Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What would be a reasonable time frame for a subcommittee to meet with the Board of Internal Economy and make proposals?

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

The last time this came before us, I think the committee had about six to 10 meetings before presenting the matter. I would recommend a similar time frame just to make sure that we've done all the necessary studies so that we can come up with the best recommendations for all of Canada, and even internationally.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Do you have everything you need to make proposals to us, or do you already have work to do upstream?

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

We've certainly done some work already, but we could do even more.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, we will go to you.

I will just note that there may be bells at the tail end of your questions that we have to deal with, but for now, we're in the clear.

I'll turn it over to you for six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'll power through, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

This is all incredibly interesting. One of the reasons I was so interested in ensuring that this study occurred was that I sat as a staffer on that subcommittee. It was all done in camera, so I have to remember what I can and cannot say overall. I'm sure we all appreciate that.

As was noted, we started with a much broader mandate, and because there could not be any sort of agreement whatsoever under that current government and makeup of the committee on what harassment was, we were forced to come up with that much more narrow agreement on sexual harassment. It was truly disappointing for me as a staffer, let alone not knowing where my future would lie as an actual legislator. I think that although it took 10 years, it's really important to get here.

I'm interested to hear your perspectives on the change of culture. It was mentioned that we are a historically adversarial type of workplace, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. We have the power to change that. We have the ability to change that. There has to be the desire and political will to change that.

There have been a number of new security programs initiated. Parliamentarians are now offered trial programs through PPS security off precinct. There have been panic buttons for some time. All of these things are being added to our constituency offices, as well. I would like to know observations on the rise of harassment and violence in Canadian politics overall, the deliberations around creating these programs, and what has been the driving force in terms of that increase in incidents.

[Eric Janse]

Pat, perhaps I'll quickly start and then hand it off to you.

You're right. There absolutely has been an increase in threats and what have you to members, often anonymous threats through social media or what have you. That's almost a completely separate subject, and Pat can speak to it. In terms of what measures have been taken to date to assist members in addressing that, that is a separate subject from the issue of member-to-member harassment.

I'll let Pat update the committee in terms of what's been done recently and what's up ahead.

[Patrick McDonell, Sergeant-at-Arms and Corporate Security Officer, House of Commons]

Yes, I can note that there are state—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. McDonell.

The bells have begun.

Colleagues, I'm looking to see if we have unanimous consent to work through the bells, and also if committee members are comfortable voting electronically. That keeps us all here and allows us the opportunity to move forward.

If not, then—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

No, I need to vote in person, but I would be prepared to go to five minutes until the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That sounds good, colleagues.

We will restart the clock in a moment and we'll keep an eye out for five minutes before the vote. Members can, of course, choose to vote electronically or in the chamber.

Once we have all members back, if that happens before 10 minutes, great, we'll get going. If not, then at the 10-minute mark, we will begin again.

Mr. McDonell, my apologies for the interruption. It's back to you.

[Patrick McDonell]

Yes, there has been a significant increase in harassment of members of Parliament in the last five years. It's mostly online, but also in person and at events. By significant, I mean it's probably to the tune of a 700% to 800% increase.

I'll give you an example on threat behaviours towards MPs. In 2019, we opened approximately eight files on threat behaviours—either a direct or indirect threat—towards an MP. In 2023, there were 530 files opened. That's a significant increase in threats and threat behaviour. It's mostly threatening behaviour towards members of Parliament.

For the harassment of MPs online, it's come to the point where we're bulk filing reports of harassment of MPs online. There's just so much of it. The social media platforms are either not taking our call or taking our call and saying they'll look into it and it ends there.

It's according to their rules if they take the malicious or harassing posts down. It's up to them to take it down. Anyone can report it if the post doesn't meet their rules or regs, but it's up to the social media platform to remove it. We're not having much luck as of late having them remove it.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

While that might be a separate question versus member to member, it certainly would have an impact on members. It certainly has an impact on staff.

As an employer, what obligations do we have around that impact?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have one minute remaining.

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

Again, it's about providing a health and safety environment. I think that is most important.

If you come to speak to us from an HR perspective, we have resources. We have nurses on site. We actually have a respectful workplace that could support employees, making sure that, from a mental state or perspective, they feel safe.

We have training available. Of course, we're not going to eliminate it, but it's about mitigating the risk for reoccurrence, so that is an obligation that we do have.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I don't know if I can get it in. Maybe I can bank my time, if the chair is so kind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have about 20 seconds, Ms. Mathyssen. I'm happy to roll it over for the next round.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you. I request that, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good. Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.

Ms. Ferreri, we will turn the floor over to you for five minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you for having me here. This is my first time at PROC.

This is a very interesting study that I have plenty of personal experience with. I'm sure you've seen my name in the bulk files many times.

My question for you is about online harassment of members or that kind of thing. For you and your team, what do you have in place to support yourself to actually act on this?

[Patrick McDonell]

Through you, Mr. Chair, we have an open source intelligence unit that employs a number of different software. Right now, just because of the number of files, we focus mostly on those that are threats or indirect threats.

We reach out to the police force of local jurisdiction and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police protective operations if we feel that there may be criminal intent there.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Where I'm going with this is a twofold question.

We know our police are extremely inundated and overwhelmed. They also often don't have the resources to follow up, not just in these instances, but in many domestic violence instances. Many issues are put to the bottom of the queue because there are so many other issues, whether they are overdoses or calls for those kinds of things.

Number one, I'd be curious to have the data—if you want to table it with the committee—on how you've had to change your staffing. Have you had to increase staffing and resources, and what does that cost look like? In what time frame have you seen that jump?

Also, how do you prioritize if your resources are spread as thin as they are in, say, the instances of the police?

[Eric Janse]

In terms of police following up, I think what's often frustrating for members and is a genuine concern—maybe more a legal question—is the definition of when harassment becomes a threat and becomes criminal. That's often a fine line. In terms of staffing, very recently the Board of Internal Economy adopted a significant increase in resources to assist the Sergeant-at-Arms and his team, who work closely, of course, with Parliamentary Protective Service, the RCMP and other jurisdictions.

Maybe, Pat, you could give a bit of detail on what that will see us have going forward.

[Patrick McDonell]

As the Clerk said, there's been a significant investment in my area in the last month to resource us up, to keep our nose above the waterline and deal with the massive workload we are now facing. We're very confident that we'll be able to handle the workload for the foreseeable future.

In regard to co-operation with the police force of jurisdiction, we deal with 91 police forces. We have agreements with 61 to provide paid duty at members' events and provide security when a member hosts or attends a public event. To date, the RCMP have been excellent at moving quickly on files that may have a criminal intent.