there's a gap between what is clear in law, in terms of what constitutes online criminal harassment, and what tools could be used to either prevent the escalation of that happening when there's a clear pattern of behaviour—I'm not talking about a single mean tweet or something; I mean a clear escalation in harassment—and what is actually being used in practice right now. It seems like a bit of a hodgepodge.

Would that be a correct assessment?

I'm not ascribing motive; it just seems like there's a lack of clarity in law in this regard.

[Patrick McDonell]

I would agree.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'll close with the following question.

Since this committee was last seized with this issue, I think there was a purposeful decision taken to not include MP harassment in the changes to the labour code.

Has your shop, Mr. Janse, given any thought to how non-sexual harassment would be defined? I know that this has already been discussed somewhat today, but has any thought been given to that by your team?

[Eric Janse]

It's not considerable.

I think you, Carolyne, might have a standard definition that is often used.

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

Yes.

In 30 seconds, I would say there is already in the harassment prevention policy a definition that we could definitely be reviewing. However, there's always the Canadian Human Rights Act that we can look back on to make sure we're taking the best of the definition and putting it forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Shanahan, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to take up that last point, because there seems to be some confusion here among members as to what constitutes harassment.

I refer to the code that already exists for harassment and violence in the workplace, appendix A. I find it very thorough. It is clear that harassment may include but is not limited to “offensive or intimidating comments or jokes”. There's a point about abuse of authority, which doesn't apply here, because this has to do with employers and employees. It goes on to list:

spreading malicious rumours or gossip about an individual or group;

cyberbullying (threatening, spreading rumours, or negatively talking to or about someone online or on social media);

socially excluding or isolating someone;

persistently criticizing, undermining, belittling, demeaning or ridiculing a person;

psychological harassment;

I'm picking out the ones that I think are most pertinent to our discussion here today.

sexist remarks;

racist remarks;

homophobic remarks;

transphobic remarks;

verbal threats or intimidation;

making aggressive, threatening or rude gestures.

The first point has to do with management responsibilities, but the second point is very pertinent to our discussion today: harassment is not a disagreement regarding a policy or practice.

I would ask you whether this constitutes a good basis to address this gap in the member-to-member code of conduct, if you will, regarding non-sexual harassment.

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

I would say yes, but there's definitely a study to be done in the context of the environment.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Excellent.

I think what we've heard today are examples of how social media, which is a tool for all of us, is being effectively weaponized by members. In some cases, our social media accounts are actually paid for by the House of Commons, so it comes under the purview of our MOB. Salaried staff operate our social media accounts. I appreciate the points Ms. Mathyssen made. We can talk about the effects on staff both in dealing with social media and in producing harassment media.

What is governed within the House of Commons by the Speaker and in committee by chairs is one thing. However, once it leaves the House through the vehicle of social media—and this is what is brand new.... This is an area where it behooves us to put a policy in place.

Historically in the House of Commons, we have two sword lengths between the opposing sides. There was a time when physical violence.... God forbid. I hope we never get to that point again. I think we need to talk about putting preventive barriers around the use of social media.

Mr. Bédard, would there be something legislatively that would cover that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

There is one minute remaining here.

[Michel Bédard]

With respect to the swords, we haven't taken any measurements recently.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Michel Bédard]

You alluded to some definition of harassment and examples. The definitions you alluded to are in the labour code, and these were examples. Regarding the code of conduct, sexual harassment or general harassment, members may want to start from the existing definition of harassment, which is applicable in the federal workplace, and adjust it to the savour of Parliament, because there is a unique component to Parliament as a workplace, the House of Commons.

We mentioned parliamentary proceedings. Also, we need to be mindful of the fact that about half of the chamber is called the opposition. You don't have that in any regular workplace. The main role of the opposition is to oppose, to make sure that the government is accountable. You don't have that in a normal workplace either. Any measures that are to be put in place have to take into consideration the unique nature of the role of government and opposition in our system of government.